SPWAW Executable Patch and Editor Beta Release

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Ok, folks. You don't like 40. Give me some numbers.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Goblin

To me, how I set up my forces indicates what I am defending or fighting for. Attempting to cover the whole map is not my goal. Having a bit more map to work with and choose fighting positions from would be nice (thus defining what my coverage will be). Cramming a 5000 point battle onto the standard 'small' map is often a major pain.



Goblin

[Goblin]

Even medium maps more often would be better, Mike. I think most people's complaint is that you draw the small maps with a large core. Small maps with a smaller core are not a problem. Dunno if big maps with a small core bother people or not (they do not bother me personally; room to manuever). Can it be adjusted so that above a certain point value you get more medium and large maps?


Goblin

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Even medium maps more often would be better, Mike. I think most people's complaint is that you draw the small maps with a large core. Small maps with a smaller core are not a problem. Dunno if big maps with a small core bother people or not (they do not bother me personally; room to manuever). Can it be adjusted so that above a certain point value you get more medium and large maps?


Goblin

Is map size for long campaigns something that could allow for player input? A multiple choice option like 1) Small maps only; 2) Small/medium mix ;3) Medium/large mix.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Yup. If some one reminds me, when I work on SPWaW next ime, I could add that.

Bye...

Michael Wood

KG Erwin

Is map size for long campaigns something that could allow for player input? A multiple choice option like 1) Small maps only; 2) Small/medium mix ;3) Medium/large mix.

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Yup. If some one reminds me, when I work on SPWaW next ime, I could add that.

Bye...

Michael Wood

Great. Thanks. Alby, Goblin and I will definitely remind you of the idea. [:)]

[Goblin]

That's really great Mike, thanks![:)]



Goblin

[soldier]

Standard offensive battalion frontage was about 500 meters, a little better than half that. This offensive frontage assumes one infantry battalion and an attached company of armor.

I would find a battalion sized force crammed into 20 hexes very claustrophobic in WAW. I'm not sure whats wrong here but i don't like having a unit in every hex of the front. Either way war very rarely follows a standard. Theres a good episode in Band of Brothers where they cannot cover the line during Ardennes. I'm pretty sure most armies experienced this at onetime or another during WW2 and the WAW LC doesn't represent this very common campaigning problem

I get small maps wether my core force is 5000 points or 1000. I'm pretty certain that there is no difference, you keep drawing 40 hex wide maps no matter what. With such narrow maps strategies for manuevre or probing for weak spots are largely eliminated and as such a large element of what blitzkrieg and WW2 in general was all about. Fire and manuevre, concentration of force, armoured breakthrough, flanking.... the list goes on

The option for larger maps in LC would be a huge improvment.

[KG Erwin]

I'd think that most gamers would go for the "size choice" option.

Maybe this could be polled at the Depot ?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Having already commited to adding the feature, I am not sure why you would need to poll. But if you like, poll away.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I'd think that most gamers would go for the "size choice" option.

Maybe this could be polled at the Depot ?

[Alby]

No need for poll
Thanks Mike
[&o]

[FNG]

Not wishing to seem ungrateful for all the work that's already been done and/or is in progress, but would it be possible to have a volume control back in the game? Getting the balance between guitars and machine-guns is real tricky with some CDs that I like.... [;)]

[hank]

One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left.

I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me.

just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game.

hank

[m10bob]

Michael....I especially like your changes as in #'s 2 and 3 above..Thank you for "historical correctness", (even if it has to be somewhat abstract to fit into the confines of a game- otherwise somebody might choke on smoke, or get hit by a ricochet !)[;)]

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: hank

One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left.

I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me.

just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game.

hank

Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: hank

One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left.

I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me.

just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game.

hank

Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?

Well, technically, you need to know if the sun will be in your eyes, and knowing direction is mandatory for a pre-designated avenue of retreat,(from ambush missions).
Oh.........you meant the game ????????[:D]OOPS!!!!!!! Sorry!....XIN LOI !!!!!!![:D]

[tracer]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

When a bit more internal testing is finished, I will request that the production folk release the new executable and editor for public beta testing, to get input from a broader range of players.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

The 'bulletproof' method...thanks again for giving the entire SPWAW community the best Christmas gift possible! [&o]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Having already commited to adding the feature, I am not sure why you would need to poll. But if you like, poll away.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I'd think that most gamers would go for the "size choice" option.

Maybe this could be polled at the Depot ?

A good thing it is....yes. (larger map sizes have been a strength of SP:WW2)

[hank]

"Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?" ... by KG Erwin

Well, no ... I don't agree. Immersion is a very important aspect of war games. There's already significant abstractions to all these strategy games. I venture to say, the vast majority of game titles attempt to create their maps so they reflect reality and they take into account convention (maps are made with north up). If I go to one of my hundreds of WWII books to look at a battle and check on the disposition of forces, north is up most of the time.

The more you take away from historical reality ... and geographical reality ... the more you detract from immersion. I for one like to feel I'm playing through an actual battle that actually happened like I do with HPS PzCampaigns or BiN or HttR. If those games rotated the forces 180 degrees, I'm sure the players would go into turmoil.

I just have a problem with this issue being simply disspelled because compass direction doesn't matter. It does. But, I'm not going to argue this point. It was just an observation.

This can be dropped and I'll just live with it the way it is. No big deal.

hank

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Actually, map orientation is not abstracted. In the table that gives the battle locations, there are several factors, such as amount of water, amount of woods, amount of hills, amount of roads and starting side for each combatant. The maps are generated in a random fashion, but the map orientation assumes the top of the map is north and places each force on the appropriate side. Due to the scale of the battles, one side may often fight in a direction other than that of the general front. During operation Torch, for instance, Americans attacked towards the south, east, west and even north in a number of engagements. In the drive across Europe, the Allies crossed the same river a goodly number of times, attacking sometimes from the east and others from the west, north or south. Due to map drawing limitations, the game only places combatants facing east or west.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: hank

One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left.

I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me.

just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game.

hank

Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?

[Korpraali V]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Actually, map orientation is not abstracted. In the table that gives the battle locations, there are several factors, such as amount of water, amount of woods, amount of hills, amount of roads and starting side for each combatant. The maps are generated in a random fashion, but the map orientation assumes the top of the map is north and places each force on the appropriate side. Due to the scale of the battles, one side may often fight in a direction other than that of the general front. During operation Torch, for instance, Americans attacked towards the south, east, west and even north in a number of engagements. In the drive across Europe, the Allies crossed the same river a goodly number of times, attacking sometimes from the east and others from the west, north or south. Due to map drawing limitations, the game only places combatants facing east or west.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood

Hi!

About the sides: I've played Long Campaing with the British in East Asia. All the fights against Japan seem to be in weird direction: British facing west and Japanese facing east. In Burma/India this was vice versa. Could this be fixed?

Thanks for the great work!