A moral dillemma (Full Version)

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



Message

lnp4668 -> A moral dillemma (12/29/2000 5:01:00 PM)

I just finished battle #14 of U2R (Where you suppose to rescue a trapped company). Those who have not play it may wants to skip this post. On my first attempt, I did everything by the book. Screening recon elements search out enemy defenses, mortar fire to suppress then close assault by my infantry. I managed to destroy 2 panthers and a company of infantry with only 3 men killed. However, I got a decisive defeat because the battle ended before I get any victory hex, thus was relieve of my command. My second attempt, I purchase trucks with the support points, then transport as many of my men as possible to the crossroad. To my consternation, the company I was supposed to rescue was overan and my men was forced to take the two hills to the south east to protect my right flank. I achieved this with relatively little losses, but the counter attack by German Jagds and Panzers (nasty beasts) inflicted heavy losses, but my men was able to hold. When I loaded up the trucks one more time to retake the hill to the west and the crossroad to the north of town, hidden surprises by WB brew up my trucks like bonfire with my infantry bail out left and right. I was stop about 100 yards short of the final two objectives when time ran out and I only achieved a draw with 147 men loss, 7 softskin loss while inflicted 247 enemy casualties, 7 armors killed. If I could have continued my command with a decisive defeat, I probably would have done so. As a commander, I most likely would not have risk a reinforced battalion to try and save (unsuccessfully) a company. This scenario is like a larger version of Saving Private Ryan. If you was the man on the spot, what would you have done? Risk everything to achieve your objective, or make sure that your men gets out alive?



Wild Bill -> (12/29/2000 8:51:00 PM)

A most intriguing point, Inp! I think you have succinctly pointed out the hard calls by many commanders. It also reminds you of "Thin Red Line" where the Captain refuses to charge the hill and the Colonel become apoplectic on the radio trying to get him to do it. It cost him his command. I remember reading about Patton in North Africa becoming enraged that the casualty count among the officers in the 1st Infantry Division was not high enough for him. He wanted more officers wounded and killed to inspire the enlisted men to more bravery. The commander of the division became so incensed at Patton's demand for more officers to become casualties that he went on the front lines in an attack and was wounded himself in the face. Yes, it is only a game, but it sounds like you are very much taking the role of a TF commander most seriously, which makes the playing of it much more intense. Interesting post, my friend. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



lnp4668 -> (12/29/2000 11:51:00 PM)

Most of my family was in the millitary. Even though I consider myself lucky that I never have to put my life on the line everyday, I still feels special appreciation for those who fight for their country. Even though it is a game, I try to put myself in the shoes of those who have to go through hell and back.



Arralen -> (12/30/2000 5:46:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by lnp4668: I just finished battle #14 of U2R (Where you suppose to rescue a trapped company). On my first attempt, I did everything by the book. Screening recon elements search out enemy defenses, mortar fire to suppress then close assault by my infantry. I managed to destroy 2 panthers and a company of infantry with only 3 men killed. However, I got a decisive defeat because the battle ended before I get any victory hex, thus was relieve of my command.
That's what I found with most of those scenarios that are available for download - they require an unrealistic speed of advance to get at least enough VHs to enshure a victory, AND VHs are heavily "overpriced". Scenario length You shurely want to move your inf not more than 3 hexes "normally", and 1 hex when in hex which may be in LOS with enemy units, so it may come out to 2hex/turn. So count the hexes from starting positions to farthest VH, and devide by 2, this should be the minimum length of that scenario. (Especially W.B. scenarios seen to require at least 3,5 hex/turn and suck therefore IMHO - sorry, Bill, not meant personally [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] ) Victory points It doesn't make any sense to me if you have about 800 pts. of troops but VHs of 700 pts or more each - think that implies that my troops are expandable to get one of those - but than I would like to have sufficient troops to get more than one VH. IMHO there should be VH values as follows: "Take at all cost" - total VH value equals players troops pts. plus half AI points; This way you could loose nearly all your troops pushing the enemy away from the objective without doing much damage to him, and still count the battle as a "win". "stop the enemy" - the VH should equal half the AI forces pts at best (worst) etc. etc. Haven't thought this out, as I backed up from scenario design unless "the last patch" is out - and now I'm too much involved in OOB maintenace and "real life" to put any time in this. Arralen [This message has been edited by Arralen (edited December 29, 2000).]



jpkeenan -> (12/30/2000 10:11:00 PM)

First off let me state that SPWAW is by far the very best game of its kind ever made! having said that, I agree with the gist of these posts. Most scenarios make it very difficult to use good combined tactics and get a decisive victory. Speed is generally favored over caution. I have mentioned this to Wild Bill when I did some testing for him. I always err on the side of caution, I try to put myself in the place of those "heroes" I am commanding and I hate to take chances just to achieve victory points. Thusly, I end up with a lot of "Draws" instead of victories. I would like to see scenario designers take this into consideration when putting together scenarios and campaigns. ADD SOME MORE TURNS! In my humble opinion that is the easiest way to ensure that the armor will not have to run off and leave the infantry behind. Any more devotees to combined tactics out there have any opinions? Please do not take this as anything other than constructive critisism. This is still the best war game ever made! Happy New Year to All. JPKeenan



troopie -> (12/31/2000 2:42:00 AM)

Yes, Add more turns. Nobody should be expected to take a group of widely separated objectives, against heavy, or even light resistance, in just a few minutes. Considering that an SP turn is "a few minutes", say about 3, you should have at least 45 minutes to an hour to accomplish your missions. Yes I know that commanders are under considerable pressure to "get it done" but there is little use getting it done when you have to leave your infantry behind, and thus your armour vulnerable to infantry assault. Also, much infantry combat was, and is, 'sneak, sneak, spot a target, shoot, take fire, take cover, shoot, sneak, sneak'. That takes time. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete



cjpaul -> (12/31/2000 3:10:00 AM)

Having the infantry keep up with the armor has always been the problem with combined arms tactics. If you want to have your infantry keep up with the armor they have to be transported by trucks, apcs or by riding on the armor. To have the infantry protected while being transported they should be in apcs, but that means using points to buy the apcs which reduces the number of other units that can be bought. I have found purchasing apcs usually to be worth the cost.



Wild Bill -> (12/31/2000 2:16:00 PM)

One of the big problems in war is getting the job done on schedule. There is constant mention from books on military history of taking the objective under the pressure of time. Commanders are told they are holding up the advance, that their force is behind the other units. I read of this over and over again. For that reason I sometimes make time a factor in securing objectives. That is historical. If one has the time to sit back and wait for the enemy to come to him, and pound him to death with artillery it would be easier, but would it be fun? Would it be a challenge. Both the UK and the US were forced to continue to push through the hedgerows at heavy cost. But push they did. Hitler's armies were always pressed for time. In their bid for Moscow, in their push toward Kursk, in their efforts to free the trapped in the Korsun pocket, to advance to the Meuse during the Battle of the Bulge. To ignore this type of pressure is to ignore history. Many frontline commanders would have enjoyed the luxury of "taking their time." It just did not happen. Of course, there is a scenario editor in the game. Add five turns to the scenario if that is convenient for you. I think it may take away from the challenge of the battle, but that is your call. Sorry is you think it sucks, Arralen. Victory points have to be priced high enough for you to get a decisive victory. Remember, you need an 6-1 margin for a decisive and you will never get that by simply killing the enemy. In military history, sadly, the value of the objective has exceeded the value of men's lives. That is the price of war. Men give their lives to achieve objectives, taking a bridge, a hill, a town, or a crossroads. It may not seem right to us, but again, it is historical. The bridge at Arnhem was an objective. How many lives were lost trying to take it? Kursk was the goal. It cost the German Army any hope of winning the war in the East. Okinwa was the most costly battle for US forces in the Pacific in WW2, but it had to be taken in order to set up the invasion of Japan. Not pretty, but factual. So objectives have a price that means the difference between a great victory or a lesser one. Off my soapbox now, guys...Wild Bill Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games [This message has been edited by Wild Bill (edited December 31, 2000).]



Flashfyre -> (12/31/2000 11:54:00 PM)

Another instance of commanders throwing the lives of their men away was the Soviet push to take Berlin. In a political move, Stalin pressure both Marshal Zhukov and Marshal Konev to take Berlin by May 1, the celebration of the Communist revolution. Facing Zhukov's army was the heavily-defended Seelow Heights. He instructed his troops to advance without regard to resistance, to bypass strongpoints and concentrations of troops. By doing so, he lost more men and materials than was acceptable. But, he didn't have the time to make a cautious advance. Sometimes to get the land, you have to spill blood. ------------------ The Motor Pool http://www.geocities.com/aurion_eq/index.html?976419304550 [email]kmcferren@cvn.net[/email]



Wallymanowar -> (1/1/2001 1:41:00 PM)

I have to agree totally with WB. One of the best examples I can think of is during the Normandy Campaign and the attempt to close the Falaise pocket. Troops of the First Canadian Army were pushed to the limit to try to close the pocket and capture the entire German 7th Army. The Polish 1st Armoured Div under the First Cdn Army suffered horrendous casualties in their efforts to close the pocket - this effort may have contributed to significantly reducing the length of the war and thus the loss of those men may have saved the lives of thousands later. This was all in an effort to meet a timetable. ------------------ 'Bitter Mike'



Charles22 -> (1/1/2001 8:15:00 PM)

While having to advance beyond a reasonable safety-margin occurs, there is also the general product perspective. I know it's difficult for some of you, but just imagine playing WWII campaign for instance. Here the battles are much longer. Here the maps are their narrowest. I say that, because it would seem as though there should be a better correlation between the pace and map size of scenarios and the product's campaigns. This can make it difficult for the dedicated campaigner to play user-made campaigns if they're dramatically shorter with larger maps. Also, the more mines there are in a scenario, the more time there should be. I have to wonder how many objectives were taken in war, where they weren't in visual contact with the enemy and had accomplish their mission in no more than one or two hours, particularly if the enemy was settled down enough to lay extensive mines (some practically under your very nose). I have no problem with the pace being different, it's just that one has to wonder with such a radical divurgence in pace at times, whether the victory point system is adequate to handle those extremes.



BruceAZ -> (1/1/2001 10:55:00 PM)

Arralen: Excellent advice.
quote:

Originally posted by Arralen: That's what I found with most of those scenarios that are available for download - they require an unrealistic speed of advance to get at least enough VHs to enshure a victory, AND VHs are heavily "overpriced". Scenario length You shurely want to move your inf not more than 3 hexes "normally", and 1 hex when in hex which may be in LOS with enemy units, so it may come out to 2hex/turn. So count the hexes from starting positions to farthest VH, and devide by 2, this should be the minimum length of that scenario. (Especially W.B. scenarios seen to require at least 3,5 hex/turn and suck therefore IMHO - sorry, Bill, not meant personally [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] ) Victory points It doesn't make any sense to me if you have about 800 pts. of troops but VHs of 700 pts or more each - think that implies that my troops are expandable to get one of those - but than I would like to have sufficient troops to get more than one VH. IMHO there should be VH values as follows: "Take at all cost" - total VH value equals players troops pts. plus half AI points; This way you could loose nearly all your troops pushing the enemy away from the objective without doing much damage to him, and still count the battle as a "win". "stop the enemy" - the VH should equal half the AI forces pts at best (worst) etc. etc. Haven't thought this out, as I backed up from scenario design unless "the last patch" is out - and now I'm too much involved in OOB maintenace and "real life" to put any time in this. Arralen [This message has been edited by Arralen (edited December 29, 2000).]



Arralen -> (1/2/2001 1:13:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: Of course, there is a scenario editor in the game. Add five turns to the scenario if that is convenient for you. I think it may take away from the challenge of the battle, but that is your call. Sorry is you think it sucks, Arralen.
It's just that I often found myself "playing the game engine", not a simulation of Inf. and Tank Combat in WW2, if you know what I mean ?! I agree that most times "time" was a limiting factor on what could have been achieved. BUT we are talking about a game here - and while it may be historically correct to loose 70% of my Soviet Tanks against Germans in '43 in every battle, how am I supposed to continue that campaign if I only get 200 points for repairs? You are correct about history, no doubt, but it looks like the game (engine) has too much quirks to allow this to work - I play with "C&C", "true cost" and "country training" on - did you ever try one of those rush-rush battles that way?? Arralen



Wild Bill -> (1/3/2001 7:52:00 PM)

You might have a valid point my friend. Considering the use of all those options you mentioned, including C&C(which slows down the game as far as progress)it might indeed a valid point. Suggestion: Open the scenario and increase the turns and see if it improves. If you do, let me know how it turns out. It might change my point of view. You never know. I am open to suggestion..WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



lnp4668 -> (1/3/2001 11:40:00 PM)

I thinks both points of view are valid. The ways WB's battle are setup created a tension that maybe lacking when you have time to perform textbook maneuver. It is difficult to find a proper balance between the artistic and technical aspects of a game.



Arralen -> (1/6/2001 2:22:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill: .. including C&C(which slows down the game as far as progress)it might indeed a valid point.
The greatest problem with C&C isn't really that you can advance fast enough - in fact, you should set at least a "general directive" before starting the battle. But I read lately (think Paul mentioned it) that with "c&C OFF" units will "dig in" imiditatly when not moving - with "C&C ON" you'll have to change their stance to "defend", what would cost 1 order per unit, or 3..4 per platoon .. so you can hardly do this more often than every 6 round - but sitting around for 6 turns you won't ever reach the objectives. So you go without seeking for cover - and suffer horrendous losses. Add that you'll have trouble ordering your "fire brigade" (AFV or something like this) around and you'll end up with a scenario that is 50% harder than played without C&C - maybe even so hard you couldn't win at all. Just my humble opinion .. Yours, Arralen



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625