Comments on the 8.3 Patch

[Riun T]

I'll shine a button on this thread, Kristo what exactly are u so opposed to reregistering your E-mail to Matrix for???? and also the last time I got any updates,this week just updated Battlefield Veitnam from 1.0 to 1.2 for the new maps and sutch,my point being EA games not only wants your E-mail but they also want the CD-key off the case, I know that the companies say they use this to keep track of the customer #'s and purchase stats and such But Matrix, maybe from the convienence of things like this Forum and the fact that this game is vastly available threw any type of net connection and doesn't come in a boxed CD fasion, that them asking for E-adress is part of the process of finding out who's using their stuff. I feel very grachous toward Matirx,not because of the hours of joyous challenge the game in all the versions I've sought has given or because once I found it, I was able to sift the web to get everything else I needed to continue to update at no more cost than the time to chase down the sites. I'll finish by adding that this is the only game I play that I don't feel Like my playing their product is only Indicative of the # my purchase holds on the box,Matirx made this Forum on the net for all of us to comment and criteque the product with the actual people that provided the product. I WISH, NO I dream of other game titles and companies that had a web site I could Hob-Knob with with,THEIR PEOPLE like I get to here. Most companies Horde their programers and developers as some sort of elitest golden egg, and none of them let u talk to the egg as anything but a #. RT

[kedalion]

Well I for one took the big leap... 7.1 to 8.3... things are a BIT different! I really like how the infantry looks, for one! [:)] I've only played a couple of Pacific battles so far but the only problem I noticed was on load-up. I get the menu screen alright, but when I push "Play SPWAW" or whatever the button is for play, a black screen comes up until I hit a key. I let it sit for 5 minutes once to see if anything would happen. Am I missing out on a cool intro??? I can only assume Ol' Gerdie (my aging PII 633Mhz) [8|]choked on the file/code. Anybody know whats SUPPOSED to happen?

[minefield]

Those videos are notorious for not playing correctly. It plays the SPWAW.avi and MGSSI.avi videos found in the root of your SPWAW folder. Just click and it will stop playing them. Or create a shortcut to mech.exe and place it on your desktop.

[Major Destruction]

I installed my downloaded version of 8.3 on a friend's brand new laptop which uses Microsoft NT.

Imagine my surprise when I started the game and saw all the intros as they were meant to be seen. It was a real delight. The graphics and all that are very well done. [&o] Unfortunately I am unable to see this introduction sequence on my machine. It uses the Millenium O/S.

I wish Matrix could do something for us who use earlier operating systems to allow the introductions to be viewed. Surely it is not a huge undertaking to build a patch? After all, the introduction is the showcase for Matrix and a chance to credit those who helped to create the game.

[minefield]

Just find someone in the community who is into A/V and have them convert them to another format. It shouldn't be that hard. We could upload them to this site or one of the others that supports the community. Anyone know the legal ramifications on this?

[robot]

What is the big thing about not seeing the intro. I have always used the mech exec to start the game. That is about 4 years now and i havent missed seeing it at all. I for one just dont under stand what all the talk is about. I have never had a problem trying to start the game after every update we have had. Is there really some thing great i have missed out on all these years.[X(][X(]

[KG Erwin]

I'd recommend that everyone watch the intro clip once. It can be played on Windows Media Player, and will run simply by clicking on the video in the main folder. Like most games with opening video sequences, though, once you see it, you'll use a shortcut to go to the main menu screen anyway. The video lasts 1:50.

[minefield]

The video didn't play when I had Windows 98SE installed, even when playing from the folder.

[robot]

Thanx Gunny got to see the video for the first time. Thanks for showing me the way to see it. Very good i must say. Thanks to all the guys and gals that was listed on the credits. Great Job.

[minefield]

Why is the American T95 superheavy tank available for purchase in 1946 even though only 2 prototypes were built and none ever left the States?

[kedalion]

Minefield -

I think the operative word here is "hypothetical". Part of the fun of wargames is the "what if"s, right? So this is probably the by-product of somebody's what-if wishlist, probably along the lines of "What if the Allies/USSR pounded on each other in 46?". To stand much of a chance, figure the US campaign player would want a heavy tank. I guess thats my answer for you, but I don't know. [;)]Interesting about the 2 prototypes, though.

[Krec]

what a monster, packs a wallup but not much on the movement side.
ive only used it one other time in a game and found it to be way to slow and easily smoked out of the battle. the 2 you saw in our game "were the prototypes" ......i shipped them to the front asap, [:D]

[minefield]

kedalion, hypothetical (what if) units are supposed to be placed in '49 like with the Maus.

krec, had we continued I would've had to smoke and ignore or try to assault that iron slab. I was expecting the usual arsenal so the baddest thing I had was a Tiger.

[kedalion]

indeed, yes, you are correct. But they would not be accessible for upgrading if you were playing a campaign, right? On this I am not sure

[KG Erwin]

More suggestions for individual unit edits--weapon 229 (Misc small arms), is a good addition or change for crew-served weapons of many nations. I replaced my USMC mortar and MG units' secondary armaments (formerly Thompson SMGs) with this, and added them to ATG and AA-gun crews. The sound is a mix of pistols, carbines and whatever else these guys could scrounge when they were faced with a direct attack. Once again, this won't do for PBEM players, but solo players should get a further boost of realism by adopting these changes. The round alotment should be 20 HE.

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: kedalion

indeed, yes, you are correct. But they would not be accessible for upgrading if you were playing a campaign, right? On this I am not sure

Yes, this is correct. The OOBs feature several "future" units specifically for scenario designers of post-WWII battles and hypotheticals. The time-scale for SPWaW can be extended several years pre-1930 and post-1945. If you wanna fiddle with the OOBs and create a US-USSR confrontation in 1946, then you can do so.

[Vathailos]

First off, hello all, it's been a LONG time.

Secondly, a possible solution to the "Register x 2" phenomenon. Give us the ability to real-time delete our own accounts. I too have two names on the boards here (one for the DL'd updates and old faithful here). If I could've deleted "Vathailos" and simply re-registered it I'd kill two birds w/ one stone. May not be possible with Ubb, and there's the added sorrow of your date of registry going away and number of posts, but IMO that's not a crisis.

Thirdly, comments on the 8.3 patch [;)] :

1) US OOB

* Scott 75mm has two simeltaneous appearences on the "fix/change" menu during long campaigns (as the US obviously). One of them may be bugged, as I'd eventually changed a two-arty unit into two Scotts. Problem/bug is, when I selected my arty "Bombardment" menu, only one of them was listed. It wasn't a case of 'no radio contact' or supression, it just plain wasn't there.

* The Whizbang rocket launcher tank has a range of 6, is this intended?

* One variant of jeep has a tow/carry capacity of 108, is that correct? Just find it odd that there are so many varied ones with differing capacities.

Example: Jeep .50 cal CAP=2; Jeep CAP=4; Jeep .30 cal CAP=104; Jeep CAP=105; Jeep .30 cal CAP 108.

See what I mean? All in the OOB similtaneously.

* M3 .50 cal Halftracks appear to be coded to cary the troops on the outside/unprotected. Simple rifle fire against the M3s dismounts troops w/ supression. Is this intentional?

2) GE OOB

* Halftrack and HT-variant carrying capacities are odd. Between the 251 and 250 variants there are tons of different carrying capacities. If you use a graphic for a 251-based variant with its tow hook on the rear, it should be able to tow at least a small gun (104 CAP?) like the FJ 25mm ATG. I can understand a few of the 250 variants not having tow capacity, but the 251s with a simple gun on them (ex. 251/10) have a capacity of 5 (not 105) yet they show the tow shackle on the graphic for the unit IIRC.

**will edit as soon as I remember more, same for SO OOB**



General Comments:

Love SPW@W:GE (bought both DL and physical CD, although the latter arrived blank). Very impressed, had my booty handed to my by LV on the 4th scenario (super-sized ego check there [:D]).

Thanks all for a job well-done.

[KG Erwin]

Vathailos, the two Scotts are classed differently. Unit 46 is a CS Tank (direct fire only). Unit 87 is SP Artillery (which means it can be given indirect fire missions).

As for the Whizzbang, maybe the wrong weapon was assigned. There are two 7.2 in rockets in the weapons list--one for onboard use (range 24), and the other for offboard use (range 224).

As for halftracks, I don't think it was common practice to for troops to ride mounted into combat. So, getting ambushed and having to quickly "unass" the vehicle, I'd believe that suffering suppression would be appropriate.

[Vathailos]

KG thanks for the response [:)]!

Indeed, in the Encyclopedia, one is listed as a CS-Tank and the other as Artillery. I just couldn't see a difference between the two IG once you've purchased them. The description is identical.

As for HTs, I think there's sound historical reasoning for the dismounting. I was just wondering if it was uniform, or just that way for US forces? Reason I ask is that IIRC German troops can be loaded inside a SdKfz 251 and take small arms fire without dismounting them (unless the small arms score a "top" hit or otherwise damage the vehicle). If they're riding on a tank or other AFV (hitching a ride) and it takes any hit (other than an "Ineffective Suspension" hit), they are dismounted with high (99% in many instances) supression. It appeared to be two different coding schemes however between each Nation's HTs. US troops "unassed" the M3 HT much the same way as GE troops aboard a tank (on, not inside), but GE troops inside their HTs were protected from small arms.

In some Advance missions, I pretend my troops are riding "to" the battle, and haven't arrived "in" it yet [;)]. Realistically, a movement to contact may well be a long move, and I was just hoping that whatever protection was afforded mechanized infantry by their transports was applied uniformly. If there is an historical reason for the difference in coding, I certainly understand.

Please re-check the Whiz-bang, even in the Encyclopedia, it's listed as a range of 6, think that'll need to be altered in the OOB.

I remembered one more while thumbing through the US OOB, and it's the 4.2" mortar. I think the original variant requires a crew of 12 (listed near the back in the Encyclopedia), and the later variant only requires a crew of 5. What's the difference? Fewer tubes (higher ROF w/ the original)? Better trained crew? Typo?

And since I have your very learned ear... Is it possible to add an option to turn off certain ammo types? Reason I ask is that I may want to give AT guns w/ HE ammo an order to engage armor only. And this would be a simple way to further customize our gameplay without (IMO) compromising any historical integrity.

Thanks in advance for your responses and your time.

Good gaming!

~Vath

[KG Erwin]

Vathailos, you CAN turn individual weapons off, but there is no way to choose ammo types for a particular weapon. This is controlled by the game engine, depending on the type of target (and of course, on the number of rounds still available). Sorry.