Galka
Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
|
Like many of you I've played through the various game titles and versions which have resulted in SPWAW V7.1
I may be jumping to conclusions, but it seems like many folks think that 7.1 is not the best version of this game.
I got into a discussion with another veteran player, which resulted in my latest opinion of the game:
>Y'now if they made artillery less plentiful , but more effective.
>i.e. nothing greater than a mortar for the scale of battle we are >currently fighting. (3 cys, 1 squad of tanks, etc)
>Made infantry a dime a dozen, but ineffective on tanks as in MBT >Less heroic, like a very old version of spww2 when the squad >went south after taking 50% per cent casualties
>Kept tanks very expensive, but mass killers HE and MG, same >with field artillery
When I think about the revisions and OOBs that have come and gone, well I'd like to take stock of some of the positve changes that evolved over the years, especially the ones that have been put aside a some point to follow another course.
One mentioned above was that of less heroic infantry.
A long ago versin of SPWW2 or SPWAW had infantry squads dissolving, pinning themselves for the balance of the game or retreating or in full rout with little chance of bringing them back to the front lines.
At one point Paul V made a poignant comment about how real combat being boring to the point that it wouldn't make for good gameplaying. So in the extreme example we have tank crews that have been shot out of their tanks running amok on the battlefield with a either a death wish or a good chance at killing another tank.
Artillery:
Gamers like the notion that companies have a regiment of artillery assigned to them for the duration of a battle. A typical German (32nd) infantry division had 30 companies in three infantry regiments supported by 12 batteries of 4 guns (32 105mm, 12 150mm) Some times these batteries had to reinforce the Pak, Recon or Pioneer Battalions too, at least another 10 cys. That is less than one howitzer for every company. Infantry support weapons such as the 150mm sIG and 75mm leIG and 50mm and 80mm mortars rounded out and probably accounted for more kills than divisional howitzers.
It should be clear in this example that the weapons doing the job in WW2 are not the ones we use while playing our game. Why because there are ineffective in comparison. Further, of these weapons only the mortars in our game can fire indirectly. Who uses an 88 flak to repel troops? Only a dead man (despite the fact it was one of the most effective weapons of WW2).
Summary
Footsoldiers could cost much less, be less effective, and rout before they are down to 25% of their original strength. Crews once shot out of their vehicles could be pinned in retreat or rout, and only fire defensively.
Artillery could be far more effective, and a great deal more expensive, or troops could be far less expensive. HE in direct fire mode could too be most effective against troops. During half the war the German 74/24 was the largest common gun. The Sherman short 75mm and the russian 76mm were the most common allied guns for all of the war.
Does anyone know statistically how many rounds of 75mm , in direct fire mode a squad can take before it routs?
_____________________________
"In light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence
|
Printable Version
A funny thing happened to SP - 
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