Nikademus
Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
|
what makes SP.....SP?
That is a tough one, kinda like when someone asks you why you prefer Bass over Harp. But i'll give it a try. I browsed quickly thru the previous entries and it looks like most of the essentials are covered but i'll add my 2 cents even if it is only to re-emphasis (that way i cant feel guilty if CL does'nt have "it" and i had'nt bothered to give any input.....kinda like not voting and then complaining about the guy who won the slot ;-) )
What makes SP, 'SP' for me personally, is the game's finely honed 'Balance'
Balance between realism and certain wargaming essentials, essentials that IMHO are either missing entirely or buryed under a mryid of new features and viewpoints as represented by many of the newer wargames that have come out in recent years.
the elements of realism are pretty much self explanitory, accuracy of weapons data, TO&E/OOB, ability to use and exploit reallife tactics used historically etc etc.
As to wargaming 'essentials'. What these are for me are,
1.) Turn based
I'll admit it.....i'm a hands down turn-based fan. The reason for me is simple. In 'real life', you are not expected nor are you able to physical command and view all of the units that are under your command (unless your a squad leader i suppose) A Coronel or Major, commanding a battion/company/regiment will of course, be in the background, well behind the lines in most cases and issue his orders based on data at hand. He will then have to sit patiently while the men under him carry out his orders and then its up to the grunts to 'get it done' so to speak.
Even if your a Rommel or Guderian and are leading from the front, your still not going to see everything. Too much is happening. When i play a RT game what invariably happens is that i'm sweating buckets trying to view and manage everything all at once, and no matter how vigilant i am, i'll always miss something exciting or issue a key command just shy of too late. Its not enjoyable, its not even fun. Its frustrating. I wish to God that the developers who've made the last batches of WWII naval sims would get this lust for RT
out of their systems and return to the tried and true method of the turn based game. I'd be waiting in line at the software store, checkbook in hand. :-)
2.) Hex based map/or varient thereof.
As with turn based, having a grid'ed playing map does impose a few disadvantages, but I think that there are more ADvantages than DISadvantages. Using a Hex eases the burden on the wargamer allowing him to get a 'feel' for the playing field vs a totally free map in which everything is all higgidy piggidy and you need to pause (If RT) and put the mouse button over said unit to see if you can get some hard data on the target.
I actually have always played SP with the Hex grid turned OFF, but i still know its there, and when the enemy starts closing its far easier for me to estimate/guesstimate when the moment of truth has approached and i can unleash my firepower. SP1 when it first came out, with its 50yard hexes was SUCH an improvement over earlier games which had far bigger and clumsier distances per hex. It allowed a huge increase in detail without sacrificing the advantages and familiarity that a hex system offers. I could live without it if i had too, but i still prefer it....makes familiarization of effective weapons ranges easier, and perhaps more importantly, allows weapons comparisons to me made far more easily.
3.) A view to a kill
I probably should have made this one #1, this is THE wargaming essential. Its what makes the game worth playing. The view. I want to see everything thats happening. Everything, that is....that my units can see. If a unit is hidden and about to spring a trap on me, or if i'm a carrier commander, looking for my opponent, i dont want to see 'that'. I'm not advocating an abcense of FOW, What i'm saying is that once discovered, and once the lead starts flying, i want to SEE IT. I dont want a 'combat report' or post battle analysis.
I think some software developers, in their search for the ultimate level of realism have forgotten an essential fact of wargaming
that at its heart, said wargammer is sitting at a terminal waiting to see something happening, otherwise he (or she) is just sitting there getting bored because he/she is deaf blind and dumb.
If i wanted to be that Major or Colonel sitting back at some HQ tent, biting my nails and grabbing the phone every couple of minutes waiting for an update on whats happening, i would have joined the Army for real. (assuming they'd have me.....eh....probably not ;-) )
Some of the best wargames i've ever played up to this present day are some of the old computer text based wargames from the 80s. Depending on age (of which i've just dated myself....DOH) some may be surprised or even agasht at such a statement but its true. Some old wargames, using nothing but text with maybe some primitive graphics (map/unit) have given me far more hours of entertainment and education in the art of wargaming than many or dare i say most of the modern and graphically rich wargames that have come out in the last decade.
If there was anything about SP that made this game have "it", it was this, what i've quite improperly put into words in #3 of the wargaming essentials.
Maybe i should put it another way.
SP has "it" because it has the pefect blend of combat leader and spectator that the other wargames, those text based ancestors had.
Back then, there were no fancy graphics so to 'entertain' and provide excitement, the wargame designer had to go to the only thing available to him, providing a text based description of the 'Actual fighting', usually in a sequencial turn based manner that allowed the player to see ALL that was happening as events unfolded.
Gary Grigsby designed IMO the best versions of these, as showcased in such notables as Carrier Force/Carrier Strike, USAAF, Kampgruppe, War in Russia, and Pacific War.
All of these games, especially the tactical level games, employed very realistic FOW elements and wargaming strategy, but when the gloves came off , you were THERE, Front Row Seat, you saw the ME-109's engage the B-17's. You saw the Val's dive bombing the Yorktown, You saw you Panthers opening up on a wedge of T-34's as they entered that golden 1000 yard kill zone.
all with just text and primitive graphics.
Gary took that wargaming essential, that of spectator, and perfected it with a game called Steel Panthers.
that perfect blend of strategist/combat leader and spectator. Thats what makes SP have "it" vs pretty much any other wargame out there that deals with a similar topic.
Close Combat series? not for me. Too chaotic, too hectic, and this will make some people laugh, not detailed enough.
Talonsoft's East Front/West Front? Nope, tried it. granted, i might have liked it better if the AI phase did'nt take so long (that bordom threshold again!) but again, the detail lacks.
that word again, might as well make it wargaming essential #4
4. Details Details Details
and thanks to Matrix, SP now holds the undisputed crown of detail. No woosie attack or defence 'ratings' for me, no give me actual thickness of armor and slope any day.
Same with the weapons. Actual pen/range/size data, not abstract values. How does one compare that adequately?
SP had this even before Matrix though. the Armor 'factors' were still very realistic and far more detailed than just a all-in-one attack/defence factor. I was weened off Kampfgruppe, and was used to 'detail' meaning a tank being given a Front armor and Back armor rating. Needless to say i was amazed at the level of detail when SP introduced Front/side/rear hull armor values 'and' front/side/rear turret armor values and even a top armor rating or exposed top.
wow. brings a tear of joy to my eye when i rehash the memory of that first night i played SP. I had recently been vastly let down by SSI's previous entry in this genre, Tanks!. Yuk.....ok it had some good points but giving 50mm guns a better attack value than a 75mm oh the pain. First thing i did when i got SP was i set up a test with Russian T-34's vs a variety of German tank guns. I was'nt phazed by SSI's lack of data on the game, or by the encyclopedia's description only version as opposed to the data-rific version we were introduced to when SP-2 came out. I knew how all the guns should behave reletive to each other from all the reading i'd done.
yes the tears of joy did start to flow when i began hearing the first of those 'Tinks' against the T-34's hull armor when those 50mm's went off at beyond 400 yards. Yes that was not only quite historically correct but fun to watch at the same time (me being used to text based info only!) Then the 88mm fired and it was Thud/ROOOAAARRRRR as the tank went up in amazing detail.
ok enough reminincing....you get the idea. 
That is what makes SP, SP for me. Detail, balance of spectator/combat leader, and all the other mentioned factors in previous posts, Flexibility, variation, ability to edit data, turn based, hex grid etc etc yada yada yada.
I will now be honest and admit that though i hav'nt publicly made it known, that i do kind of fall into that group of skeptical wargamers who view Combat Leader with suspicision and even a little dread.
Dread in that i dont want to see support for SP fall off, because it already has "it", as mentioned.
Of course there's always room for improvement, but there's a big difference between improvement and an entirely new game that may or may not keep all of the essentials that make SP, SP.
Specifically, i'm a bit concerned over the RT element, and the hexless map. I understand there is a WEGO alternative to that but whether it will work as well as SP's IGO UGO remains to be seen. Having played SP right from the start with SP1, i'm also very used to being able to directly control my units. I like that. I'd hate to give that up in favor of going back to 'plotted movement' again 'ala' Kampfgruppe with its plotted movement and four 'pulse' combat phase.
more realistic? perhaps. But i think elements like that will tip the balance factor that i mentioned, the balance between leader and spectator. Or in this case 'control' vs 'realism' Like i said, i've gotten used to being able to control that Tiger tank. Its cool to hold a tiger by the tail. >
I'll try to keep an open mind about Combat Leader but i have to warn ya, You've got a die-hard SP fan here and we tend to be an ornary bunch. But then again you already know that having braved this forum and all the endless BUG/ERROR/THIS ISNT RIGHT posts that we know you SO love.
This is considerably more than 2 cents worth so i think i'd better stop now and go soak my fingers.
hugs and kisses and good luck with CL 
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
- 
- 
CC isnt a bad game just not real personable to me. Maybe Cl make it that way. No way tell till i see. With Sp we can say hmm look at SP 1 and 2 or 3 and look at SPwaw or Spww2 We have things to compare. So far now we have red alert and close combat to comapre CL to and to alot thats not a pretty picture.And some others i cant think of of top of head. Not all remarks about dislikes are flames which you seem to take em as. People asked our opinion and we told them. I cant stand Starcraft but i dont say its a crappy game just that i dont like it. But some people on another forum took it as flames. Read content and facts in statements not what you precieve to be a flame. Most are simple statements about dislikes 
This old seadog just needs a little help.
Doom
- 
- 
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