Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Goblin

I think that the likes of gamers are not based on the site they post at, but rather a fear of the game changing towards what they believe might be the negative, or towards the unknown. I think the biggest worry is caused by the latter.

Your periodic updates are much appreciated also, as they help alleviate the fear of the unknown. You will always have people disagree with change, myself included sometimes. Often that fear disappears when they get to try the newest version.

Regardless of what people post here, The Depot, or where ever, you are making many positive changes that are appreciated.


Goblin

ORIGINAL: omegaall

Michael,

A few minor comments:

4) Sometimes the player setup side was incorrect, when assaulting beaches. Fixed.
AT LAST. This has driven many crazy !!!

THANKS!!!!

The OOB editor.
Besides a lot of 'off noise' re the changes I see few that can not be over come by any scenario designer or OOB designer. What has be added by you is great and the extra work highly valued.

There is just one delicate point that I think some may appreciate.. The inclusion of csv input and out put from the editor. I do understand that this can cause issues and there are certain background problems such as wrong formation structures being imported and these should be caught by the editor. But this aside could you see the way to allowing csv input/output for the editor?

The result would be one editor does all, saves messing about with different editor just to build an OOB.

THANKS

ORIGINAL: Procrustes


WOW! This sounds fantastic! Could I ask, did you ever find why C&C was causing MC crashes?

Thanks again!!

P.

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

If you mean importing and exporting an ASCII delineated file, sure, I could do that. That way, a fellow could read, edit and save the files with a data base program, like dBase. Is that what you want?

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

This has been a long-standing issue. The size of your initial core force plays a part in this: if its over 3000 points, you're more likely to get larger battle maps. Now that you mention it, I tend to customize core forces to cover the maps I want to fight on. The Germans are a good example -- in the latest 8.403 test mech, in Sept 39 you have 3111 points to work with (True Troop Cost ON, Rarity OFF). I changed my OOB set to match the parameters, without getting away from historically-available forces.

Oddly, my chosen USMC battalion landing team (reinforced), is much cheaper, and does not exceed the 3000-point level. The main reason is that I focus on infantry (three companies), with a minimal supply of armor (three 5-tank platoons, equipped with the older M2A4s). The heavy weapons are just four 81mm mortars, two 37mm AT guns, and two self-propelled 75mm GMCs. I also add four Raider platoons and a Parachute platoon.

The upgrade paths for the Marines are fairly simple. With each successive year, the rifle squads get more powerful. The 9-man squad of 1942 gets replaced by the 12-man squad in 1943, and the 13-man squad in 1944-45. The 1942 BAR squads can change to either an Assault Squad, an additional 30 cal MMG, or a bazooka team.

The light tanks of 1942 get replaced by the Shermans, with a flame tank upgrade for one tank in each platoon.

The 4-man Recon Teams change to 6-man Scout/Sniper Teams.

The Raiders/Paras are a special case -- although ahistorical, I tend to keep them for the duration. Historically, all were converted into "regular" Marine squads and folded into new regiments. Doing this essentially gives you a fourth infantry company capable of conducting independent operations -- a 1940s version of the modern "special operations capable" units.

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Standard defensive battalion frontage averaged about 900 yards or about 18 hexes. Allowing a frontage of 40 hexes, two thousand yards, means the battalion was stretched pretty thin and it was difficult to control with fire. Over that and there was a hole in your line. 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.

Is there a problem with this?

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Alright -- the argument is turning into "Do you play this game as a a military exercise ", OR "as a fun escape"?

SPWaW, to MY mind, is somewhere in between. It isn't solid enough to be called a "simulation". It is still just a game, and many abstractions have to be interprolated. It is by no means a "real-world" game, even in terms of WWII.

The best we can do, IMHO, is an approximation. The game gives you the impression of being there -- it simply can't go beyond that.

Once everyone gets that notion firmly drilled in their heads, then we can work towards making it more enjoyable for everybody.