Matrix Games Forums

Alby and I got the first beta of a revised OOB Editor which would allow the automatic batch conversion of an OOB file to a standard pricing formula. This formula would apply to ALL OOBs, which is something the players have been wanting for years. It is still being worked on, and it needs a few tweaks. We'll keep you posted. [:)]

yes hopefully no more of....

"Why is the British Sherman cheaper than the US Sherman" and so on and so forth..

[:)]

ORIGINAL: Alby

yes hopefully no more of....

"Why is the British Sherman cheaper than the US Sherman" and so on and so forth..

[:)]

Well that will depends on how the pricing is done AND both units ARE THE SAME in the OOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Else we will still be chasing the WHY question..

If it all works as expected then Mike's work on this aspect will be like a new era of SPWAW.

Simply

[font="Times New Roman"]Thanks Mike for this extra work.[/font]

ORIGINAL: Alby

yes hopefully no more of....

"Why is the British Sherman cheaper than the US Sherman" and so on and so forth..

[:)]

This is something that should have been addressed a long long time ago. I assume whatever work you do will be tied into whatever the Depot ends up doing with their OOB project so we end up with one most excellent set of OOBs rather than competing sets? [&:]

ORIGINAL: IBTyrone

ORIGINAL: Alby

yes hopefully no more of....

"Why is the British Sherman cheaper than the US Sherman" and so on and so forth..

[:)]

This is something that should have been addressed a long long time ago. I assume whatever work you do will be tied into whatever the Depot ends up doing with their OOB project so we end up with one most excellent set of OOBs rather than competing sets? [&:]

Yes. The latest editor version seems to be a winner, so now it is a useful design tool and can be used to pinpoint bugs in the database. The only bad thing is that my so-called "final" USMC OOB will have to be revisited yet again. [8|]

Oh dear!

First of all, let me say I believe this will be a wonderful feature to the OOB editor.

But don't let the math fool you. There's a lot more involved in points cost than a simple combat effectiveness matrix. Or, actually, there's not, really... It's just that the matrix is a lot more complicated than it might seem at first glance.

How effective is a unit in the context of the other units it works with? Considering national armies for sake of clarity.

Also, what are you going for - game balance or historical accuracy? Who had better access to Weapon X in Year/Month X, and should that be reflected in points cost or rarity?

I'm not in very deep with SP:WAW, let alone OOB editing, but I do think it is wise to warn against too simple solutions for complicated problems. As you guys are a smart lot and not afraid to dish out or take criticism, I'm sure it will work out - but the idea of this feature creating a single set of ultimate OOB's might be... Optimistic [;)]


That aside though, I'll add my big thanks to Mike for continuing to work on this awesome (and FREE!) product. You, sir, are a shining example to games developers across the world. There's only so much you can do in editing those parts open to the general public - some things require a code monkey who knows the program by heart and is willing to put in the hours. If it weren't for you, SP:WAW would be a wonderful relic of a gaming age gone by - now, however, it is a living, evolving game, a sheer godsent to those of us who prefer a mental challenge and tactical depth over 3D eye candy.

[&o]

maniacmonkey -- hmm, that's an apt description of some the OOB teams of the past LOL. I was asked to get involved a few years ago, and like a new convert, I threw myself into the Crusade to make everything right.

Well, obviously, it didn't turn out that way. I proceeded with blind faith and ran into the wall of reality -- in SPWaW terms, trying to fit our visions into the way the game actually works.

Now, there may be salvation, in that the main programmer is back, and he is trying to get all of us on the same path. The guidelines are being more clearly defined, so there's hope on the horizon. The faithful only have to decide which apostle to follow. Michael is the man still working on "the message", so I will give myself over the SPWaW Apostle Michael. Forgive me for being irreverent, but many folks take all this stuff VERY seriously.

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Now, there may be salvation, in that the main programmer is back, and he is trying to get all of us on the same path. The guidelines are being more clearly defined, so there's hope on the horizon. The faithful only have to decide which apostle to follow. Michael is the man still working on "the message", so I will give myself over the SPWaW Apostle Michael. Forgive me for being irreverent, but many folks take all this stuff VERY seriously.

Huh?

Hello...

Although I have tested the new routines to my version 0.0 set of OOB files (the ones I made up, when we wrote the game, before beta testing started), I am writing the routines for use on version 8.30 (as well as Alby's excellent version 8.31). The player should expect infantry to run about 20 to 55 points (plus 2 to 10 more, if they have fire control). The OOB author can cheapen the price by reduction of ammunition. Each bazooka round, 10 rounds of light machine gun, 20 rounds of rifle ammunition or 5 hand grenades, for instance, cuts the price by about a point. Vehicles run about 20 to 255 points. Would like to have had a greater spread (by making the cost variable an integer), but legacy scenarios forbad it. I think most folk will really like the new cost recalculation routine.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: omegaall

ORIGINAL: Alby

yes hopefully no more of....

"Why is the British Sherman cheaper than the US Sherman" and so on and so forth..

[:)]

Well that will depends on how the pricing is done AND both units ARE THE SAME in the OOBS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Else we will still be chasing the WHY question..

If it all works as expected then Mike's work on this aspect will be like a new era of SPWAW.

Simply

[font="Times New Roman"]Thanks Mike for this extra work.[/font]