RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

robot -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/30/2006 6:08:54 AM)

I find I like the longer turn based campaign. It seems to give me a more relaxed time to advancce the way I want to and not be hurried into getting a large part of my men killed. I find that sometime I get stuck trying to move thru a large force of the enemy. But I set and look at where i have to go and slow down and kill more of them then they of me. Just my way of playing a more relaxed war so to speak.



azraelck -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/30/2006 4:07:58 PM)

I guess it just seems ahistorical to me, to require players to attack then give them literally no time to do so. It's onlt a quirky engine and a lack of 'I' in the AI that allows players to 'win', then with heavy, needless, and stupid casualties.

"Colonel, you have to take this large town. You can't have any dupport from your division artillery, we don't want to disturb the cockroaches. Or break any bottles of booze. Oh, and you have exactly 1 hour and 20 minuits to advance 1500 meters, then attack the town, advancing and fighting through another 1000 meters. Oh and we don't have any clue as to what the enemy makeup is. But that's ok, because I want you court marshalled. And hung."

In real life, en route the HQ would be pouring over maps and whatever intelligence they had of enemy forces in the region. They also would be given a more realistic timetable to go by. While it may be order ASAP, unless your an incompetent coward like Douglas Haig, and too busy getting drunk on French wine in a Chateau with some hookers to even view the battlefield; your not going to give them such a limited timetable as to guarentee that they have to run full tilt across that 1500 meters, risking MG and sniper fire from any enemy positions, then suffering even more as you get within range of the town. Your going to allow for a couple hours, if not more.



Twotribes -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/30/2006 6:10:22 PM)

Well , granted its from the movie, but as I recall the Polish Commander of the Airborne after being told he would drop as ordered on the third day into drop zones captured and held by the germans at Arnhem, ask for that order in writing, when questioned if he REALLY wanted it in writing he respond, " No, your right, I dont need it, we will all be dead anyway"

Fortunately for him and his brigade they were dropped on the wrong side of the river.



RERomine -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/30/2006 8:02:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: azraelck

I guess it just seems ahistorical to me, to require players to attack then give them literally no time to do so. It's onlt a quirky engine and a lack of 'I' in the AI that allows players to 'win', then with heavy, needless, and stupid casualties.



Unfortunately, scenario designers are compelled to work with the AI and to make a scenario challenging, some compromises are made. They usually are with respect to time. The AI is capable of performing the mechanics designed in the game, but is incapable of using the mechanics sensibly.

In a game I played over the weekend, I was launching a major attack against the AI's disorganized defensive position across a fairly large front. All the while, a half a dozen AI artillery battalions spent time targeting the lone surviving crew member of one destroyed armored cars. This went on for several turns and they didn't get him. AI artillery is only really effective if the battle becomes static. I know better than to stay in one place any length of time, but the AI doesn't. If I'm advancing and spot enemy armor and can't get anything to take them out right away, I call in about a half dozen 80mm mortars per tank if I have them available. The response time is typically .2, so they hit before the AI moves. Surviving AI tanks under no circumstances should remain there if they survive the barrage, but unless they were heading somewhere, they will just sit. If you are getting shelled, get out of the impact zone if at all possible and it's only not possible if you are in direct contact with the enemy.

The AI doesn't use smoke or smoke dischargers, if available. It doesn't coordinate movement between armor and infantry. Can't time attacks with artrillery barrages. Won't hold it's fire until more than one unit is in the killing zone. No general logic as to where it places or moves units other than with respect to the objectives themselves. All of this is understandable considering the complexity of the game. Think about computer chess. There are 16 pieces on each side and a total of 64 squares on the board. In a given turn, only one piece can be moved and it can reach only a small fraction of the 64 squares. This all boils down to a mathematical equation, albeit complex. Mid game turns can take anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes to move one piece. With SPWaw, each side can have hundreds of units, thousands of hexes and each hex can have different terrain. I can only imagine how long it would take to write the code to have SPWaW move units with the rational that computer chess games do. And if such code existed, it probably couldn't run on a PC and if it could, it would take forever. The end result is scenario designers are compelled to work with the AI we've got and have to try to make it challenging somehow.

Designers succeed in making some very challenging scenarios, given the limitations they are placed under. As long as the design relies more on unit placement than expected responses out of the AI, they work well. Much better than the randomly generated scenarios. I do understand the desire to have more time to utilize proper tactics, but I don't how easy it is to design such a scenario. As I mentioned, increasing the number of AI units might do it, but that's just speculation.

quote:



"Colonel, you have to take this large town. You can't have any dupport from your division artillery, we don't want to disturb the cockroaches. Or break any bottles of booze. Oh, and you have exactly 1 hour and 20 minuits to advance 1500 meters, then attack the town, advancing and fighting through another 1000 meters. Oh and we don't have any clue as to what the enemy makeup is. But that's ok, because I want you court marshalled. And hung."



Somewhat sarcastic [:)], but it makes a nice point. More information in the scenario descriptions would be nice. Many seem to be a historical background, but not enough on what we have to face. Part of a U.S. Army operations order format shows what commanders usually can expect in the way of pre-mission information:

Situation:

a. Enemy forces: List information on disposition, composition, strength, capabilities, and most probable course of action. Most information concerning the enemy is determined during the commander's estimate of the situation.

b. Friendly forces: Write in the mission statements of higher headquarters, and the essential tasks of adjacent and supporting units.

c. Attachments and detachments: List all units attached to, or detached from, the issuing headquarters. If a unit is to be attached or detached after the effective time of the OPORD, it is listed here with the effective time or conditions under which the change in status will occur.

This would help to address some of the mystery encountered in some scenarios. I'm sure armed forces of other countries provide similar information in pre-mission briefings. If anyone is interested in the complete operations order structure, the link is below.

http://www.atsc.army.mil/itsd/comcor/in9003s.htm



Riun T -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/31/2006 12:23:27 AM)

Nice find RE!



KG Erwin -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/31/2006 12:34:27 AM)

RE: AI use of smoke -- I have seen the AI plaster an area with smoke in a pre-assault barrage, but it always happens on the first turn.   In clear weather, it usually dissipates before the assaulting units can take advantage of the cover.  In other words, it's a wasted effort as it just telegraphs the punch.



RERomine -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/31/2006 1:49:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

RE: AI use of smoke -- I have seen the AI plaster an area with smoke in a pre-assault barrage, but it always happens on the first turn.   In clear weather, it usually dissipates before the assaulting units can take advantage of the cover.  In other words, it's a wasted effort as it just telegraphs the punch.


Was this in a game created scenario or one designed? I've seen it in designed scenarios, but never in one created in a long campaign where the scenarios are random. The 1990s version of SP, the AI use to use smoke in the prep-fire before the first turn, but I don't see it any more. It would occasionally use it during the battle. Now, the only time I see it is when someone is on the run. As it is, there is usually so much smoke from the normal prep-fire bombardment, smoke really isn't necessary if it's in front of the defensive line.



KG Erwin -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/31/2006 2:01:37 AM)

Yes, I have seen prep-fire smoke in a long-campaign AI assault vs human defend.  Depends on the opponent. My Japanese foes usually have massive amounts of on-board 81mm mortars, and these deliver the smoke rounds.

I'll post a pic the next time I encounter it in my current campaign. My first three missions have been delay/delay/advance. In 1942 I'll have five battles (August-December) , so a defend is likely to appear before the year is over.  



Nikademus -> RE: Base of fire, and time scales... (10/31/2006 8:32:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Some players like to play like Montgomery. They are staunch supporters of the infinitely-planned, infinitely-prepared, infinitely-methodical set-piece battle. To the Montys of the gaming world, there is a proper thing for every place and a proper place for every thing.

Other players like to play like Patton. They are staunch supporters of “I don’t give a hoot in Hell for what worked in yesterday’s battle. I only care about what will work in today’s battle, right here right now. So get your asses moving!”



Were it an infrequent or isolated case, perhaps. However i have seen this trend of having to rush in too many scenerios and too many versions of SP to chalk it up to player styles or the differences between military commanders. Whether a Patton, or Montgomery, basic, sound tactics are still going to be used if victory is to be acomplished. Those are the "proper" tactics to which i'm referring too. The major difference between a disciple of Monty and one of Patton would be in aggressiveness but being aggressive doesn't mean that the troops won't wait to employ proper tactics such as bringing up covering units/fire. The Patton player would be more willing to take risks, but risk to me doesn't translate into having to blindly rush all your troops forward in order to "beat the clock" (and why exactly am i having to beat this clock in the first place?)

I think KG Erwin nailed the central point. Steel Panthers, the game was originally designed as an armor-focused wargame and the scenarios built around that original engine were designed for quick armor-oriented games. Since the basic core model of this game and it's editor havn;t changed all that much in the last 10 years i feel that this basis for designing scenarios in comparison to those that came before them has been subconciously preserved. WaW is a much more dynamic beast in terms of representing Infantry (SP:WW2 even more so) and the other aspects of WWII land combat can be focused on as well as armor.

I don't have a problem playing scenarios where part of the built in challenge is specifically mentioned as time, but i don't accept the assumption that just because a scenario limit is set at 12 turns or 15 turns that there must automatically be a valid reason why i'm having to lead the charge of the light brigade through heavy enemy fire. A turn of SP after all is supposed to abstractly represent several minutes only. Put yet another way......if i'm playing a recreation of one of Monty's battles and i'm unable to employ his set piece style....i know there's a problem. [:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.4375