STEEL PANTHERS ENHANCED // NORTH AFRIKA

Dedicated site for the SP: Enhanced, North Afrika, American Civil War, and Vietnam mods. Hosted by freeforums.org
It is currently Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:46 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Welcome
WELCOME TO THE STEEL PANTHERS ENHANCED & NORTH AFRIKA MODS FORUM.

You are currently viewing our boards as a Guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have

* access to post topics and messages
* communicate privately with other members (PM)
* respond to polls
* upload content
* access many other special features and forum areas


Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join us and take advantage of the benefits the Steel Panthers Enhanced community has to offer you.


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:55 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 464
Location: Playing In the Sandbox
I been thinking about this and I think the idea you posted about reducing the accuracy is good.

I think we will be better off if the rifles do very little damage other then cause suppression and a
few random kills at ranges over 100 yards. But I think the secondary weapons should be the
main killing weapons so weapons like swords shotguns and pistols will be doing most of the
killing. This should force the players to close to contact range in order to start killing off the
enemy. It means we should see units in the same hex or 1 hex apart going at it until one or
the other is destroyed. Of course we have exceptions for sharpshooters and for guns like the
Gatling which were extremely effective at longer ranges.

We will have to tinker with the rifles to get the right effect and increase the killing ability of the
secondary weapons to make them do most of the work. I think this might be the only way to
get rid of the longer range effects of WW II combat that the game was designed for. It means
that when you look at a units numbers they may seem really screwed up but if the effect works
who cares.

This should also solve some of the other problems we have like the cav not being able to close
with out getting suppressed or dumped from the mounts and it should prevent the static effect
of forces being pinned and unable to close with each other resulting in a range 4 or 5 firefight
that we want to avoid.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:06 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 464
Location: Playing In the Sandbox
Bumping this thread as something to re-read before we start up work again. We went
over a lot of stuff in the past and if we can avoid going over the stuff we think we
did right we can avoid doing it again.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:14 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 338
Location: Combat Information Center, Sir!
I agree. It's been awhile since the last testing, and I am a bit foggy on where we were heading. I do recall discussions about adjusting the Rout/Rally value in the Preferences, to increase the "thresholds" where units change their status (Ready, Pinned, Retreating, Routed). This aspect would allow sustained marches into enemy fire, without a unit being halted due to a few rounds of incoming fire. And if we consider the differences in unit tactics between the 19th and 20th Centuries, "rally" has a somewhat different meaning in the 19th than what we are used to thinking of. Basically, the armies of the 19th century were conditioned to advance into enemy fire, upright and walking; the fact that enemy fire from muskets and other small-arms was so inaccurate at long range meant units were relatively safe from damage until they closed to within 100 yards. Rallying a unit that was taking incoming fire was not, as in WWII, needed to get the men off the ground and out from cover and to begin advancing again, it was more a means of keeping their "martial spirit" alive and driving them towards the enemy, before they could realize just how much danger they were in.

So we could, in theory, increase the ability to rally units and still be within historical norms, I believe.

_________________
"I Can Haz Cheezburgr?" :taz:
Image..Image..Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:49 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 464
Location: Playing In the Sandbox
FlashfyreSP wrote:
So we could, in theory, increase the ability to rally units and still be within historical norms, I believe.


I think we should provide a means of increasing the rally ability that units already have by encouraging the
the use of the already existing units that boost the moral of units such as the Mobile HQ and Hospital units
even if we have to make some new units that have this ability. I see this being something that separates
a force that is going into the battle from a march or otherwise not really given time to rest and prepare for
the battle and a unit that has been in place and the baggage trains brought up for resupply. The surgeon
has had time to set up his hospital and is ready for the up coming battle, ammo has been passed out and
the commanders have had a chance to walk the ground and look around a bit. For units that are moving
into the attack having a Mobile HQ along would provide the boost in moral. If we have to, perhaps even a
formation of these sort of guys who act as the Sargent. Yes they would be outside of the formations
command structure but the would be a optional source of orders for Artillery calls and would give that
bonus to the nearby units. A few of these guys at the proper points in your lines would allow you as the
player to pick an area of focus where you want your troops be "hyped up and ready to go"

I have a crazy idea of getting the Cav to charge into the guns and not be shot off the charge and stalled
perhaps we can stick a horse graphic onto a fast moving aircraft that moves in and drops a suppression
bomb on the area before riding on past the area. Timed to allow the Cav to attack and have that shock
effect only for one or two uses. This will keep the Cav from rushing from place to place and charging
into it each time. Sooner or latter the Cav just can't do it anymore. The horses are spent.

Or we can add a "suppression cannon" to the HQ units themselves that has a range of 2 or 3 and only
1 or 2 ammo to give us the same sort of effect but allow for reload if they find an ammo source.
Fresh Horses are on hand.

I think by better controlling the units suppression we can get the units close enough to allow the guns
to start having a short range effect. And prevent the long range battles we want to get rid of.

It would be better to have two units go hand to hand with little suppression then have them shioot at
each other from 6 hexes away or be stalled there by the cannon fire that even a battery can profide.

So perhaps we should make the cannon HE provide a bit less suppression but keep the shaprnal effect
so that we still have some good splash damage in the area and men being killed.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:49 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 338
Location: Combat Information Center, Sir!
On the artillery effects, I am going to change the Warhead and HE Kill numbers to do the following:
1. Reduce the Warhead rating low enough to reduce the Suppression from the round.
2. Increase (if needed) the HE Kill rating to increase the casualty rate somewhat.

Overall, I am still leaning towards using the Rout/Rally Pref at 200% and a slightly higher base Morale for each side to mitigate the problem of too much Suppression too soon; I'll have to try and do some tests to see what happens.

_________________
"I Can Haz Cheezburgr?" :taz:
Image..Image..Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:56 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 338
Location: Combat Information Center, Sir!
Oh, I also want to revisit the Prefs settings...I don't think that standard LC settings are right for this era. Spotting should be higher (large units easier to see, most combat on open ground), hitting probably lower, and Inf Toughness....I'm not sure about that one. Maybe lower for more casualties (to reflect the massing of men)?

_________________
"I Can Haz Cheezburgr?" :taz:
Image..Image..Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:29 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 464
Location: Playing In the Sandbox
FlashfyreSP wrote:
Oh, I also want to revisit the Prefs settings...I don't think that standard LC settings are right for this era. Spotting should be higher (large units easier to see, most combat on open ground), hitting probably lower, and Inf Toughness....I'm not sure about that one. Maybe lower for more casualties (to reflect the massing of men)?


I tend to agree. Most battles followed the older rules of warfare and units showed themselves in order to
bring about the fight on chosen ground. What we have to watch for is going too far with this or doing it
in a way that makes it impossible to allow for smaller battles were the South in particular chose to fight
from ambush positions.

The Infantry Toughness acted funny when we went to numbers lower then 150 the rounding comes into
play and the effect is just not noticeable anymore. The only way we can make any reasonable choices on
these settings is going to require that we get the units themselves built the way you want them. We can
not keep changing the weapons around and work on the settings at the same time. Finish up your
changes to the weapons and then let us have at the settings to see if we can make them dance to our
tune. Its the only way we can cut this thing loose this year. I too would like to see it released sooner
rather then latter. We all know that it will never be possible to make this a perfect CW game due to the
restrictions the game engine forces use to deal with. But even still it will be a hell of a lot of fun to play
with. We need to put to good use what we learned with the NA mod rather then spend 3 years making
this one work. I'm to damn old to wait for these mods to play with. If we take too long Microsoft will
screw us and make a new os that won't let us run the game anymore. Windows Seven is already a
problem for some people.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:42 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 464
Location: Playing In the Sandbox
As a side note here. I am getting more and more involved in making up command and control tutorials
and as I do that I am trying to explain how it effects the game. I presume we will still consider this a C&C
mod as far as building the settings go. The Preferences set for that sort of game will by defualt be wrong
for games played in training mode. I say this because the deeper I get into this the more it becomes clear
that C&C really does alter the game effects in a way that makes things act very differently. A single set of
prefs is not going to acceptable for both methods of play.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 5:54 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 338
Location: Combat Information Center, Sir!
I don't see this Mod as being anything but a C&C Mod...you just can't do Civil War battles with "Rambo" units that can go anywhere anytime they want to.

_________________
"I Can Haz Cheezburgr?" :taz:
Image..Image..Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 7:14 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:11 am
Posts: 145
Location: Michigan
Indeed sir! How dare you even think of non-C&C play?

_________________
Image...Image...Image...Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:22 pm 
Offline
Assistant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:27 am
Posts: 239
Location: Behind The Stone Wall
Per my other discussion about bayonets, I propose they be added back in BUT with range 0, if it won't cause problems in the game.

During the infantry test scenario, once everyone runs out of ammo, they cannot melee. The Rebs and Yanks seem to settle down and decide the issue with a good ol' game of cards.

I'll run some tests just to see, but I feel they should be given a lot of ammo for the bayonets, and the bayonets themselves set to range 0.

However, got a birthday party tonight for my niece, so you boys keep figurin' out how to keep them dern Rebs and bluebellies fitin' in a proper way.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 12:06 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 338
Location: Combat Information Center, Sir!
Can't give a weapon a range of '0'...won't work. Are you sure the units won't Melee in the same hex? You've tried using the 'melee' attack mode, correct?

_________________
"I Can Haz Cheezburgr?" :taz:
Image..Image..Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:25 am 
Offline
Assistant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:27 am
Posts: 239
Location: Behind The Stone Wall
Bummer :/

They won't melee if they are out of ammo. I put them in the same hex, hit Alt-M, and I get a 'not enough movement or shots' message.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 11:30 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 338
Location: Combat Information Center, Sir!
What might work would be to put the weapon in, with no HE Kill and a Range of 1. Then load it with 99 ammo...
Only thing is, the unit would "shoot" that weapon at adjacent targets, with no effect, which would look strange.

_________________
"I Can Haz Cheezburgr?" :taz:
Image..Image..Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Infantry Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Thu Mar 25, 2010 8:10 pm 
Offline
Assistant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:27 am
Posts: 239
Location: Behind The Stone Wall
Yes, and it would provoke OpFire from everyone that can see it.

But, it's better than units just standing there until they get pummeled enough that they either run, surrender, or disperse.

After all, didn't Chamberlain charge at Little Round Top because he was out of ammo? Didn't Stonewall's men throw rocks at Second Manassas because they were also out of ammo? And then Longstreet's corps came crashing down on the unsuspecting Union left and settled the engagement..


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred