Is SPWAW a fantasy game?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Is SPWAW a fantasy game?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Is SPWAW a fantasy game?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Is SPWAW a fantasy game? - 11/27/2001 4:40:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

I've been involved in a thread on a different subject when the following reply was received: [Quote] No, I was talking about the game, anybody who tries to defeat Tigers with T34s deserves to lose. Why, and how does this not apply to the RL WWII? Because the Russians couldn't afford to make a very large amount of KVs, while the player can. In other words, while the historic Russian has meterials to consider, the player has nothing more than the small increase in prcie between KVs from T34s. Funny, I never see anyone make the case that KVs should be a lot more expensive because they'd whoop T34s between 2-to-1 to 3-to-1, because the comparison between those two and the T34/Tiger pricing are the same. People try to apply real world arguments to a game that isn't wholly RL and you'll get the wrong approach. The approach to remember about this game, and then things will start making a little bit of sense, is this: What if two country's forces of about the same size met each other, what would happen?. I've always thought that SPWAW was based on historical relevence, and not a fantasy game, or a "What if" game which uses WW2 material. I guess this response evolved from a question I'd asked much earlier in the thread, whether the poster know it or not I'm uncertain.
Q3 Does it bother anyone that we often fight battles with weapons that hardly existed, because they are better than the common yet less effective weapons? I myself, am for the game representing battles that could have or did occur. Therfore I'd be offended if someone told me I went home to play a fantasy game. The last sentence of the first quote to me is the most perplexing. Why in this game of battles are we concerned that the Allies and Axis have equilivent resources?

_____________________________

"In light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence

Post #: 1

- 11/27/2001 4:48:00 AM

Wild Bill

Posts: 6821
Joined: 4/7/2000
From: Smyrna, Ga, 30080
Status: offline

That is up to the player, my friend. You can be as realistic or as fantasy-minded as you choose. Don't blame the game for providing you with the tools for realism or fantasy. If you play a scenario or generate your own battle, you can choose your units. So just be glad all of these options are there. If there is a fault, it lies with the player, not the game. Wild Bill

_____________________________

In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 2

- 11/27/2001 6:14:00 AM

pax27

Posts: 126
Joined: 10/19/2001
From: Sweden
Status: offline

It�s funny how Wild Bill just comes in and clear this up. I mean it! Most games I�ve ever played could be tweaked or configured in a lot of ways to suit your style of game. I myself like NHL hockey, and I play EA�s NHL2002 (and SPWaW ofcourse) a lot right now. And they have the same problem there, do you want an arcade style game or a realistic simulator? Well it�s all upp to you, just play around with it until your happy with te game in question. I�ve read all your posts and all the responses in the OOB�s thread, and I got your point, and I really think that you stirred up more dust then you wanted to

One thing thou, it�s always good to air ideas and thoughts about stuff you like or enjoy. There�s no point in this post but to keep this cost system discussion on a somewhat reasonable level. I�ve also asked stupid (?) questions and gotten the answer that it�s in the manual or that it�s been discussed before. I don�t think people mean anything by that, but to be honest with you all, I just like this forum a lot, and enjoy posting and discussing here. So this is far from the last bull you�ll see from me

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 3

- 11/27/2001 6:22:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Wild Bill:
That is up to the player, my friend. You can be as realistic or as fantasy-minded as you choose. Don't blame the game for providing you with the tools for realism or fantasy. If you play a scenario or generate your own battle, you can choose your units. So just be glad all of these options are there. If there is a fault, it lies with the player, not the game. Wild Bill

Well, I understand and appreciate your point Wild Bill. My problem is when I communicate with other players on the forum. What may seem as a simple problem to me i.e. Why doesn't a column of T-34s stand a lick of a chance in a battle with Tigers?; becomes a great problem to someone who considers this game a fantasy or "what if" game. I'd say "raise the price on the Tiger.
Another "buy a thousand bazookas". ,and still another "you don't want to play this game with anything but the best". It's anything but simple

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 4

- 11/27/2001 6:37:00 AM

asgrrr

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline

This point cost discussion is getting completely out of hand. One thing that has been largely overlooked so far is the rarity factor. You simply cannot count on having hordes of Tigers, no matter how cheap they are. Actually, this is perhaps my favorite innovation in SPWAW. It is a measure of the likelyhood that a commander in a given situation would have a particular piece of equipment available. The cost system is something more abstract. The point system of the old SP1 was very different, and had to be because there was no rarity. But I don't want to be dragged into this mess, but consider this: If there were a point system that was a 100% fair reflection of capabilities, it wouldn't matter at all which units the player bought, provided it was a balanced force. Is that the kind of game we want? I don't.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 5

- 11/27/2001 7:04:00 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

This whole discussion revolves around how much "historicity" you want in a given game. SPWaW is open-ended, that is, you can make it depict any number of historical or ahistorical situations. I don't play against human opponents for that very reason. The ideal H2H competition, I think, is when a third party chooses the forces that you have within a given situation. In that way, you are forced to solve a tactical problem without the natural tendency to load up with "ideal" force composition. In my proposed SPWaW tournament for the Charleston convention, I would say that should be the format. The two opponents agree upon no more than which nation's forces they prefer, and the "umpire" ( this is comparable to how wargames are played at most staff colleges), decides the battlefield. With the rarity option "on", the opposing players choose their forces. The umpire would also have final approval of the players' force composition. In that way, you are usually guaranteed a balanced competition in which tactical expertise and combined arms prevail. Does this seem reasonable?

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 6

- 11/27/2001 7:57:00 AM

john g

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Galka:
The last sentence of the first quote to me is the most perplexing. Why in this game of battles are we concerned that the Allies and Axis have equilivent resources?

In scenarios or planned campaigns (not WWII or campaign generator) the sides do not have to be equal and would lessen the quality of the setup if they were. Only when the game is played contest mode (battle generator) is there even a need for it. The illusion of being able to take an even start and win from it is what drives a lot of players. If you play someone who is less experianced than you, do you give them extra points to buy with? Or the opposite, do you demand a handicap when playing a better player? Some players will play no better than the ai until they gain some experiance, if players of that quality fought each other, is it any different than playing the ai against itself? After taking down several Tiger II's with ptrd's in one of the Tiger scenarios from FPrado's site, I learned not to fear Tigers, and learned even cheap inf-at will take them down with close assault. The game represents a model of intense combat that might be correct for a beach landing, but really seems to intense for almost any other action. Reading about infantry actions, it might take 24 hours to lose a dozen men out of a company, while in the game you might lose that per turn. Historically artillery caused the majority of casualties amoung infantry, yet people complain that rifles are not causing casualties? Crank arty effectiveness up around 250 and you end up with a pretty good simulation of WWI. The casualties that arty caused were not just in face to face combat like the game represents. For every hour of men shooting at each other actively there were days of men sitting on their rears not making targets of themselves. That is when harrasment arty would cause casualties to men caught out in the open or unlucky enough to get hit with a round where they were hiding. Paul V once said that if they designed SPWAW to be exactly like WWII combat, no one would play because it would be too boring. Imagine forcing everyone who plays the Germans to fight with infantry and horse drawn arty 90 percent of the time. No more worrying about how tank heavy your force is, because there were no tanks. Accurate, but boring, any game that allows tanks in every battle will be from the start a fantasy. There have been entire books on how badly the Germans managed their R&D and production. Playing whatif with an all Tiger production plan, or building more than the historical amount of flak pieces to keep the allied air down to managable levels were choices the Germans didn't make, but should the player be forced to make the same mistakes the German high command did? No one makes the US player buy 2/3 light tanks, and only 1/3 Shermans, yet that is the proportion the US fought with. Personally I think that the Tiger and Tiger II are such easy to use weapons that they could gain a newbee status. Anyone who can't win without them isn't a finesse player. They just happen to be very well designed tanks, but they are just as killable if approached via their weaknesses. If your opponents want to use positively obscene purchases, offer to play them twice, once with your purchase and once with theirs. Then add the two scores together to see who did better. Or my way, where you play the same nationality but play multiple battles, one per year and then average all the scores together. Or the pie model where you let one player set the game up for both sides and then the other player picks which side to play. Those are several alternatives to the current way of stacking the deck with rare or optimal equipment.
thanks, John.

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 7

- 11/27/2001 8:06:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Penetrator:
This point cost discussion is getting completely out of hand. One thing that has been largely overlooked so far is the rarity factor. You simply cannot count on having hordes of Tigers, no matter how cheap they are. .

Regretfully in PBEM battles the rarity factor is quite easy to circumvent. Both Players can just reload the game until they come up with a combo they like. Sorry

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 8

- 11/27/2001 8:13:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by KG Erwin:
This whole discussion revolves around how much "historicity" you want in a given game. SPWaW is open-ended, that is, you can make it depict any number of historical or ahistorical situations. I don't play against human opponents for that very reason. The ideal H2H competition, I think, is when a third party chooses the forces that you have within a given situation. In that way, you are forced to solve a tactical problem without the natural tendency to load up with "ideal" force composition. In my proposed SPWaW tournament for the Charleston convention, I would say that should be the format. The two opponents agree upon no more than which nation's forces they prefer, and the "umpire" ( this is comparable to how wargames are played at most staff colleges), decides the battlefield. With the rarity option "on", the opposing players choose their forces. The umpire would also have final approval of the players' force composition. In that way, you are usually guaranteed a balanced competition in which tactical expertise and combined arms prevail. Does this seem reasonable?

Thanks for the Advice both KG and JohnG. I particularily like the pie method. Does anyone use it? Closest thing I've come to is to have both players use computer selected forces, which is not always the best solution. Even at that it's hard to retain opponents. I'd be willing to be an umpire or player should enough people be willing to get into it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 9

- 11/27/2001 11:27:00 AM

asgrrr

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline

Galka: Reloading in PBEM to get a satisfactory result is the form of cheating everybody fears, whether it is during setup or otherwise. If this is a problem, then nothing is safe. Personally, I will not blame the game if my opponent cheats.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 10

- 11/27/2001 11:41:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

It's simple. The game is as historic as you make it. For tournament/ladder battles things just aren't going to be historical. It's a challenge of skills. It is at this point SPWAW becomes more of 'just' a game. If purchasing your units is a part of that process then picking the right units is going to be something players focus on. The pricing scheme isn't unfair, and that's all that matters for these battles. When Tigers are available a whole host of Tiger killing purchases are available too. People fixate on the big tough units cause, and that's natural. I've been playing PBEM games against people I know and don't know for a long time. I get MUCH better results with more of a weaker unit than I do with fewer high quality units. People like to complain, but all in all SPWAW is a great game. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 11

- 11/28/2001 12:04:00 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Galka:

quote:

Well, I understand and appreciate your point Wild Bill. My problem is when I communicate with other players on the forum. What may seem as a simple problem to me i.e. Why doesn't a column of T-34s stand a lick of a chance in a battle with Tigers?; becomes a great problem to someone who considers this game a fantasy or "what if" game.

I, being the one you quoted, perhaps I can answer your question, but I doubt it's what you wnat to hear. Your basic question is a bit absurd to me, why can't a MEDIUM tank, the T34, stand a lick of a chance against a Tiger. Why not ask, why does a PZIV not stand a lick of a chance against a KV85? You might as well be asking why does a PZII not stand a chance against a T34. You see, the Germans decided to build this large tank, because, they basically were having their medium tanks losing to the mediums and heavies of the USSR. They had no heavies, so they built them. Is that so hard to understand? So, naturally, when the USSR threw MEDIUM tanks against something dominant over it, the mediums will lose. Perhaps the legend of the T34 beating the Tiger was bent from the same mindset who at one time believed that every German tank was a Tiger, and that the USSR outproduced Germany in AFVs 8-to-1 (actually it was USSR over 125,000, while Germany 89,000). I would suggest that wise Soviet commanders didn't throw T34s willy-nilly into a known Tiger pit, and instead won such situations by cutting off Tiger supply and then sending in the KVs and JSs, but I must be fantasizing. Cutting off units isn't modeled in the game? I don't know what to tell you there, but if you really want a piece of a Tiger you outgun him. Either buy tons of ATGs or buy the stuff that was designed to deal with them (the heavies you know). Just like Gerry players have to do with KVs and T34s before the PZIVF2 comes along, instead of insisting that PZIIIs should be priced far cheaper than those.

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 12

- 11/28/2001 12:58:00 AM

Warhorse

Posts: 5712
Joined: 5/12/2000
From: Birdsboro, PA, USA
Status: offline

Well, you're not going to beat tigers with medium tanks, head-to-head!! I'm killing them in a PBEM, by spotting them, then pasting them with mortars, THEN move in with a tank or two(Sherman 75's), on the flanks, it works!! I lost a few at first because I didn't advance cautiously enough, but soon wised up! Have toasted Tigers before with T-34/43 at 5-6 hexes, with flank shots to, just need to suppress them first, pop up from cover, few shots, then disappear. If it's not suppressed enough, it won't matter, his first or second return will take care of you!

_____________________________

Mike Amos

Meine Ehre hei�t Treue
www.cslegion.com

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 13

- 11/28/2001 1:36:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Galka: I, being the one you quoted, perhaps I can answer your question, but I doubt it's what you wnat to hear. Your basic question is a bit absurd to me, why can't a MEDIUM tank, the T34, stand a lick of a chance against a Tiger. Why not ask, why does a PZIV not stand a lick of a chance against a KV85? You might as well be asking why does a PZII not stand a chance against a T34. .

No my question was, Why doesn't a column of T-34s stand a lick of chance in a battle with Tigers. Swarming was a prevelent Soviet tactic during WW2. It can be modelled quite well with the current AI of the game. If you've never heard of T-34s swarming Tigers read some books from the German perspective or by German authors such as: Carell, Kurowski, Buchner, Jantz, Meyer, Agte. I can't understand why that is such an absurd concept. This site has one example that occurred during the battle of kursk. Give me an example of PzIIs swarming T-34s and I'll take your question seriously. Prokhorvoka

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 14

- 11/28/2001 2:26:00 AM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Galka: Yes, I've read such things and the USSR was often withdrawing them for the slaughter they'd get in return (though of course this sort of thing succeeded at times too). Those, Gurka, were the unwise Soviet commanders. Even if it were the wisest use of Soviet resources (it's SORT of similar to blitzkrieg - concentration of force, you know) you can't model that in the game, can you? Unless your opponent agrees to having 1 tank, regardless of model, to 4 of yours. I don't know any takers for that kind of mismatch, unless of course they play the part of assaultees. I can, on second thought, think of another situation where concentrating all your force on a three or four hex advance works, when the visibility is naught, but anyone can pull that off (yes, I've campaigned against the Finns as the USSR before). Secondly, my PZII against T34s is just as valid, for I'm comparing a lighter class to a heavier one, such as what you are doing. Also, it has the similarities in that both the Germans and the Soviets when at these considerable disadvantages, have something better to use to meet the threat, but refuse to do so, and then would act as though they're surprised their tactic doesn't work (or at least not more successfully). Even if comparing PZII to T34 is illegitimate, that certainly cannot apply to PZIIIHs against KVIs can it? You see, what I'm driving at? If the changes were to incorporate your T34 v. Tiger idea, then it has to be applied across the board, does it not? So, if you're doing an invasion 41 scenario as the USSR, you would see your KVIs and T34s go through the roof in pricing. Seems to me you should keep the Germans at their massive disadvantage for that period in the same pricing, and that you do the same with your situation, because, as I've said, your idea will not stand for a mere Tiger price increase while the other mismatches get off scott-free, or elsewise this is a sham of a game. Either "claiming" something as so many times superior is a valid concept (be that by "merely" stating it or by semi-proving it by going up against the enemy down 4-to-1, coming up even, to therefore prove the point) for changing pricing or it is not. I say it is not. I probably don't have much of an issue with changing pricing for valid reasons, I just don't see comparing AFVs of different classes based on our assumptions of some alleged high superiority of one over the other as the motivating force. Things that weren't fantasy, like production numbers, has been abandoned for lack of data, or whatever additional reasons, but such things I would regard as valid. You see what I'm driving at? If you set up a situation where one AFV suffers just because it does very well, then that opens a whole can of worms you probably don't even consider possible, but rest assured, if such a system will sell out one set of gamers, it won't be long before they expose the flaws for what they are and then the beneficiaries of the new outlook have to suffer along for their own invention. This, basing prices on some alleged ratio of disadvantage of one unit over another in a different class is not a good thing, as I've tried to explain. ONLY when comparing units in the same class (heavy vs. heavy for example) can you hope to achieve anything resembling playability out of this approach. If Matrix would listen to you and do it fairly, as I said, they would have to do it across the board. If you care to look, you will see basically how the heavies are the most expensive across the board, any nation's. The problem is that though heavies are probably not priced very well ratio-wise, to the mediums and lights, the 255 cost limit, particularly since this isn't strictly an AFV game, makes fair pricing almost impossible.

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 15

- 11/28/2001 3:14:00 AM

asgrrr

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline

Galka does have a point, but it has little to do with the price of things. It is the spec op fire thing. It allows units apparently to fire an unlimited number of shots in a given turn. Not only that, the rate of fire of these shots is one per hex travelled by opposing units. The latter feature is as old as the game itself. Therefore, prokhorovka style charges are virtually impossible. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to create an accurate scenario of prokhorovka! The old way, in which one could harass defending tanks until they had expended all shots led to poor gamesmanship, even if it was close to reality. The spec op fix, while a positive feature in most respects, is over the top in some circumstances. The solution would be to reduce the chance of spec op with each spec op shot. Then you could overwhelm a defender by sheer numbers. Imagine 20 T-34s creeping up on a Tiger from each side. As it is, the Tiger can swing the turret around in zero seconds and blast each tank as it comes up from right or left ad infinitum.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 16

- 11/28/2001 3:18:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

I have never found Tigers or King Tigers particularily hard to knock out with Allied Equipment that is contempry with them .. So the whole issue seems very much a non-issue to me ..
Maybe you should try using M-18 Hellcats ..they seem to have many serious advantages over tigers and other heavy Armor .. if you use them right that is, and give them a little help from those US 60mm super mortars and maybe a scout team or two ... but yes, I have had folks complain that US Scouts and 60mm Mortars are too cheap for their effectiveness ..so maybe it is scouts and such that are under priced ...Ok so i am poking a little fun here .. but i really have had folks complain about my scouts and 60mm .. Anyway the point is Tactics Tactics Tactics .. somebody ought to do a search and compile all the threads on this for one of those eBook thingies folks are making now ..could be fun

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 17

- 11/28/2001 3:34:00 AM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

Yeah.. who said it was impossible for T-34's to knock out Tigers?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 18

- 11/28/2001 3:39:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

Historically you don't get 'tons' of examples of T-34's rushing Tigers. There's certainly July 12, 1943. But that experience probably upset the Soviets somewhat. It's no fun to lose 192 tanks (who knows if that number is precise, suffice it to say.. a LOT). It didn't "work" really. 1st SS PzGrenadier Division had like 10 Tigers and the Tiger losses during Zitadelle weren't very big (mostly cause there weren't that many of them) and Soviet tanks losses were horrendous, but there were a lot of different reasons coming together to explaing the big losses. Most anything you hear about warfare is a myth. If you send 50 t-34's against 10 tigers on a hill with 50 hex visibility it's gonna be really sucky for those t-34's. Send 20 t-34's against 10 tigers in the woods and things would be different. Hell, send 20 half-tracks with infantry into the woods with 10 tigers. See how much fun it is to be the tigers then. It just depends. Almost any way you compare things can be food for an argument against the system. I think, for the most part, that it's quite good actually. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 19

- 11/28/2001 3:59:00 AM

asgrrr

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline

Of course we should keep discussing any and all aspects and whether they accurately reflect reality. That is the way to improve the game. But we also need to keep this discussion disciplined if it is to be fruitful. If tactic A is impossible to recreate in the game, the answer is not that tactic B can be used. That is utterly beside the point.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 20

- 11/28/2001 6:47:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:

If Matrix would listen to you and do it fairly, as I said, they would have to do it across the board. If you care to look, you will see basically how the heavies are the most expensive across the board, any nation's. The problem is that though heavies are probably not priced very well ratio-wise, to the mediums and lights, the 255 cost limit, particularly since this isn't strictly an AFV game, makes fair pricing almost impossible.

Well they must have been thinking about it too.
V 7.0 has some modified unit costs. They have done it differently, as they have reduced the price of some common tanks. This is probably better and it makes this more of a tank game again. i.e Sherman M4A1 costs less than a german infantry platoon. I never said that 4x the Tigers cost alone would be the ideal solution. please check the OOB thread for my initial suggestion. (it will deal with the med and heavy tank disparity). My issue has always been. Why is there no incentive for the PBEM player to use common weapons. i.e. The base difference between a MkIVh and Tiger Ferdinand is 10 points! This could be the difference between winning and loosing in a PBEM game I'm playing now. My opponent came to battle with IS2s. Thier shells have yet to penetrate the immense armour of my infantry protected Ferds. (i did loose 2 to close assault despite my best efforts). My Ferds are getting one shot kills at 500m. If I had saved 50points and took the mkIV they would all be smoking hulks right now, and I not my opponent would be lamenting their tactics. The irony is tactics had nothing to do with the outcome, it was Predetermined Nobody that competes does so intentionally to loose. Like you said earlier Only a loser would pit T-34s against Tigers. What do you do for the first 6 months of 1943, avoid battle?

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 21

- 11/28/2001 7:24:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Tombstone:
Historically you don't get 'tons' of examples of T-34's rushing Tigers. There's certainly July 12, 1943. But that experience probably upset the Soviets somewhat. It's no fun to lose 192 tanks (who knows if that number is precise, suffice it to say.. a LOT). It didn't "work" really. 1st SS PzGrenadier Division had like 10 Tigers and the Tiger losses during Zitadelle weren't very big (mostly cause there weren't that many of them) and Soviet tanks losses were horrendous, but there were a lot of different reasons coming together to explaing the big losses. Most anything you hear about warfare is a myth. If you send 50 t-34's against 10 tigers on a hill with 50 hex visibility it's gonna be really sucky for those t-34's. Send 20 t-34's against 10 tigers in the woods and things would be different. Hell, send 20 half-tracks with infantry into the woods with 10 tigers. See how much fun it is to be the tigers then. It just depends. Almost any way you compare things can be food for an argument against the system. I think, for the most part, that it's quite good actually. Tomo

Geez, Why would 10 Tigers be in the woods/city/swamps unprotected anyway? I mean are we going to build an idiot factor into the misuse of weapons? The germans knew these were valuable units. They didn't squander them the way we do with our game.
I'm just as guilty. Gee that looks like a job for MkIVs but I might as well use Tigers for the extra 20% surcharge. Most of the accounts I've read of T-34s on Tigers are not myth. They are compiled from after action reports. Try Jentz' Panzer Truppen 2 for starters. Now please don't tag me as a game basher. I've got less than 100 posts from the 5 or 6 years I've been playing this game. The Matrix people are very responsive, and I get the impression that they strive for balance in this game too. I'm only one voice, I don't expect them to bend for me. I'm just trying to find some players who agree to get together and start playing some PBEM where everybody doesn't want to be the winner, er I mean German. Now if everyone of the hotshots that have been shooting me down about this were willing to go up against me as the Liebstandarte, as the game is designed, I'd have nothing to complain about.

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 22

- 11/28/2001 7:29:00 AM

Mikimoto

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline

Hello. Spwaw is a fantastic wargame.
But it is a Fantastic Fantasy game too: ------------------41---42---43---44---45---GERMANY
experience........70...70...70...65...60
morale............70...70...70...70...65
leader exp........75...75...70...65...60 ------------------41---42---43---44---45---USA
experience........65...70...70...70...70
morale............65...70...70...70...70
leader exp........50...60...65...70...70 ------------------41---42---43---44---45---SOVIET UNION
experience........60...65...70...70...70
morale............60...65...70...70...75
leader exp........50...55...60...60...60 ------------------41---42---43---44---45---GREAT BRITAIN
experience........65...65...65...70...70
morale............65...65...70...70...75
leader exp........50...60...60...65...70 It is really funny when you compare the USA stats with the other three "majors". The US Army learned quickly, even prior to combat!
And then, as ever, there is the famous German advantage... or were the US?

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 23

- 11/28/2001 8:23:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Warhorse:
Well, you're not going to beat tigers with medium tanks, head-to-head!! I'm killing them in a PBEM, by spotting them, then pasting them with mortars, THEN move in with a tank or two(Sherman 75's), on the flanks, it works!! I lost a few at first because I didn't advance cautiously enough, but soon wised up! Have toasted Tigers before with T-34/43 at 5-6 hexes, with flank shots to, just need to suppress them first, pop up from cover, few shots, then disappear. If it's not suppressed enough, it won't matter, his first or second return will take care of you!

Agreed. Trouble is the Tiger will want to fight you at ranges of 2000m+ If you want to get close enough for a kill 800-1000m you need to take losses. Which to have a balanced fight means either less Tigers or more T-34s. Using Arty to supress Tigers is a good tactic. But while supressing tanks , enemy infantry is moving into your rear positions. You've wasted to many assets to take out a lethal, but low value target. Multiply that by how many cheap Tigers your opponent can purchase and you'll see how it quickly your game can become unbalanced. Trying to forget its a Tiger; just try comparing it to your next best 1942/ early '43 tank. Lets see it's got great armour, great gun, almost double the FC at 1.7 the cost. Good value , you bet! How about the Russian best? Well it's a toss up between great armour, average gun, poor speed , poor FC. A Tiger costs 1.35 this price. the Tiger Ferdinand nearly even. The other is a medium tank with good armour, great speed, poor FC. A Tiger costs merely 1.2 and the Tiger Ferdinand is even. Some folks wonder why I'd even consider this a MBT. It's a wonder anybody wants to play the Russians. It's rumoured that Kursk the greatest tank battle of all time happened during this period. Weird, eh?

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 24

- 11/28/2001 8:55:00 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

Mikimoto .. I posted the experience issue over on the OOB forum some time back ... you might want to look at it it is still an active thread ..Yes the US comes ashore in Torch more experienced than Monty's Desert rats in Nov '42 ..
Galka .. if you just look at the Tourament Results over on Combat Command you will see that the Germans tend not to even win even 50% of the PBEM games in the Leagues over there ( maybe one of these days I will have time to PBEM again .. but not to brag, In the 1944 League I won 19 out of 19 as American v. German and in the '43 Up the Boot league,as American, I think my Stats were 26 wins and a few draws out of about 32 games, no losses) I never asked my German Opponents to restrict thier purchases in any way .. letting the German player set what ever limits on offboard arty they wanted us both to observe .. and I confess to trying to educate everybody, that in 1943, the Germans had no Panthers, and damn few Tigers in Italy due to the priorities of Kursk .. but I never refused to play if the German player wanted Panthers .. and I never asked folks not to buy all the Wulfrahmens they wanted .. wait, to tell the truth, I think I asked The German player not to use Ski Infantry in my First ever PBEM game ..He did anyway .. and I won anyway ... It is strictly tactics ..There is nothing special about Tigers and King Tigers except the Large number of Victory Points they give me when I kill them.
Units in this Game are assigned points by a very complex formula based on every thing from armor and speed.. to .. if a gun is in fact capable of firing HEAT.. with additional points for each round of ammo.. to radio ..to surviability..to speed ..and everything in between, the data base for all the OOB's is over 25 meg and contains over 4 MILLION data elements ..It is know as the Spread Sheet from Hell .. I raised some of these Point/Cost issues back when version 4.6/5.0 came out.. It turned out that a bunch of units had ,through the various versions of the game, gone thru many changes, improving small details and improved modeling and the WHOLE Spreadsheet had not been recalculated for a few Versions .. This was what the Tiger Team OOB Scrub was all about ..and this is why some Allied Armor will be priced a little lower ..and alot of units will be priced slightly higher .. many correction were made in basic details ..Like auto cannons being calculated as single shot weapons for both HE kill ratings and point cost on some vehicles and mounts .. Where HE kill values went up the points are going to go up ..where special ammo loads were reduced unit point values will be going down...Some Transport units like the 251/1 were given an extra seat or two so the everybody could load , not because the seats are really there , but as a work around because the game engine can't handle spliting squads between two vehicles, and there is a 10 unit limit to a Platoon Formation so you can't just add extra vehicles ..stuff like that ..consequently 251/1's will cost a bit more because the formula says a seat on a track costs X number points ..stuff like that .. No prices were arbitraily raised or lowered to balance the game .. but many values will be changing because the last time anybody was sure that the WHOLE Spread sheet was recalculated was about ver 4.0 when SPWAW went to the new armor rating system ...My small role in all this was making sure that identical weapons in different OOB's had the same values ..and I did some work on the small arms, and MG's, and Auto cannons ..some didn't like my Theories and formulas ..some did .. They were modified by matrix staff before they were used .. but they were again based on formula .muuzle velocities and Kenetic Energy and rates of fire ..not on nationality or myth or any gut feeling .. some difference couldn't be accomidated because the span of vaules available for small arms to blend upwards into auto cannons up thru direct fire weapons ect was just to narrow .. but with in the limits of the game engine I think the Tiger Team did a damn fine job... and folks can be assured that, barring a typographical error or two in a 4 MILLION data element data base, that the value of every unit was calculated by the same formula, and was not arbitraily assigned based on any national preferences .. I don't know what else to tell you.. everything else is Tactics and Skill.

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 25

- 11/28/2001 10:29:00 AM

Galka

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

Ammo Sgt: You've got me painted into a corner. Nope I can't say that this is a bad game cause there are a few anomalies. Most pass muster because they are not vital to the success of a battle. However the Tiger is a game winning anomaly. I agree not in your case, but when I use 'em few want to play me, less even finish. It's almost cheating when you beat T-34s off with ease, commanding a battlefield with the range of those big guns. Remember when the 88Flak 36 was the queen of SP? It's been a long time since there was long drawn out discussion over them. My guess is some of you folks are already using V7. Looks to me like there's some Tiger relief in there.

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 26

- 11/28/2001 12:32:00 PM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

I can't agree more with what Ammo said. Except I like to play as the Russians. I've read Jentz's Panzer Truppen 2, and a bunch of other books on Germany and Russia in WW2. Certainly T-34's were used in mass against Tigers during the war. T43's were used in mass against ALL kinds of tanks, EVERY kind in fact. Just cause they were employed that way doesn't mean it was effective. In some cases it was, and in others it went bad. And few of those occasions were intentional the same way Prokhorovka was. If you have a 30-1 production ratio of tiger to t-34 you'll get a bit of that. Don't get me wrong there are cases where a scant few tigers destroy TONS of tanks. Those instances add up to a small number, and Remember also that once we get to late 44 we got 34/85's available and things are leveled somewhat at the individual vs. individual tank scale. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 27

- 11/28/2001 5:25:00 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

I suspect if Matrix could make the game smell like cosmoline and cordite,we'd still have folks complaining about the "cosmetics" and lack of realism..(I also suspect these folks have never been near enough to cosmoline and cordite to "know" what "realism" is?)NICHT WAHR?

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 28

- 11/28/2001 9:45:00 PM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

M10bob

Uh Hmm hey very few countries were still using cordite in their small arms by WW2.. wouldn't we be opening up a can of worms if we got the the wrong powder smells attached to the wrong weapons .. and what about that extra stinky triple based russian stuff .. would we have to artifically reduce the smell( for game balance of course) so that some players wouldn't complain about the russian ammo smelling worse than some other countries ..
As to the Cosmoline .. I think we could add a morale check to see if rifles jamed because somebody didn't compleatly clean the cosmoline from the folds in the follower springs in the Magazines ..this of course would advantage the US since the M-1 Garand doesn't suffer from difficult to clean follower springs..

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 29

- 11/28/2001 10:09:00 PM

Charles2222

Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline

Galka:

quote:

I never said that 4x the Tigers cost alone would be the ideal solution. please check the OOB thread for my initial suggestion. (it will deal with the med and heavy tank disparity).

I've never said you said that. What I'm faulting, and I've said it before, is that this 4X notion would be the motivating force behind change, for it's built on a house of cards. I might not fault the price changes for another reason, it's just that it's disasterous for doing it for that reason. Frankly I don't believe what you say about a Sherman cheaper than German infantry (an attempt at pulling someone's chain), as I'm suspecting I'll want nothing to do with V.7, such pricing would definitely seal my objection. I couldn't but notice you said "german" infantry platoon, as though the German infantry cost has gone through the roof while the other infantry of other countries remianed the same. I've seen some evidence of the destruction of this game, but definitely but would never suspect anything that looney. Surely you misspoke, are joking, or it really is that bad. Oh well, there's always SPWW2. Tiger Ferdinand only 10pts. over a PZIVH? Yeah that's bad, but it's all because they're assigning price cost to every category, like it or not. All the Ferny has is great gun and good armor (in places). It would seem to me that either they have made the guns too cheap, or armor. I did a comparison on two like units before, perhaps it was the Ferny and the Elefant and through such a method founf I think it was 15pts. went to the MG. Well, if the Ferny has no MG, and PZIVH has 2, that's 30pts, right there heaped additionally on the PZIVH. OTOH, consider if you had 10 PZIVHs or 9 Fernys, and had to go up against infantry. The PZIVHs would have little or nouble, but the Fernys wouldn't stand a chance (also factor in that the PZIVH has the disadvantage, if you can call it that, of having a tank turret, which should drive the price a bit. If you're a functional armor fighter, then the Ferny is probably too cheap, but if you fight combined arms, then the Ferny with it's limited ammo is and either one or no MGs is a bit out of place. The Ferny is something of a freak, which if you're fighting armor vs. armor looks grossly unfair, but then again I'm not all that crazy about "performance-driven" pricing either. It could probably be priced better even given that system, but it would need a fundamental change on what we thought armor, main guns, and MGs are worth. We have the same problem with Soviet stuff in relation to armor and slope (well similar anyway), in that a number of Soviet AFVS have outstanding armor/slope, all the way around, and are still cheaper than German stuff. What happens is that since the Germans have usually outstanding guns, and people don't like being hit by them, this drives the gun prices high, whereas the USSR has armor. Like AmmoSgt said, you can take out a Tiger with a shot on it's side fairly easily, it's just a matter of learning how to do that, but with the Soviet stuff, often enough, if you can't kill them from the front, often the side shot is just about just as impossible. In German gameplayer terms, just as in RL, in order to have a chance against such heavy armor, you have to have heavy guns. This doesn't sit too well with US players, because while Germany was making stuff to deal with the USSR, the US was still making stuff primarily for the Germans of late 42 (the PZIVF2 sort of thing), so that any attempt for the US to play Germany on armor basis will be fairly lopsided; it's just the way it was. Even so, even if the beleagured US player cries foul because there weren't all that many Tigers/Fernys etc, and they want more "normal" units, that still doesn't give them a whole lot of advantage, when you consider that the Panther is in many ways superior to the Tiger, and was actually put-pacing PZIVH production while it was being made, so the rarity excuse wouldn't cut it. I suppose the US player doesn't object to the Panther because even the US armored cars can destroy it from the side. The problem with the Tiger, is that it has sufficient side armor to withstand the cheap risk of armored car attack, while the front is strong enough (except the hull at times) to withstand the guns that can knock it out from the side (the slower Shermans and so forth). That's my theory anyway.

quote:

Nobody that competes does so intentionally to loose. Like you said earlier Only a loser would pit T-34s against Tigers. What do you do for the first 6 months of 1943, avoid battle?

Good one! Well, yeah, sort of. You just have to rely on other methods to achieve good results. I go through the same thing in 41-42 USSR with Gerry. It's murder trying to figure out how to get a couple of 88s to have some sort of affect during offensives, particularly when your main thrust of attack has always been tanks. Every country has a weak period of some sort, it's part of the fun of playing to find out if you're just as much of a man commanding in the happy times as in the bad ones, to say nothing of the thrill of actually facing a lot of the dilemmas real commanders did in not always being on top and rolling over the enemy with advantages at every turn.

_____________________________

(in reply to Galka)

Post #: 30