Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

quote:

ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: soldier

Is it possible to increase the chances of getting some wider maps during the long campaign ?
except for the first battle nearly all the rest are narrow 40 hex wide maps (a very high percentage). Large or small force purchases don't seem to make a difference, you still get small maps. It would be good to have the option to play larger (or at least wider) battles in the long campaign

This has been a long-standing issue. The size of your initial core force plays a part in this: if its over 3000 points, you're more likely to get larger battle maps. Now that you mention it, I tend to customize core forces to cover the maps I want to fight on. The Germans are a good example -- in the latest 8.403 test mech, in Sept 39 you have 3111 points to work with (True Troop Cost ON, Rarity OFF). I changed my OOB set to match the parameters, without getting away from historically-available forces.

Oddly, my chosen USMC battalion landing team (reinforced), is much cheaper, and does not exceed the 3000-point level. The main reason is that I focus on infantry (three companies), with a minimal supply of armor (three 5-tank platoons, equipped with the older M2A4s). The heavy weapons are just four 81mm mortars, two 37mm AT guns, and two self-propelled 75mm GMCs. I also add four Raider platoons and a Parachute platoon.

The upgrade paths for the Marines are fairly simple. With each successive year, the rifle squads get more powerful. The 9-man squad of 1942 gets replaced by the 12-man squad in 1943, and the 13-man squad in 1944-45. The 1942 BAR squads can change to either an Assault Squad, an additional 30 cal MMG, or a bazooka team.

The light tanks of 1942 get replaced by the Shermans, with a flame tank upgrade for one tank in each platoon.

The 4-man Recon Teams change to 6-man Scout/Sniper Teams.

The Raiders/Paras are a special case -- although ahistorical, I tend to keep them for the duration. Historically, all were converted into "regular" Marine squads and folded into new regiments. Doing this essentially gives you a fourth infantry company capable of conducting independent operations -- a 1940s version of the modern "special operations capable" units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Standard defensive battalion frontage averaged about 900 yards or about 18 hexes. Allowing a frontage of 40 hexes, two thousand yards, means the battalion was stretched pretty thin and it was difficult to control with fire. Over that and there was a hole in your line. Standard offensive battalion frontage was about 500 meters, a little better than half that. This offensive frontage assumes one infantry battalion and an attached company of armor.

Is there a problem with this?

Thanks...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Alright -- the argument is turning into "Do you play this game as a a military exercise ", OR "as a fun escape"?

SPWaW, to MY mind, is somewhere in between. It isn't solid enough to be called a "simulation". It is still just a game, and many abstractions have to be interprolated. It is by no means a "real-world" game, even in terms of WWII.

The best we can do, IMHO, is an approximation. The game gives you the impression of being there -- it simply can't go beyond that.

Once everyone gets that notion firmly drilled in their heads, then we can work towards making it more enjoyable for everybody.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

To me, how I set up my forces indicates what I am defending or fighting for. Attempting to cover the whole map is not my goal. Having a bit more map to work with and choose fighting positions from would be nice (thus defining what my coverage will be). Cramming a 5000 point battle onto the standard 'small' map is often a major pain.



Goblin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Even medium maps more often would be better, Mike. I think most people's complaint is that you draw the small maps with a large core. Small maps with a smaller core are not a problem. Dunno if big maps with a small core bother people or not (they do not bother me personally; room to manuever). Can it be adjusted so that above a certain point value you get more medium and large maps?


Goblin

quote:


KG Erwin

Is map size for long campaigns something that could allow for player input? A multiple choice option like 1) Small maps only; 2) Small/medium mix ;3) Medium/large mix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Yup. If some one reminds me, when I work on SPWaW next ime, I could add that.

Bye...

Michael Wood

quote:

Standard offensive battalion frontage was about 500 meters, a little better than half that. This offensive frontage assumes one infantry battalion and an attached company of armor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I'd think that most gamers would go for the "size choice" option.

Maybe this could be polled at the Depot ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left.

I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me.

just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game.

hank

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left.

I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me.

just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game.

hank

Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

When a bit more internal testing is finished, I will request that the production folk release the new executable and editor for public beta testing, to get input from a broader range of players.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

Jim NSB

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Having already commited to adding the feature, I am not sure why you would need to poll. But if you like, poll away.

Bye...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I'd think that most gamers would go for the "size choice" option.

Maybe this could be polled at the Depot ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: hank

One thing I've noticed in the campaigns is that the overall direction of forces is swapped. In other words if I pick the WWII scenario I get the Americans (Allies) positioned on the right side attacking to the left (or facing west if north is up) which goes against the overall direction of attack in the western theater. The Allies pushed the Germans easterward yet in the campaign the forces are the opposite. I'm at work and can't remember for sure but I think the eastern front battles are OK ... germans facing east or to the right/ruskies facing west or to the left.

I've worked engineering and construction for years and I like north being up on maps. In fact there's a user designed scenario for SSG's BiN of the battle of Kursk which has north pointing to the right. Its a popular scenario but the rotation of the battlefield just kind of ruins it for me.

just a small peeve of my for an otherwise wonderful game.

hank

Mmap orientations are one of the many abstractions. There may be occasions when east is north, or west is south, or whatever. In ground combat, NSEW doesn't matter anyway, does it? You have a right flank, a left flank, a forward direction and a retrograde direction. Compass direction doesn't apply, correct?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Actually, map orientation is not abstracted. In the table that gives the battle locations, there are several factors, such as amount of water, amount of woods, amount of hills, amount of roads and starting side for each combatant. The maps are generated in a random fashion, but the map orientation assumes the top of the map is north and places each force on the appropriate side. Due to the scale of the battles, one side may often fight in a direction other than that of the general front. During operation Torch, for instance, Americans attacked towards the south, east, west and even north in a number of engagements. In the drive across Europe, the Allies crossed the same river a goodly number of times, attacking sometimes from the east and others from the west, north or south. Due to map drawing limitations, the game only places combatants facing east or west.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood