SPWAW and its limits (LOOOOONG POST)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

SPWAW and its limits (LOOOOONG POST)

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 >> SPWAW and its limits (LOOOOONG POST)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

SPWAW and its limits (LOOOOONG POST) - 11/26/2000 4:39:00 AM

G. K. Zhukov

Posts: 76
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

I know this thread is going to make things stir a little bit, but anyway here I go. First of all, let me say that SPWAW is a great tactical game, far better than the original SP, and I have no doubts that it will grow better with the support of this wonderful community. I love SPAW and will keep on playing it - inside its limits. Let's face it - SPWAW has its limitations. Due to its concept and MOB structure, it only allows a three-tier command ladder: unit in overall command (A0; a battalion battlegroup headquarters unit), maneuvre units (companies) and lesser units (platoons, with the occasional section or even individual unit). You could perhaps add a second, off-board battalion of artillery, in a non-subordinate but cooperative support role. These assets allow you to play wonderful small tactical battles. We all love the flavour of engagements where an oblique shot bounces off the turret of your No. 4 tank, which in turn blows its opponent to bits by a hair's breadth. Makes you sit on the edge of your chair on the verge of heart collapse. However, I think many of us are overstretching the capabilities of this wonderful game. We are seeing increasing numbers of huge scenarios played on very large maps, using several battalions per side, with an enormous number of units per side. The game sure turns into a crawling series of very loooong turns moving scores of tanks and squads, with terrible artillery barrages and unending strafing runs by mighty air squadrons. Back in the old days of board- and tabletop wargaming, people often used very tactical games (one model tank or counter = 1 real tank) to portray brigade-sized actions and above. Usually those evening- and night-long sessions degenerated in massive firefights (representing only a few real minutes) in which both forces became irreparably wrecked. Not a very realistic result... The answer, some thought, was in the way other periods of history were wargamed. Whether you represented an Ancient or a Napoleonic battle on the tabletop, you didn't use legions of 5,000 model legionnaires nor battalions of 500 model fusiliers. You scaled things down to 1 model soldier=30, 50, 60 or 100 real soldiers. That way you were able to refight Cannae or even Leipzig. Why should it be different for 20th wargaming? If I want to fight Operation Battleaxe, Market Garden or even the Crossing of the Suez Canal by IDF, and want to use the real force levels (not just to portray a "representative engagement"), I should be able to avoid the pain of moving hundreds of tanks and squads every turn and going down to a detail level absolutely improper of the scale. I am a corps/division/brigade commander, and, honestly, I don't care if tank #3 in 2nd Battalion's Third Company has thrown a track... I want to know that 2nd battalion has now 49 instead of 50 battleworthy tanks. Some people say "go to the operative level". But that is going up too much. For me, an operative game (like TOAW) usually uses battalion-sized individual units and above, and combat is decided when units from different sides are in physical contact (in adjacent hexes, so to speak). At this scale, the tactical flavor of a game is no longer there. Operation Battleaxe, for instance, becomes a very very small scenario hardly worth playing. There must be something in the middle. A game using platoon-sized (perhaps even company-sized) units. At this scale the tactical flavor is still retained: you can tell the difference between a platoon of Panthers and a platoon of PzKpfw IVF-2s in terms of armor, firepower and mobility. You can also direct fire at a distance of several hexes (thus giving those 88's the ability of destroying Matildas at long range before the Brits can bring their MG's to bear). SSI had just the game that did the job: Steel Panthers 3 Brigade Command. Interestingly enough, the people at Matrix based SPWAW on the SP3 engine, what makes me think that the engine wasn't that bad (especially about the command control issue, off-board artillery, and - of course - the higher scale enabling you to field a brigade force with little in the way of headaches). SP3 is still played by a good number of people, but it needs refurbishing to take it to the next generation (make it a Windows program, allow a better representation of infantry, updated artillery, perhaps a little more detail on vehicle units - but not so much). Besides, SP3 could benefit from a realistic multi-player campaign generation system (to be created from scratch or based on existing operational games). Let's see: a group of players set up a strategic scenario with several brigades per side. Command of those sub-units is assigned to several players, who report to a player in overall command of that side. The overall commanders from both sides issue orders and move the units across the strategic/operational map. The game engine takes care of any contacts made (as well of any engineering, supply, etc.) and identifies the battles that happen... and have to be fought in SP3. This engine then allows players in command of the brigades engaged to set up their forces on a randomly generated or predesigned SP3 (tactical) map and designates which additional forces will arrive and in which turn they will do it. Note that this strategic/operational engine could be appealing to those of you who despise SP3 and stick to SPWAW even for brigade-sized actions. Just downscale it one level (brigades become battalions) and presto! I know this thread should perhaps have been posted under the "General Discussion" forum (I already gave some hints there some weeks ago), but, as I told you at the beginning of this message, I feel the wonderful SPWAW should be used properly within its bounds and wanted to make my voice heard amongst the community of tactical wargamers. OK, start firing, comrades!

_____________________________

La Dacha de G. K. Zhukov

Post #: 1

- 11/26/2000 5:28:00 AM

Schrubbery

Posts: 41
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

I just don't see what is so great about moving platoons around. There already are SP3 and Campaign series. I personally keep back from them. Partly because it's to me such a strange scale. When I play SP, I really don't move platoons as a single front all the time, and then turn them into a new direction in a snap of fingers. I might send one squad to do reconnaissance and support with the others, for example. Also, in SP3 and CS the graphics don't show the reality. Sometimes when I play West Front, I forget that while I see that I have one tank, it's actually a whole platoon. I think NATO symbols would work much better at platoon level. And that would loose the catch of squad-level games: in SPWAW you have a very intimate relationship to the action and the troops; your KV-1 might have lost one man, the gun could have malfunctioned and you would be very worried whether it survives. Partly because the geographic scale makes tactics so limited. If for example a hex is 250 metres (CS), then molotovs and satchels have the same range as Bazookas and Schrecks. The same goes with SMG's and flamethrowers. At platoon level many weapons just don't work.

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 2

- 11/26/2000 5:59:00 AM

G. K. Zhukov

Posts: 76
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Schrubbery: When I play SP, I really don't move platoons as a single front all the time, and then turn them into a new direction in a snap of fingers. I might send one squad to do reconnaissance and support with the others, for example

If you are in a big brigade-scale battle (if below this level, just use SPWAW), you could set up your recon assets already broken in section-sized elements. No problem.

quote:

Also, in SP3 and CS the graphics don't show the reality. Sometimes when I play West Front, I forget that while I see that I have one tank, it's actually a whole platoon.

AFAIK, the icons in my SP3 platoons show me exactly how many tanks I have. Must be a problem with the "Preferences" screen in your game.

quote:

I think NATO symbols would work much better at platoon level.

Jeez... that works fine for operational games (battalion-sized units and above with mixed equipment), not grand-tactical ones like SP3 where you just get platoons (or even sections) with homogeneous equipment. Tanks are tanks and infantry are infantry, not a mix of both types.

quote:

And that would loose the catch of squad-level games: in SPWAW you have a very intimate relationship to the action and the troops; your KV-1 might have lost one man, the gun could have malfunctioned and you would be very worried whether it survives.

If you are a company commander - even a battalion commander - it's OK. But you tell me you are a brigade/divisional commander and really need an intimate relationship with every crewmen in that 80-tank 1941 German Panzer Battalion attached to you? You are going to get nuts.

quote:

Partly because the geographic scale makes tactics so limited. If for example a hex is 250 metres (CS), then molotovs and satchels have the same range as Bazookas and Schrecks. The same goes with SMG's and flamethrowers. At platoon level many weapons just don't work.

Why? Make short-ranged weapons work only inside its hex... and change SP3 detection and combat rules accordingly. Infantry should no longer be automatically detected at 1-hex range. And units firing small weapons shouldn't be affected by the attacks they make into the hex they occupy. A 200yd hex is a very big piece of real estate, and a 4-tank platoon entering a city hex unescorted by friendly infantry should be meat on the table for an experienced infantry platoon hidden inside the hex. Let me repeat that I am not threatening SPWAW in any way. I love it. But when you want to set up a really big battle, it's simply not practical, that's all. My favorite SPWAW scenario is that one in which a coy of British Guards try to clear up a German-held village during the Montecassino Battles (I forgot its name). Great example of the engagements SPWAW was meant to portray. Of course you can field up to a full battalion with no problem, but going above that level is getting out of bounds. Use a revamped SP3 instead.

_____________________________

La Dacha de G. K. Zhukov

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 3

- 11/26/2000 7:08:00 AM

Greg McCarty

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by G. K. Zhukov: However, I think many of us are overstretching the capabilities of this wonderful game. We are seeing increasing numbers of huge scenarios played on very large maps, using several battalions per side, with an enormous number of units per side.... I've felt this way ever since I saw the first of the jumbo scenarios. But this sort of "stretching" was probably inevitable. In 38 years of wargaming I've never seen a game that someone didn't want to morph into something the designer never envisioned. You know, its human nature; if a moderate tactical model is huge fun, then a huge tactical model will be a religious experience, right? Probably not. More like a stomach ache from eating a pound of candy is my bet. But to each his own. I don't really see these trends as problems, just experimentation. I may never attempt to play one of the big ones. Personally, as a sometime designer, I have already run into the games limitations. I KNOW what they are. Others will just have to find out. I once designed a scenario emulating a 1400 man 3 wave charge against an isolated company. I did it. Based on an actual account. It worked; just like a historical model. To the best of my knowlege, no one wanted to play it. It was tedious. Personally, I stick with what can be modeled within a about 4 square miles. I think the game is in its best element with linked campaign scenarios. A lot of work to design, but much fun to play. I'm not knocking the hard work of others that have created some really big designs, but I know it gets harder and harder to emulate historical behavior once scale gets beyond a certain point. So I design and play what can be realistically managed. Sooner or later everyone that plays this game finds their preferred mode of operation. I suspect many will scale their endeavors back after awhile, when they realize this tactical model envelope DOES have a bursting point. Meantime, you cant knock the versitility of this fine game, can you? ------------------ Greg. 37 mill AA... can suddenly ruin your day.

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 4

- 11/26/2000 8:14:00 AM

Antonius

Posts: 209
Joined: 6/6/2000
From: Saint Arnoult en Yvelines FRANCE
Status: offline

What i understand is that you would love to have an improved version of SP3 to play those battles that are beyond SPWAW's scope. This in turns leads to the question of what maximum battle size SPWAW can handle. Here I think every player will have his own answer. The main point is that there is a max number of units for each of us beyond which the fun is spoiled because the turns get very long and some units get forgotten. That limit could be stretched further if units under AI command behaved more sensibly and you could then keep full control of only a portion of your forces. But even then there would still be a limit and anyway the mapsize is limited too - no way of building a map representing the whole of Russia !

So battles beyond the scope of SPWAW have to be fought with either CS games, Panzer Campaigns or SP3 (and bigger ones with TOAW), which could indeed all be improved... just the way SP1 has been fantastically transformed into SPWAW. ------------------ always to the last man

_____________________________

Wargamo, ergo sum

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 5

- 11/26/2000 10:08:00 AM

Pack Rat

Posts: 594
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: north central Pennsylvania USA
Status: offline

I always felt it was the way Steel Panthers was headed anyway. The best of both and I think Grigsby and Brors could have pulled it off. The over all theater picture and you are integrated from the top down, responsable for the one on one if you so desire. An Operational Art of War on steroids. Some have said it can't be done well, but I still think it can. ------------------ "More PT Drill Sargent" ;) Pack Rat

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 6

- 11/26/2000 12:49:00 PM

Kluckenbill

Posts: 278
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Lancaster, PA, USA
Status: offline

Of course if Matrix updates SP3, players will create corps level battles and it will be just as unrealistic as Brigade sized SPWAW. We used to play Corps level battles with Panzerblitz (mid-late '70s) it was fun but awfully unrealistic. ------------------ Target, Cease Fire !

_____________________________

Target, Cease Fire !

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 7

- 11/26/2000 2:43:00 PM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

Different strokes for different folks, as we have all heard so often. Some like 'em big, some like em small, some like 'em long, some like 'em short. So we try to please everyone by providing battles from the smaller quick-play to the larger "momo" styles scenarios. I am sure more people enjoyed your larger scenario than you might imagine, Greg. Through some research and asking questions, I have learned that most prefer the smaller to medium sized battles, something that can be comfortably played in one sitting. As for the game itself, SP and SP2 were never originally intended to be on a large scale. If you remember, in SP1 you could only have around 25 formations, rarely over 50-75 units. SP3 was a make-shift remedy to provide for those who like the bigger brigade-divisional sized battles. So we've stretched the old girl to her limits in SPWAW. Any more than this and we would have given birth to a new series of coding problems. We don't want that! How big of an engine can you put in the old klunker and still have it run well?

Being bigger is not an automatic indication that it is better. Remember that, you aspiring scenario designers. Start small, and work your way into the big ones

. Once you have over 30-40 tanks for each side, the game can indeed become tedious and time consuming, more so with many infantry units. Some like it. Most don't. But we'll continue to do them all as time allows to satisfy the cravings of all ardent and even the casual SP players. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 8

- 11/26/2000 4:48:00 PM

G. K. Zhukov

Posts: 76
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: SP3 was a make-shift remedy to provide for those who like the bigger brigade-divisional sized battles.

Comrade boss, you mean that there is no "market" for games in the scale of SP3? What about those boardgames like the "Panzerblitz/Panzer Leader/Arab-Israeli Wars" by Avalon Hill, "Tank Leader" by West End Games, "Assault" and "Sands of War/Blood and Iron" by GDW, the "Tactical Combat Series" by The Gamers...? And tabletop games like "Command Decision/Over the Top/Combined Arms" by GDW, "Spearhead" by Arty Conliffe, "Corps Commander" by TTG, the new "TAC: WWII" by I forgot who...? I thought they had a purpose of their own and weren't a "makeshift remedy" for any other game. I also believed that gamers (like me) who enjoyed them with all their pros and cons saw SP3 as the best thing on Earth... They were all in a completely different category as "SquadLeader/ASL", which is perhaps the model SP1/SPWAW is shaped after. Once again, let me say that the command control issue severely limits what one can field on the SPWAW battlefield: you get a battalion HQ controlling what are supposed to be companies. If you want it to be a brigade HQ, then the maneuver elements will have to be battalions, and the individual pieces you move around will have to be platoons.

_____________________________

La Dacha de G. K. Zhukov

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 9

- 11/27/2000 9:53:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

We understand that there is a need for beeter "command and control" (from the players point of view) in doing tactical /operational borderline scenarios. THere is littel we can do with the Sp engine. the SP 3 game is there for those that want the scale, and the changes we have made I personally don't think are appropriate for it in mnay ways. We are thinking about the problem for the future though... If we can achieve what I hope we can, there will be relief...but it will quite a while...

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 10

- 11/27/2000 10:13:00 AM

gorgias96

Posts: 122
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Spain
Status: offline

I agree absolutely the Zhukov opinion. Really i agree point by point everything he wrote. Everybody knows that improve WaW would be a long a great labour but i think it is worth Thx Tovarich Zhukov je sabes que te apoyo al 100%. Eres un virtuoso hablando en "barbaro". Sigue dandoles ca�a que tu puedes ANIMO!!! jeje

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 11

- 11/27/2000 12:07:00 PM

Randy

Posts: 1172
Joined: 8/22/2000
From: Torrance, Calif. USA
Status: offline

I think I've mentioned my idea of a solution for a combination game that has the tactical and operational level before. I would propose a combination game using the play of TOAOW with SPWAW! You would start the game at battalion/brigade level using the military map symbol icons. When units came into contact with each other the player would go to another screen for SPWAW level combat. Does anyone remember the Mattel Intelivision game Sea Battles? You had your fleet, indicated by one icon, and when you came into contact with the enemy then you went to another screen to do combat with individual ships! What do you guys think? I think its doable. Semper Fi Randy

_____________________________

Semper Fi
Randy

The United States Marines: America's 911 Force-The Tip of the Spear

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 12

- 11/27/2000 1:54:00 PM

Raindem

Posts: 696
Joined: 7/15/2000
From: Arizona
Status: offline

Randy, I like your idea. I've even tried to make my own wargame patterned after that (used that HPS wargame making program; forgot it's name off the top of my head). I would move brigades and battalions around on a "strategic" map, and set up rules about transfering the combat to SP tactical level. Although I had fun messing around with the idea, I don't see it as do-able as either a new version of SPWAW or a grand alliance of SPWAW and TOAW. There just doesn't seem to be a great enough interest at combining those two levels into one game. Personally, my interest in the strategic aspects of WWII has always been just as strong as the tactical level. Unfortunately, I'm still searching for a good strategic level simulation of the entire European theater.

_____________________________

Grab them by the balls. Their hearts and minds will follow.

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 13

- 11/27/2000 10:40:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

I'll bring up the idea I've posted back in the days when we were trying guess what the 'Revenge for Versailles' was about. I like the idea of something based on the 'War in Russia' strategic engine, where there's some penalty, other than your pride, for losing a battle. In WIR, you lose enough battles and you lose factories etc. I'm sure there's plenty of swell ideas out there, but I like the idea of playing an SP3 or SPWAW, an optional one battle a week from WIR (or some similar strategic game). I mention WIR because it specifically has the quantities for tanks, though infantry is more generic. You would have the option of choosing to fight out one of the battles each week, on a SP3 or SPWAW scale (not that you could optionally choose which scale of more tactical battle), but it would be one level or another across the board for 'optional battle'. Let's say it's 7/41 and there's a Russian tank division cut off with two infantry divisions, with four German infantry divisions attacking (though we would probably opt for a more dramatic battle). In WIR, being cut off would enable very few of those Russian units to actually fight. You could have every working 10 tanks to be represented by one tank etc (so if the lack of supply enabled only 20 Russian tanks to defend, the tactical would have two tanks [of course this would be the extreme case of a unit cut off]). I'm not trying to be precise here, but just getting out the general idea, for maybe one tank could represent 50 or whatever. In any case, the main emphasis of the game is the strategic, but if you think you could do better then what the WIR engine allows, you could fight it in a relatively tactical manner. I think it would be so neat in the above example to be attacking units from all angles, and then in turn, myself, to also have to face such things. What's better yet, is that each turn, should you want to always opt for the 'tactical battle' there would be a decision to be made as to just which battle out of the probable dozen or more hexes that are fought over, just which one you would want to get involved in (do you tactically defend Leningrad or Kiev?). Would you always want to fight in the hexes with the most even odds, or the most lopsided? Or would you prefer to fight where there's a large ratio of tanks to infantry in your favor, or disfavor? Or would you want to fight always wherever the same corp is fighting? I realise that this is complicated by the fact that WIR is only on one front, while SP3/SPWAW is not, but it sure would be a nice addition to the WIR/West Front/Knights of the Desert sort of games. To me, this is an attempt, for the most part, to get down to where tactical battles actually have more consequence than just losing pride, or your units having less/more experience the next go around. If this or similar games were linked to something more strategic, you would also be running into the AI having the same advantages you do. What do I mean? With WIR, many sections such as tank regiments have their own experience, so that, if you were to ever battle them in a tactical manner, you would never know just how experienced your opponent was, in advance, and considering that many of the battles end up in retreats, you could be battling them all over again the next week, or a different formation. In other words, your opponent would be gaining or losing experience in a campaign, just like you, for as SPWAW goes, your opponent is always as generically experienced as the opponents before them, while you're the only one truly gaining experience. Anyway, just a thought, it's at least fun to dream.

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 14

- 11/28/2000 3:47:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

I like SP3 i like Moderna version i like SP1 i liked SP2 i like a lot of games but in my humble opinion SPWaW is the first thing i have seen that has a balance inherent in it's very soul where all the various elements of combine arms can shine can even be overdone and abused so that new and wondeful problems and delimas are created where ..how do i say this ... the potential for what a piece of ordnance can do has to be addressed...where the training and morale of the troops matter as much as the rifle .. where a certain synergy happens .. that can make the mightiest unit fall to the humblest if the right support and mix is affecting the imediate situation. Operational games have counters that add up the tanks and troops assign some vaule and compare value. SPWaW doesn't do this abstraction. Folks get so wrapped up in penetration values and armor thickness but in SPWaW you can run a crew out of a King Tiger ya can't kill with a Sherman and shoot them with pistols from a half track crew that recovered from being blown up by a stray mortar round. Put that in your TOAW pipe and smoke it. you can create endless combinations of unit types and see how they interact infantry is valid armor is valid artillery is valid and support is valid air is valid . Support?? give some wulfraums and an ammo truck trust me support is valid . it all interconects and you have to puzzle it out. Now if i can just resist the urge to upgrade my 222's to tigers in the east in 43 ah heck i can buy 222's cheaper with my support points than i can Tigers upgrade and be damned WoooHooo I LUV this game

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 15

- 11/28/2000 4:05:00 AM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

Guys, aren't we forgetting Talonsoft? Their east Front and West Front games are what Zhukov is looking for. SPWAW is a TACTICAL SCALE game for those of us who like to immerse themselves in the feel of a battle at the battalion/company level, and get the feelings and sensations of combat at the sharp end. The very personal stuff. That the game allows you to play engagements of brigade size at this scale is a credit to the designers. If you don't like it, you don't have to play them. If you want to experience the problems of the medium - large battle group commander while reataining a personal feel to the action, the Talonsoft games are the best I've come across to do that. Excellent graphics and a very good game system, with range and depth in terms of theaters and periods, and weapons represented. I bought them but stopped playing them because they were not personal enough for me. But that's just me. Please don't interfere with the basic SPWAW concept. It can be improved to overcome the limitations of its old engine through a brand new development but always within that scale. It's the second thread in a few days that tackles this issue. I worry that the same might happen to SPWAW that happened to SSI's SP series: an SP3 like mutation. I did not like SP3, it was not what I wanted. If there is demand for that intermediate scale level, it should be sufficient to support the development of a different game altoghether. After all, it's the tactical scale of SPWAW that has made it a roaring success. I do not think that it was accidental that SSI stopped investing in the series after changing the scale, and that SPWAW took the good elements of the new engine and fitted them back onto the old scale. ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 16

- 11/28/2000 7:27:00 AM

ruxius

Posts: 909
Joined: 5/5/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

Hi to e'body...I respectfully disagree with Zhukov ..the reason for I went on playing SP1 while Dos was dead is just that there were plenty of games like the ones he is talking about..Panzer General ,TOAW , Talonsoft ecc.ecc. and THE SAME SP3 !!! (I felt very betrayed when I bought it )( I was trusting in SP1) ...All of these : nothing to compare with your TRUE REAL MEN and TANKS you see IN ACTION..you control them not as statistics ..you move that damned turret ! and I love chaos of war when a single tank steps out from behind your troops platoon...only a one and is all you have to change that battle ! Not an anonimous group of undistinguished tanks with a number of 'strenght' How awful !.I WANT TO SEE ITS SINGLE SHOT OF FIRE !! and then look at the burned enemies ! SPWAW is a thing..what you are talking about is a real different thing..sorry ! Something similar to what you ask is computer controlled platoons in SPWAW and a larger map...also with command and control you can see the battlefield in your "chair" But please leave us free to live this new SP1-golden-age ! But Zhukov you pointed rightly one thing ! Matrix I think you have started something that can be used to your advantage...SPWAW is a very valuable product ! and there is really much more that can be done to enhance SPWAW in a commercial use ! you can count on us ! What I mean is : SSI couldn't be persuated by us in planning a rebirth of Steel Panthers directed by Matrix Games ? I don't think this could be impossible...as Zhukov reveals something more could be done to expand SPWAW and make it commerciable.. I have some ideas and I believe in that ! ..now I am thinking on it I know you have a license...but a license can be discussed if you have new proposals ,insn't it ? SPWAW can offer to you a good opportunity as you have seen from our downloads... I believe something can be done without denying the current stance for SPWAW .. that's all for now !

_____________________________

Italian Soldier,German Discipline!

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 17

- 11/28/2000 7:37:00 AM

ruxius

Posts: 909
Joined: 5/5/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

Ooops ..sorry I forgot the well-behavior.. Maybe this argument makes me too excited but I am still not used to new GREAT EVENT of SPWAW !! It's Time to repair this ! PART TWO " Good bye to every body " and thanks for the attention ! :-))

_____________________________

Italian Soldier,German Discipline!

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 18

- 11/28/2000 1:33:00 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi all. I might get my self in to hot water here (go figure) When I read posts about long tedious battles I cringe. What is happening during these battles? Is the OP fire at the mass infantry wave assault boring them? (saying no to all the OP fire requests while you are holding your fire till you see the whites of their eyes can give you carpel tunnel). But what I do is early in the battle when I know I am going to hold my fire I set OP fire time to 1 second and drink coffee and smoke cigarettes while I watch the unsuspecting knuckleheads walk into that 3 hex deep all across the map minefield. The turn before I switch OP fire to 3 second delay I have all my FO's call the arty on their respective sectors. Now the turns get long. On their move I have 3 seconds to decide to shoot or not. I have to save the AP shots so the AT guns only shoot at AFV's. But does the opponent start by moving his armour? of course not, for the last 10 turns I have been pounded by a massive barrage of arty. Smoke obscurs the field, fires burn and the landscape goes lunar. Then you hear them... the scouts... crawling around looking for where your lines start. Trying to draw fire so they can map the position, call arty, place smoke. They find the mines, they always do...but it makes you roll on the floor when they step on that first one!!! Now that astrix is next to his unit info so he knows you can see him. The unit spins in circles looking every direction. Sometimes throwing smoke, sometimes shooting blindly into where they quess you are hiding. Then the engineers crawl up to the mines, the clanking of a mine tank can be heard approaching. Now is the time for action you must delay them at the mines intill the arty falls on the infantry piling up somewhere behind the engineers. This is the reason you deployed those commandos/spec ops/partisans at the start. Not to fight but to spot for the arty. They inflitrated to behind the attackers and have been slowly following keeping track of the main body. Now while its paused for a few turns you let them have some pay back for the 20 turns of cat and mouse with recon, all the while getting pounded by more arty then a knucklehead battalion commander should ever get to play with. But of course they do clear the mines... there is too many of them for a small force to stop after so much of it has been vaporized. Crocodiles\Ram Badger\Flampanzer it does not matter they are behind the forward bunkers, The reserve for this sector has fled in panic and the scratch force you are sending to plug the hole has to come from far away, through the bombardment, over the crators and it is always too little too late. You sit for 30-40 boring tedious minutes listening to that mass of infantry running through the gap in the mines. Put yourself to sleep counting tanks. The repeating "Whooshhh Whoosshhh" of those engineers having a BBQ with the defense line you spent an hour pondering over, where actually to place each valuable unit. Who would have guessed an 8in round would have taken out the strong point on turn 3? Ok now I'm bored I still have a dozen or so AFV's that will move. The reinforcements I called for have arrived so I even have a fresh infantry company. (on the defense I always include the reinforcments in the battle plan). After 5 nights of shelling and burning it's my turn!!! (the enemy is never aware of your situation but is acute to his own) If I can make him think, maybe He will stop and form a defensive line and I will have time to put mine back together. Well I hope you get the idea. Take this out of the game and it's just not the same. I don't like quickies (in any thing) Some people may like the fast find em shoot em up kind of battle, but I really enjoy the whole slow process that is combat. Fools rush in where brave men fear to tread. I don't require a load of points but do need the big map and lots of turns. Not that I spend alot of time on each turn since I follow a plan of battle. Depending on my mission. On defense along time deploying and then many turns of doing nothing. On the advance\assault there is a plan divided into phases with units assigned for each part. Some waiting many turns others only used in that first shy period of finding out just where the other guy is. In a large scale game my battles would be footnotes. In SPWaW They are epics. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction! [This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 28, 2000).]

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 19

- 11/28/2000 1:54:00 PM

Raindem

Posts: 696
Joined: 7/15/2000
From: Arizona
Status: offline

No one is trying to morph SPWAW into something that it is not. This thread was started because someone observed that SPWAW was being really stretched to its limits by ambitous designers (of which I am one), and maybe there was a better way to do it. While I would love to re-fight WWII, one tank at a time, it just ain't gonna happen. The good news is, as someone already pointed out, that there are enough decent products on the market that you can simluate any action, anywhere, anytime. It is truly a great era for wargamers.

_____________________________

Grab them by the balls. Their hearts and minds will follow.

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 20

- 11/28/2000 9:16:00 PM

Warhorse

Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randy: [B]I think I've mentioned my idea of a solution for a combination game that has the tactical and operational level before. I would propose a combination game using the play of TOAOW with SPWAW! You would start the game at battalion/brigade level using the military map symbol icons. When units came into contact with each other the player would go to another screen for SPWAW level combat. Randy. I used to do this with the board games Panzer Blitz-ASL, very tedious, but I liked it!! ------------------ Mike Amos Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre hei�t Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 21

- 11/28/2000 10:13:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Mogami talks a colorful battle, but to me I'm all-out for eliminating the opponent, as the faster the better. I'm not saying I rush in, especially on the attack I can be quite slow, but the three-deep mine idea is precisely what slows down Mogami's game. I hardly ever have any battles where it gets past turn 10. My boys are all about destroying the maximum amount of units, with the least loss, in the quickest time. I find it ironic that Mogami described a defensive stance, because it is precisely that type of battle where I find the AI is destroyed by turn 7 or has conceded. The older games used to have an atmosphere of hurry, as indeed war often gets to that sort of approach, for we were getting points for getting units off of the map. I suppose this game, campaign-wise could give points for exiting units, but I've yet to see it, for all the innovations seem to come on the scenario level (with the exception of the timed objective hexes). As I look at it Mogami likes LONG battles, only he likes long battles of a different sort than I do. If I had my way, all my battles would 'potentially' be 30 or more turns, but in reality it's mostly ten or less, while I might play with twice the forces he does. The amount of time playing the type of battle he describes and the one I on average actually play, would probably find his actually took a little longer. My forces elongate a quicker play, while his playing cat-and-mouse elongates his.

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 22

- 11/28/2000 10:22:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

warhorse: I agree with you, but since you haven't had a great deal of experience with WIR, you may find my idea better. One thing crucial about WIR, as compared to TOAW, is that WIR has factorys that can be lost, and I like it's use of air forces much better. WIR can take a while to play, but I don't think the player should be able to SPWAW every battle, for that would probably complicate the idea far too much, and noone would dare play every blasted battle tactically anyway. Though there would be times where you might want to fight more than one battle, being limited to one would make for interesting decisions. TOAW can take quite a whiel to play as well, and it would seem as though allowing the player to SPWAW every battle, would get some people to thinking that they 'had to' do it that way therefore, and it would certainly be discouraging. One battle per turn would surely make, again, for an interesting decision making process. Just where would you want to put forward the best effort on a given turn, assuming you fight better than the computer's operational/strategic model does?

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 23

- 11/28/2000 11:27:00 PM

Lou

Posts: 69
Joined: 10/20/2000
From: Central Maine
Status: offline

Ok...here's my long and possibly OT post. Everyone in this thread seems to be focusing on the need for realism. Command structure, smoke, broken units, and all. Perhaps we're looking in the wrong direction? I love war gaming and have been playing since my early 'teens (anyone remember Richtofen's War?). One thing that always disappointed me with Panzerblitz, ASL, and the rest was that, great as these games were, unless you were playing a double-blind game with two boards and a referee, you always pretty much knew where the bad people were. That was cool since these games were fun in their own right. Of course, we gamers wanted more and more detail until we reached a point with ASL where the detail reached a critical mass. (Let's see, the hand grenade my squad leader is throwing was made by the Acme Weapons Plant in Memphis TN and the young female fuse cutter was up late with a supply sergeant�you role a 3�opps, your hand is blown off) However, detail alone does not a simulation make. And let's face it�the top-down, "I'm God and I see everything" board is efficient and convenient, but it's not realistic. How's this� Take one of the 3-D first person shooter engines and modify it. Now, you start as an infantry company commander and you're in the command dugout on the front. You have a map, your staff, the phones, radio, and maybe a candle. If artillery cuts the phone lines or the radio jams or dies, you either have to depend on runners or go out and see what's happening for yourself. Do you take some rifleman for security (do you even have the spare riflemen?)? Do you trust your platoon commanders to give you the straight info? How far can you push them? How well can you mollify the battalion commander? If you do your job well, you get promoted to battalion command�but now the fog of war is even worse�and it gets worse the farther up the chain of command you go. You've got your smoke, and burning tanks, flares, you have that last fleeting glimpse of your 2nd platoon racing for the rear. Was that scraping noise behind you one of your troops or is it an enemy scout? I may not be doing a good job of describing this 'cuz I'm at work and sneaking a few minutes. However, from all that I've read about land combat -Ambrose, MacDonald, Wilson- what we play as a game is nothing like what really happens in combat and short of actually fighting in a war, it can't be. The grunts-eye view would provide a more realistic experience and unlike the recent Combat game (I forget the full name, but it's 3-d), your character could die. Maybe that's it�a 3-d, first person, land combat role playing game. That's my opinion�I could be wrong. Lou

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 24

- 12/2/2000 4:21:00 PM

G. K. Zhukov

Posts: 76
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

Paul Vedder just said that SPWAW would go into bug-elimination mode, meaning its development is considered as more or less complete. There is another group working with the successor to SP2 (SP Modern Warfare). Then why not doing the same kind of job with Steel Panthers 3? If you do not like the game, no one would force you to download it...

_____________________________

La Dacha de G. K. Zhukov

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 25

- 12/2/2000 6:30:00 PM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

Well, like I said, Zhukov, if the SP3 scale is what you like, try the Talonsoft products. They are superior to SSI's in that scale. I suspect that SP3 was a panic reaction by SSI after Talonsoft had launched their graphically revolutionary products. I can think of no other reason why they should have migrated to that scale. I have owned ad played both systems, the Talonsoft system is superior for that scale of simulation. SSI should have stuck to their guns and developed what is effectively the combination of SPWAW and SPMW instead. Clearly, different guys like different styles of battles. I was impressed by Mogami's description of his preference, it makes great reading. I am short of time, and like Charles 22 I am looking for an exciting, highly personal battle. It is an excellent feature of the SPWAW system that both styles can be enjoyed. ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 26

- 12/2/2000 7:53:00 PM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi all the battle I discribed is Tankheads Brits 15k attacking my Volksgrenadiers 5k in 44' league battle. I hate the AI but love online human versus human attack/defend/meeting I don't care just give me smoke fire and chaos for a few hours and I am a happy shell shocked trooper PS the mine belt is only 2 hexes deep just trying to psych Tankhead. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction! [This message has been edited by Mogami (edited December 02, 2000).]

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 27

- 12/2/2000 10:07:00 PM

Joe Osborne

Posts: 126
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Somewhere on a beach
Status: offline

After reading all the wonderful posts in this thread (Man, can some of you guys write!) the one thing that seems clear to me is that SPWAW seems to fit the bill from small to "momo" size games....it's all just a matter of how you decide to play it. (I loved Mogami's post, and this is indicative of preferred playing style)...how much time you have to play it....I think Wild Bill summed it up..."some like it long, some like it short etc"...SPWAW pretty much satisfies it until you try and get above Regimental/Brigade sized play....then I tend to agree that East Front/West Front series handles that size game better (although not without problems....but THAT discussion is for a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away

) I've been playing SP since the old AOL/SSI/Leadeaters days and my feeling is SPWAW handles the less than Brigade sized engagement better than anything I've seen come down the pike...now granted being on the Matrix team I'm probably a little more than prejudiced in the matter ...

But to tell you the truth I had pretty much stopped playing any SP games for a couple of years as SP3 just couldn't compete with the Campaign Series or TOAW series and I'd found myself playing those games exclusively. Since the begining of SPWAW development though my interest has been rekindled in the SP gaming engine and now I'm exclusively playing SPWAW. With the promise of the VCR fix (Christmas comes early for us PBEM 'ers

) I agree with Paul that we're pretty much into a bug elimination mode with the game. Now for those of you who might want to see what the future will hold for SPWAW you might want to move on over to this thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000057.html at Matrix Games Network and see what's beginning to be developed in web based gaming with SPWAW. I'll warn you it's still pre-pre alpha, but we think it has some promise. Joe Osborne Director Matrix Games Network

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 28

- 12/3/2000 1:36:00 AM

amatteucci

Posts: 389
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: ITALY
Status: offline

I agree that Talonsoft CS games are not too bad to model WW2 combat at divisional or corps level. What I'd like to have is a graphical mod that allows me to see platoons with the number of tanks they actually have (just like in SP3 preferences), a different rating to model experience along with morale and, very important, a formation mode! Tank platoons operate in various kind of formation that were different also from nation to nation. Platoon formation are important if I'm trying to model warfare at that scale. Did anyone played the old boardgame "Highway to the Reich" detailing Market Garden at platoon/company level? The system was primitive but they had at least travel/combat formation for platoons. With those addictions I think that a CStype game could be a rocker. Amedeo

_____________________________

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 29

- 12/3/2000 2:26:00 AM

G. K. Zhukov

Posts: 76
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain
Status: offline

OK, folks. I quit. I'll try the Campaign series by Talonsoft and let you know if that is what I need. I will keep on playing SPWAW also for the smaller battles! Thanks for your illustrative comments.

_____________________________

La Dacha de G. K. Zhukov

(in reply to G. K. Zhukov)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SPWAW and its limits (LOOOOONG POST)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>