Maps need to be 10X bigger.

Maps need to be 10X bigger. (Full Version)

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

Message

Buggsy -> Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/21/2007 11:23:32 PM)
And there needs to be more turns per battle. About 10X the amount.

KG Erwin -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/21/2007 11:58:23 PM)
You're not serious, are you? [X(] The system is designed for battalion-level battles, not regiments or divisions. If this is what you want, then I'd recommend playing an operational-level game. Personally, I prefer the 60 (3000 yard) and 40-hex (2000 yard) wide battles. With a 201 unit limit, at least some depth is allowed on the smaller maps. Frankly, I'd prefer dispensing with the 80-hex (4000 yard) frontages altogether. You gotta remember that SPWaW, in most cases, is focusing upon a small sector of a frontline. By definition, your battalion is just one part of a larger effort occurring off-map.

Goblin -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 12:56:57 AM)
I would like to see larger maps also, but with some sort of new mini-map system. The current method of navigating large maps sucks. Larger maps should correspond with longer games, so more turns would be nice too. That said, it probably will not happen, Buggsy. Matrix has stated that further work on SPWaW is not likely. We can sit back and dream, though...[8D]

Arctic Blast -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 1:29:23 AM)
I haven't been playing this game for THAT long, but I simply cannot imagine trying to deal with a map 10 times the size of the current big ones, as well as enough forces on both sides to cover that extra ground. Call me crazy, but when playing a more tactical level wargame, I really don't want turns that last 45 minutes, thanks.

KG Erwin -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 1:56:34 AM)
Even at the present level, I'm one of those guys that plays with fast arty OFF. It's great when you're pounding the enemy, but to be subjected to a seemingly never-ending bombardment is nerve-wracking, indeed. I've almost found myself wanting to take cover under my desk. [X(]

Goblin -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 4:10:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast I really don't want turns that last 45 minutes, thanks. I did not mean tossing larger maps into the random map mix for long campaigns (and sticking all players with them by default), but rather having a 'larger map' option available in the preferences menu, for those players that wish for larger maps. Goblin

azraelck -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 7:33:45 AM)
Er... no. Forces of the size necessary to cover that much territory are best left to more abstract games than SPWaW. Spending three hours to play a single turn, and dealing with entire countries in some instances at once is not going to be fun. This is a case where more is not a good thing.

m10bob -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 3:02:54 PM)
SPWW2 gives the option of creating a much larger map, and many of us have played it as well. For me, those larger(much larger) maps are too easy to lose units because the scale is relatively identical and there is no provision for zooming to that greater size. I.E.: If you have a force over in one of the corners, you will lose it and maybe fail to reinforce it if an enemy force is approaching it out of sight (of the human view box in the lower right hand corner.) Sure, you can see it as you cycle thru the "N" button during each turn, but I like to pre-plan tactical deployment based on KNOWN factors.

Goblin -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 4:09:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: azraelck Er... no. Forces of the size necessary to cover that much territory are best left to more abstract games than SPWaW. Spending three hours to play a single turn, and dealing with entire countries in some instances at once is not going to be fun. This is a case where more is not a good thing. Speaking for yourself, right? Goblin

Orzel Bialy -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 5:09:40 PM)
I actually have a day off (been really busy with work the last 4-5 weeks) today and figured I'd chime in...just because I saw Gobby posting. [:'(] This is pretty much a case of "to each their own" isn't it? Would larger maps be something everyone could appreciate? Probably not...but that shouldn't dis-allow the ideas merits for those who might like the ability to cover more ground. Personally I prefer the smaller maps. Troops vying over a smaller piece of land means immediate action which in turn usually means a real nasty fight and a better chance of having a nail-biter of a battle. I have personally designed both large and small map scenarios and found the smaller onces more enjoyable. But again, that being said...it is my preference...and it sure doesn't mean that the people out there who have a different take are wrong for voicing up their view. To each their own.[:)]

Buggsy -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/22/2007 7:10:59 PM)
Why can't we be given the options in the campaign, for a larger map? The maps are too claustrophobic. Mobility is not a concern when you are in firing range most of the time, even from the start. Artillery range is not a concern, when even the 75mm is in range of the entire map. Mortar mobility is not a concern, when at least half of the map is in range. Reloading with ammo is not a concern (logistics), when you rarely run out of ammo, or when you do the battle ends too soon. More then 3 ground-elevations would be nice too.

vahauser -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/23/2007 3:05:41 AM)
Buggsy, The fundamental problem is that Matrix is not devoting any more time to SPWAW. What you see is what you get. Matrix is not going to be changing the map sizes. This is something that you might wish for, but your wish is not going to be granted by Matrix, and probably not by anybody else either. I would add that the entire island of Iwo Jima is roughly the size of a large map (100x80) and the entire island of Peleliu is roughly the size of a medium map (100x60). Roughly 3 Marine divisions fought against 1.5 Japanese divisions on Iwo Jima (large map 100x80), and 2 USA divisions fought against 1 Japanese division on Peleliu (medium map 100x60). This means that, if anything, the SPWAW maps are WAY too big for the battalion/regiment battles typical of SPWAW. Bottom line: If anything the current maps are way too big for the small SPWAW forces fighting on them. But it doesn't matter what I or you or anybody else thinks about this issue because nothing is going to be done about it anyway. It is what it is and it isn't going to change.

KG Erwin -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/23/2007 4:43:07 AM)
This is a point in which Vahauser and I agree : the force-to-space ratio in this game is skewed. I suppose this goes back to the game's beginnings, in which unlimited sightlines and fleets of tanks fighting each other was the name of the game. Now, as we all realize, the game has transformed into a depiction of combined-arms warfare, but the scale has never altered. Thus, the classic doctrine of deploying "two up and one back" cannot be meaningfully applied here. Reserves can only be created from local resources, which in my battles, usually means the attached tanks and engineers. In many cases, I've been forced to use the valuable engineer assets as front-line units. This is another reason I do not use mines. Jungle fighting requires a cordon defense, as sightlines are often extremely limited -- this is a fact of life in this game. To prevent enemy infiltration, every hex on the line, on even a small 40-hex-wide map, has to be covered. An outpost-style defense is simply inviting getting your troops isolated and destroyed piecemeal. I learned this early on. Once again, to expect a single reinforced infantry battalion to cover a 2000-yard front is asking a lot -- to expect it to cover 4000 yards under those conditions is asking the impossible, no matter how good your men are. Recently I've been re-reading Merrill Twining's "No Bended Knee". He was the 1st MarDiv's operations officer on Guadalcanal, and he discusses the problems of defending the beachhead, and the inland approaches, at length. Early on, the division's entire reserve consisted of one single rifle battalion. The southern (inland) flank was covered by nothing more than a thin outpost line -- they had no other choice. How they held on is nothing short of miraculous.

sabrejack -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/26/2007 4:12:25 AM)
I realise that the work probably won't happen, and the larger scale won't be allowed, but I think Buggsy was just expressing his desire for larger maps, because he enjoys playing larger scale battles, on different terrain. Some terrain lends itself to close-in fighting, other terrains don't. Variety is the spice of life, eh?

Kuokkanen -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/26/2007 1:19:04 PM)
Deleted

Arctic Blast -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/27/2007 2:35:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sabrejack I realise that the work probably won't happen, and the larger scale won't be allowed, but I think Buggsy was just expressing his desire for larger maps, because he enjoys playing larger scale battles, on different terrain. Some terrain lends itself to close-in fighting, other terrains don't. Variety is the spice of life, eh? Oh, I understood that. I was simply stating that I don't think the game as it is now would work well for something that large in scale. It would simply take too long to accomplish anything.

Kuokkanen -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/28/2007 8:30:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast quote: ORIGINAL: sabrejack I realise that the work probably won't happen, and the larger scale won't be allowed, but I think Buggsy was just expressing his desire for larger maps, because he enjoys playing larger scale battles, on different terrain. Some terrain lends itself to close-in fighting, other terrains don't. Variety is the spice of life, eh? Oh, I understood that. I was simply stating that I don't think the game as it is now would work well for something that large in scale. It would simply take too long to accomplish anything. When I was playing Classic BattleTech (board game) with my friend, it took nearly hour to move 4 pieces for each player and resolve all weapon attacks. We'll get faster with some practice. I've read about one Classic BattleTech game convention where in total was used 200 map sheets and 400 unit pieces in one enormous game! In CBT scale is 30 meters per hex and largest piece of infantry is platoon of 28 soldiers. So when you get to it, it doesn't matter much if one turn takes most of the day, no matter of scale or amount of pieces.

sabrejack -> RE: Maps need to be 10X bigger. (4/28/2007 1:54:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arctic Blast Oh, I understood that. I was simply stating that I don't think the game as it is now would work well for something that large in scale. It would simply take too long to accomplish anything. You might be right, but some of us would still like the opportunity to find out for ourselves that it took too long! (Personally I love big games)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234375