1. In campaign generator you have the option of fighting in the desert, forest, plains, rough, mountains and jungle. I was wondering if a city location couldn't be added as an option for v.7. I'd like to see alot more street fighting.
2. If my tank is loaded with infantry with eyes peeled and weapons ready, how come I don't get a chance for op. fire when I'm being attacked in close assault?
2 questions I need answered
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
2 questions I need answered
"Victory Through Superior Marksmanship"
Not sure about the first question as I don't know what the v.7 plans are.Originally posted by LilJoe:
1. In campaign generator you have the option of fighting in the desert, forest, plains, rough, mountains and jungle. I was wondering if a city location couldn't be added as an option for v.7. I'd like to see alot more street fighting.
2. If my tank is loaded with infantry with eyes peeled and weapons ready, how come I don't get a chance for op. fire when I'm being attacked in close assault?
For the second question, I don't think too many nations had a doctrine of infantry riding into battle on a tank. It was more a convientent transport than anything else. So they really wouldn't be expecting close combat, otherwise they would already have dismounted.
Now APCs and halftracks might be another story...
Grab them by the balls. Their hearts and minds will follow.
As for #1, spoken like a newbee, after a few city fights you will shy away from them as much as possible. They are nearly as bad as doing river assaults or amphib assaults.Originally posted by LilJoe:
1. In campaign generator you have the option of fighting in the desert, forest, plains, rough, mountains and jungle. I was wondering if a city location couldn't be added as an option for v.7. I'd like to see alot more street fighting.
2. If my tank is loaded with infantry with eyes peeled and weapons ready, how come I don't get a chance for op. fire when I'm being attacked in close assault?
For #2, if you were riding on a tank doing 20mph over rough ground or through trees, you would be doing all you could just to hang on, not to mention what would happen when the main gun fires.
The last thing I would be worrying about is other enemy units, the first priority is just holding on, you aren't going to let go to shoot at an ambush that you might not even see until they toss the grenade bundle or shoot the bazooka at you.
thanks, John.
I agree that it is unlikely that tank riders would be much insurance against an ambush. But, it would be nice if there was at least a chance of them spotting the attack.
It would surprise me if this was not already in the game. A great characteristic of SPWAW is that unlikely events are not truncated to "never happen" but usually given at least a 1 pct. chance.
Have you convinced yourself through testing that tank riders give you no benefit at all to repulsing a close assault?
It would surprise me if this was not already in the game. A great characteristic of SPWAW is that unlikely events are not truncated to "never happen" but usually given at least a 1 pct. chance.
Have you convinced yourself through testing that tank riders give you no benefit at all to repulsing a close assault?
Squatting in the bush and marking it on a map.
Hmm.. well what I'd really like to see for v7 or any version would be a restoration of the SP1 capability to randomly generate city maps. I'm sorry, but the amorphous blobs it generates now are not by any definition "cities", as far as I'm concerned.
And I'm sure there are ways you could edit campaigns to include these maps, if only you could get them easily (i.e. pleeease really restore random city generation capability!).
Annyway.. well I suppose you couldn't really call me a newb, being involved with SP games on some level for at least 4 years.. and I still like urban games. Perhaps this is a situation when an appreciation of individual taste should supercede insecurity-bred snobbishness.
Matt
And I'm sure there are ways you could edit campaigns to include these maps, if only you could get them easily (i.e. pleeease really restore random city generation capability!).
Annyway.. well I suppose you couldn't really call me a newb, being involved with SP games on some level for at least 4 years.. and I still like urban games. Perhaps this is a situation when an appreciation of individual taste should supercede insecurity-bred snobbishness.
Matt
Khan7
Hey LilJoe, I'm the long-haired proprieter!! <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> I am there Tuesday to Saturday, 9:00-5:00 daily. I leave early Wednesday(2:30), and eat lunch from 11:00-12:00, but if you don't see me, ask my wife, or sister, they can buzz me! Did you find out from the bulletin board in my store, about SPWAW? There was someone in, that wrote down the info from there, but didn't get to ask where they were from.Originally posted by LilJoe:
Hey Mike! (Warhorse). I know where that bookstore is. In fact I've been in it a couple of times. Next time I'm around I'll drop in. Are you there most of the time?
Actually, Mike, I was just getting ready to get into ASL when I got a computer and saw info. on the old SP game series. Then one day I was in a store looking at comp. gaming mags when I saw one had a demo disc with SPWAW4.0 on it. Bought the mag, loaded the game and have been hooked ever since. I might as well take this opportunity to thank Paul and the Matrix team for making such a great game amd making it free! I'm looking forward to CL and Starships Unlimited 2. I would have bought SPWAW if I'd have to!
"Victory Through Superior Marksmanship"
-
Larry Holt
- Posts: 1644
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Atlanta, GA 30068
#1 V7 is fixed. Its an OOB and MC fix but no code fixes so city fighting is not in the works.Originally posted by LilJoe:
1. In campaign generator you have the option of fighting in the desert, forest, plains, rough, mountains and jungle. I was wondering if a city location couldn't be added as an option for v.7. I'd like to see alot more street fighting.
2. If my tank is loaded with infantry with eyes peeled and weapons ready, how come I don't get a chance for op. fire when I'm being attacked in close assault?
#2 Because by virtue of the fact that you let the enemy get close enough to close assault, you eyeballs aren't peeled enough to spot them. If you could spot them, you'd have done so further out and never been close assaulted in the first place. Now, as to why this happens, what is the experience level and nationality of the poor blind troops and what is the game visibility? High levels for exp & vis will assist in spotting before you get assaulted. Some nations in some time periods are better trained and this can help too.
Never take counsel of your fears.
Actually I believe that riders do "absorb" the attack in that the AFV is less likely to be KIA as a result of close assault. Just don't expect them to fire back.Originally posted by 11Bravo:
I agree that it is unlikely that tank riders would be much insurance against an ambush. But, it would be nice if there was at least a chance of them spotting the attack.
It would surprise me if this was not already in the game. A great characteristic of SPWAW is that unlikely events are not truncated to "never happen" but usually given at least a 1 pct. chance.
Have you convinced yourself through testing that tank riders give you no benefit at all to repulsing a close assault?
Grab them by the balls. Their hearts and minds will follow.
Yeah I always thought they helped at least to keep your tanks alive. But I would agree it's a bit much to expect them to opfire if the tank is in motion. Now if it were STATIONARY, and you had enemy infantry sneaking up on you, and you had previously dismounted your own grunts, then you've got a better situation.
Matt
Matt
Khan7
Mounting infantry onto your tanks was intended as an ad-hoc way of transporting your ground pounders into the combat area, or beyond it in the absence of dedicated motorized or preferably, mechanized transport.
As a defensive measure it does'nt work very well in practice for several reason, not the least of which is, as others have mentioned, its really hard to hang on to a pitching bouncing tank 'and' look for the enemy at the same time much less raise your rifle and aim it.
Earlier incarnations of SP allowed players to use unrealistic tactic of mounting infantry on tanks to use them litterally as 'defensive' shields that more times than not, would aborb a close assault, leaving the tank intact and somtimes the infantry unit itself depending on experience and luck. This became one of 'the' most abused tactics in SP history, one in which i myself would sometimes employ, i mean its hard to justify following the tanks with halftracks or infantry on foot when the game engine allowed you to combine the best of both worlds by having the infantry ride on the tanks "and" still preform their close support role.
WAW addressed this "tactic" by one, lowering the capacity of all the tanks to 8 men or under (a typical squad is 11 to 19 men in WAW and by making the infantry aborb factor a far less likely thing. It caused alot of protest amoung veteran players who were used to the 'old' way of doing things but it was far more realistic and i for one, applauded the decision.
IIRC only the Soviets employed the 'tank desant' as they called it into battle because they simply had no other means of rapidly moving their infantry into the battle. Soviet ground industry focused almost entirely on the production of tanks (as opposed to say Germany, which split up it's AFV production evenly into thirds, (1/3 tank 1/3 assault gun 1/3 halftracks)
it was'nt until around the late 44 offensives that they got enough halftracks (all from the US i believe) to start employing the 'standard' combined arms tactics.
The Soviet solution in the interm was a cheap workaround but it was a extremely costly in human terms, but given their tendancy to use mass attacks to begin with, this would'nt have seemed alien to them.
This should not be confused with the Western Allies using their tanks to give some of their soldiers piggy back rides from the rear lines to the new front lines. Once combat was expected they'd get off so that the tanks would'nt be impeded in battle.
As a defensive measure it does'nt work very well in practice for several reason, not the least of which is, as others have mentioned, its really hard to hang on to a pitching bouncing tank 'and' look for the enemy at the same time much less raise your rifle and aim it.
Earlier incarnations of SP allowed players to use unrealistic tactic of mounting infantry on tanks to use them litterally as 'defensive' shields that more times than not, would aborb a close assault, leaving the tank intact and somtimes the infantry unit itself depending on experience and luck. This became one of 'the' most abused tactics in SP history, one in which i myself would sometimes employ, i mean its hard to justify following the tanks with halftracks or infantry on foot when the game engine allowed you to combine the best of both worlds by having the infantry ride on the tanks "and" still preform their close support role.
WAW addressed this "tactic" by one, lowering the capacity of all the tanks to 8 men or under (a typical squad is 11 to 19 men in WAW and by making the infantry aborb factor a far less likely thing. It caused alot of protest amoung veteran players who were used to the 'old' way of doing things but it was far more realistic and i for one, applauded the decision.
IIRC only the Soviets employed the 'tank desant' as they called it into battle because they simply had no other means of rapidly moving their infantry into the battle. Soviet ground industry focused almost entirely on the production of tanks (as opposed to say Germany, which split up it's AFV production evenly into thirds, (1/3 tank 1/3 assault gun 1/3 halftracks)
it was'nt until around the late 44 offensives that they got enough halftracks (all from the US i believe) to start employing the 'standard' combined arms tactics.
The Soviet solution in the interm was a cheap workaround but it was a extremely costly in human terms, but given their tendancy to use mass attacks to begin with, this would'nt have seemed alien to them.
This should not be confused with the Western Allies using their tanks to give some of their soldiers piggy back rides from the rear lines to the new front lines. Once combat was expected they'd get off so that the tanks would'nt be impeded in battle.
All very true, but the M2/M3s they got via lend-lease were in fact given to command elements (so they could keep up with the troops) or to recon units. Rifle units were either tank or truck borne until the end of the war...IIRC only the Soviets employed the 'tank desant' as they called it into battle because they simply had no other means of rapidly moving their infantry into the battle. Soviet ground industry focused almost entirely on the production of tanks (as opposed to say Germany, which split up it's AFV production evenly into thirds, (1/3 tank 1/3 assault gun 1/3 halftracks)
it was'nt until around the late 44 offensives that they got enough halftracks (all from the US i believe) to start employing the 'standard' combined arms tactics.
The Soviet solution in the interm was a cheap workaround but it was a extremely costly in human terms, but given their tendancy to use mass attacks to begin with, this would'nt have seemed alien to them.
"...these go up to eleven."
Nigel Tufnel
Nigel Tufnel
-
Frank W.
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
- Contact:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus:
Earlier incarnations of SP allowed players to use unrealistic tactic of mounting infantry on tanks to use them litterally as 'defensive' shields that more times than not, would aborb a close assault, leaving the tank intact and somtimes the infantry unit itself depending on experience and luck. This became one of 'the' most abused tactics in SP history, one in which i myself would sometimes employ, i mean its hard to justify following the tanks with halftracks or infantry on foot when the game engine allowed you to combine the best of both worlds by having the infantry ride on the tanks "and" still preform their close support role.
yes,you´re right.
this old SP1 and 2 tactic doen´s work very good with SPWAW... so it´s now much more dangerous moving tanks through wooded or city terrain. it slows down game speed,too, ´cause you must keep your slow inf. with the tanks. yes, it´s quite more realistic and difficult than in older versions. the same of course with op-fire. the old, "move the 2 jeeps before the 88" trick doesn´t work that good in SPWAW........but that absolutly okay for game realism.
Earlier incarnations of SP allowed players to use unrealistic tactic of mounting infantry on tanks to use them litterally as 'defensive' shields that more times than not, would aborb a close assault, leaving the tank intact and somtimes the infantry unit itself depending on experience and luck. This became one of 'the' most abused tactics in SP history, one in which i myself would sometimes employ, i mean its hard to justify following the tanks with halftracks or infantry on foot when the game engine allowed you to combine the best of both worlds by having the infantry ride on the tanks "and" still preform their close support role.
yes,you´re right.
this old SP1 and 2 tactic doen´s work very good with SPWAW... so it´s now much more dangerous moving tanks through wooded or city terrain. it slows down game speed,too, ´cause you must keep your slow inf. with the tanks. yes, it´s quite more realistic and difficult than in older versions. the same of course with op-fire. the old, "move the 2 jeeps before the 88" trick doesn´t work that good in SPWAW........but that absolutly okay for game realism.