Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Base of fire, and time scales...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Base of fire, and time scales... Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/19/2006 7:44:50 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		One of the very few complaints I have with SPWaW is the lack of turns avaliable in most scenarios.

An example is found in my "Balkan Crisis" AAR. During the advance into Zenica, I was unable to secure the eastern VHes due to the lack of time in the scenario. It took much of the turns avaliable just to reach the town!

I prefer a much more thoughful, cautious approach to my assaults. I'm of the school of thought that a dead soldier can't fight anymore, and to minimize casualties as much as possible.

In that assault, I carefully set up MG positions for covering fire, as well as the Platoon HQ of my light mortars to provide observation and additional covering fire. In my southern most assault's case, I also set a smoke screen to protect my flank, and in both cases I waited with my troops until a preliminary barrage from my mortars had suppressed the enemy. I then, after using my MGs and Plt HQs to suppress every noticed enemy unit, charged full speed with the rest of my troops. Once in close quarters (within 50m), they opened fire on the pinned squads with deadly effectiveness.

As a result, I suffered far less casualties of my men than a simple "Haig's Folly" direct charge, as I timed my charges to coincide the same turn as the last mortar shells exploded. That coupled with the covering fire from my HQs and MGs kept all the enemy pinned; and meant only rare Op fires caused any casualties, with the sole exception of a far-flung Maxim HMG positioned well behind my bombardment in the cemetary.

Unfortunately, that tactic may have saved the lives of my men, but cost me a DV; as there was simply no way a non-mechanized or motorized force could advance fast enough, set up those same tactics, then continue to advance.

In every scenario I've played, the same situation occurs. Scenario designers don't seem to take into account a player wanting to optimize his men's chances to return home to their little pixellated families. I'm much more apathic about those other bastards, since I'm fighting them, and they're trying to reduce my men's chances to get home alive.

That's one reason I dislike scenarios in a way, they're always far far too short for any complicated tactics, other than "Hulk SMASH!" This is contrasting sharply with the fact that many, particularly Wild bill's have such intelligent thought placed into troop placement and composition that it absolutely requires competent tactics to succeed.

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
Post #: 1
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/19/2006 10:28:32 AM   
Gloo

 

Posts: 272
Joined: 4/4/2001
From: Chapelle-Guillaume
Status: offline 		Hi azraelck.

You have some options here: you can give up completely and only play with the battle generator; you can give a try to another approach of ths game and download WinSPWW2, which will allow you to fully customize your games (choose map, time frame and vision threshold); or you can open the scens you'd like to play, adjust the number of turns, then save and play. Frankly, if you haven't tried it already, I really think you should give WinSPWW2 a closer look, you could be happily surprised by the different approach of gameplay this version provides.
My two cents.

_____________________________

{:]]

"One ring to find them all..."

(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 2
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/19/2006 5:07:01 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Gloo,

SPWAW is fine. I prefer it over SPWW2 in almost every respect. There are reasons for a limited number of turns. There is SUPPOSED to be time pressure. Consider when the VHexes are points-per-turn for example.

My belief is that the standard 30-39 turns that each SPWAW Long Campaign battle gives you is actually too long and favors the human player too much. Giving yourself more time by manually going into the editor and changing the game length is very cheesy in my opinion.

_____________________________


(in reply to Gloo)
Post #: 3
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/19/2006 7:14:54 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

SPWAW is fine. I prefer it over SPWW2 in almost every respect. There are reasons for a limited number of turns. There is SUPPOSED to be time pressure. Consider when the VHexes are points-per-turn for example.

My belief is that the standard 30-39 turns that each SPWAW Long Campaign battle gives you is actually too long and favors the human player too much. Giving yourself more time by manually going into the editor and changing the game length is very cheesy in my opinion.


I don't find time to be that much of a factor, except in assaults with PPT victory hexes. In those scenarios, time can become a ridiculous factor. Trying to break through 2-3 hex belt of mines and capture all of the PPT victory hexes quickly enough to get something better than a draw is extremely difficult at best and most often impossible. I've had some scenarios where it is impossible because snow gets tossed in, slowing everything down and strangely, engineers aren't available. In general, I keep engineers in my core now because I have learned the hard way the buy-list engineers tend to be on leave when I need them. And then, just for S&Gs, toss in 2-3 battalions of enemy infantry in defensive positions with supporting armor, field fortifications and all the artillery ever made, makes getting more than a draw very difficult in game lengths less than 30 turns.

The biggest problem is the definition of a draw in SPWaW. I believe you generally need a 3:1 point ratio to get better than a draw. That means to achieve that ratio in the PPT hexes for a 30 turn scenario; you need to get them all 8 turns or less. The only way that's going to happen is if the mine field is penetrated in multiple locations at the same time. Really difficult if you don't have many engineers. It takes a platoon of engineers (3 squads) 1-2 turns to clear one hex, so it can take anywhere from 2-6 turns to clear a single hex path through the minefield. A good portion of those 8 turns can be consumed just getting through the minefield. The only thing that makes life easier is the AI doesn't lob artillery into the smoke covering my engineers while they work. Sometimes I luck out and the PPT hexes end up only being worth 5pts. Then, it's possible to pound enough enemy units that the PPT hexes don't matter that much. As I said, it is luck, however because you don't know if they are even PPT hexes, much less how much they are worth until you get to the deploy screen.

< Message edited by RERomine -- 10/19/2006 7:19:16 PM >

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 4
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/20/2006 7:38:33 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		RERomine,

Nothing wrong with a Draw under the conditions you described (PPT vhexes and snow).

Just ask Patton during his assaults around Metz in late 1944.

As long as I can keep my core from suffering horribly, then sometimes Draws are okay.

In a long campaign of 40-50 battles, it's not unrealistic to get a draw or two. Most of my long campaigns have around 25 decisive and 15 marginal and a couple draws. I can live with that.

_____________________________


(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 5
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/20/2006 8:50:31 PM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline 		Nothing to do but accept the draw, but the overall point was to show there are instances where there isn't enough time to get a victory.

(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 6
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/20/2006 9:20:06 PM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		My point is that there is rarely, if ever, enough time to use suitable tactics to keep casualties to a minimum. This goes mostly for user-made campaigns and Scenarios. During a long campaign, the ever increasing strength of the core, coupled with the AI's lack of intelligent deployment, means that there isn't as much a problem. The size of the core also helps to alleviate some of the issues. Victory is secondary, I'll settle for a draw, so long as I still have a combat-effective force, and the enemy does not. Holding a lone position or two doesn't mean a thing if your still forced to pull out due to a lack of troops, and are facing nearly the same force that you started the battle with.

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 7
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/21/2006 6:28:52 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck

My point is that there is rarely, if ever, enough time to use suitable tactics to keep casualties to a minimum. This goes mostly for user-made campaigns and Scenarios. During a long campaign, the ever increasing strength of the core, coupled with the AI's lack of intelligent deployment, means that there isn't as much a problem. The size of the core also helps to alleviate some of the issues. Victory is secondary, I'll settle for a draw, so long as I still have a combat-effective force, and the enemy does not. Holding a lone position or two doesn't mean a thing if your still forced to pull out due to a lack of troops, and are facing nearly the same force that you started the battle with.


In that I agree. Losing some units is a fact of life during a battle, but that doesn't bother me as much as losing the surviving crews. I go out of my way to move my core survivors out of harms way because I don't want to lose their experience. Heavy core casualties don't bother me as much as long as I can save the crews. I have enough replacement/refit points to replace the hardware, but crew experience is obtained the hard way. Generally, I consider a 10 to 1 kill ratio to be a good game, no matter what the overall outcome is.

Be glad the AI doesn't use intelligent deployment because with the numbers it fields, a sound defense or offense would make it next to impossible to deal with. I've had some battles where the AI has lost 100 tanks and over 1,500 men. Only in my dreams would my core be that size. But the predictability of the AI means I can usually use the same general tactics every single time. In an assault and advance, it's punch a hole through the enemy line near a map edge, push to the enemy rear and take the objectives from behind. That keeps me from having to deal with the massed humanity in more than one location that the AI always puts on the front line. In a defense, I try to use a mobile approach with my armor because the AI will use it's artillery to blasted my fortifications into dust if I set in one spot. I use the same general concept with a delay, but AI artillery is less of a concern. The most entertaining scenarios are the meeting engagements because it's a blend of everything. I'll usually perform a holding action in the middle while some armor units maneuver around a flank into the AI rear with the initial objective of taking out the artillery. Then I just tighten the loop and meet in the middle. Unfortunately, it's the same thing over and over again. The same tactics work every time. Things only get dicey when the AI gets a temporary technilogical advantage.

(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 8
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/22/2006 4:54:19 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		True. Though I've found that superior tactics can make up for a numerical disadvantage, or a technological disadvantage. Have to deal with both, and even excellent tactics is hard pressed to make a dent.

It's just me, but I prefer to keep my core intact. I find it hard to disassociate myself from my little pixellated men; and think of them like they are real. Sherman tank drivers become my cousin, who drove a M1A2 Abrams until being discharged to become an Officer. Infantry include my grandfather, who fought in both Vietnam and Korea, my uncle, who fought in Vietnam as well. Naval crew in amphibious operations include my dad, and other uncle.  One of those little pixel marines is my great uncle, who was lost and presumned dead in the Phillipines when they fell, only to resurface when the island he was on was retaken. When taken in that light, my primary goal beyond the achievement of the objectives is taking the minimum of casualties.


_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 9
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/22/2006 10:34:21 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		I have much the same attitude that AZ has,and believe that there are enough undeterminables in this game to threaten your core,without exposing them to poor tactics and utilization. And" figure in" the fact that their is almost always partisans and allied factions that would be opperating in the enemies occupied "backyard" that would hold a negitive attitude toward their conquerers views and intents that I could easily convince to fight for me to oust their oppressers. I sortta consider ALL the diversity of the support I choose as to ressembling that areas "home guard" or covert resistance movement to sequester assistance from in the combat that seems to have moved into their local opperating municipalities.

(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 10
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 12:25:28 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Guys, the basics of SPWaW play are based on sound tactics and understanding the capabilities of your forces. 

Playing against the AI is a training exercise.  While I love the long campaigns, the script only varies slightly. 

I worked with some of the previous OOB Teams to maximize the play potential vs the Japanese.  They are tough SOBs, and we worked on their AI force selections to maximize their capabilities.

With the enhanced version, this was expanded to give every nation a reasonable choice of AI selections. 

The basic idea, IMHO, was to give historical players (vahauser's category 1s), a base point for constructing reasonably accurate historical forces.   I think the guys did a pretty good job of this.

So, a solo player can have a good time with the game and be assured that the OOB teams did a hell of a lot of research.

The "historical, or standardized" national ratings are abstracted, yes, but the numbers are based on historical results and expected outcomes, NOT on whether one nation's troops were necessarily better than another's. This point is  misunderstood. 

Thus, all things being equal, the Allies will perform better than the Axis, pure and simple, in order to achieve an expected  historical result. 

I can't explain it any simpler than that.     

For PBEM, it's a completely different story.   The game settings allow for equal experience/morale levels , so you guys have absolutely nothing to complain about.    The "fair and balanced" playing field is right there for you. 

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 10/23/2006 12:34:09 AM >

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 11
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 12:47:26 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		As for azraelck's orginal post, the time limits on the scenarios were set by the designers.    If you wanna criticize Bill Wilder for one of his designs, go right ahead.  The man is a gentleman, and constructive criticism is good. 

Most timed scenarios are not meant to be easy.   As a matter of fact, in a few scenarios, you aren't MEANT to win.  Your best hope is to minimize the level of your defeat. 

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 12
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 1:15:29 AM   
junk2drive


Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline 		Read it again

quote:

  This is contrasting sharply with the fact that many, particularly Wild bill's have such intelligent thought placed into troop placement and composition that it absolutely requires competent tactics to succeed.



(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 13
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 2:12:02 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline 		My comments certainly weren't oriented towards anything other than system generated scenarios. In fact, I think the general thread shifted to discussion of such system generated scenarios.

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 14
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 2:31:47 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck

It's just me, but I prefer to keep my core intact. I find it hard to disassociate myself from my little pixellated men; and think of them like they are real. Sherman tank drivers become my cousin, who drove a M1A2 Abrams until being discharged to become an Officer. Infantry include my grandfather, who fought in both Vietnam and Korea, my uncle, who fought in Vietnam as well. Naval crew in amphibious operations include my dad, and other uncle.  One of those little pixel marines is my great uncle, who was lost and presumned dead in the Phillipines when they fell, only to resurface when the island he was on was retaken. When taken in that light, my primary goal beyond the achievement of the objectives is taking the minimum of casualties.




I don't think I go that far. My perspective is more mercenary in the fact that losing an entire unit loses the experience of the unit. In my last scenario, I lost three tanks but was able to save two of the crews. The lost crew was too suppressed by the artillery that killed their tank to board anything. They were subsequently killed the next turn by same artillery.

I do take a more personal view of the head quarters unit. They stay out of harms way the whole time, but that doesn't help during defend missions. Since I've been keeping track, they have been hit by prep artillery 75% of the time even through they are always located nowhere special. I keep them away from objectives, off of hills and out of sight, but the AI obviously manages to find them. At least it never hits them again after the prep fire. I use to put HQ in a tank, but decided 10 men are more difficult to kill than 4 in a tank.

(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 15
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 2:58:44 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Notice how certain posters take the tact that any discussion that brings up precieved deficiences or flaws or are disliked for some reason are a "personal" attack on the designer of the game? Followed by the admonishment not to be so rude and evil as to complain about said designer.

These people always turn a discussion from mechanics into a personal attack, when in fact no such thing occurred or was meant or infered. Maybe these people would like to give us a list of sancrosant things to note percieved problems in.

(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 16
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 4:20:49 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Guys, the basics of SPWaW play are based on sound tactics and understanding the capabilities of your forces.

Playing against the AI is a training exercise. While I love the long campaigns, the script only varies slightly.

I worked with some of the previous OOB Teams to maximize the play potential vs the Japanese. They are tough SOBs, and we worked on their AI force selections to maximize their capabilities.

With the enhanced version, this was expanded to give every nation a reasonable choice of AI selections.

The basic idea, IMHO, was to give historical players (vahauser's category 1s), a base point for constructing reasonably accurate historical forces. I think the guys did a pretty good job of this.

So, a solo player can have a good time with the game and be assured that the OOB teams did a hell of a lot of research.

The "historical, or standardized" national ratings are abstracted, yes, but the numbers are based on historical results and expected outcomes, NOT on whether one nation's troops were necessarily better than another's. This point is misunderstood.

Thus, all things being equal, the Allies will perform better than the Axis, pure and simple, in order to achieve an expected historical result.

I can't explain it any simpler than that.

For PBEM, it's a completely different story. The game settings allow for equal experience/morale levels , so you guys have absolutely nothing to complain about. The "fair and balanced" playing field is right there for you.


This post has a good argument, Gunny, if it was on something that was being argued. I'm not arguing the balance of PBEM (which I don't engage in at any rate, as you well know). I am also not even concerned about the Enhanced mod. This applies to any scenario or campaign designed. Regardless if it's Enh, vanilla, HtH, or whathaveyou. It is also not about troop quality, or the historical accuracy of the historical settings. It's simply about insufficient time to conduct operations using decent tactics in relation to the engine's limitations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
As for azraelck's orginal post, the time limits on the scenarios were set by the designers. If you wanna criticize Bill Wilder for one of his designs, go right ahead. The man is a gentleman, and constructive criticism is good.

Most timed scenarios are not meant to be easy. As a matter of fact, in a few scenarios, you aren't MEANT to win. Your best hope is to minimize the level of your defeat.




No where in any of my posts have I insulted one of the designers. Reread my posts, if you would, and see what I said. The scenarios themselves are (at least all the ones I've played) of very high quality, well detailed and with well thought out positions. I noted that. It's the utter lack of time to complete the objectives as was the original post. Realistically, very few missions, none of which are portrayed in SPWaW well (or at all) would require such limited time frames. 10 turns is anywhere from 20mins to 50mins in length, from what I can ascertain. If it was a rescue mission, into a POW camp, or a strike and withdrawl, I can see it. Both instances have the commander extracating his troops as soon as the main objectives are completed. A straight out assault on a town, held by an unknown enemy force, and with only a limited number of troops to make the assault, would be carefully planned, with contengincies, and they would be expected to both take and hold that town. The battle over Zenica could have been drawn out, involving an almost immediate Yugoslavian counter attack after say 15 turns. This would give you just enough time to secure the town if your good, and maybe set up a defensive perimeter and begin preparing to defend against the counter attack. I would have been hard pressed to not only take the town, but defend it almost immediately in my campaign. IIRC, the turn length was only 15 turns. Moving my infantry full speed as much as possible, only waiting to make sure they wouldn't get utterly destroyed when they charged the VH's and to let my mortars supress enemy positions. 20 turns would have netted me the whole town. It took 7 to reach the town, with my troops as far forward as I couple place them in deployment.

There is no reason that insufficient time has to be used to create difficult scenarios for the players. Many scenarios are quite hard as it is. And in a couple campaigns, I can point out scenarios where a longer time limit would have made for an even greater challenge. This is regardless of design intent.


_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 17
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 4:27:24 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Notice how certain posters take the tact that any discussion that brings up precieved deficiences or flaws or are disliked for some reason are a "personal" attack on the designer of the game? Followed by the admonishment not to be so rude and evil as to complain about said designer.

These people always turn a discussion from mechanics into a personal attack, when in fact no such thing occurred or was meant or infered. Maybe these people would like to give us a list of sancrosant things to note percieved problems in.


I don't think Gunny meant anything ill, Twotribes. Rather, trying to forestall another "Haig Incident". He should know by my posts, I have little tact and a short temper, but I'm not going to go out of my way to stary something. There are no TBTs floating around here right now. No need to get on his case.

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 18
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 4:36:16 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I don't think I go that far. My perspective is more mercenary in the fact that losing an entire unit loses the experience of the unit. In my last scenario, I lost three tanks but was able to save two of the crews. The lost crew was too suppressed by the artillery that killed their tank to board anything. They were subsequently killed the next turn by same artillery.

I do take a more personal view of the head quarters unit. They stay out of harms way the whole time, but that doesn't help during defend missions. Since I've been keeping track, they have been hit by prep artillery 75% of the time even through they are always located nowhere special. I keep them away from objectives, off of hills and out of sight, but the AI obviously manages to find them. At least it never hits them again after the prep fire. I use to put HQ in a tank, but decided 10 men are more difficult to kill than 4 in a tank.


IMO, the only advantage to having an HQ in a tank is the added mobility, moving to give morale support to whatever troops are most heaviliy suppressed. Prior to 8.043, I just loaded them on the heaviest tank I had, and held them in reserve. Now I usually keep them with my field artillery. It depends though, I've sent them straight into the front lines, fighting right along side the men.

I quit playing defends on a Long/Generated campaign, due to the lack of challenge. So I have no idea of the effectiveness of prep barrages in those instances. In Scenarios, it's usually plotted quit effectively. :P Too effective for comfort!

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 19
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 7:56:24 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Notice how certain posters take the tact that any discussion that brings up precieved deficiences or flaws or are disliked for some reason are a "personal" attack on the designer of the game? Followed by the admonishment not to be so rude and evil as to complain about said designer.

These people always turn a discussion from mechanics into a personal attack, when in fact no such thing occurred or was meant or infered. Maybe these people would like to give us a list of sancrosant things to note percieved problems in.


Huh? What did you add to the discussion of game mechanics or scenario design with that response?

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 20
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 9:52:13 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		I can ask you the same question. What did you add to the discussion by implying that the complaint was nothing more than a personal attack on the person that designed the scenario?

As for me adding anything, I seldom play scenarios and part of that is because of time limits. I play the campaign game. Time is a problem there sometimes too. I personally like the way SPWW2 lets you change the time and allows you to establish the size of the map.

Just because someone questions the mechanics of a scenario does not mean they are trying to disparge the person that designed the thing. I agree that sometimes how and what is posted can be an offhand or direct attack on someones work. But I have noticed you tend to assume that even when it is patently clear no such thing has occurred ( or your trying to discourge further discussion by making people feel that doing so IS an attack of some kind)

I do agree that time constraints are or seem to be used a lot to make scenarios artificially more "challanging" and I have read on this board where some people that design scenarios explicately state that was their intent. Noting here that one has a problem with that approach and why, in civil and appropriate manner, is what this board is ALL about.

Noting a disagreement with that approach is NOT in and of itself an attack on the designers that use that approach. It is simply a means to let them know some people dont enjoy that approach. And in this case the poster is very specific WHY he dislikes short time frames in his battles.

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 21
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 10:19:28 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck

IMO, the only advantage to having an HQ in a tank is the added mobility, moving to give morale support to whatever troops are most heaviliy suppressed. Prior to 8.043, I just loaded them on the heaviest tank I had, and held them in reserve. Now I usually keep them with my field artillery. It depends though, I've sent them straight into the front lines, fighting right along side the men.

I quit playing defends on a Long/Generated campaign, due to the lack of challenge. So I have no idea of the effectiveness of prep barrages in those instances. In Scenarios, it's usually plotted quit effectively. :P Too effective for comfort!


I use to put the A0 unit in a tank and send it to the front as well, but ended up stopping that practice. While I could keep it away from anything really dangerous, it was the occasional air attack that would end up getting it. Now I keep it in the rear with the arty as well, because the AI has no concept of counter-battery fire.

As far as the campaign generated scenarios, most of them are easy, even assaults with the exception of the earlier mentioned PPT hex scenarios. With the except of the current assault I'm fighting, the earlier assaults I completed generally in 12-14 turns. Oddly enough, my current assault has entrenched infantry with mines to the rear. It's taking a lot longer than normal to get through.

(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 22
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/23/2006 7:56:52 PM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		Heu RERomine check out the screenshots I just put into AAR's/DAR's Flashfyre thread. same conjungulation of mines entrenchments and WORSE caves!!

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 23
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/24/2006 3:08:41 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		I love how this has changed into two seperate threads. :P I'm guilty though, and I care even less, except that one of the threads is completely unneccessary, based only on a misunderstanding. Let that one die.

I'm usually very lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view) in that I'm almost always fighting with a weather "advantage". So the AI usually doesn't send any little toy Stukas or lame ducks after me. Of course, that means I can't send any of my own little toys after them either. In any case, it's a rare instance that I have to fight off enemy aircraft, and even rarer that they do anything to my HQ. Most often when I see them, they cut a hole in their own lines!

I may go back to changing my AO to a tank, maybe a "Captured" Tiger or something. I was planning on a "French" Armoured long game in the near-or-far future.

The Generated battles are easy, though I'll stretch them out a bit more. I'll end a typical battle at turns 20-25. I've had a few, pre Enhanced, that ended within the first 5 turns. Shortest was my last Defense, a 3 turn horror with me as the British. If the Germans had preformed this horridly in real life, then there wouldn't have been a need for Dunkirk.


_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 24
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/24/2006 6:35:58 AM   
RERomine

 

Posts: 280
Joined: 7/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Riun T

Heu RERomine check out the screenshots I just put into AAR's/DAR's Flashfyre thread. same conjungulation of mines entrenchments and WORSE caves!!


I checked them out. Looks like an ugly situation. I'll have to play some more Pacific Theater campaigns, but I tend to like armor. Tank battles between the Marines and Japanese are pretty much nonexistant, so I stay in Europe. Plus, playing against the Japanese is a stone cold b***h

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 25
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/24/2006 8:10:21 AM   
Riun T

 

Posts: 1848
Joined: 7/31/2004
Status: offline 		A few tanks showed up on battles 5 and 7 but the majority of the action has been against hoards of BANZAI charging infantry,with way more HMG's and knee mortar crews keeping pace with their snipers and tank hunter squads than I think would be possible in the terrain,AND THE TIME given for the battle. and I don't believe the AI is suffering the same delay and lack of orders that I am for calling any of its on or off board Artillery??
ALSO wanted to know if anyone else thought it was weird for the japanese units that are entrenched,and dug in amungest bunkers and pillboxes SEEM to be getting all the armour and lessend hit chance bonuses.?? its as if they aren't having to leave their foxholes to "BANZAI" my approaching forces, and have extremely sucessful tank assault %ages.?with no OP fire chance for the assualted unit even if that unit still has shots left to expend on that turn?
My showing referance to the FLASH challenge is to show the difficulties of campaign time restraint with upgrading your core,{ TIME SCALES} and the irregularity that we can garintee threw the battles to consistantly KILL the enemy HQ{ taking their experience base away}and change their base of fire with the new tactics the replacement junior HQ will have to adopt. AZ your starting to sound TOO picky??? MAKE your tactics fit the time!!

(in reply to RERomine)
Post #: 26
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/24/2006 8:39:58 AM   
azraelck

 

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline 		If I didn't take the couple of turns to allow my artillery to hit enemy positions, and went ahead and charged, I would suffer needless suppression, and possibly end up not being able to take my objectives at all, rather than simply lacking the time to take all of them. The main battle I keep referencing took 7 turns moving full speed to get to a point where I could set up. Two turns to set up and bring mortar fire down, and to begin my charge isn't much compared to so much time wasted walking, and dealing with two snipers. That leaves me with little time to cross just as much ground, fighting the entire way, as it took me moving full speed unsuppressed in 7 turns. In fact, it left me with exactly 6 turns from the bombardment of the first enemy positions to the end of the game. It took another turn, moving full speed, to close to the town itself. 5 turns. (Up North, all objectives were achieved. They took the graveyard, and then cut south and took the railyard). 5 turns to fight across a town, even using piss poor tactics, is impossible. Only without enemy interferance could I have taken that town in 15 turns, and it would have taken the bulk of the time to reach the VHs. With an understrength company, backed by a couple MGs and a handful of light mortars, and one lone armored car, no. Points were slim in that one as well, though I could have cone with calvary, and used Kubel's to move my mortars and MGs, and brought along some more Inf AT as well. The Kubels could have even helped supplement the MGs.

Within the limitations of the game, there is no way to adjust my tactics. It is either take my time, and achieve partial success, or rush headlong, and end the campaign early in a bloody and worthless manner. Since there's no time to take, that means I have to deliberately act stupid in order to do anything, and then rely on sheer luck that I'll have a core capable of being rebuilt after the 4th or 5th battle. I don't believe in luck, and I don't believe in relying on it in place of solid tactics that leave the enemy incapable of fighting back, and leave me with an experienced, healthy core to fight the next battle with.    

Remember, this is not in a Long campaign, which I never said was a problem. 32-35 turns usually is plenty in those cases. When your maps just as long (not as deep), and you have 15 turns to fight across the same distances, it's somewhat different.


_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to Riun T)
Post #: 27
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/24/2006 9:15:49 AM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline 		If you look at history, it is the mechanized forces that are doing most of the advancing and assaulting.

And in the less-common cases where infantry is doing the assaulting (such as in jungle or mountainous terrain), the historical result is always heavy casualties. Always. And quite often, infantry assaults ended in failure to achieve the required objectives within the time allotted for the attack. The history books are filled with examples of failed infantry assaults due to not enough time and/or too many casualties. (Peleliu was supposed to be taken in days not weeks, Monte Cassino, Seigfried Line, Stalingrad, and so on and so on. In all these cases, the objectives were not attained in the time allotted and the casualties were extremely heavy.)

So if a player is advancing/assaulting with non-motorized (or non-mechanized) infantry forces, then I claim that that player should not be surprised at:
1. Not enough time.
2. Heavy casualties.

So if a player builds a non-motorized (or non-mechanized) infantry core, and if that player then runs into serious time problems and serious casualty problems in advance/assault battles, then I claim that the game is producing a correct historical outcome for these situations.


_____________________________


(in reply to azraelck)
Post #: 28
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/24/2006 10:32:32 PM   
FlashfyreSP


Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline 		As a designer, I will have to admit to being guilty of both 1) consciously using the 'limited time frame' approach in some of my scenarios, and 2) inadvertently failing to allot the appropriate length of time to some of them. In the first case, I make no apology; playtesting many times indicates that the initial turn length is too great, and so I cut it down. If my playtesters don't use the same 'game tactics' as other players, then their results will skew the design. In the second case, I will apologize for not conducting more strenuous playtesting to determine the turn length, and will continue to strive for more complete testing.

 

_____________________________


(in reply to vahauser)
Post #: 29
RE: Base of fire, and time scales... - 10/25/2006 1:39:19 AM   
Fradar

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Frolois, France
Status: offline 		I support what Flash says.
I am also a designer myself and I think that time pressure must be reflected.
As a commander in your own sector you have to do things in a set time frame before other forces on the same front are committed and have to move as soon as you have achieved your objective.
I also always start with too many turns sone time not enough and after I have played time and time again the scenario I get a feel of what the number of turns should be. Only then I check how long the battle lasted in reality and in most cases it is rather accurate.
I will give you 2 examples:
- I designed an Eben-Emael scenario that is still available at the Wargamer. I Started with 10 turns and it did not work. Then tried 5 turns and played it probably 50 times. It still did not work until I decided to reduce it to 3 turns. It worked on the first test and it corresponds exactly to the time needed by the Germans to achieve their mission.
- I did the same with another scenario available at the Wargamer about Mussolini being delivered by Skorzeny at the Gran Sasso Hotel. 

In reality you do not have on the field all the time to check every possible approach.
I did 2 scenarios for the Depot Academy with also a limited time: an armour and an infantry scenario.
Many players felt the same way that the scenarios were too short but after some trials they found out that it was not only fun but that these scenarios were winnable.
You always have to trade time against casualties.
Personnaly as a gamer I would complain that too many scenarios have way too many turns.
My 2 Euro cents.
Francois

< Message edited by Fradar -- 10/25/2006 1:45:04 AM >

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Base of fire, and time scales... Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.813