A question on firing animations

[String]

What do i have to do to keep the game from showing a different animation for each of the weapon types the unit fires? It might be informative but it takes a long time with larger battles.

I know there was some way to have the game show only the main weapon firing, but i forget what it was.

[vahauser]

String,
 
Here is how you do it:
 
Step 1.  Right Click on your shortcut and select 'Properties'
Step 2.  In the Properties you will find a box that says 'Target' (under 'Target Location')
Step 3.  Here is what my 'Target' says: "C:\Matrix Games\Steel Panthers World At War\Mech.exe"   Yours will say something similar
Step 4.  Type impatient after your Target String
Step 5.  Here is what it looks like on my PC: "C:\Matrix Games\Steel Panthers World At War\Mech.exe" impatient
 
That's all there is to it.
 

[FlashfyreSP]

[8|] Aptly-named modifier.

[vahauser]

FlashFyre,
 
Not sure what you meant.  When a person is playing a battle that has hundreds of units per side, then it can takes some computers 20-30 minutes to process all the combats (plus everything else) for a single turn.
 
I, personally, don't use the 'impatient' command switch in my games unless I am playing a very large battle.
 
WARNING:  I forgot to mention this above.  Sometimes your game will crash to desktop when using 'impatient'.  Not sure why it happens, but I suspect that it has something to do with interrupting the animations.

[FlashfyreSP]

Because it is aptly-named....if you are "impatient" enough to want to skip most of the game animations, then this is the switch to use.
Enjoy the game the way it was meant to be enjoyed is my philosophy.

[vahauser]

FlashFyre,
 
Again, not sure what you mean.  Perhaps String has a slow computer, in which case the 'impatient' command switch would improve his enjoyment of the game tremendously.  The 'impatient' command switch is a feature that works pretty much as designed (besides the occasional crash to desktop).  Not much difference between 'impatient' and Fast Artillery ON, in concept or application.
 
Also, as far as I know, the game "as it was meant to be enjoyed" is impossible to define.  As you pointed out in another thread, "To each his own." 
 
I'm pretty sure of two things: 1) You and I have differing philosophies regarding "as it was meant to be enjoyed"; and 2) The game is flexible enough that even you and I could choose features that would be enjoyable to both of us.

[FlashfyreSP]

Exactly, Vahauser. So why do you keep questioning what I mean? You know exactly what I mean: that switch is for those who are too impatient to watch the combat routines play out. And that means they miss out on important details that might make the rest of the battle turn out differently.

But that is a choice people must make; I don't agree with it, that's all.

[KG Erwin]

For folks who have limited playing time, I understand the need for the "impatient" keyword. Personally, I enjoy watching and hearing a good preparatory aerial/arty/naval gunnery bombardment. It helps fire the blood, unless of course you're on the receiving end of it. Then the "pucker factor" comes into play. With the audio turned up, you guys know exactly what I mean. Almost makes you wanna dive underneath your computer desk. "Incoming!" [X(]

[vahauser]

FlashFyre,

Actually, I still don't know what you mean. 

A) Do you mean that String was out of line by starting this thread and requesting information that he felt he needed? 
B) Do you mean that the word 'impatient' implies some sort of inferior behavior on the part of whoever uses such a command switch? 
C) Do you mean that I was out of line by supplying String with the information he requested? 
D) Do you mean that only 'power gamers' like me would even know about such information in the first place? 
E) Do you mean that the 'impatient' command switch is a "cheat"? 
F) Do you mean that Matrix should never have put that command switch into the game to begin with?
G) Do you mean something else that I'm still not understanding?

I still really don't understand what you mean.  My intuition tells me that you would remove that command switch from the game if you could.  But my intuition is unfounded speculation, and it's not based on a true understanding of what you mean.

EDIT: For a long time, nobody understood why I was bothered by the words 'historical ratings'. Even now, I'm not sure anybody understands why those words bother me. Perhaps my ability with the English language is not fluent enough to make myself understood. I get the distinct impression that the word 'impatient' bothers you. Maybe not to the extent that 'historical ratings' bothers me, but 'impatient' bothers you nonetheless. That is my impression. Anyway, my guess is that very few players even know that the 'impatient' command switch exists. I myself do not remember if there are any other command switches that Matrix put into the game. I seem to recall in the dim recesses of my memory a thread way back in 2000 or 2001 that talked about the command switches and I want to say that there is more than one command switch. But I can't remember. Wild Bill might know. Mike Wood probably knows. I'd like to see a list of command switches now that my curiosity is piqued.

[FlashfyreSP]

V
What does it matter, really? I stated my opinion, you disagree with it, that's it. Don't continue looking for some grand philosophical debate here; I simply made a sarcatic remark about the "impatient" switch. Now you want to debate me on it...

It's nothing to do with String or his post; it's nothing to do with you or your way of playing. I just don't like the implied usage of the switch, and you are correct, I'd remove it if I could. But I can't, so it's a moot point.

[vahauser]

FlashFyre,
 
Unfortunately, you have raised perhaps the most important issue regarding "as it was meant to be played".
 
I see no fundamental difference between the 'impatient' command switch and Fast Artillery ON.  So does that mean that you would also do away with Fast Artillery ON if you could?
 
You say that your comments in this thread have nothing to do with String, or with me and my way of playing.  And by saying that you would do away with the 'impatient' command switch if you could, you are making a judgment against people like String and myself and our way of playing.  Indeed, you are correct. You are correct that your judgment has nothing to do with String or myself because we are not even considered in your judgment.  Our desires are ignored, so to speak, in your quest to see the game "as it was meant to be played".
 
And what happens when features like the 'impatient' command switch and Fast Artillery ON and Reduced Squads OFF, etc., are done away with to conform to one person's vision of the "way the game was meant to be played"?
 
Well, when one person's vision of the "way the game was meant to be played" has been turned into reality, it is no longer possible to say "to each his own".  At that point there is only "my way or the highway".
 
You have read my statements in other posts about how I believe that people who play with C&C ON are being discriminated against.  This is what I'm talking about.
 
I believe that Gary Grigsby had a great vision.  I've stated in other threads that I believe that his vision has been mutated into something else by people who had a very different vision and agenda.  This is what I'm talking about.
 
I still believe that the current version of SPWAW and Enhanced have enough features to allow people of all playing styles and philosophies "to each his own".  Even if some of those features have been mutated from Gary's original vision, thereby discriminating against certain philosophies and playing styles, the remnants of those features (like C&C ON) still remain to at least give people who want to use them the illusion that they are still getting "to each his own".
 
I believe that the game has strayed far indeed from Gary's vision of the "way the game was meant to be played".  But I also believe that Gary would applaud all the extra features (like Fast Artillery ON and Reduced Squads OFF, etc.) that have been added to the game to allow all players "to each his own".
 
And I believe that the very best possible judgment that can be made regarding "the way the game was meant to be played" is to ensure that "to each his own" are not just words, but is instead the guiding principle behind every change contemplated to the game.

[KG Erwin]

Oh, my, Victor, you are entertaining. I'd be a brilliant tactician like you if I wanted to be a "power gamer" and stack 20 tanks in one hex. I've seen the AI do this, but yet you claim that to be idiocy. The AI isn't that smart, but yet you stack the deck in your favor, even when you claim to be historical.

Here's another thing -- I take pains to construct a reasonably long-campaign core and play it in a reasonably historical fashion. Then you come along, want to co-opt my force, and then corrupt the idea with your notions of "power gaming", whatever the heck THAT is.

You end up making it all look ridiculous. Goblin's probably gonna lock this, but that's the way I feel.

[FlashfyreSP]

Ok, Vahauser, I'm done. You just won't let it drop. It was a sarcastic comment I made, as I've indicated before, and you're bound and determined to make it into some kind of issue. Fine. Have at it. Spout what you will. I've already spent far more time on this than the whole issue is worth, all because you refuse to let it go.

I'm not going to respond to any of your accsations, and I'm not going to continue this row.

[Goblin]

I wanted to let everyone have their say before locking this one, Glenn.

Hopefully it will just fade off and it won't have to be locked, since it appears that everyone has stated their positions.






Goblin

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: Goblin

I wanted to let everyone have their say before locking this one, Glenn.

Hopefully it will just fade off and it won't have to be locked, since it appears that everyone has stated their positions.

Goblin

I thank you, Goblin. It's a testimony to the game itself in that it still generates such strong opinions.

[vahauser]

Glenn,
 
I want you to show me one single instance where I have rigged the game in my favor in my Group Anders Long Long Road campaign.
 
Show me in another thread.
 
 
Goblin,
 
Thank you for keeping this thread open.  It bothers me when somebody wants to impose their way "the game was meant to be played" on the rest of us, and then say "to each his own".  I done with this thread, too.  I'm interested in seeing what Glenn comes up with in a new thread regarding how I rigged Group Anders Long Long Road in my favor.
 
--V

[JEB Davis]

[vahauser]

JEB Davis,

Is sticking a knife in my brain your solution?

What Happened:
String requests some information.
I supply the information
Then FlashFyre makes a comment that I don’t understand and I question it.

Then FlashFyre makes another comment that I don’t understand and I question it.

Then FlashFyre finally says that his comment was a sarcastic one (as though his sarcasm is okay and happily explains everything). Now I finally understand. Once I know that FlashFyre’s comment is intended sarcastically, then I understand clearly.

Then I take issue with FlashFyre’s sarcastic comment.

Then FlashFyre further goes on to make a statement that if he were the one in charge, then he would do away with things like the ‘impatient’ command switch if such things did not conform to his vision of the “way the game was meant to be played”.

Then I call FlashFyre out on taking such a philosophical stand because imposing his version of “the way the game was meant to be played” and saying “to each his own” are incompatible viewpoints (and is indeed a hypocritical stance, but I avoid using the word ‘hypocritical’ because I don’t want to set off a serious flame war).

Then FlashFyre not only refuses to apologize for being sarcastic (which started all the confusion and misunderstanding in the first place), but he instead attacks me for calling him on it. Which reinforces in my mind his contempt for everybody who does not share his vision of the “way the game was meant to be played”.

And JEB?

Note that my vision of the “way the game was meant to be played” includes all things that would allow people “to each his own”. Further, my vision of the “way the game was meant to be played” is in the spirit of Gary Grigsby (the founder of Steel Panthers), as well as the people who installed the ‘impatient’ command switch as a feature of the game in the first place. People that evidently deserve FlashFyre’s unapologetic sarcasm.

And JEB?

Your response is to stick a knife into my brain to shut me up for calling FlashFyre out?

JEB, I find that deeply disturbing on many levels.

[As an aside, JEB, if you look at my avatar, you will note that it hearkens back to the days of the American Revolution. I don’t take kindly to people who would seek to shut me up just because I don’t conform to their way of thinking. Don’t tread on me. I won’t try to shut you up for your thoughts. Please afford me the same.]

EDIT: Goblin, I know that I said that I was done with this thread, but I felt compelled to respond to JEB's knife to the brain. I am absolutely done with this thread now.