Intelligence (Full Version)

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



Message

Lou -> Intelligence (2/20/2002 4:35:00 AM)

I know that certain non-historical aspects need to be built into the game. However, I curious about intelligence (S2?) concerning mine fields and bunkers…especially during assault scenarios. I have read a lot of military history and it seems that barring battles against the Japanese, most commanders had enough intelligence resources to site mine fields and bunkers before a big attack. Yet, during one of our games, we don't know about defensive positions until we stumble into or onto them. In addition, yes, I know that scouts do a good job of finding these things before being killed if they are played correctly but this isn't much help in a short assault. So, how much does Intelligence play in SPWAW? If I remember correctly, an ASL derivative allowed the player to designate resources to scouting with an equal amount lost in attack strength with various degrees depending on the amount of scouting. I thought it was a pretty cool idea at the time. Maybe this could be incorporated in some future iteration of SPWAW or similar. Lou



Paulus Pak -> (2/20/2002 5:57:00 AM)

It is not only a problem of intelligence but of a recon too. Generally in case of major assaults or major operations, enemy postions were probed by recon units. With intelligence those actions were giving to attackers at least a general knowledge of enemy postions. When you start a compaing or scenario, you know virtually nothing about enemy positions. Maybe it is a task for scenario designers, to give in briefings some sketchy informations.



Redleg -> (2/20/2002 6:08:00 AM)

I think the lack of intelligence is due to the length of most battles. If some extra turns are provided, it is much more feasible to spend a few turns gathering intelligence. It does take a good deal of patience to do this.
Try this little experiment: Open up a prepared scenario you would like to play into the scenario editor. Add a few turns to the length of the battle. Very easy to do. Next you may want to consider that it is now 6:00 AM. Reset the time.
Perhaps it is cloudy or raining. Reset the weather. Save this variation and you are all set. Now, with the extra time you have and certain weather conditions, play the scenario with careful recon in mind. If you feel comfortable doing it, you can add a force of commandos to an existing scenario and designate where they will enter the battle. You can parachute a recon platoon behind enemy territory. You can get a gaming friend to make some changes so you don't know what exactly is going on with the enemy. Then they can send you the modified scenario. Lots of possibilities. Imagine an assault scenario where commandos are brought for intelligence gathering - that usually takes 6-9 turns to get done. Careful recon moving 1 hex at a time..... Seems to me that one could easily spend 10 turns gathering intel about enemy force composition and concentrations. But recon and scouting do take time and patience. Anyway, that's my take on it.



Charles2222 -> (2/20/2002 9:01:00 PM)

This is an old saw for me. A great deal of scenarios, be they MCs or not, are unplayable to me because there's no pre-intelligence (although I have seen some that said "suspected minefields" on the map. Even so, the spotting of where they precisely are takes so long). The campaigner is used to 30 turns minimum, and what you get in scenarios (and MCs) often enough is between 15-20 turns and you have NO IDEA where the mines are, and they can be very spotty instead of trying to hold one or more conceivable fronts. Part of my argument is that if a man is commanding as "assault", in other words he's getting more support than usual to pull it off, which of course pulling more support requires more time, then he isn't going to be half-wit enough to blitz through a warzone in the equivalent of 15-20 turns, especially when he doesn't have the slightest clue where the mines are, as the spotting is quite slow. I suppose giving inadequate turns with mine location unknown might be necessary to make the AI seem tough, but all it does for me is make it unrealistic and gamey. Scenarios that can only be won when you memorize where the enemy and where the mines are is pointless to me (the syndrome of having to play it multiple times to have a chance). OTOH when scenarios are given some adequate time to actually do a lot of fighting and find and eliminate a few minefields it can be a lot of fun. I have no objection to what I term as 'the ridiculous mission' on occassion, it's just that there's so many 15-20 turn assaults out there, that it is ridiculous. I think in the original SP they deliberately gave you more turns in assaults. Why people got away from that is a mystery to me.



Bing -> (2/20/2002 9:21:00 PM)

I agree totally with almost everything said above. To me it is inconceivable that an assault of any size and dimension would be launched WITHOUT knowledge of minefields and fixed enemy positions. To my way of thinking, a commander who ignored this information would be classified as having lost touch with reailty and even more likely would be relieved on the spot. It all goes back to the "Gotcha!" school of scenario design. This is supposed to be fun. Per Marie Antoinette, we are not amused. Vie haf our vays ... Bing



Larry Holt -> (2/20/2002 9:55:00 PM)

Let me provide some intelligence insight (NO laughing now) as I am a retired S2. There are assaults and then again there are assaults. When a force bumps up against a defense, the commander has to make a decision to attack quickly without time and resources spent to locate mines, fortifications, etc. or to wait to locate them but give the enemy time to prepare more. Of course there would be adjecent attacks or actions elsewhere that might dictate attacking quickly or not regardless if it made a good sense from a purely local tactical perspective. Generally, a commander will try and transition from a movement to contact to an assault as quickly as possible. To let his force stay idle while he probed the defenses would invite a spoiling attack, etc. In some LV scenarios I have seen the map annotatied to show this kind of intelligence (in particular the Stalin line assault) but I think scenario designers could do some more. When I build scenarios of others I include an intell report that addresses these kind of things.



V-man -> (2/21/2002 2:12:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt:
Let me provide some intelligence insight (NO laughing now) as I am a retired S2. There are assaults and then again there are assaults. When a force bumps up against a defense, the commander has to make a decision to attack quickly without time and resources spent to locate mines, fortifications, etc. or to wait to locate them but give the enemy time to prepare more. Of course there would be adjecent attacks or actions elsewhere that might dictate attacking quickly or not regardless if it made a good sense from a purely local tactical perspective. Generally, a commander will try and transition from a movement to contact to an assault as quickly as possible. To let his force stay idle while he probed the defenses would invite a spoiling attack, etc.
When I play an assault, as the attacker, I simply ensure that my recon troops are the furthest forward in my deployment and I don't ask "Are there mines?" I ask, "*Where* are the mines?" Anybody that has problems finding minefields during and assault (especially playing the AI) is not thinking his actions through. The AI will *always* place his minefields right att he start line for his side. Just remember where that was. If you can't, then use recon troops, move them forward on your chosen axis of advance, they'll find the mines and more often than not,t hey won't set one off. They will have to cross not more than ten hexes of ground to get from your start line to the enemy's. That is two, MAYBE three turns of movement for a recon team or scout patrol. Yes, it's fast, yes, it's reckless. I have found, in my experience, that a GOOD smoke screen will hid a multitude of sins, including my attempts to find the edge of a minefield. Further, any artilery preparation near the start line (essential to a good assault) will ALSO uncover mines and blow a few up. Set up a game, with you as the defender, lay a minefield, and force the AI to shell it with any kind of arty (but mortars). You will find, when you go over to the AI's side and look from his perspective, that mines are now visible in the beaten zone. The basic ruls to an assault breach of an unknown minefield: Artillery to expose the mines and limit visibility. It might even shake up and retreat some enemy units if you are good with arty. Smoke to hide your recon and breaching parties. Don't forget - you CANNOT be seen breaching the field or the AI will shell you even if his front line units can't shoot you. Your recon troops should NEVER stop moving forward. Let Engineers and Infantry clear the mines, recon needs to find the far side. If you keep up the shelling, especially with mortars on where you supect that far side is, the Recon will be able to start clearing it, especially the enemy AT Guns. Recon is GREAT for killing AT guns that are already suppressed and due to visibility, unsupported. As your Recon finds the far edge, your Engineers should be clearing the field. Leg Infantry should move, one hex at a time, into the field and move foreward. Each turn they will clear some mines, as well, and soon you'll have an advance party securing the far side of the obstacle. If Recon runs into trouble, the Infantry will support them soon enough. It's costly, you'll take losses, but this is easy stuff.



K G von Martinez -> (2/21/2002 4:44:00 PM)

Velovich, you are right if you are speaking of generated battles. But I understood the feeling was that the time limit in designed scenarios is often too restricted, and there you are up to evil mineplacing by the scenario designer! A certain Wild Bill comes to mind



hingram -> (2/21/2002 7:47:00 PM)

Another tactic is to send your troops where you think the mines ain't.



Charles2222 -> (2/21/2002 9:43:00 PM)

Velovich:
quote:

Anybody that has problems finding minefields during and assault (especially playing the AI) is not thinking his actions through. The AI will *always* place his minefields right att he start line for his side. Just remember where that was. If you can't, then use recon troops, move them forward on your chosen axis of advance, they'll find the mines and more often than not,t hey won't set one off. They will have to cross not more than ten hexes of ground to get from your start line to the enemy's. That is two, MAYBE three turns of movement for a recon team or scout patrol. Yes, it's fast, yes, it's reckless.
I don't know if that was a response to me or not, but if so you should reread my comments. I've been talking about finding mines that were placed by humans, such as scenarios or MCs, where insufficient time is alloted. The in-game campaigns are just fine in terms of time, and though knowing where the mines might be is bad, why someone would think that a commander would rush through a position he already knows is entrenched to the teeth, easily exposing his forces to easy ambush or mines, is a mystery to me. Though it may be gamey, and forcing commanders to attack with far less time than the standard game allotted, is gamey, I would like to add something of the reality of the situation. We're talking about a weaker force entrenched. One that can't afford to chase the panzers to the 88s because they think they'll catch the assault force unprepared. The AI will not vacate those entrenched positions, so I don't see how that would sufficiently explain how it's legitimate to give only 15-20 turns for a assault (unless the LTOR portion of the battle is much shorter than usual or the objectives are considerably closer). Definitely, I can see having a shorter battle, where it's either impossible or plausible, but not as frequently as we do, and I doubt anyone who makes those sort of battles bothers to compensate by making the objectives much closer to the front. Somehow, for some reason, a lot of people just got in a rut of assigning only 15-20 turns. I suppose those semi-gamey tricks, like trying to eliminate mines through how many 81mm rounds hit them might speed up the game, so that I'm behind in that aspect, but that's just too gamey for me. I also disallow myself to use the 'end' hexes in the regular campaigns because it's too gamey. My guys, when they find the mines, have to clear at least 2-3 adjacent mine hexes before I'll do much beyond that. And yeah, I do scout sufficiently. I carry 3 squads of patrols, and 2-4 recon armor just in core, alongside 6-8 engineer squads. Hank:
quote:

Another tactic is to send your troops where you think the mines ain't.
True, but what do you do when the designers have got gamey themselves? What about a mine belt that stifles one part of your start line and not another, and then they might place one lousy mine in a heavily wooded area with it not having any purpose but to sabotage you going away from where mines might be, and then only give you 15-20 turns (I'm not saying all assault designers do this, nor do I intend to name anyone if I remember, because it's a general trend I'm talking about here. Some just don't give you much time, some get gamey with mines too, making matters worse)? It almost seems as though when designers do this sort of thing, despite that they may encourage a combined force, what they're really after is to make practically your entire force as recon and engineers (wow, such fun). If nothing else, perhaps mines ought to be made a lot more expensive (while maybe dragon's teeth and wire remain the same). You know.... this reminds me of something. It seems I've heard it discussed that ATGs were a lot more expensive now, and though they may be perhaps too effective just how is a defensive force supposed to make up it's lack of punch then? ATGs were always something that to me alaways gave the defensive force a HUGE advantage is he's only buy enough of them, and/or if the assaulter didn't buy very much artillery. It's a shame if they've been very much priced up, because it was always a fun thing about being on the defensive. IMO maybe mines should go up, while ATGs should go back to where they were (better yet that people would design assaults with 30 turns or more). Thanks for everyone's time.



Bing -> (2/21/2002 10:03:00 PM)

I will align myself with Charles_22. The AI minefields are one thing and I can deal with those by using standardized methods. So are minefields laid out in a designed scenario with a fair degree of reality. What I am really talking about is the designer who sets you up - as only one example - in front of a town where he has placed for or five VH's. The approaches are mined, I expcet them to be, I am given engineers to deal with the problem. Fine so far. But a half dozen hexes back, with no pattern or rhyme or reason, individual mines are placed so that when the engineers HT's start to move - HT's the designer spotted next to the mines to start the battle - they run straight into them. Not at the approach. Deliberately placed to trick the player into losing the engineers transportation. Sprinkled around, as if the enemy knew in advance where my HT's would be parked. That level of advance knowledge is so far as I am concerned reserved for the deity. I'll live - believe me I will - and it won't stop me playing the game. The way I look at it, if the designer is going to use that kind of trickery, then I will be using the Save feature. Fair is fair. Bing



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (2/21/2002 10:20:00 PM)

I dont know what the problem is here about battlefield intelligence. After all its a computer game right, so you load it up play three rapid turns see all there is to see then you restart the same batlle/campaign or whatever having seen whats there for you in the opening of the simulation. Hmmmmmm oh that would be cheesy and cheating I guess eh. Well that fuzzy logic hasnt bothered people in the past on other matters in other posts. Just wondering why no one thought of it here I guess. Me I just place my lead units out and feel around like a person would expect to have to do in a game. Of course in the real world my pixel units would be real people and would hardly likely be interested in doing that. I would think a nice simulation would be the capacity to purchase advanced knowledge of the battlefield. Locations that you have a vested interest in.
Something that you could purchase along with any other sort of purchase. X points for each hex based on its importance of distance to your jump off point I guess. Yes that would mean a lot more work I guess in putting values for every damn hex (hey there is a reason every dang gamer isnt releasing their own games eh). My hat is always off to the guys that actually do manufacture good wargames. More work than I am up for at least.



Charles2222 -> (2/21/2002 10:44:00 PM)

Bing: Oh Bing, you are so right. What a setup you described, and to think, that IF you decide to do the save thing, they've probably placed your engineers and their HTs in such a way that you'll have a massive delay going around the mines instead (lots of rough and woods) and THEN only have 15 turns to do it in. I stopped playing Super Mario Brothers types of games a long time ago, and when a scenario is rigged in such a way that it takes extreme memorization to even get a marginal victory, it easily is comparable to Super Mario. Being a rat running through an obstacle course might be fun is some ways, but it's sure doesn't demonstrate any skill, aside from memorization. zzzzzzzz



Charles2222 -> (2/21/2002 11:35:00 PM)

Les: You bring up a good point I know I've brought up before. It's kind of funny that as the game works, you can see ALL the map at one time, know where all the tress are that none of your units can see, behind a hill, and yet you have no idea what the LOS is on that hill. Part of RL would involve something of knowing the odd enemy disposition here and there, particularly since we're so adept at knowing how many tree hexes are behind that hill. Having the enemy somewhat revealed might only work in one way though, and that would be only if you were in your own country, where the locals or partisans might've clued you in a bit (they might certainly be able to tell you where something that took more time to implement, like minefields, might be). You know, come to think of it, when we're thinking about CL having an operational layer, you should actually be able to have battles, if you will, where there's actually no fighting. Sound confusing? Not really. Say you're playing on a operational layer of a 10X10 regular SPWAW battle screens. You force wins the first battle and goes forward, where they maybe win again. They go forward again, but the enemy didn't place any units there. In such a battle it would amount to sweating through trying to figure out if there are any units. Let's assume there's not. Well, you hook north to the rear of the 2nd possible battle hex for that line, and actually enter through what would be that battle's rear, where, you might end up sneaking up on any force there. Such a thing would certainly make manning the rear of a battle hex of a considerable importance. Now imagine the possibilities....The described force enters through the rear of that battle hex, timing it with an assault from the regular front of that same hex from another of your forces. In such a way, you wouldn't have any set amount of units against another, such as assaults being 3 times the force of the defender, and you could never tell. Man, I salivate at such a possibility. Talk about battles being unpredictable! What's more, if the battle wasn't self-enclosed, this described assault might pretty well have had the enemy sized up at a certain point, only to have some of the forces from another battle hex come reinforcing. Oh man, what a bloodbath!



RockinHarry -> (2/21/2002 11:37:00 PM)

I also don´t like the lack of pre-game intelligence in some user made ASSAULT scenarios. Some bunkers can easily be made visible in Freds WaW Editor by setting the "visibility" flag, in "Positions/Property Editor". Also discovered minefields can be simulated with "friendly" minefields or map markings. Even the scenario description text can be showed while playing the scenario, by renaming it to "gamehelp.txt" and putting into Main folder.
Also the SPWAW shape files can hold very large shapes. I used one to include a custom battle map that can be viewed by scrolling to a certain hex. Try this scenario for more: (!!! right click mouse,...save target as !!!) http://geocities.com/rockinharry/SPWAW/StalinLine.zip have fun ________
harry



Bing -> (2/21/2002 11:42:00 PM)

I'm from the old school: If the troops are bitching, they are still OK. None of the above prevents me from playing and enjoying the game, most of the time it doesn't even slow me down. As to "cheating", who would I be cheating? I'm nor referring to PBEM games, these are strictly against the AI, should have made that clear. I play for fun, not to make myself feel like the second coming of Erwin von Rommnel.This is a GAME for me. I can enjoy the work of designers who want to play tricks on the user. No harm in replaying a turn, not for me. We can suit ourselves on this issue. Bing



Charles2222 -> (2/22/2002 12:16:00 AM)

Bing: It's not 2nd coming of Rommel, it's 'trying' to put yourself in something resembling some bit of reality. Do you think Rommel spotted a British minefield, and said to himself, "Gee whiz, I moved up a hex more than I efficiently should have to achieve that spot, I better go to my backup". Generally, I get bored with going back just one turn, because it seems to destroy my comtinuity and it's not making progress. Scenarios I realize don't encourage wanting to make progress, due to the fact that in most cases there's no such thing as upgrading or experience gained. Immersion into the game is so much easier when you just continue, but I guess that makes me a 2nd Rommel, and therefore I'll be a gentleman with the British when I meet them.



Bing -> (2/22/2002 12:47:00 AM)

Chas - Don't let what I wrote be a comment on your style of play. It wasn't. I was referring to my style of play - anyone can play W@w any way they want and it wouldn't hurt my feelings. What I'm really saying is I don't see myself as a great player - that never was the appeal of wargaming for me. The competitive aspect is fine, it is great, it is wonderful. So ... you can play to suit yourself. I will play to suit myself. Everyone is smiling, everyone is happy ... here comes ...now where did that come from? Relax. Have fun. Bing



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (2/22/2002 1:00:00 AM)

I kinda like that "no battle" notion actually. Who says a campaign always has to be each and every battle against fully prepared positions? Maybe something that can be built into CL. Would make for some really cool potentialities for doing well in a previous battle. Of course really blowing it in a previous battle would have to have repercutions as well I suppose.



Charles2222 -> (2/22/2002 2:17:00 AM)

Les: I guess overall, what I was talking about was a really fluid war of battles. Theoretically, you could have almost every battle on the same field. In other words, though it could still be done turn-based, you would have a flowing battlefield of many battlefields, to where there wouldn't even be such a thing as a limit to how many turns there would be in a battlefield. Each battlefield's battles would be limited to whenever you wanted to jump over to it. If you had a rear area battlefield with offboard artillery, actually being on the map, but well to the rear of the entire game's front, you could move guns anytime you want and in the sense the empty battle would last only as long as doing that. If an enemy unit should stray into that battlefield, look around for 4 or 5 turns, then exit, that would be the extent of that so-called battle. I suppose with such a notion, there would be no such thing as winners or losers for battles, unless of course some tally was given everytime it was exited. I don't know if that's even possible without everything being very much looking like real-time, but having adjoining battlefields something unique to SPWAW, and also the SPWAW trait of reinforcements coming in, something like that might be possible. The only other hangup in the scenario I presented that I can see is the SPWAW maxim of the attack always only coming from one side, as there might've seemed no need to allow armies to actually attack a force trapped in the middle. Even if it did, in setup, the vision I had would see an enemy force sitting there waiting for something, occupying 100% of the map with perhaps no deployment lines. OTOH, there has to be some sort of continuity to adjoining battlefields, which I suppose you could say was handled in SP by possessing part of the map and having a neutral zone. Anyway, I'd sure love to see the barrier of being only able to attack from one side broken, alongside the idea that there needn't be any comparable matching in force size in any given battle (such as assaults always being 3 times the size of the defender, which, I suppose, might eliminate the concept of calling a battle a type, such as an 'assault' or advance. In short, you wouldn't know whether what you walked into was an entreched army or not, and the fact that you might see a prety ggos size force enter into to it hell-bent on detruction might make you wonder whether that particular battlefield was an enemy advance or an enemy defend. Often enough the mere fact that the enemy looks entrenched could be a nice little touch of deception. Imagine you spot a frontline of entrenched infantry, so you move preparing to assault, only to find he has an army larger than yours waiting for you to walk into the trap), so to relatively strip another battlefield, and then have the stripped battlefield counter-attacked by the enemy, it would be nice if you could do it. Fun to kick around anyway. [ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]



Dogfish -> (2/22/2002 2:51:00 AM)

Hey All: Someone did a scenario, and I appologize for not being able to find his name or the scenario, right now, but he had some unique ways of passing maps, and intel throughout the scenario. He used zip files, with passwords that you would find as codes on enemy vehicles that you encountered. You used the codes to unzip the "radio messages". He also used the help file to pass on maps. I enjoyed this and expected to see more, and of course further improvements. If you were the crator of this scenario that I think pointed out some new innovations in SPWAW scenario's then kudos, and please take credit. If anyone knows the scenario I'm talking about please post where to find it. I think it would inspire other scenario makers who want to include intelligence in the game.



Charles2222 -> (2/22/2002 2:56:00 AM)

Dogfish: That's pretty wild.



adantas -> (2/22/2002 3:30:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Dogfish:
Hey All: Someone did a scenario, and I appologize for not being able to find his name or the scenario, right now, but he had some unique ways of passing maps, and intel throughout the scenario. He used zip files, with passwords that you would find as codes on enemy vehicles that you encountered. You used the codes to unzip the "radio messages". He also used the help file to pass on maps. I enjoyed this and expected to see more, and of course further improvements. If you were the crator of this scenario that I think pointed out some new innovations in SPWAW scenario's then kudos, and please take credit. If anyone knows the scenario I'm talking about please post where to find it. I think it would inspire other scenario makers who want to include intelligence in the game.

Hey Dogfish, the guy who did this masterpiece is my good friend Rockying Harry! Brits vs Germans at Italy Alessandro --------------
Senta ŕ Pua!!!



BruceAZ -> (2/22/2002 10:27:00 AM)

Here is a little secret that I have used in the past that WB taught me. It really works. During assault, I always purchase fast, cheap motorized recon units and a large number of motoroized engineers. I pick 2 or 3 locations to "probe" with the recon knowing they will be lost but will quickly spot the minefield's forward edge. When it is located, I rush the motorized engineers forward to the mine field and concentrate their effectiveness on one ot two hexes. I awalys plan a smoke and HE barrage to protect them and always use a number of infantry tanks with smoke capability to support them in a over-sight role. This takes care of any enemy in bunkers that likely to spot the engineers. In the meantime, I move up my assault forces close to the engineers for the planned break-through. As soon as the engineers open a hole (even one hex wide), I push the assault teams through the breech. 9 out of 10 times this will defeat the AI. However, this may not be a effective tactic with a live PBEM opponent. If the field is deep, the PBEM gamer will start lobbing arty at the breech and your plan goes up in smoke. To compensate for this I keep the assault force disbursed and away from the engineers. This seems to help but the poor engineers are in deep do-do. The only way to protect them is to confuse your opponent as to the exact location with one as the specific or actual target and the other two as "dummies" to draw his arty away from the engineers. This has been effective in 4 out of six games. By "effective" I mean long enough for the engineers to do their job of creating a breech. A few have allowed me to open the breech only to pick me off one at a time as I try to force units through the breech. I can hear their laughter all the way from the east coast. Of course, if the field is multi-layered, you got a long night ahead of you no matter what you plan. Hope this helps. Bruce
Semper Fi



Dogfish -> (2/22/2002 1:53:00 PM)

Hey Adantas: That's great, but do you know where to find this masterpiece by our good friend Rockin' Harry?



Resisti -> (2/22/2002 5:29:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Dogfish: That's great, but do you know where to find this masterpiece by our good friend Rockin' Harry?
Ask him: harizan@web.de



Charles2222 -> (2/22/2002 9:19:00 PM)

5thRecon: Well thanks for the advice, but unfortunately you confirmed exactly what I said earlier, that many scenarios are unfortunately designed around you spending most if not all of your force as recon and engineers (there's no gripe if they tell you that from the start). I only have 2 platoons of engineers, and almost never buy any additional in support, and even that gives me misgivings about my engineer support being too heavy. While some situations might call for a heavy amount of engineers, the campaigner is in a quandry if he has too many when he's attacked, because an unrealistically high proportion makes it "all too easy". When talking scenarios though, the designers often enough tell you to balance your forces, well 3 or 4 platoons of recon, and 3 or 4 engineer platoons, if that's what these 'balanced' assaults need, don't seem balanced to me. More time solves all kinds of problems in this regard. Still, for the life of me, I don't know why a commander wouldn't give his troops anymore time to take the battlefield, laden with mines, than he would in an area where little or no mines are expected. It's just silly. The original SP gave you more time on assaults, maybe because they knew something that's been largely forgotten.



RockinHarry -> (2/24/2002 3:44:00 AM)

sorry mates...I´ve not yet had the time to post these scenarios somewhere. Here´s the link for direct downloads: "Italy44" with the Zipped radio messages: http://geocities.com/rockinharry/SPWAW/AFTERCASSINO44.zip (right click mouse/save target as...) "Probing the stalin line" with ingame battle map (huge shape graphic) and scenario text on main screen shown: http://geocities.com/rockinharry/SPWAW/StalinLine.zip (right click mouse/save target as...) ..and some pics of "Ardennes44" which is still in the works: http://us.geocities.com/rockinharry/index.html have fun
__________
Harry



V-man -> (2/28/2002 2:34:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Velovich: True, but what do you do when the designers have got gamey themselves? What about a mine belt that stifles one part of your start line and not another, and then they might place one lousy mine in a heavily wooded area with it not having any purpose but to sabotage you going away from where mines might be, and then only give you 15-20 turns (I'm not saying all assault designers do this, nor do I intend to name anyone if I remember, because it's a general trend I'm talking about here. Some just don't give you much time, some get gamey with mines too, making matters worse)? It almost seems as though when designers do this sort of thing, despite that they may encourage a combined force, what they're really after is to make practically your entire force as recon and engineers (wow, such fun). If nothing else, perhaps mines ought to be made a lot more expensive (while maybe dragon's teeth and wire remain the same). You know.... this reminds me of something. It seems I've heard it discussed that ATGs were a lot more expensive now, and though they may be perhaps too effective just how is a defensive force supposed to make up it's lack of punch then? ATGs were always something that to me alaways gave the defensive force a HUGE advantage is he's only buy enough of them, and/or if the assaulter didn't buy very much artillery. It's a shame if they've been very much priced up, because it was always a fun thing about being on the defensive. IMO maybe mines should go up, while ATGs should go back to where they were (better yet that people would design assaults with 30 turns or more). Thanks for everyone's time.
Sorry, but in my experience, a well balanced force at battalion strength, in an assauklt, has one company of engineers attached and operating as a unit with another company dispersed to the infantry platoons, 1 squad of engineers supporting each platoon. If you anticipate mines, or just because it's an assault and mines should be more prevalent, *don't* lead with tanks. Lead with scout cars and infantry. Using a one or two hex miefield as a harassment is a GOOD tactic and NOT "cheating". I do it all the time on the defense. Remember, these aren't "hexes" they are 50 meter by 50 meter areas. Minefields are typically, in real life, small affairs desigend to channel and obstruct key points. Barrier minefields (linear) went the way of the dodo back in WW II due to the ease of breaching them. Non-linear minefields, which you seem to take issue with, are a development of WW II. They reduced the effectiveness of breaching methods by being unpredictable in their location and size. If the enemy is breaking up your formations and frustrating you with mines in unusal places, he's doing a good job of defense. V-man



V-man -> (2/28/2002 2:39:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Bing:

But a half dozen hexes back, with no pattern or rhyme or reason, individual mines are placed so that when the engineers HT's start to move - HT's the designer spotted next to the mines to start the battle - they run straight into them. Not at the approach. Deliberately placed to trick the player into losing the engineers transportation. Sprinkled around, as if the enemy knew in advance where my HT's would be parked. That level of advance knowledge is so far as I am concerned reserved for the deity. Bing
You mean in a scenario where you have no input on your deployment? The only way to avoid that is to dismount your engineers before advancing. And frankly, advancing mounted when you *know* there are mines present is silly. First rule is that you won't spot mines while mounted, so dismount. I dont' disagree that these designs are a bit much, but you can still beat them. V-man



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.171875