SPWaW v6.1 : Scenarios way too short? (Full Version)

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



Message

sinner -> SPWaW v6.1 : Scenarios way too short? (7/18/2001 9:15:00 PM)

Hi, I have played some time now with SPWaW 6.1 . Those are my thoughts: -Infantry survibality under fire depends on their speed. The faster they go, the smaller they get: I got some squads turned into 2-man patrols because they wanted to be Olympic Runners instead of Infantry! This slows your attacking pace. -You need artillery now. Or else you won't be able to close in with entrenched enemy. So you need to get into position, call the strike and wait it to come. This slows your attacking pace. -You have less ammo, so you need ammo trucks and reload more often. This slows your attacking pace. -ATRs are quite deadly, even for Pz35. You need to do recon and suppress suspected enemy positions first. This slows your attacking pace. -Wheeled Recon Units are not so good at enemy-sighting. And even that they are small, they get invariably blown up by ATRs and/or MG fire. This slows down your attacking pace. -The number of turns available to complete a mission is awfully short, under the new premisses. So either you choose to bring the boys back home or you choose to run like crazy and, maybe, win the scenario by holding objective hexes. So, how can we solve all this? -Getting more pre-planned objective hexes -Getting cheaper ammo trucks -Getting better recon for Wheeled Recon Units -Getting smaller size (or something) for Wheeled Recon Units ... and... Getting more turns to complete the campaign scenarios!!!!!!! Salut, -



TheZel66 -> (7/18/2001 9:37:00 PM)

That's one thing i've always thought about the latest game. Turns are supposed to be about 5 minutes of real time (someone correct me if I'm wrong...) Given that time frame, most scenarios cover anywhere from 50-100 minutes time in length. And given what supposed to do, that's an incredibly short amount of time. I'm not the history expert. But didn't battles last longer than 1-1 1/2 hours?? I thought they would last at least all day.. Once again, someone clarify/correct me here..



parusski -> (7/18/2001 9:57:00 PM)

Remember: "War is 90% boredom and 10% sheer terror!" (Who am I quoting-winner gets $1.00). So, most battles were on a tactical scale with squads, companies or platoons were not that long at all. Yeah, some did last for hours and hours. But in most of my readings of WWII battles on the scale we play were over in an hour or two, maybe three. I am sure Paul and Wild Bill will give us more concrete reasoning.



TheZel66 -> (7/18/2001 10:16:00 PM)

given what you're supposed to do (take and hold a hill, a town, etc.) 1-2 hours is kinda short. Even a five hour battle is 60 game turns.. The scale issue is a little off as well. at 50 meters (?) a hex, towns, especially european towns are a bit off of scale. How many small french towns have 50meter wide streets? Or maybe better, 50-100 meters between two houses on each side of the streets? From the small towns in Europe I've been to, if you have 10 FEET between houses on each side of a street, you'd be lucky.. You just have to take this realism aspect of the game with a grain of salt... Not that I'm complaining, just wondering. I love how the game plays in version 6.1.



Paul Vebber -> (7/18/2001 10:59:00 PM)

Turns in the game represent "several minutes" (more than 1 but less than 5) I typically figure a 20 turn battle represents between 45 and 90 minutes of "real time". a 30 turn battle to be between 1 and 2 hours. These are rules of thumb and a search of previous posts may yield somewhat different numbers and teh scale slides with the size of the battle. Each Battaion adds another minute or two to the time frame - so a Regimental battle of 30 turns is more like 4-8 minutes per turn representing 2-4 hours In any case 1-3 hours was the typical timeframe for a tactical (company-battalion level) engagement (not a whole battle - C2 restrictions make "dead time" in a whole battle take typically 4-6 hours if not a whole day. Typical advance rates for a company ranged fron about 400 yards per hour to nearly 1200 yards per hour against stiff opposition. That translates to as little as 8 hexes to as much as 48 hexes in 1-2 hours. We will be going to a 25m hex of Combat Leader that should hep with the problem of scale, and the time frame will be more like a minute or 2. Overall are the problems with time frame with Mega campaign scenarios, regular campaign scenarios or pre-made scenaros? [ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



TheZel66 -> (7/19/2001 12:29:00 AM)

I personally haven't had a problem with time in the MC. I've been able to get a dec. vic. and a marg. vic., and had turns to spare. Granted, mines can slow you down, but sometimes its best to have a few sacraficial lambs plow through the mines, or try to avoid them altogether. You'll lose some units, but it wont prevent you from getting a victory.



sinner -> (7/19/2001 1:39:00 AM)

To Paul: I'm posting this after Long WW2 campaign battle. Ge vs Pol ('39) -35 turns-long (short?), -a zillion of mines (or maybe more), that stops you for 4 turns at least, before you can enev think to cross the enemy's deploy line. Then, bottlenecks. -bunkers that just do not want to blow up: 2 Engineer squads + 1 Inf Platoon + Armoured Cars to provide suppression fire.... everybody attacking from behind ... and it takes 3-5 turns! And there's more than one bunker! -entrenched artillery (both infantry-guns and ATs) that needs off-board artillery + crawling infantry + tanks... and usualy they are on a hill (of course), so you need to take the whole darn hill. -All the artillery that you use tranform dirt roads into almost rough terrain... this slower your advance, even with trucks! -And you have to resupply your units with ammo. All that supression fire eats ammo. And resupply takes time! I know all this is real, and I like it...except the 35-turns limit.



Arralen -> (7/19/2001 2:25:00 AM)

I'm in a generated campaign at the moment, 10/39 at Nomohan, IJA attacking Sov. .. and it's exactly the same situation: Large "Strongpoints" with 105mm armor which the IJA engineers barely blow through (in fact, it took ~9 shots with flamethrower to kill one, and assaults didn't work at all with 10% chance) .. boldly I figured to break through the middle of the enemy line .. small map anyway ;) .. only to find the two forts on the hill coverd by a third behind the hill .. only 9 turns of 39 left and no chance to get past that one .. I'm playing with C&C on, what always have slowed down the advance, but the new rules esp. for inf. (casualties) really add up with that .. my soldiers have advanced about 30 hexes in 30 turns !! But I feel I could have done better, so it might be possible to win this battle .. but WBW will definitly have to rework some of his 15-turn-hurry-up scenarios ;) A. [ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Arralen ]



Skotty -> (7/19/2001 2:38:00 AM)

What I do in both Scenarios and Campaigns is use on of the many fine editors made by Fred Chlanda. Once you have started a battle, save it, then load it into the editor, open "tools", then open "edit game data" and there is a field that you enter the amount of turns the battle its, press "retain", then save the file and bingo, more turns, just that simple. I do it in SPWAW and SP3 all the time.



Stuart Millis -> (7/19/2001 2:47:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by TheZel: I personally haven't had a problem with time in the MC. I've been able to get a dec. vic. and a marg. vic., and had turns to spare. Granted, mines can slow you down, but sometimes its best to have a few sacraficial lambs plow through the mines, or try to avoid them altogether. You'll lose some units, but it wont prevent you from getting a victory.
How did you do in Bir El Tangedor? I managed only a draw because of the mines and artillery. Every time I stopped to clear a mine, the 25 pounders suppressed my engineers. Not happy at the though of sacrificing my elite tanks to mines and close assault, I lost many of my veteran units and most of my armoured cars because there was simply not enough infantry to do the scouting. 12 turns for this scenario was not enough for me, but I could have taken the entire town in 24 turns with very few casualties. Great scenario, though.



TheZel66 -> (7/19/2001 2:57:00 AM)

Stuart: which scenario is that. I've only done the first two.. and I haven't chosen any alternate scenarios. The second one is A STIFF RESISTENCE



Banjo -> (7/19/2001 2:58:00 AM)

I mentioned this same thing a few times on various forum topics here. The larger maps could use more turns. This is the best computer wargame I have ever played and C.L. will be even better. The last I had heard the map will possibly be 800*800 hexes. At 25 yards, that works out to 11 some odd miles square. Hopefully this will make it possible to create battles that last for hours in game time, giving lots of room to manuever. Of course this will need many turns to do so. An infantry intensive battle will take a long time. A full day could be used to get units into position to take the next hill or town. There will be real room to manuever armor formations. It is my hope that C.L. will reflect this. Battles have been fought for days in such a space. Hopefully there will be some way to keep the effects of battle on the map from battle to battle on one map in a campaign type of game. Engineers will be able to construct simple fortifications. Terrain should continue to burn and burn out... I know that I am being redundant in my post here, but this would make C.L. stand that much taller in my opinion. Once again, I am ready to pre order it now!! I know that regardless of how it turns out, it will be a winner!!



mao -> (7/19/2001 3:35:00 AM)

quote:

How did you do in Bir El Tangedor?
Is that the one with the walled town and you advane through lots of mines under heavy fire ? :mad: I could not stop to clear mines (or my engineers got plastered by 25lbers) so I advanced, losing some vehicles to mines, used engineers to blast holes in the walls of the town and advanced my tanks into the town. I think I took a 50%-70% loss in vehicles and did pretty good, but still only a draw...



Wild Bill -> (7/19/2001 8:38:00 AM)

I won't argue the point, but I will make a comment. Historically, commanders were pushed and pushed hard to take objectives. Part of it was politics, of course, but there it is. Patton pushed his men till they ran out of gas and energy and kept pushing. Same with Rommel and others. Many, many times, the order comes down, "Why haven't you taken that objective? Advance now! I want no excuses. I want it taken...now!" History is replete with examples. SO.....some scenarios (not all!) use this fact and make it become real by limiting the time you have to do what you have to do. "The other companies on your flanks are ahead of you. Whats the matter? Why haven't you taken your objective? Can't you get the job done Colonel? Move!" There is a historical value in SOME scenarios for that kind of setup. Not defending, just explaining Wild Bill =============



Banjo -> (7/19/2001 10:38:00 AM)

W.B., I have to agree with you. But if C.L. will be using such a large map, this will allow you control of where to push and where to wait for exploitation. Perhaps I'm asking questions too early in the development for C.L, and perhaps this should be in that forum. I realize that SPWAW has been pushed to it's limits, but hopefully we can see some larger scale action where the player as the commander has to decide where and when and with what force each objective must be taken. 11 miles covers alot of ground. Assuming that is 800*800 hexes is still being considered.



Wild Bill -> (7/19/2001 11:24:00 AM)

Point well taken, Banjo, but not all battles will use that 11 mile stretch. I'm sure many will be much smaller in scope. We'll try to again provide for every taste, from the macro to the micro... Wild Bill



Colonel von Blitz -> (7/19/2001 4:26:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Turns in the game represent "several minutes" (more than 1 but less than 5) I typically figure a 20 turn battle represents between 45 and 90 minutes of "real time". a 30 turn battle to be between 1 and 2 hours.
Sorry Paul, I simply can't resist replying to this, though we've had long threads concerning this (because of me :D). I still won't give up, so I'll keep insisting that one turn is EXACTLY one minute in real life. Like you probably remember, that was based on that "silly" little calculation on the last thread concerning this, not a guess :) And further, I somehow cannot see some turns being longer and some turns being shorter...maybe I have some sort of logic problem here, but I cannot understand the idea :D :D (annoying) Colonel von Blitz



Banjo -> (7/19/2001 6:09:00 PM)

Perhaps Bill, there could be a series of scenarios on the same map to break up the potentially 200 turn game. Although I hope that the option is there for 200+ turns, a series of 20 to 30 minute scenarios would be possible. The effects of battle would remain unchanged from scenario to scenario ala historical ASL. Burning terrain, wrecks, shellholes and rubble etc... If the number of units per side is limited, then perhaps a restricted oob in which to purchase replacement units and formations could be used in the series of battles. A great way to play a division or two and keep the number of units on the board so you don't spend 3/4 of your turn marching a battalion of inf. from the rear to the front. Although that would represent the traffic pileups in the rear more realistic. How to getr that column of desperatly needed armor to0 the front lines through clogged roads. Could show the paniced effects of the early blitzkrieg. We have the potential of seeing the real ultimate all encompasing wargame here. I would hate to see it cut short from it's full potential. I can't wait to play it!!! Although, it will create the greatest challenge yet for your formidable design skills. I can't wait to get my hands on the map editor! If we can get to model elevations of hundreds of feet i will be ecstatic. I'm itching to get my hexgrid program fired up again!!



Kluckenbill -> (7/20/2001 12:22:00 AM)

I too have mixed emotions on this topic. On the one hand I'm disappointed that its much harder to get decisive victories in the assault and advance battles than before, on the other hand, that's probably the way it should have been all along. The biggest changes for me has been: Added difficulty in spotting guns means that hidden AT guns (and those damn AA guns)can effectively strip away my recon screen. I usually take a couple of platoons of recon units. They always took casualties, but now they get seriously chewed up on the first one or two objectives. Greater infantry toughness means it takes longer to kill them. It also takes more ammo, so I often have to replenish my units part way through the battle, which takes several turns, assuming the trucks have kept up. Part of my problem is that in a campaign I just hate to lose many of my core units after they have built up experience, I guess this makes me a bit too cautious.



mogami -> (7/20/2001 12:31:00 AM)

Hi all. Since a battle will end if the objectives are met. I always have felt you can not make a scenario too long but you can make it too short. In my MCNA battles I always used a larger map then was required to give room for flanking moves and always assigned the maxium number of turns I was allowed. [ July 19, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]



Banjo -> (7/20/2001 1:18:00 AM)

I agree that it is a shame to burn up a formation of experienced units in order to meet the objective because of time restraints. Yes units were ordered to get off of their butts and get moving and yes it means taking casualties. Thats part of the job description. Some nationalities ignored that fact. So where does the balance lie? I have not had the time to get past the second battle of the M.C. even though I have had it for a month or so. So I cannot comment on the length of the battles there in. Since 6.1 is still fairly new we all all readjusting to the changes. I think the changes are great. Scenario play and design will adapt to it. For the future with the option of creating truly large maps, time will become a factor not to be ignored. A idea that I have had in various forms could work well to achieve this. If a hill or village must be taken that is miles behind the lines, it is unreasonable to expect it to be taken in 20 to 60 turns, in the face of stiff resistance. History has shown this. Design the map to whatever size that is necessary to put that objective behind the lines. That would be the overall objective of the battle. Perhaps it would even need to be held in the face of heavy counterattacks while advancing to secondary objectives elsewhere. What units do you put into the line to achieve this, and how long do you keep them in the line? Instead of having a scenario that could possibly take hundreds of turns, break the battle down into 20 to 30 minutes of game time if the scale represents one minute of play for example. Have the player set objectives for each formation that have a resonable chance of being met in that time frame. It may be to clear a ridge or woods or village that is in the line of advance to the final objective. If the objective is not achieved so be it. The battle would not end there. The map and current positions would remain the same, and the next formations scheduled to come up to the line would do so to continue the fight in the next 20 to 30 minute "phase" of the battle. This would keep the short scenario or phase and keep the continuity of the overall picture. The battle could be fought with a resonable number of phases as a time limit. A limited order of battle could me made to represent the units available to the commander to use at his discretion. X number of purchase points for each phase would limit the urge to buy the whole force in one shot so to speak, and could be used to simulate the problems of maintaining supply. Just a few more thoughts here on this subject.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375