Wallymanowar
Posts: 651
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Vernon, B.C., Canada
Status: offline
|
Hi Everyone,
First of all I'd like to say that I've been away for four months and during that time a lot of significant things have happened in the Steel Panthers World.
First of all SPWAW has arrived, in all its versions up to 2.3. Second, SP2WW2 has been updated to version 3. While to most of you this will seem like very little has transpired, to me, my favourite tactical game involving WW2 has undergone several major revisions.
Before I left on my trip, SPWAW was just about to be released to the public in version 1. SP2WW2 had been released in version 2 and was awaiting revision to version 3. I was eagerly wainting for both (mainly because of the offer of the long campaign for both).
When I returned, SPWAW was in version 2.3, awaiting version 3 and SP2WW2 had been released in version 3.
Now, being the SP fanatic that I am, I downloaded both updated versions of my penultimate game. Now, you are about to receive my opinions on both (tremble all ye mortals  ).
First, SP2WW2 - wonderful game, terrible graphics compared to SPWAW. Not making use of the improved 800x600 graphics detracts from the game. The physics of shots is wonderful and both games deserve a lot of praise for their adaptation of the realistic affects (and effects). SP2WW2 falls short on their treatment of the long campaign IMO. While their inclusion of countries such as Italy and Canada is aplaudable, their exclusion of the Pacific is inexcusable. Their treatment of the OOBs is IMO a lot more accurate and should be taken as an advantage.
Next, SPWAW - the breakdown of the OOB's is inexcusable - for the research that you people (and other's WRT SP) have done some of the OOB's are simply out of whack - so many inconsistancies are apparent that it would take me another post just to list them. Just take the OOB's from SP2WW2 and compare them, at least those are closer to historically accurate.
Another thing, include national ranks. Having my units led by commanders who are ranked according to their American equivalents is insulting to say the least, especially since other versions of SP had the decency to give them an equivalent national rank. While SP2WW2's tendency to give the unit's in the national flavour is a bit disconcerting (to me at least), at least they give some bit of national flavour to their units.
Next, some treatment of the aspects that have received a lot of attention WRT both games.
Fortifications - Wild Bill is right, don't make them indestructible. But on the other hand don't make them useless. A good commander will bypass the strongpoints that he can't overcome and destroy the strongpoints that he can't bypass. The Americans had a good strategy for reducing strongpoints that they called the corkscrew - use a tank's gunfire to supress the SP and advance a unit (engineer) with a Demo charge or a Flamethrower in order to close assault it and destroy it. This was a strategy born of necessity, not because the game mechanics made it impossible to destroy the strongpoint (just some points to consider).
Next - Artillery - I get the distinct impresssion that some of you have developed the false impression that artillery was controlled effectively as it was during the Vietnam War. Let's get this out of your heads. Artillery support was (and is) controlled by the unit's contact with the artillery support unit. Back in the bad old days of WW2 this meant one of three methods - Direct contact (ie. runners), Radio contact (iffy at best - I'll explain), and telephone contact.
Starting backwards, I'm going to explain the problems with each.
Telephone contact - In order to have telephone contact with a supporting artillery, the unit has had to have a relatively un-affected LOC (Line of Commmunications) with their supporting artillery unit. This sort of scenario is consistant with a unit which is conducting a static defence of a position or is conducting an assault on a position which the unit has been able to set up advance communications with its supporting artillery. This involves having a secure land-line from the unit to its supporting artillery.
Radio Contact - During WW2 wireless communication for most combatants was problematic at best. First of all the wireless unit (radio) communication was spotty (ie. sometimes you got it sometimes you didn't) at best. For example, having the wrong crystals in their wireless prevented the British Airborne units at Arnhem from contacting their units for at least 24 hrs (a very critical time). I think that ASL gets the closest approximation of the use of wireless with their radio communication rules.
Next, Radio communication was most likely between an artillery unit and someone directly attached to that unit (ie. an FO or a NGO, or for that matter (WRT airstrikes) an AO).
The final consideration is direct contact - units were most likely to be able to direct the indirect fire of supporting artillery units if they were in direct contact with the firing unit. In most cases this occured with supporting Mortar units and this accounts for the reports of Allied units about the effectiveness of German Mortar, since the German Mortar units were more directly controlled by the local units (this also accounts for the Allied support for the 50 and 60mm Mortar units than can really be justified).
IMO With the exception of Mortar units, artillery support should not be allowed to units unless they are engaged in assaults, or defence against assaults for the majority of situations. For those exceptions, Artillery support should only be supplied to units which have a FO or NGO and only be controlled by the FO or NGO.
For that matter, Air strikes, unless they are part of a pre-bombardment strike, should not be allowed unless the player has an AO able to direct the planes.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
------------------
'Bitter Mike'
_____________________________
I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
Yogi Berra
|
Printable Version
Things to Like, Thing to Dislike. - 
- 
- 
- 
However, in light of Wild Bill and Paul's rich explanations, this discussion proved extremely enlightening to me - maybe Mike, too.
Incidentally, Wild Bill, I believe we can read by a sort of devilishly cloaked indirect inference that Mike definitely likes the 800X600 display 
. . . but you're right, I think if Mike had inserted all the cool things he likes about SPWAW he would have had to hire a short novel editor to produce it here for us, yes? 
- 
I wanna be on the Hawaii staff! I want free coffee...WB
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread