New Armored Warfare Game Needed (Full Version)

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



Message

Larry Holt -> New Armored Warfare Game Needed (3/10/2001 2:52:00 AM)

OK, before I am shot let me say that I love Matrix and SPWaW. Moving on now, I was considering the relative merits of the French Souma and German PKW II & IIIe series tanks. In SPWaW which would you rather have? The Soumas are superior in SPWaW but in real life the Germans ran rings around the Soumas. You can't do this in SPWaW because of the small scale of the game. Oh sure there's TOAW but it does not have the Matrix brand of superior design, player involvement, editing tools, etc. Battle line is also coming up but its a theater level only game it seems. I'd like to see a Matrix game that would allow me to conduct a real delay (SPWaW maps are to shallow for real delay by successive positions), allow me to mass against an opposing line, punch through it, exploit, destroy support and block lines of communication then use the PKW II & IIIs to take on the Soumas but with them now out of fuel, ammo, their arty support overrun, etc. What do you think? ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Paul Vebber -> (3/10/2001 4:20:00 AM)

Sounds like you are pining for what we hope to achieve with the "operational layer" in Combat Leader!



bchapman -> (3/10/2001 4:30:00 AM)

Larry, I was watching "Tanks" on the History Channel yesterday. Their assertion was that the French and British had superior tanks at the beginning of the war, but they didn't use them in such a way as to take advantage of their superiorty. The Germans, using the Blitzreig(?) tactics, massed their armour together and smashed through the opposition quickly. The French and Brits had their tanks spread out with just a few fighting together. This allowed the Germans to out manuver them and concentate fire power. Just a matter of tactics! Bascom



lnp4668 -> (3/10/2001 5:00:00 AM)

I guess it is the limitation of the tactical nature of spwaw. But it is also what makes it more personal to the player. So lets hope Combat Leader will be able to provide both the tactical and strategic gamers their wishes. Just don't put our hope too high, then takes it away Paul |-) We are going to scream like a bunch of babies |-)



Paul Vebber -> (3/10/2001 7:54:00 AM)

Any new games features are speculative, but the whole point of the "operational layer" or Grand Tactical" or whatever we end up calling it is to account for the sort of factors Larry discusses, like endurance, speed on roads, recon and counter recon, air power, heavy artillery fires, logistics, and the like that determine why the forces that meet in a tactical battle are there in the first place, and what baggage they have brought because of it. It won't address everybody's desires , no game can do everything, and not everybody will agree with how things are handled, but we will evolve it like we have SP:WaW. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 09, 2001).]



Wolf -> (3/10/2001 12:16:00 PM)

Larry wouldn't this be more in line with SP3? Its more operational than TOAW, since you are dealing with brigade size units vs divisional size. What do you think? Semper Fi Randy



Fabs -> (3/13/2001 2:45:00 AM)

You took the words right out of my mouth, Wolf. SP3 should do all that. It's a platoon level game, but I feel that if you are trying to model a situation above tactical level individual vehicles and squads will make it unplayable.



lnp4668 -> (3/13/2001 4:36:00 AM)

So basically Combat Leader will be a two-tiers game? A strategic level where forces are push around on the map, then resolve at the tactical level where the forces collide? If that is possible, it definitely be a great idea. It may take a long time to play through a war, but I can't think of a better way to play a war.



MarkFroio -> (3/13/2001 5:00:00 AM)

I was thinking about this too, and I think you have to use your tanks' mobility and numbers to your advantage. I've been trying to take out Panthers with Sherman M4A1s in the UTR first battle. I try to swarm them like bees and take successive shots with different tanks from behind or the side whenever I can. You get a little nervous after you've recieved 2-3 shots and you haven't blown yourself up. There's always that urge to take one more shot, but you want to have some movement points left to get out of the way. Usually I take that one extra shot. :eek:



Paul Vebber -> (3/13/2001 5:02:00 AM)

Its not "strategic" in the level of war sence but "grand tactical" ... then I go off and call it the "operational layer" to really confuse things... :( I will have to remember to use grand tactical... but the idea is a map of a larger battlefield, with say a couple regiments up to a division could be portrayed using company and a few platoon (for rare things) sized units where one accounts at a basic level for those details of why the companies of battlion that appear in the tactical game happen to be the ones fighting. Giving consideration for what broader aspects (like fuel supply and other logisitics constraints, tactical air and heavy artillery, Larry Holts mobility differences, planning and coordination between units, and a wide variety of ways Murphy can muck up a perfectly good plan, so there is a broader reason for why you are fighting, and why you are limited to fighting with the forces you have. Many battles will not be 'interesting' and will be able to be resolved with a board game stlye Combat Results Table, like in SSG Ardennes Offensive, but those that are "important" can be played as tactical games.



lnp4668 -> (3/13/2001 5:23:00 AM)

Not strategic Not operational But grand tactical No matter how you say it, it still seems like a good idea to have external factors affect the tactical level. ;)



Nikademus -> (3/13/2001 7:09:00 AM)

I have to admit that i'm a big fan of 'grand strategic' where one's actions have a definitive impact on the course of the war. Though the campaigns are a great feature of SPWAW (and previous incarnations) it must be admitted that the small scale level of the typical battles do impart a sense of futility in terms of the 'big picture' One can theoretically create/fight a battle up to multi batallion level but admitedly, having to move each individual piece is a daunting and not always enjoyable process, not to mention that the battle would take days to complete. Mayhaps SP-III could be 'improved' ala the Moderna version floating around out there so that larger battles could be played? Its a catch-22 though. I really like the individual detail of the non-SP-III games and never really warmed up to SP-III still, its a thought. Never tried TOAW, after getting used to such detail its hard to go back to 'strength' offensive/defensive 'ratings' even for the operational level. :rolleyes:



lnp4668 -> (3/14/2001 1:41:00 AM)

What I am thinking of in the grand tactical game is to have a group of partisan penetrate behind the line, blow up the ammo depot/supply convoy. This in turn will reduce the ammo level available for the platoon/company in the front line. So you have to portion out your forces to protect your assets instead of stacking everything at the front line. The possibilities are endless if Matrix could pull this off with Combat Leader.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125