SPWAW 5.0 wish list

[Charles22]

Mogami: The armored car to which we've been speaking actually had forward drives in both directions (seperate transmissions I assume).

[ruxius]

Hi I would like to join to these interesting proposals..I hope my suggestion will be useful in some way:
1)we have different sounds from different kinds of damage against vehicles..but only one type of explosion sound for every kind of vehicle...no difference between ammo depot neither a Tiger or kettengrad being crushed...or immobilized
and also why not giving a voice to the killed ones of infantry units especially if we can here the rifle that is killing ?

2) I would like very much that aircrafts could become core units..
3)I have to play more to be sure about this but it seems that aircrafts heavily shooted at can continue their deadly course against the target.. in a campaign I bought a lot
of AA-guns and I played against tons of Russians with 30 air sections allowed and more than 8000 points...I downed a lot of aircrafts..but they always reached their targets at full efficiency if I did not succeded in destroying them before..I think they should be confused and make mistakes after they become suppressed during the flight !
4) I agree with USMCGrunt in point 4 about the possibity of improving the campaign editor..here it's too long to explain..I have to better understand some limitations and then I will talk about that
Thanks for attention .

[Windo von Paene]

OK, well I've thought of another thing I'd like to see, (since we're all just wishing for things). And, I must say, it is not a trivial thing.

I would like to see the ability to pass in a set of parameters to SPWAW, which would then cause SPWAW to create a generated battle based on those parameters. In other words, something like a bunch of command-line parameters.

Now the problem with this is that I can see it being very difficult to implement, given the existing code base. The reason it would be cool, is that it would allow for the easy creation of a Mega-Campaign type program that could be "played", and would generate the appropriate battles. Now it would be really cool if we could keep core units, kills, experience etc. but I suppose that's asking for too much. But even if I had the parameter passing capability, I could simulate most of that, (though kill info would be lost, and names would change...)

[Fuerte]

Kharan, you did not add this to your list:

If Command & Control is on, then clicking on each recon unit for the first time does not display the movement range correctly.

[Kharan]

Originally posted by Fuerte:
Kharan, you did not add this to your list:

If Command & Control is on, then clicking on each recon unit for the first time does not display the movement range correctly.

Ach scheisse. It's there now .

[Stuart Millis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mao:
I want the AI to play better ...

I think that is called pbem

[johnfmonahan]

Reverse. 1 hex at a cost of all MP. The feature that is always in popular demand. Second, the ability for a 2 human player campaign. I would love a 10 battle campaign against a person. The AI is just too dumb. Thanks for everything.

------------------
When in doubt, go on line.