Base of fire, and time scales...

[Twotribes]

I can ask you the same question. What did you add to the discussion by implying that the complaint was nothing more than a personal attack on the person that designed the scenario?

As for me adding anything, I seldom play scenarios and part of that is because of time limits. I play the campaign game. Time is a problem there sometimes too. I personally like the way SPWW2 lets you change the time and allows you to establish the size of the map.

Just because someone questions the mechanics of a scenario does not mean they are trying to disparge the person that designed the thing. I agree that sometimes how and what is posted can be an offhand or direct attack on someones work. But I have noticed you tend to assume that even when it is patently clear no such thing has occurred ( or your trying to discourge further discussion by making people feel that doing so IS an attack of some kind)

I do agree that time constraints are or seem to be used a lot to make scenarios artificially more "challanging" and I have read on this board where some people that design scenarios explicately state that was their intent. Noting here that one has a problem with that approach and why, in civil and appropriate manner, is what this board is ALL about.

Noting a disagreement with that approach is NOT in and of itself an attack on the designers that use that approach. It is simply a means to let them know some people dont enjoy that approach. And in this case the poster is very specific WHY he dislikes short time frames in his battles.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: azraelck

IMO, the only advantage to having an HQ in a tank is the added mobility, moving to give morale support to whatever troops are most heaviliy suppressed. Prior to 8.043, I just loaded them on the heaviest tank I had, and held them in reserve. Now I usually keep them with my field artillery. It depends though, I've sent them straight into the front lines, fighting right along side the men.

I quit playing defends on a Long/Generated campaign, due to the lack of challenge. So I have no idea of the effectiveness of prep barrages in those instances. In Scenarios, it's usually plotted quit effectively. Too effective for comfort!

I use to put the A0 unit in a tank and send it to the front as well, but ended up stopping that practice. While I could keep it away from anything really dangerous, it was the occasional air attack that would end up getting it. Now I keep it in the rear with the arty as well, because the AI has no concept of counter-battery fire.

As far as the campaign generated scenarios, most of them are easy, even assaults with the exception of the earlier mentioned PPT hex scenarios. With the except of the current assault I'm fighting, the earlier assaults I completed generally in 12-14 turns. Oddly enough, my current assault has entrenched infantry with mines to the rear. It's taking a lot longer than normal to get through.

[Riun T]

Heu RERomine check out the screenshots I just put into AAR's/DAR's Flashfyre thread. same conjungulation of mines entrenchments and WORSE caves!!

[azraelck]

I love how this has changed into two seperate threads. I'm guilty though, and I care even less, except that one of the threads is completely unneccessary, based only on a misunderstanding. Let that one die.

I'm usually very lucky (or unlucky, depending on your point of view) in that I'm almost always fighting with a weather "advantage". So the AI usually doesn't send any little toy Stukas or lame ducks after me. Of course, that means I can't send any of my own little toys after them either. In any case, it's a rare instance that I have to fight off enemy aircraft, and even rarer that they do anything to my HQ. Most often when I see them, they cut a hole in their own lines!

I may go back to changing my AO to a tank, maybe a "Captured" Tiger or something. I was planning on a "French" Armoured long game in the near-or-far future.

The Generated battles are easy, though I'll stretch them out a bit more. I'll end a typical battle at turns 20-25. I've had a few, pre Enhanced, that ended within the first 5 turns. Shortest was my last Defense, a 3 turn horror with me as the British. If the Germans had preformed this horridly in real life, then there wouldn't have been a need for Dunkirk.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Riun T

Heu RERomine check out the screenshots I just put into AAR's/DAR's Flashfyre thread. same conjungulation of mines entrenchments and WORSE caves!!

I checked them out. Looks like an ugly situation. I'll have to play some more Pacific Theater campaigns, but I tend to like armor. Tank battles between the Marines and Japanese are pretty much nonexistant, so I stay in Europe. Plus, playing against the Japanese is a stone cold b***h [:)]

[Riun T]

A few tanks showed up on battles 5 and 7 but the majority of the action has been against hoards of BANZAI charging infantry,with way more HMG's and knee mortar crews keeping pace with their snipers and tank hunter squads than I think would be possible in the terrain,AND THE TIME given for the battle. and I don't believe the AI is suffering the same delay and lack of orders that I am for calling any of its on or off board Artillery??
ALSO wanted to know if anyone else thought it was weird for the japanese units that are entrenched,and dug in amungest bunkers and pillboxes SEEM to be getting all the armour and lessend hit chance bonuses.?? its as if they aren't having to leave their foxholes to "BANZAI" my approaching forces, and have extremely sucessful tank assault %ages.?with no OP fire chance for the assualted unit even if that unit still has shots left to expend on that turn?
My showing referance to the FLASH challenge is to show the difficulties of campaign time restraint with upgrading your core,{ TIME SCALES} and the irregularity that we can garintee threw the battles to consistantly KILL the enemy HQ{ taking their experience base away}and change their base of fire with the new tactics the replacement junior HQ will have to adopt. AZ your starting to sound TOO picky??? MAKE your tactics fit the time!!

[azraelck]

If I didn't take the couple of turns to allow my artillery to hit enemy positions, and went ahead and charged, I would suffer needless suppression, and possibly end up not being able to take my objectives at all, rather than simply lacking the time to take all of them. The main battle I keep referencing took 7 turns moving full speed to get to a point where I could set up. Two turns to set up and bring mortar fire down, and to begin my charge isn't much compared to so much time wasted walking, and dealing with two snipers. That leaves me with little time to cross just as much ground, fighting the entire way, as it took me moving full speed unsuppressed in 7 turns. In fact, it left me with exactly 6 turns from the bombardment of the first enemy positions to the end of the game. It took another turn, moving full speed, to close to the town itself. 5 turns. (Up North, all objectives were achieved. They took the graveyard, and then cut south and took the railyard). 5 turns to fight across a town, even using piss poor tactics, is impossible. Only without enemy interferance could I have taken that town in 15 turns, and it would have taken the bulk of the time to reach the VHs. With an understrength company, backed by a couple MGs and a handful of light mortars, and one lone armored car, no. Points were slim in that one as well, though I could have cone with calvary, and used Kubel's to move my mortars and MGs, and brought along some more Inf AT as well. The Kubels could have even helped supplement the MGs.

Within the limitations of the game, there is no way to adjust my tactics. It is either take my time, and achieve partial success, or rush headlong, and end the campaign early in a bloody and worthless manner. Since there's no time to take, that means I have to deliberately act stupid in order to do anything, and then rely on sheer luck that I'll have a core capable of being rebuilt after the 4th or 5th battle. I don't believe in luck, and I don't believe in relying on it in place of solid tactics that leave the enemy incapable of fighting back, and leave me with an experienced, healthy core to fight the next battle with.    

Remember, this is not in a Long campaign, which I never said was a problem. 32-35 turns usually is plenty in those cases. When your maps just as long (not as deep), and you have 15 turns to fight across the same distances, it's somewhat different.

[vahauser]

If you look at history, it is the mechanized forces that are doing most of the advancing and assaulting.

And in the less-common cases where infantry is doing the assaulting (such as in jungle or mountainous terrain), the historical result is always heavy casualties. Always. And quite often, infantry assaults ended in failure to achieve the required objectives within the time allotted for the attack. The history books are filled with examples of failed infantry assaults due to not enough time and/or too many casualties. (Peleliu was supposed to be taken in days not weeks, Monte Cassino, Seigfried Line, Stalingrad, and so on and so on. In all these cases, the objectives were not attained in the time allotted and the casualties were extremely heavy.)

So if a player is advancing/assaulting with non-motorized (or non-mechanized) infantry forces, then I claim that that player should not be surprised at:
1. Not enough time.
2. Heavy casualties.

So if a player builds a non-motorized (or non-mechanized) infantry core, and if that player then runs into serious time problems and serious casualty problems in advance/assault battles, then I claim that the game is producing a correct historical outcome for these situations.

[FlashfyreSP]

As a designer, I will have to admit to being guilty of both 1) consciously using the 'limited time frame' approach in some of my scenarios, and 2) inadvertently failing to allot the appropriate length of time to some of them. In the first case, I make no apology; playtesting many times indicates that the initial turn length is too great, and so I cut it down. If my playtesters don't use the same 'game tactics' as other players, then their results will skew the design. In the second case, I will apologize for not conducting more strenuous playtesting to determine the turn length, and will continue to strive for more complete testing.

 

[Fradar]

I support what Flash says.
I am also a designer myself and I think that time pressure must be reflected.
As a commander in your own sector you have to do things in a set time frame before other forces on the same front are committed and have to move as soon as you have achieved your objective.
I also always start with too many turns sone time not enough and after I have played time and time again the scenario I get a feel of what the number of turns should be. Only then I check how long the battle lasted in reality and in most cases it is rather accurate.
I will give you 2 examples:
- I designed an Eben-Emael scenario that is still available at the Wargamer. I Started with 10 turns and it did not work. Then tried 5 turns and played it probably 50 times. It still did not work until I decided to reduce it to 3 turns. It worked on the first test and it corresponds exactly to the time needed by the Germans to achieve their mission.
- I did the same with another scenario available at the Wargamer about Mussolini being delivered by Skorzeny at the Gran Sasso Hotel. 

In reality you do not have on the field all the time to check every possible approach.
I did 2 scenarios for the Depot Academy with also a limited time: an armour and an infantry scenario.
Many players felt the same way that the scenarios were too short but after some trials they found out that it was not only fun but that these scenarios were winnable.
You always have to trade time against casualties.
Personnaly as a gamer I would complain that too many scenarios have way too many turns.
My 2 Euro cents.
Francois

[KG Erwin]

Guys, all of this (IMHO) goes back to the idea of SP being an armor-oriented game.   Quick movement, quick battles. 
 
It took quite a while for designers (AND OOB team members) to grasp that the game can do much more, and it was designed to roughly model combined-arms warfare in WWII. 
 
This is why I make such a big deal about the OOB designs.    The potential for expanding the game into infantry fights has been taken advantage of  -- just look at the in-game scenario list. 
 
I say this because I'm a particular fan of the Pacific Theater.   The mano-a-mano combat there was unique.  
 
Now, as regards time limits -- old habits are hard to break.  "armor time" dominated early on -- "infantry time" is there, but not everyone is eager to convert to that.     
 
SPWaW has been somewhat re-invented from its early incarnations, and its proper name should now maybe be Steel Panthers:Combined Arms Combat in WWII.  

[RERomine]

How can you play test your own creation and get an accurate impression of what amount of time is appropriate? As the designer, you have detailed knowledge of what to expect and can adjust your strategy accordingly. That would go for anyone playing a scenario more than once. If I play one and lose, I can replay it and adjust my strategy to try something different. Eventually, I will figure the best way to go about it. The only difference is the knowledge I've gained along the way, much of it hard learned.

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

How can you play test your own creation and get an accurate impression of what amount of time is appropriate? As the designer, you have detailed knowledge of what to expect and can adjust your strategy accordingly. That would go for anyone playing a scenario more than once. If I play one and lose, I can replay it and adjust my strategy to try something different. Eventually, I will figure the best way to go about it. The only difference is the knowledge I've gained along the way, much of it hard learned.

True, playing a self-designed scenario isn't the best way to check its viability; but, it does serve the purpose of helping to 'rough out' the design itself. Scenarios have a 'theme' or 'script' that they play out; they can be simple or complex, but they 'guide' the play of the battle. In order to see if the script works, designers usually play out their designs a number of times, before sending the 'finished' product to a group of outide testers. At least, that's how I do my designing.

[Twotribes]

Whats the point of "playing" a 3 turn scenario? Or even a 12 or 15 turn one?

[azraelck]

Fast fun? [:D] Except that I doubt anyone would find such a short game fun at all, less than a distraction really.

As I said before, very few operations require such times as 6-15 mins time limit (IIRC, the turns roughly correspond to a 2 to 5 minuit interval). VERY few. And those are not well represented in SPWaW due to engine limitations.  You can't  create a scenario in which you enter a defended camp, rescue a single, solitary soldier, then withdrawl.  The AI would kill that soldier you placed in the camp, and then  the whole scenario is ruined. Bringing a single man to a certain point is also difficult to model correctly. operations that would require such limited time frames are not really feasible, due to engine limitations. You're left with broader combat operations. Defending point A, assaulting town B. Securing a key crossroads in order to cut the enemy's retreat.

In reality, when faced with a critical assault on a defended town, the field commander would be given a few hours to achieve his objectives. I challenge anyone to point out an assault on a particular location that did not have adequet time to allow for a flexible strategy. 

Missions such as the assault on Brecourt are one thing; your job is to silence those guns as quickly as possible. It required speed and suprise for Easy to succeed, but at the same time it also required superior tactics. As noted, a base of fire was set up, covering the assaulting team so that they could go gun to gun, destroying each as they went.

Also, before you counter that I'm just a gamer, thus not privvy to the knowledge of designing challenging scenarios; I also design scenaios and maps. Not just for SPWaW, but a few other games. I can take a game like Age of wonders, where there is no AI whatsoever, and make it challenging to the best players. My SP WaW scenarios are being tesed by me right now, to make sure that everything works and the AI isn't able to figure out something stupid to do. As usual, the AI is quite capable of doing stupid things.

Time constraints can be used to make a challenging scenario, but in SPWaW they're used overmuch. If you can't design a scenario to challenge players to the utmost without resorting to giving them no time, forcing them to reenact the Battle of  the Somme (i.e. like a braindead, retarded troll); then you're not a good designer.  If  you can give them 30 turns, and force them to fight every last second of those turns,  then you have an excellent design.  If I can play my own map, and get my ass handed to me by the AI, despite my prior knowledge of the enemy, just due to intelligent deployment and strong defenses (or whatever), then I know I have an decent map.

[Alby]

12 or 15 turns is enough for me...[:)]

[vahauser]

Alby,
 
I don't know what you mean when you say 12 to 15 turns is long enough for you.
 
Do you mean you finish all your battles in 12 to 15 turns?
 
Do you mean you have either won or lost all your battles in 12 to 15 turns and don't play any battles past that point?
 
Do you mean that you prefer all battles you play to be designed to be finished in 12 to 15 turns?
 
Do you mean something else?
 
Help me out here, Alby.  People on this thread are saying that they don't like not having enough time to play at the measured pace they are accustomed to.  (Actually people besides me.  I enjoy fighting under intense time pressure.)  But people besides me are saying they like to have enough time (30 turns, 40, 50, or more) to not feel rushed or pressured in any way so that they can do whatever they want, at whatever pace they want to do it at, and with whatever force they want to do it with.  Are you saying 12 to 15 turns is what you need to do that?
 
What do you mean?

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: Alby

12 or 15 turns is enough for me...[:)]

You mean that's all the time it takes for you to realize you're getting your butt spanked, right???[:D]

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

ORIGINAL: Alby

12 or 15 turns is enough for me...[:)]

You mean that's all the time it takes for you to realize you're getting your butt spanked, right???[:D]

Most of the time yes!!
[:(]

[RERomine]

Is it possible to design a scenario, with a lengthy time frame (30+ turns) where the "penalty" for failing to achieve objectives by a certain turn is the AI gets reinforcements that can turn the battle into a long, but winable blood bath? The situation might be an attack to capture a town, bridge, or whatever. If the objectives are secured by turn 10 or so, game over. Otherwise, the AI gets an influx of reinforcements and it turns into a slugfest. This would allow for both the planned attacked, expecting the battle to go on for a while or a hasty attack where someone tries to put it away quickly.

This might be beyond the capabilities of the SPWaW engine, because it would have to recognized game over if the objectives are secured by turn 10. Does anyone know if this is possible? Also, does the game use any sort of "triggering", i.e. units from side A capture hex X,Y and side B gets reinforcements, withdraws, counter-attacks, etc? It's along the same lines as recognizing certain game conditions.