Gaming Today - Some Choices (Full Version)

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



Message


Wild Bill -> Gaming Today - Some Choices (3/1/2001 2:54:00 AM)

I've been meditating a lot recently on some disturbing trends, at least for me, especially as it pertains to PBEM and TCP/IP battles. Steel Panthers, especially SPWAW offers a lot of choices for the players, which can be good and it can be bad. When a player choose his units, espcially in head to head combat with another human, he can go two routes. He can choose historically or he can choose with the sole purpose of winning in mind. "Forget history, forget anything but winning!" This is the gaming philosphy of some. Now I like to win. I really do. But it seems that winning today has become so paramount in the thinking of some that a lot of the fun has been taken out of the game. It becomes now a matter of choosing the most devastating units possible to virtually annihllate his opponent. But is that fun? Not to me! If both of you agree that this is the way you want to play, fine. Just don't challenge me, because that type of play has no interest for me. It would be very easy to buy 3 battalions of artillery and a few onboard units, and then just pound your opponent into the ground. But where is the challenge and the fun of doing that? What command expertise is demanded of the player when all he does is keep his barrels hot? I personally prefer a historical flavor, a challenge that takes me back in time and forces me to think, react and fight as a real commander would do in those days. I like my forces balanced. In a company sized game, about a battery or two of artillery is all that should be expected. So do you want to just win, or have fun, relive history and have an outside shot at winning? I don't know. Maybe I'm too "history" oriented. To each his own. But winning at any cost in wargaming does not seem the best philosophy for me. Wild Bill ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games




MindSpy -> (3/1/2001 3:01:00 AM)

MindSpy I have heard nothing better to date. Very prescient and well said Mr. Wilder. My nerves are presently shot from the earthquake that just rocked the building in Vancouver. I would liken it to playing a game vs a win must win opp and finding such alignment of devastating forces. Gotta go have a smoke and breathe deeply breathe deeply ... MindSpy [This message has been edited by MindSpy (edited February 28, 2001).]




Tankhead -> (3/1/2001 3:07:00 AM)

Well said Wild Bill I couldn't agree more hit the nail right on the head [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Tankhead ------------------ Rick Cloutier [email]tankhead@tankheadcentral.com[/email] Coordinator: Tankhead's SPWAW Resources http://www.tankheadcentral.com




Jeb Griffin -> (3/1/2001 3:09:00 AM)

I agree. It's not fun to just dominate every time. Keep the great games comeing. Jeb




AJH -> (3/1/2001 3:22:00 AM)

One thing up front-to each his/her own as far as gaming style goes. Each person has their own reasons for indulging in the wargaming hobby. This being said, after wargaming for 20+ years now, I agree with Wild Bill. Wargaming has many forms of being entertaining, but it loses some of its flavor and attraction, in my opinion, when all realism is thrown to the wind. It is one thing to see how a platoon of King Tigers would stack up against a platoon of JS3s, but it is another to consistently pursue the avenue of least resistance when it comes to force selection. All of us may not want to follow the organizations of the historical forces at all times, but it simply becomes a shoot'em up when it is ignored completely. Besides, there are videogames that do it better. I have known players that set up situations where they simply cannot lose-this is not wargaming, but simply an exercise in firepower, and leads me to wonder what exactly is entertaining them. Winning without a challenge is something I've always found hollow, while winning in challenging conditions is often satisfying not only to the winner, but to the loser as well. Much care and craft have gone into making SPWAW one of the best platforms for simulating WWII tactical combat-this is something not often achieved in gaming period, let alone wargaming. This gets lost when the game is no longer is used to simulate, but only as a platform for crushing opponents.




Panzer Capta -> (3/1/2001 3:45:00 AM)

Exellent comments WB. I personally enjoy playing at various levels of disadvantage, trying to overcome the "odds against" (for example, playing the germans against the soviets in the months leading up to the capture of berlin). I generally care nothing about being the victor (although i only have time to play against the AI). What i do care about is attempting to re-create the historical significance of the battle/campaign. Additionally, small forces with superior equipment and personnel pitted against huge numbers of mediocre forces is equally interesting.




Warhorse -> (3/1/2001 4:05:00 AM)

Dah!!!! There, this is exactly what I was trying to put across on the other thread about US Supermen!! Not that I mind losing, or whatever, just constant ahistorical formations bug me, especially when I try to pick more realisticly. Most are ok, but too many times was the largest caliber Arty, multiple bns of it, and the best of the best armor, little infantry!! Not my idea of fun, hell, I'de like to do early war, as German, or anyone, and use the common stuff, 38t's, Pz II's, against the French or Poles, and go at it!! I much prefer early, but most always seems to be '43 on. To each his own... ------------------ Mike Amos Meine Ehre Heisst Treue




G Van Horne -> (3/1/2001 4:23:00 AM)

I agree with Wild Bill. I have played using "extra" tanks or artillery, or with the Hit/Spotting settings at 250. For a short while it feels good to hit your target at max range, 99.999% of the time. Then the feeling of "What's the point" and end the battle. When all is said and done, nothing's left but that empty feeling. However, playing with historical/realistic troops and settings, even with the remote chance of winning, gives me sense of accomplishment. Nothing feels any better than to close with and destroy an enemy that was supposed to win !! Garth ------------------ Every time I hear that phone, it's ringing !




Charles22 -> (3/1/2001 4:23:00 AM)

Wild Bill: Very good, but actually I take a different route to where the problem is. Part of the problem is that ver few people seem to know what's actually RL in force selection, and then again, one could always run into an entire company of KTigers because they were grouped that way often enough. I think there are, for me, two approaches to history and part the difficulty in not picking an entire company of KTigers, is the fact that you don't know the other guys force composition, which sometimes you might know on the battlefield (at least against another front line unit. The other part of history for me, is kind of a weird approach, but it's based on averages. What I mean by that, is that I should be able to break down the Germans, for example, into percentages, so that my tank composition is largely affected by the time it was produced, the situation of the enemy's force composition, and also production of the tank. For example, let's say that my force consists of thirty tanks in late '44. Perhaps 2 tanks can be KTIgers, 6 Panthers, 6 PZIVHs, 6 SGIIGs, 2 Nashorns, 2 Marders etc (not meant to total to 30), which out of all the tanks they produced, might be somewhat realistically representative. The only thing working against such a composition is platoons, such that I hate to have only 2 KTIgers, so that they're restricted to section size (which exposes the command tank, and if not exposed only leaves you one to fight with), and I also feel goofy, at times anyway, with combining a platoon of different models (though I understand that when the Fireflys came out they were for a while restricted to platoons comsisting of other tanks, so that you might have 4 M4A1s with 1 Firefly). There's just a ton of times I'm torn between having too good a force, a too patchy (like different tank models in the same platoon), one or one that's just plain no fun. I can't tell you how many times I've given up on campaigns simply because my tank choices got so good, while the AIs didn't, but I was expecting that they would. I think plenty of us us are satisifed with the idea of playing a RL formation through the war and get stuck with what they would get stuck with, but then we also get whimsical where what want to play our generalship of the economy, tactics, or what not, so that we want to think across the board and see how things would improve under our hands. Playing wargames can be a war sometimes. Oh, one last thing. I think the problem with people buying grossly unrealistic things is often handled wrong. It's easy for me to say that, because largely the AI which I always play, seems to be a lot fairer about force selection than many human opponents I hear about. In any case, what's sad for me, is that games seem to be always modified to keep people from playing like children and it shouldn't be. I think when units are being abused, that a suggested set of rules needs to be brought out, such as percentages for what each nation produced of a certain tank, and the pleyers can agree to follow those guidelines or else they can agree to just buy the absolute best stuuf they feel they can win with. I hate it when units are dumbed down or removed because some two-year-olds in HTH decide they want to do the ridiculous. It seems to me that the solution isn't to alter or remove units, entirely, but to have an enforceable nanny. You click "all the best" and you can pick endlessly. You pick "historical" and you're left to only one heavy tank platoon. You pick "percentages" and you're allowed only a force that represents that countries total output of tanks (this isn't to say that there should be 3 T34s to every Panther [if RL reflected that or not], such that 1 tank would represent every 5% produced etc. In summing up, I don't think the problem lies with children abusing games, but in how the children are treated. Being children, if the rules are always worked around them, to keep them from doing dumb things, a dumb product will often result, but if an enforcer is placed, especially on force selection, they'll get bored and then those wanting a good touch of realism will be left alone. I can hear "Plastic Soldiers" calling them, even now. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited February 28, 2001).]




Wild Bill -> (3/1/2001 4:27:00 AM)

A most interesting discussion, guys! I'm enjoying hearing your views, whether you agree or disagree. I'm still in the learning business too. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] WB




Pack Rat -> (3/1/2001 5:05:00 AM)

Good post Wild Bill. Many of the follow up comments are very insightful as well. My details are sketchy for this part forgive me it was a while ago. Scott Grasse and another programer (sorry forgot his name)came up with a program to generate correct historical groups for SPWW2 or at least give a good guideline. The Combat Net forum got into a pretty good disccusion on how to get this into league play. For various reasons it didn't happen. The important thing is it is recognized, how to do it remains for the future I hope. It depends on the time period how well I do as the Axis to a point. I pick a pretty standard group of units most of the time. Are they historical? Probably not, but I don't know what that is most of the time. Chances are I'm fresh off a victory or a defeat. If a defeat I'm more prone to make up for my screw ups, which might mean more artillery because I got bazookaed to death. Now the person I'm playing sees what they concive as way to much artillery, which is just a response to what beat me the game before. It can be a circle for sure. I would applaude and most certainly play in an historical league. Maybe there are some ideas on what to use for historical guidelines and how to police the games. I hope so. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/




Don Doom -> (3/1/2001 5:34:00 AM)

Well said Mr Wilder, I quess that is why I have not had the fun of playing online or e-mail since that is all I hear people say and do, I prefer to pick a balence force as close to historic as I possably get within the bounds of SPWAW will let me. Right now I am having just about as much fun working on some projects for Matrix as playing. Maybe after I am done I can find someone online or e-mail that thinks of playing for the fun and learning about histroy than just winning for the sake of winning at all cost. Well that is my two cents of brain cells worth. Keep up the good work and watch the histroy channel next month, Have new program on tanks,ships and planes, how they are built/made and came from. Not sure of the time about 2100 I believe. ------------------ Doom




Pack Rat -> (3/1/2001 6:07:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: Oh, one last thing. I think the problem with people buying grossly unrealistic things is often handled wrong. It's easy for me to say that, because largely the AI which I always play, seems to be a lot fairer about force selection than many human opponents I hear about. In any case, what's sad for me, is that games seem to be always modified to keep people from playing like children and it shouldn't be. I think when units are being abused, that a suggested set of rules needs to be brought out, such as percentages for what each nation produced of a certain tank, and the pleyers can agree to follow those guidelines or else they can agree to just buy the absolute best stuuf they feel they can win with. I hate it when units are dumbed down or removed because some two-year-olds in HTH decide they want to do the ridiculous. It seems to me that the solution isn't to alter or remove units, entirely, but to have an enforceable nanny. You click "all the best" and you can pick endlessly. You pick "historical" and you're left to only one heavy tank platoon. You pick "percentages" and you're allowed only a force that represents that countries total output of tanks (this isn't to say that there should be 3 T34s to every Panther [if RL reflected that or not], such that 1 tank would represent every 5% produced etc. In summing up, I don't think the problem lies with children abusing games, but in how the children are treated. Being children, if the rules are always worked around them, to keep them from doing dumb things, a dumb product will often result, but if an enforcer is placed, especially on force selection, they'll get bored and then those wanting a good touch of realism will be left alone. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited February 28, 2001).]
I'm sorry to hear you only play the AI. Believe me I don't think the predominent players are abusing the system, at least I haven't seen it. I've heard a few scare stories as well though. I am most interested in how to police the picking of units for league play. It is a sticking point in getting such a thing off the ground to my way of thinking. Another problem as you point out is deciding what is allowable. Let's face it two experts could sit down and argue till the cows come home what is historical and what is not and still never agree. Maybe the only solution is to have a "scenario league". I'm not sure this would be my cup of tea, but I would support such a thing with the Electric War web site if needed. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/




Hortlund -> (3/1/2001 6:50:00 AM)

Personally I prefer the historical approach. Perhaps I'm even taking it too far. I'm *very* reluctant to buy the German monster tanks. To me it is more of a challenge to use the "normal" stuff. So in a 43 scenario, I'll use PzIVH's instead of Panthers or Tigers, and I'll use 75mm PAK's instead of 88's. In my opinion it gets more fun this way. I'll have to manuver with my tanks, and think twice when positioning my AT guns. Instead of placing 4 Tigers on top of a hill to see everything, and kill everything in LOS. I have to hide my PzIV's behind houses or in trees to try to ambush my opponent. I dont know how many games I have lost due to this, but it has its rewards. I remember one game where I had 4 PzIV's slugging it out with 9 IS II's. Damn that was funny, dodging behind houses, sneaking in close, popping out from behind a house trying to find that flanking shot and then retreat behind a smokescreen. In the end I did manage to KO 7 of his tanks and I won the battle. And to me that was a much sweeter victory than if I had used 4 King Tigers to obliterate his tanks from 20 hexes away. The most boring game I have ever played was against a guy who in a april 45 scenario *only* bought IsIII's, and snipers. He had his infantry mounted on his tanks and just rolled all over the map. There I was with my StugIIIG's and infantry desperately trying to manuver into his flank, but he stacked his tanks 3 per hex, facing different directions so every time I got within LOS there was at least one of his tanks who spotted me. Naturally it was a slaughter, but what kind of victory is that? The moral of my ramblings? Beats me. I just wanted to say that I love the game I guess [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Steve ------------------ Panzerjaeger Hortlund -=Fear is only a state of mind=-




mogami -> (3/1/2001 7:06:00 AM)

Hi, I lost 3 PBEM games in row to those darn Wurfer things (and Tigers) I quit playing PBEM games (Back then vcr did not work so I got a turn looked at map saw my units were gone but never knew what happened) Now in online battles where I could see what was happening I did not mind those Wurfer things (just find them and spot mortars/arty on them) I would like a league/campaign set up where everyone on a side had the same core vrs the same core. This way you could really tell about the battle scores afterward. I have never used a Tiger/Panther/Wurfer thingy in any on-line battle as German or JS as Russian and the battles have been very entertaining (mostly draws, I think I have won 1 battle in 20 with a couple of lossess) I love online SPWAW!!!!! ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!




troopie -> (3/1/2001 7:17:00 AM)

I only play the AI because my gaming schedule is so irregulous I could not impose it on another person. I tend to pick high quality units, but very few of them. I'm usually outnumbered two or three to one by the enemy. Recently, I have geen going to very infantry heavy forces for myself, say two companies of infantry, one platoon of tanks, one plt of ACs and maybe a battery of off-board arty for counterbattery fire. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete




rtr -> (3/1/2001 7:32:00 AM)

Hi, Always though that SP could do witth a rarity on off button. Scott Grasses SP guidelines are available at either Tankhead or the Armor site, can't remember which ------------------ Later Rob Reid




Christophe Jaureguiberry -> (3/1/2001 7:35:00 AM)

I have never played a PBEM game so I can't comment on that aspect, but I agree wholeheartedly with the "historical" school of thought. The main problem I see with campaign games is that you are allowed a much wider variety of weapons than a real commander would probably have had at his disposal. I should not call it a problem really, since it also makes the charm of SPWAW to be able to see what could have happened in a Field Commander's ideal situation. I am now *slowly* building my France 1940 campaign (playable from the French side - I hear you Warhorse). While the normal SPWAW situation of being able to buy a great variety of weapons might be understandable if you are playing the Americans from 1943 onwards, it is totally irrealistic for the French, especially in 1940. Accordingly, in the first scenario of my campaign, the player's force is set. During the campaign, depending on his results and the situation, other type of equipment will become available (equipment available for purchases will be indicated in the breifings). Of course, nothing can prevent the player from buying any equipment if he wishes to do so (in other words - cheat)but the game will be at its most enjoyable if the prescriptions are respected since it will give an idea of what type of environment a French field commander operated at that time. I hope this attitude will not be felt as being too dirigist. I would like to know what all of you think about this idea. Regards, Christophe




mogami -> (3/1/2001 7:39:00 AM)

Hi, I was designing a France 1940 campaign. (From the Franch side) My first 3 battles were all in the Calenbune Salient but the problem I had was the French kept winning all the battles without me giving them Rhinos and such.... But then a bigger problem came up. In May 1940 to make things acurate I gave the Germans a few Stuka's...(I have always hated the Luftwaffe) ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction! [This message has been edited by Mogami (edited February 28, 2001).]




Charles22 -> (3/1/2001 9:16:00 AM)

Panzerjaeger Hortlund: OTOH, let's say you were the Soviet player, kind of changes things doesn't it? Suppose instead of PZIVHs, you had T34/76s and the enemy were Tigers/KTigers instead of ISIIs. Would you poke a fairly inaccurate tank such as the T34/76 out around a croner for one shot and scurry back? The German with the PZIVH's accuracy has a lot more to gain by hit-and-run tactics than many of the ordinary pices for other nations (this is even more particularly true of the Marders and Nashorns, as they have no choice but to play hit-and-run). I know what you're saying, there's something to be said for more ordinary games, but that's one reason I dream of percentage forces, because heavy tanks were to some extent actually part of the ordinary.




Drex -> (3/1/2001 9:30:00 AM)

Wild Bill posted some good points and I agree with what he says but i'm sure he would also agree that SPWAW is a big enough game to hold both the historical and the recreational approach. I personally believe the two are compatible and can co-exist. the problem probably exists in the expectations of the two opponents. If guidelines can be established in advance, then expectations can be realized. Some of the players are historical scholars and know their OOBs by heart, but I think most of us are just guys who like the play of the game and don't mind playing by guidelines if that is what the other wants.




Wild Bill -> (3/1/2001 9:39:00 AM)

Absolutely! That is the beauty of the game...its versatility. It allows for so many different approaches. Mine is only one of many. Of course it is the best because it is mine [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/cool.gif[/img]. The only area where some ground rules need to be put into play is where both opponents agree on what limits are to be imposed and not seek to take advantage of the other player. I personally pick units based on historical availability. Tiger tanks on the SP level would not be more than a platoon or a ratio of one Tiger to about 10 PzIVs or 3 MkV's. This gives a touch of realism that makes it more enjoyable for me. But as you all have stated, each should make his own choices. WB ------------------ In Arduis Fidelis Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games




RUsco -> (3/1/2001 11:15:00 AM)

I Tend to agree with most here. I am in the process of an Infantry Heavy Campaign following the 30th Infantry Div. 2 Infantry Co. 1 Sec At Guns, 1 sec Med Tanks. I am onlypart way finished. It is fun to see close to historicaly correct OOB facing close to histoprically correct German OOB's. US Infantry against German Panzer Div. It goes slow, but steady. Not having played PBEM games, I cannot make to many comments, But hopefully my scedual will alloa me a game or 2 here and there.




BruceAZ -> (3/1/2001 11:26:00 AM)

Hi WB: I agree! Without the historical flavor, what is the point? Bruce Semper Fi ------------------ "The most important element in war is man. And there are no tougher men than my China Marines." Major Gen. Archer 'Archy' Vandegrift, 1st Marine Division




Wild Bill -> (3/1/2001 1:02:00 PM)

Amen! Give me history! Make it realistic! Make it fun! Make it challenging! If I can have it in a PBEM or TCP/IP battle, I'll be more than happy to play. These are personal choices of course. But they are what I look for in a wargame.




USMCGrunt -> (3/1/2001 1:03:00 PM)

WB, I have to agree with you on this one. Historically playing is something I find more satisfying then just going for the "Big Win". I always like comparing my decisions as a commander to those of the person actually there. There is though, a certain amount of enjoyment in "what if" play. The were many battles throughout WW2 and the rest of history that were decided by one factor. Sometimes it was weather, bad decisions, or even just luck. It is fun and enlightening to see how things may have played out under slightly different circumstances. Such things as, "What if the Germans were able to seize enough fuel to continue in the Ardennes?" or "What if the weather had been better during the Battle of the Bulge allowing American Air power to be active?" These are deciding factors that well could have seriously changed how WW2 played out from that point on. Think I'll just keep on, keepin' on, and try to stay away from those folks who like to load up on the IS3's and arty. ------------------ USMCGrunt -When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.




Mike Rothery -> (3/1/2001 1:30:00 PM)

I have made no secret about my preference for more realistic choices in players buying their forces, and I fully support Bill's points. This is not to say that we should never see som of the gross soviet and german units, only that they should be in proportion. None of us want play all our games along an "average" section of the front, with little armour and only occassional arty and air support. We want to play the attacks on the key sectors, the pointy end of the Division or Corps advance. What we have to remember is that the armoured warfare consisted of probing attacks by recce units, followed by concentrated assaults, and then exploitation. We only ever play the middle section in the leagues. The other two get overlooked, yet they offer some exciting scenarios. I think we just have to break the mould. Mike R




Commander Klank -> (3/1/2001 2:18:00 PM)

Bravo Wild Bill, you hit the nail squarly on the head. I think the word your looking for to discribe the "win at all cost" folks who ignore any type of historical background is "Powergamer". I'm very active in playing and developing a minitures based game (Warhammer 40,000) and belive it or not for a science fiction based game we have the same problum! So I guess its safe to say this problum is a common one amoung any type of gaming comminity, weather its historical, sci-fi or whatever. Having said that I also think theres a common way to deal with it; talk to your opponent and make sure you both understand each others expectations. If you can't agree on unit selection restrictions then don't play him (or her!!!). Unfortunatly I have made agreemnts before games on unit resrictions only to find my opponent had found a loop-hole. Its like I'm suddenly fighting 16 Flame tanks with Mechanized SS infanty support with regular Russian Infanty and a few 45mm AT guns, and its "What? You didn't say anything about Flamethrower tanks!". Theres like 16 Flame tanks in a whole freak'in Division and you got them all supprting your Company?!? Who are you? Hitlers secert illigitamate son or something? When I get into a situation like that I just laugh and drive on to do my best to inflict as much damage to him as possible. Even thought I offically lose in the end I consider myself a winner for getting the satisfaction of blowing up a few of his freak'in flame tanks with assaulting infantry. Not to mention the great belly laugh I get when one of my 45mm AT guns manages to crack open a Flamer or halftrack with a succsessfull Op fire shot..... [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] As of late I've been playing alot of early war battles on-line and PBEM to avoid the "Powergamers". For some strange reason most of them don't like this time period (Gee Wiz I wonder why?..LOL). Besides I've discovered the the joy of fighting what I call "Junk Wars". Light Tanks VS Light Tanks is one of the best kept secrets of this game; espessaly in the Spainish Cival War Era. I never thought I'd repesct a T-26 like it was a Tiger tank....LOL I actully tied up a unit of BT-7s (unsupported by infantry) in a wooded area with calvery long enough for my T-26s to get into good ambush positions when the BTs finlly broke through. Of course most of the T-26s shots missed but hey it still good stuff!!!!! I'm ranting I know so I'll get to the point; I like Charales22's idea about a "Historic avalability" button for unit selection. Close Combat III has this option (and Powergamers don't like it) and it works great. you can only get so many of a unit based ot the time poriod of the game. You guys might want to look into something like that. It might help gamers who what to be historicaly accurate but really don't know what the true OOBs for differnt armies were. Another alternitve (but complex) would be to designate certian units, amounts of units and certian equipment during certain time periods as "Elite" and "Heavy Support" choices (Special Units). So at the end of the game if an opponent has more or less "Special" units than his opponent his score would be ajusted accordingly. So in the fight with the bazillion Flame Tanks and SS Infanrty I would have recived some bonus points for having only "Troop" types. I think you get the idea. I'm sure something like this would require alot of new programing and I dout if it would be feasable to incorperate it into the game this late into its development. I just thought I'd throw that out there for you guys............ As for Leauge play I like the core unit idea. And one last thought on the WARF ARTY issue: perhaps make it so a Ammo truck can only reload them once or twice at the most; that ammo is big and bulky after all. I should know about rocket artillery ammo, I'm a retired MLRS Platoon Sargent. As for a ammo dump I'd say leave it as it is; if you got the balls to stay around it after you've fired a few times (smoke will give you away!) more power too you!....... Go for it stud [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Commander Klank, feeling much better now!




frank1970 -> (3/1/2001 2:32:00 PM)

Hello all! I do not believe it is unrealistic and unhistoric when someone uses great amounts of high quality tanks. The idea of the percentages is nice but really unhistoric [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]. Armies are usually built up by brigades or regiments, these consisting of bns. These Bn (and that is the game size in SPWAW) consist of 3companies (in most nations) and these companies use the same material. So, if your opponent likes to play a SS panzer bn he should historically have Panthers or even Tigers, supported by artillery. Even the famous Kampfgruppen consisted the most times of bn size forces. I personally do not like big unmixed historic forces but the good balanced unhistoric mixes of infantry supported by some tanks and a little offboard arty.




Pack Rat -> (3/1/2001 2:41:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Commander Klank: And one last thought on the WARF ARTY issue: perhaps make it so a Ammo truck can only reload them once or twice at the most; that ammo is big and bulky after all. I should know about rocket artillery ammo, I'm a retired MLRS Platoon Sargent. As for a ammo dump I'd say leave it as it is; if you got the balls to stay around it after you've fired a few times (smoke will give you away!) more power too you!....... Go for it stud [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Commander Klank, feeling much better now!
I also thought for the "nest" problem, if the unit fires it gets no ammo that turn. Both the ammo truck and the unit next to it have to stay very still. ------------------ PR http://electricwar.tripod.com/




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.25