C'mon guys let's be friends

[Kiwikkiwik]

Look I know you are finding this difficult, but all I am doing is pointing out the errors in the Game. Nobody disputes that I have correctly identified these errors. Mind you people don't get much chance as we seem to have got to a point where you close down my posts before anyone can participate anyway. Now I am pointing out the various errors because I think you and no doubt the game community would like to know where the game has got it wrong. If you want to leave all the errors in the game that is fine by me, I'm happy to have just pointed them out for you.
What you do take issue with is the various methods I suggest might be be good to fix them, so fair enough you know best, but I am just trying to save you some effort. However I've correctly pointed out hundreds of errors in just my last 3 posts on Fortifications, Ammunition and Snipers. Some are small, some are Major, I would say extreme, You say no more changes to the OOBs unless something extreme? comes up, fair enough, so I am just pointing out the errors and you can decide if they are extreme of not. I know you dont like the length of my posts, but they are long precicely because the game contains so many errors. I understand you dont want to go back over all the scenarios, but I estimate that probably half the errors I've listed can be fixed without any effect or reference to the scenarios, I can't but wonder why you don't make those types of changes for the next or following updates. I am sure it is not just me that would like to play the game with authentic units rather than made up stuff.

As always I extend the Olive branch of friendship and will do any long or arduos hack work to help. I greatly enjoy the game. Thanks for keeping it alive.

PS I do find it a bit disconcerting when you make accusations against me or my suggestions for that matter, and then close the thread giving me no opportunity to defend myself.




l

[zovs66]

Here is my take on all this.

1. Most of your posts are seriously book chapter length and personally I don't have the time to wade through it all, I'd would better spend my time on reading up on research items so I can create scenarios then read through such lengthily posts.

2. In this post alone you use the word "error" eight (8) times and frankly that is not a way to win any friends.

3. I have been playing the Steel Panthers series since 1995, I have played them all and my personal opinion is that SPWW2 and MBT are by far the best out of all them and both games evoke that same feeling I had when I first played SP 1 back in 1995 and then a few weeks later got the Campaign disks. I also am or have been a long time board war gamer (since 1978) and have a lot of experience and knowledge of the Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader systems. I have also done a fair amount of research on military history. With all that said is WW2 and MBT perfect? No, but in my mind both games are simply the best for two reasons. Don and Andy, they have spent over 22 years of working on both games-and have put up with the likes of us the playing community-and SPWW2 and MBT are the only games in the series that has been constantly updated, upgraded, tweaked, bugs squashed, and enhanced out all the games. Just let that sink in for a moment and then be thankful we even have what we have. I know I am.

4. You seem to come in to the forums alot with what I personally think is the wrong approach. Instead of coming in and blasting out that the game is in error and full of bugs and how you think its broken and no good and have a bunch of ways to improve and fix things. (See that should indicate to you how not to approach things or people.) You would probably get more results if you came at much differently. Like, hey I think the games are fantastic and I am having a blast, I do have a few questions though. Why is system X like so and so? And let the designers and the community give you an honest answer. Then accept that line of reasoning and try to understand it.

I fear I have spent too much time on this post and worse that you won't understand or won't even take it to heart, so its all just been a waste of my time and now I am beginning to understand why the developers have frustration with your posts, because of your long responses back and your ignoring of their input to begin with.

Good luck and hope it makes sense, if not...

I have scenarios to complete.

PS Thank you Don and Andy for 22 years of selfless sacrifice and in giving me decades of gaming pleasure, you two are the best.

[Imp]

However I've correctly pointed out hundreds of errors in just my last 3 posts on Fortifications, Ammunition and Snipers. Some are small, some are Major, I would say extreme, You say no more changes to the OOBs unless something extreme?

My guess the problem is highlighted in your own post lets break it down so it is clear.

You say no more changes to the OOBs unless something extreme?

So you got the memo you read that & remembered it which begs the question why did you

pointed out hundreds of errors in just my last 3 posts

If you posted one or two extreme issues with at least 2 none wiki sources the post could be quickly read & time spent to possibly verify with other sources & consider changing.

I am fairly sure this has been mentioned before anything like this has to be further verified before its likely to be changed with all the time that takes.
Reading your posts is a marathon confirming the information in those 3 posts is not a matter of hours your talking days.

Can you not see nobody is going to follow up on it but they might just if it was just a couple of key items.

If its not major their time is better spent on ideas that move the game forward they seem quite good at it or just doing things they actually find enjoyable.

[scorpio_rocks]

I would like to echo the sentiments expressed above and add a couple of small points:

In at least a couple of your "errors" you are plainly wrong and don't understand either how the game works or the implications of even minor changes.

The games have been in continuous development with a VERY active community for over 2 decades! How have so many of us missed all these "errors" where "the game has clearly got it wrong"? A search of these very forums show that some of your "errors" have been addressed previously (in a polite way) and had changes made or answers given.

Please remember this is a GAME not a simulation and has both some limitations and design decisions, which while you may not agree with them all have kept a lot of people happy for a long time!

Please temper your posts - be a little more polite, brief and don't come from the standpoint that you are right and the game/developers/community are wrong! (the "truth" probably lies somewhere between and the game convention somewhere else).

The developers, Don and Andy have worked tirelessly for 20 odd years on this game we all love. For that they deserve our thanks and support - not nitpicking and telling they are "Wrong". Remember we were not going to get an update this year... so anything we get is a privilege for which we are very grateful. Please don't spoil it for everyone by increasing the workload/stress and decreasing the enjoyment of These 2 fine gentlemen!

[Kiwikkiwik]

Thank you for your replys
Zovs66, It is nor a crime to write a long coherent detailed helpful post, but thats whats being said here, dont fall for it. My posts are exactly about errors in the OOBs and so its pretty hard not to use the word Error, again I remind you no one disputes that the errors I've identified are not correctly stated. I agree that it is the best game, Ive said so myself, otherwise why would I bother? you think its fun to read the angry replies I get? Its not about my language or shouldnt be, it should be about the errors I am identifying. I would point out to you that it is impossible for the community to give me an "honest answer" because my threads are shut down almost immediately, and I wonder why, isnt this forum for discussion? I never said the game is "broken and no good",Nor do I ignore their input. However the game is in fact full of errors, my last three posts in the TOE forum prove it. There are plenty of people here singing praises is it too much for just one person to be pointing out the errors in the OOBs, really!?

Imp
The point I am making is I don't know whats considered extreme or not. OK so looking at my ammunition post, sure who cares if a particular Italian feild peice has HEAT or not, but when 32 Italian feild peices are all missing their HEAT ammunition maybe that is exrtreme? only Don can judge, not me, so all I do is just identify the errors in the game and what Don does about that is up to him. I dont pretend to be able to identify Key Items either I just leave it up to Don. And I still think that removing the errors Identified in the OOBs qualifies as moving the game forward surely you dont disagree with that? Don't forget IMP I found and got two PBEM cheats removed from the game.

Scorpio_rocks
Please dont just say my errors are plainly wrong. Please tell me which errors are plainly wrong then we might be able to work something out. This is not "nitpicking" they are genuine errors, many are clearly extreme, and many can be easily fixed. The fact that my posts are pretty much immediatly shut down suggests to me that perhaps I am very right in what I say and a closed thread is a very good way of not facing up to that.
Take snipers as an example, putting the changes I suggest into place would easily qualify as extreme, the sniper is the most powerful infantry unit, better than a HMG, everyone gets them now, but if they are removed from the countries that didnt have them then thats a big change and a big disadvantage for those countries.

I can tell the designers how to implemant the sniper changes without buggering up every scenario in the game, but they have closed the thread. Would you like to hear how it can be done? anyone interested?

[scorpio_rocks]

Originally Posted by Kiwikkiwik

Take snipers as an example, putting the changes I suggest into place would easily qualify as extreme, the sniper is the most powerful infantry unit, better than a HMG, everyone gets them now, but if they are removed from the countries that didnt have them then thats a big change and a big disadvantage for those countries.

Without wishing to get into a protracted argument - I don't think that a sniper is the most "powerful infantry unit". A HMG has greater range, a higher HE kill and area effect... A HMG team is also more robust (if a little easier to find) and capable of creating a "beaten zone". The sniper is a very rare asset and infrequently crops up in games where a semblance of historical force composition is used.

The way snipers work currently is perfectly fine within the concept of the GAME. Your 10 levels of sniper was an over complication (and many OoBs don't have the room!). You also don't seem to grasp the knock on effect of changing weapons and units to EVERY scenario and the enormous amount of work and checking that would entail.

Simply making your point by saying something like " I believe x can be better simulated by.." rather than " X is wrong" can go a long way...

[Mobhack]

And if you want OOBs with 10 levels of sniper, you have Mobhack to edit your own set of custom OOBs which you can then put up on the Mods forum. You have the technology to do your own thing. Perhaps some folks may then use them and declare them to be the next best thing to sliced bread?.

But we have seen your posts, and taken on board a couple of minor points. Other than that, there will be no mass changing of data that has been worked on by ourselves and many others over the last 20 years just to suit your particular point of view.

[Prozorovsky]

Kiwikkiwik I would cut your losses and go.

I've seen your posts, though I only glanced over them given their length. And as I don't have decades of baggage it's easy for me to see the glass as being half full rather than half empty and that it's the thought that counts. It's also easy for me to see why people have seen things differently.

You're a bolt counter. A bolt counter that is lacking in some social skills, doesn't fully under stand the game but is ultimately attempting to help make something they like even better. Your attempts are being received very poorly. At worst your attempts are being viewed as an attack or something else malicious by this community.

It's amazing that this game has people so invested in it. Making scenarios, coding, mods and so on for so many years. People are spending hours of their day doing research and writing essays. People are even arguing over how to help, what counts as helping, proper etiquette when helping. Blows my mind as I sit here watching as I have been for a few years now.

[troopie]

I just read part of British Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War by Richard Baxell, where he mentions Moorish snipers. And in the street fighting in Madrid, the Republicans, the Carlists and the Nationalists all used snipers.

troopie

[Kiwikkiwik]

Hi Scopio_rocks
The reason I say snipers are more powerful than a HMG is that when shooting at infantry the most expensive sniper will kill more people than a HMG, that seems absolutely unbelievable to me. And of course some people do buy lots of snipers.
OK you don't need 10 new snipers in each OOB you just need the few types in each OOB relevant to any particular country. At the moment countries have more sniper types than they had different telescopes, my argument being that there should only be as many different sniper types as there were different telescopes for each country. The changes I suggest are easily implemented because you can just change the RF and FC values to what I suggest for some of the existing snipers and remove the surplus snipers by making them like unit 001 in the Australia/New Zealand OOB. As I understand it those redundant snipers will then still be available in the scenarios but not for a game. Some of the service dates will still be wrong, But overall it would be big improvement, ie historically accurate. Only the German OOB is too crowded, which is always a problem, but it would be a great improvement to just change the FC and RF values of the snipers already there to whichever of the types applicable to the Germans that you like. You wouldnt get all the various telescope magnifications the Germans actually had, but the capabilities of each unit would now correspond to what is historical. All this can be done without looking into any scenarios.

But the good news is that it appears the scenario probelm is fixable anyway! It appears that it would be possible to rework the scenarios by saving the weapons information into the Scenario .dat file then the biggest difficulty for correcting the errors in the OOBs goes away! NO problems with the scenarios!, The next Game version could be presented with all the scenarios reworked into that format. I think this would be an icredibly worthwhile thing to do because, No offence intended, but every time I get a book off the shelf and compare it to this game I find lots of stuff wrong, witness my last 3 closed TOE threads. Ammunition, Forts and Snipers.
You mentioned that maybe the scenario creators might take advantage of being able to adjust the OOBs, but I'm sure you can trust them.

Hi Mobhack
No I dont want OOBs with10 levels for snipers. The number of snipers that should be in each OOB are detailed in the original post and is usually LESS than there currently are for any particular country in the game.
Mobhack I'm not posting to push my point of view. Or for that matter posting what "suits" me. Im posting what are the facts, or you could say what is the truth. Im just presenting what various Authors who've had a good look at the subject say. No one dippute that any of the facts presented are correct. Actually it is the game that has a point of view, that seems to suit someones elses a-historic view.
I would Imagine that under the financial constraints of bringing the game to market there isnt enough money to research the units properly and so you get the bland generic categories as exist in forts and snipers, Fort units in particular clearly don't correspond to anything real. Now I thought that the idea of this community was for people to contribute to the game by filling in these type of gaps in the game OOBs which is what I have done, but that doesnt seem to be happening. I also thought this forum was for discussion and as my threads are promptly closed discussion doesnt seem to be an option either.
I would note that no justification whatsoever is supplied to explain why the game units are the way they are, none. And rather than discuss the inaccuracies I've presented, the methods I suggest to fix erros are attacked instead, Im ridiculed, and the discussion blocked before anyone else has a chance to contribute.

Troopie This is a common problem historically speaking. Snipers are often mentioned in historical accounts but these accounts are often referring to a sharpshooter or marksman who is a good shot but doesnt have a telescope. Or even to independant activities using patience and excellent fieldcraft but again without a telescope. During my reading on the subject I've discounted all accounts of snipers if it isnt made clear that they had a telescope. So I think these untelescoped types should be marksmen. I am also discounting hunters that might have found their way to the front with a scoped hunting rifle. I Imagine this would be pretty rare, and presents a host of problems which I won't go into. I agree that the Spanish Republicans could have had scoped snipers from 1936 onwards, but as for Carlists, Moors and Nationalists I can't confirm their use of telescopes, though of course a photo would be worth a thousand words.

All I am saying is that the snipers FC and RF values should reflect the telescopes they had, which at present they don't. For example, Russia only ever had 2 telescopes, 3x and 4x. Yet in game Russia gets 7 different sniper types with FC and RF values of 0, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 10. So if you do tie FC and RF values to telscope magnification then Russia gets just two sniper types instead of 7, plus an unscoped marksman. The same problem exists in all the OOBs. Can anyone answer on what basis the Russians get these 7 different sniper categories?

I think it is important the nations that didnt have telescoped snipers don't get them because snipers are very powerful units, they kill more people than HMGs. I think these units can be relatively painlessly removed by making them Unused like unit 001 in Australia/New Zealand OOB.
I've found no accounts of snipers carrying or using smoke I would remove snipers smoke, this would make them more cautious ie realistic. Id also make them slower.