Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Ya if I'd have tryd to counterattack like VA did I'd have been smashed, part of the secret of this game is to know when the AI's forces are taking a breather, or reconsolidating and changeing direction so as to make your run for the boarder,and withdraw to fight another day but SOME people don't play it like that so what do I know:; wanna see any other strats or examples???? I got lots if u need ??whole pile of them just waiting for people like VA to CHALLENGE ME ON!!and better not leave out belittling Gunny again,,, you broadfronted advanceing brian group cover wearing Marine fanboy praiser you!!
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Well, with the concentration of tanks like he had, and such a concentrated force, maybe you could have inflicted heavy casualties on the finns at a distance. I would hate to see a heavy gun's effects on such a force. For that matter, I can not recall ever seeing such a sight in playing SPWaW.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Alright, Riun, I've reconsidered my advance technique--it's definitely flawed- I'm gonna try the two up and one back advance, with the reserve company for exploitation of any gap I can force, OR to be assistance in case of disaster, God forbid.
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Thats the spirit Gunny, and as I said to AZ if you need any of my usually out of regulation assistance or just a shoulder to cry on when they wip ya you got my # he he get it, quality comedy I tell ya
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
azraelck,
Oh believe me there was a heated argument regarding the armor of the Tiger I.
I searched for over an hour and finally found the thread for you to read.
Author: Nikademus
Topic: Pz-VIe turret
Date: 7/7/2000
fb.asp?m=10412&key=Pz+VIe
Enjoy the fireworks!
Oh believe me there was a heated argument regarding the armor of the Tiger I.
I searched for over an hour and finally found the thread for you to read.
Author: Nikademus
Topic: Pz-VIe turret
Date: 7/7/2000
fb.asp?m=10412&key=Pz+VIe
Enjoy the fireworks!
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Alby,
You are correct. I did some digging around and discovered that it was our old buddy Voriax who sent me "the spreadsheet from hell". Heh.
You are correct. I did some digging around and discovered that it was our old buddy Voriax who sent me "the spreadsheet from hell". Heh.
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Riun T and Erwin,
I think I know now why there were some misunderstandings. There are two categories of SPWAW players. And those two catagories of players simply don't agree with each other. And I don't think they ever will.
Category I: SPWAW as historical model and simulation.
Category II: SPWAW as game.
I think that you two are Category I players, and I am definitely a Category II player.
Therefore, we will never agree on how to set up and play SPWAW.
Category I players have a very rigid set of personal criteria and inflexible structure for how they set up and play SPWAW. They will only play according to their personal vision of history and they use the game to practice that vision.
Category II players are interested only with winning the game. They have no set structures for how they set up and play. They will do anything and use any methods to win the game. History is not important to Category II players.
I think most people who inhabit this forum are Category I players because they like to discuss history and their vision of history with other people like they are.
Category II players are no different in that respect, my gaming friends are pretty much all Category II players. Like-minded people tend to associate with other like-minded people. But I don't think you see very many Category II players on forums like this because they are not very interested in talking about visions of history (my guess is that Category I players outnumber Category II players on this forum about 10 to 1).
But I have a background in military history, and so even though I am absolutely a Category II player, I still enjoy talking about the historical aspects of the game (even though I couldn't care less about history when I am actually playing the game).
Anyway, I now realize that my German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge is designed for Category II players. Which perhaps explains why so few people on this forum have shown much of an interest in it (since most people on this forum are Category I).
The good news is that SPWAW can be enjoyed by both Category I and Category II players equally (even if separate and different). No worries. Enjoy your Category I games and I won't intrude with my Category II ways. Happy gaming.
I think I know now why there were some misunderstandings. There are two categories of SPWAW players. And those two catagories of players simply don't agree with each other. And I don't think they ever will.
Category I: SPWAW as historical model and simulation.
Category II: SPWAW as game.
I think that you two are Category I players, and I am definitely a Category II player.
Therefore, we will never agree on how to set up and play SPWAW.
Category I players have a very rigid set of personal criteria and inflexible structure for how they set up and play SPWAW. They will only play according to their personal vision of history and they use the game to practice that vision.
Category II players are interested only with winning the game. They have no set structures for how they set up and play. They will do anything and use any methods to win the game. History is not important to Category II players.
I think most people who inhabit this forum are Category I players because they like to discuss history and their vision of history with other people like they are.
Category II players are no different in that respect, my gaming friends are pretty much all Category II players. Like-minded people tend to associate with other like-minded people. But I don't think you see very many Category II players on forums like this because they are not very interested in talking about visions of history (my guess is that Category I players outnumber Category II players on this forum about 10 to 1).
But I have a background in military history, and so even though I am absolutely a Category II player, I still enjoy talking about the historical aspects of the game (even though I couldn't care less about history when I am actually playing the game).
Anyway, I now realize that my German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge is designed for Category II players. Which perhaps explains why so few people on this forum have shown much of an interest in it (since most people on this forum are Category I).
The good news is that SPWAW can be enjoyed by both Category I and Category II players equally (even if separate and different). No worries. Enjoy your Category I games and I won't intrude with my Category II ways. Happy gaming.
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
I dont know how u "catagorize" players but u may seem to fall into both urself, as far as historical structures u are the one who setup the "extreme challenge" that DID NOT follow any "historical" trend. As for tourney or standardized game play that u have refined and such (without many screenshots?) and all the time u seem to have to respond to a forum that u originally were not part of and call ppl all sorts of names and such, and still have to try to explain what types of OTHER players that are not "like minded" as u cant get ur challenge? ok so what is ur "background in military history" u talk of? no details?
And since ur challenge is desinged for catagory II players and there's so few show interest in why u still explaining and catagorizing?
happy gaming
P.s. thx for not intruding anymore
riun t
And since ur challenge is desinged for catagory II players and there's so few show interest in why u still explaining and catagorizing?
happy gaming
P.s. thx for not intruding anymore
riun t
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Riun T,
My background in military history:
One of my university degrees (University of Texas) is in History with a concentration in military history and U.S. foreign policy. For several years I was editor of The Europa Magazine, which published articles on WW2 in Europe. I also served in the U.S. Air Force (I flew in B-52 bombers). So, yes, I have a military background.
As for categorizing players, I think that is a very useful concept. I think that before you start a game (say a PBEM game) if you know going into that game the kind of player you are playing with, that information can solve problems before they can begin.
For instance, Alby was stirring the pot, and called for you and me to play a PBEM game. Now, since you are a Category I player and I am a Category II player, any PBEM game we played would almost certainly have had unpleasant consequences. Rather than deal with that unpleasantness, it was in the best interest for us not to play a PBEM game together. No good would come of it.
Best to play Category I vs. Category I, and best to play Category II vs. Category II.
Bad to play Category I vs. Category II.
When I started the thread German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge, I didn't realize when I started that thread that that campaign was designed for Category II players. I only realized that this morning. So I made those comments this morning to warn Category I players that they would probably not enjoy that campaign. I am sad that there are so few Category II players on this forum. I wish there were more, but I accept the reality.
My background in military history:
One of my university degrees (University of Texas) is in History with a concentration in military history and U.S. foreign policy. For several years I was editor of The Europa Magazine, which published articles on WW2 in Europe. I also served in the U.S. Air Force (I flew in B-52 bombers). So, yes, I have a military background.
As for categorizing players, I think that is a very useful concept. I think that before you start a game (say a PBEM game) if you know going into that game the kind of player you are playing with, that information can solve problems before they can begin.
For instance, Alby was stirring the pot, and called for you and me to play a PBEM game. Now, since you are a Category I player and I am a Category II player, any PBEM game we played would almost certainly have had unpleasant consequences. Rather than deal with that unpleasantness, it was in the best interest for us not to play a PBEM game together. No good would come of it.
Best to play Category I vs. Category I, and best to play Category II vs. Category II.
Bad to play Category I vs. Category II.
When I started the thread German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge, I didn't realize when I started that thread that that campaign was designed for Category II players. I only realized that this morning. So I made those comments this morning to warn Category I players that they would probably not enjoy that campaign. I am sad that there are so few Category II players on this forum. I wish there were more, but I accept the reality.
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Sulk not fit into "category" one or two. Sulk left out. Sulk not like being left out. Sulk listen to "Cure" and "Bon Jovi" albums now.
Va, one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone do is try to categorize people. While I don't claim to know anyone here personally, judging from the posts made, Gunny, Riun, Alby, Pukko, myself, TBT, yourself, all are completely different people. It's a pointless exercise designed to force people into groups that they do not belong to, for some insane and ridiculous reason. One guilty of categorizing is Adolf Hitler himself, who categoried the Germanic peoples as superior to non-Germanic, and some such as Jews to be completely souless abominations. Thus the "Final Solution" to those his categories deemed to be too subhuman to live.
Given your limited "categories", I am niether CI or CII. I do not play the game to research OoBs and TO&Es; there is a wealth of printed material, as well as whats avaliable online. I also do not play the game for some recognition of being "better" than anyone else via tournaments. What I do is play the game with historical forces to see how well my own mind can lead them, ahistorical to see how effective a force I can build; and above all to have fun an enjoy myself while learning. Like Gunny said, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to play, and we all have our own ways of playing. I spend more time building core forces than actually fighting the battles, and sometimes have just gone through the OoBs two or three times to get an idea of what I want my core to include. I fight mostly long campaigns, sometimes using completely ridiculous cores such as massed light tanks and calvary ; other times using a close-to-accurate-core as I can get to the real life units. I am not as interested in "playing out" history, as I am in testing my own tactical ability. I am also not interested in "winning the game" or "beating others in a competitive venture".
The only reason I haunt the forums is because generally I enjoy the discussions, can learn some interesting information, and can sometimes discover a new challenge to my abilities, such as learning about the relative strength of the Finns like I did earlier in this thread. Or I can possible contribute to someone else's learning of history, which is more important to me than the game will ever be.
Va, one of the dumbest things I have ever seen anyone do is try to categorize people. While I don't claim to know anyone here personally, judging from the posts made, Gunny, Riun, Alby, Pukko, myself, TBT, yourself, all are completely different people. It's a pointless exercise designed to force people into groups that they do not belong to, for some insane and ridiculous reason. One guilty of categorizing is Adolf Hitler himself, who categoried the Germanic peoples as superior to non-Germanic, and some such as Jews to be completely souless abominations. Thus the "Final Solution" to those his categories deemed to be too subhuman to live.
Given your limited "categories", I am niether CI or CII. I do not play the game to research OoBs and TO&Es; there is a wealth of printed material, as well as whats avaliable online. I also do not play the game for some recognition of being "better" than anyone else via tournaments. What I do is play the game with historical forces to see how well my own mind can lead them, ahistorical to see how effective a force I can build; and above all to have fun an enjoy myself while learning. Like Gunny said, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to play, and we all have our own ways of playing. I spend more time building core forces than actually fighting the battles, and sometimes have just gone through the OoBs two or three times to get an idea of what I want my core to include. I fight mostly long campaigns, sometimes using completely ridiculous cores such as massed light tanks and calvary ; other times using a close-to-accurate-core as I can get to the real life units. I am not as interested in "playing out" history, as I am in testing my own tactical ability. I am also not interested in "winning the game" or "beating others in a competitive venture".
The only reason I haunt the forums is because generally I enjoy the discussions, can learn some interesting information, and can sometimes discover a new challenge to my abilities, such as learning about the relative strength of the Finns like I did earlier in this thread. Or I can possible contribute to someone else's learning of history, which is more important to me than the game will ever be.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
azraelck,
Okay. There is in boxing a category called Cruiserweight. There is a category called Welterweight. Now, in boxing, do the boxers resent being called cruiserweight or welterweight?
Category I and Category II does not attempt to label players as inferior or superior. It is not a prejudicial or pejorative or discriminatory description at all. It is purely informational. Just like boxing.
I know from personal experience (since I DO play PBEM games) that when Category I players play against Category II players, the result is usually unpleasant because the two different types of players bring entirely different expectations into the game. But, having the information that a player is Category I (for instance) before the game begins, then a lot of misunderstanding and unpleasantness can be avoided.
I do not feel persecuted or unhappy or inferior just because I'm a Category II player in a largely Category I forum. Just like you, I am capable (well, somewhat capable) of playing like a Category I player (although it is a constant struggle for me to resist my natural inclinations as a Category II player).
All I am saying is that as useful informational descriptors for those players who DO compete with each other via PBEM (for instance), Category I and Category II are helpful and not harmful.
Okay. There is in boxing a category called Cruiserweight. There is a category called Welterweight. Now, in boxing, do the boxers resent being called cruiserweight or welterweight?
Category I and Category II does not attempt to label players as inferior or superior. It is not a prejudicial or pejorative or discriminatory description at all. It is purely informational. Just like boxing.
I know from personal experience (since I DO play PBEM games) that when Category I players play against Category II players, the result is usually unpleasant because the two different types of players bring entirely different expectations into the game. But, having the information that a player is Category I (for instance) before the game begins, then a lot of misunderstanding and unpleasantness can be avoided.
I do not feel persecuted or unhappy or inferior just because I'm a Category II player in a largely Category I forum. Just like you, I am capable (well, somewhat capable) of playing like a Category I player (although it is a constant struggle for me to resist my natural inclinations as a Category II player).
All I am saying is that as useful informational descriptors for those players who DO compete with each other via PBEM (for instance), Category I and Category II are helpful and not harmful.
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Boxing is an irrelevant comparison. Welter Weights, Cruiser Weights, and such, are called so because of their physical weight. Much like a Light, Medium, or Heavy tank is classified. Not by the personalities, habits, and traits of each boxer. I do not fit in either category I or II. You basically said that all SPWaW players are either like you, or like Gunny, focusing more upon the historical aspect. There is no middle ground, or left or right ground, for the majority of players to fit in, just 'your' kind, and 'gunny's' kind. I am not like either. So, Sulk still is left out, and now he's getting mad about it, and is going to go kill Freddy Jones and bang Thelma and Daphne in a threesome. And it's your fault.
A good piece of advise is to stop assuming people are going to fit into your arbituary categories. No one ever will. Then, rather than make irrelevant comparisons and use base assumptions and faulty logic to support your argument, actually use some real reasoning.
A good piece of advise is to stop assuming people are going to fit into your arbituary categories. No one ever will. Then, rather than make irrelevant comparisons and use base assumptions and faulty logic to support your argument, actually use some real reasoning.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
I'd like to be called a catigory{ya ya,,,,,, real gory} 69, cause if I can manage an angle to get my tongue on it,I usually get a decisive victory!![:D]
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
azrael,
Okay, here is a more concrete example. Category I player challenges Category II player to a PBEM game. They agree to play using the new Depot Enhanced Final Version mod. Category II player chooses the Italians. Category I player chooses the Greeks. Category I player buys historical companies and does his best to create an historical Greek OOB for the upcoming battle. Category II player sees that the Italian flamethrower team only costs 5 points each. He buys a whole OOB filled with almost nothing but cheap (but deadly) Italian flamethrower teams. In the ensuing PBEM game, the Category II Italian flamthrower teams butcher the carefully crafted and historical Category I Greek force. Category I player cries foul, that the Italian force was cheesy and unhistorical. Category II player says, what are you talking about, the game allowed me to buy all those flamethrower teams, perfectly legal, I played a fair game.
Who is right? Both players are right.
Who is wrong? Neither player is wrong.
But that is what happens when Category I plays against Category II.
Far better situation results when player A asks, are you a Category I or Category II player. Player B responds, I'm a Category II player. Player A then says, then we'd better not play because I'm a Category I player and I don't want any hard feelings to result from our game.
Lots of unhappiness can be avoided simply by knowing ahead of time the kind of player you will be playing against.
Okay, here is a more concrete example. Category I player challenges Category II player to a PBEM game. They agree to play using the new Depot Enhanced Final Version mod. Category II player chooses the Italians. Category I player chooses the Greeks. Category I player buys historical companies and does his best to create an historical Greek OOB for the upcoming battle. Category II player sees that the Italian flamethrower team only costs 5 points each. He buys a whole OOB filled with almost nothing but cheap (but deadly) Italian flamethrower teams. In the ensuing PBEM game, the Category II Italian flamthrower teams butcher the carefully crafted and historical Category I Greek force. Category I player cries foul, that the Italian force was cheesy and unhistorical. Category II player says, what are you talking about, the game allowed me to buy all those flamethrower teams, perfectly legal, I played a fair game.
Who is right? Both players are right.
Who is wrong? Neither player is wrong.
But that is what happens when Category I plays against Category II.
Far better situation results when player A asks, are you a Category I or Category II player. Player B responds, I'm a Category II player. Player A then says, then we'd better not play because I'm a Category I player and I don't want any hard feelings to result from our game.
Lots of unhappiness can be avoided simply by knowing ahead of time the kind of player you will be playing against.
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
I am in the middle, I can play historical, Semi Historical, or pure fantasy, what if games.
I enjoy them all.
just depends on who my opponent is as to what type of game it is..
[:D]
of course I lose at all types though...
[:(]
I enjoy them all.
just depends on who my opponent is as to what type of game it is..
[:D]
of course I lose at all types though...
[:(]
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Ok, we have two parallel threads going, and I defended Vahauser's categorization in the main SPWaW forum.
For me, being categorized as a "historical player" actually makes me feel pretty good. I've spent a few years studying OOBs & TOEs, and I find it fascinating. There are a few like-minded people out there, and several websites are devoted to that subject -- Gary Kennedy's http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/ is a good example. I love that site, plus several others, and I've used the knowledge they contain, plus the books that I've bought, to assist prior OOB teams and SPWaW Enhanced. I'm proud of that.
I've long held that wargames should be educational tools as well as entertainment. Long ago, I remember legendary designer Jim Dunnigan having written that many boardgame buyers got those games as much for the information they contain as to actually play them. I was one of the former group.
With SPWaW, the gap is bridged -- this is something I can learn from, and actually play. The AI is poor, yes, BUT, it's an infinite improvement over setting up hundreds of cardboard counters and pushing them here and there for a few turns.
For me, being categorized as a "historical player" actually makes me feel pretty good. I've spent a few years studying OOBs & TOEs, and I find it fascinating. There are a few like-minded people out there, and several websites are devoted to that subject -- Gary Kennedy's http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/ is a good example. I love that site, plus several others, and I've used the knowledge they contain, plus the books that I've bought, to assist prior OOB teams and SPWaW Enhanced. I'm proud of that.
I've long held that wargames should be educational tools as well as entertainment. Long ago, I remember legendary designer Jim Dunnigan having written that many boardgame buyers got those games as much for the information they contain as to actually play them. I was one of the former group.
With SPWaW, the gap is bridged -- this is something I can learn from, and actually play. The AI is poor, yes, BUT, it's an infinite improvement over setting up hundreds of cardboard counters and pushing them here and there for a few turns.
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
MEEE TOOO, I started my military interests at 5 with my first 1/72 model P47D thunderbolt, went from those to board games at 12 and tobruk was my first fully studied, played for days following then I got my first computer at 18 just as I went into the ARMY,, then the trouble started,,, FEEELS like an A-A group around here[:D]
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Alby,
Here is a thread I started over 5 years ago... I hope you find it of interest and maybe of some value to you.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=52213&key=tips
Here is a thread I started over 5 years ago... I hope you find it of interest and maybe of some value to you.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=52213&key=tips
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
It's being categorized into things people aren't is which is wrong. To get it accurately, you'd need a category for everyone, otherwise your pidgeon-holing people into things they're not. It's the same as me saying every Scotsman is a penny-pinching skimp, or that every Jew will screw you around on a deal. Those two Categories don't allow for an Alby, or an Azrael, or whoever. Nothing wrong with either of the two types, but trying to categorize EVERY SPWaW player as one or the other, is fundamentally wrong.
Va, if anyone whined about you using masses of flamethrowers instead of going historical, then they're either a whiney b****, a noob, an idiot, or TBT. Which, incidentally, he did the same while he was here; agreed to a PBEM with very low vis, and got decimated by flamethrowing units. The vis was his fault as much as the other player's; they'd agreed to it before hand. Getting decimated by op fire from flame throwing units as he charged headlong into it was solely his fault, he could have at least held his troops back, opened fire with artillery, and then moved in to assault the suppressed flamethrowers.
Me personally, after a couple squads got roasted, I wouldn't continue to charge headlong into flaming death. A bullet in the tank at a distance that they can't respond is the answer to a flamethrower. Or a few mortar rounds. Or.. you get the point. Only a fool would continue to use the same strategy, when it's doing nothing but get his troops killed. That's war.
Va, if anyone whined about you using masses of flamethrowers instead of going historical, then they're either a whiney b****, a noob, an idiot, or TBT. Which, incidentally, he did the same while he was here; agreed to a PBEM with very low vis, and got decimated by flamethrowing units. The vis was his fault as much as the other player's; they'd agreed to it before hand. Getting decimated by op fire from flame throwing units as he charged headlong into it was solely his fault, he could have at least held his troops back, opened fire with artillery, and then moved in to assault the suppressed flamethrowers.
Me personally, after a couple squads got roasted, I wouldn't continue to charge headlong into flaming death. A bullet in the tank at a distance that they can't respond is the answer to a flamethrower. Or a few mortar rounds. Or.. you get the point. Only a fool would continue to use the same strategy, when it's doing nothing but get his troops killed. That's war.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
RE: Extreme Challenge Demonstration Game
Azraelck, I happen to LOVE flamethrowers, BUT not everybody carries one, right? As a matter of fact, when I start my Marine campaigns, in 1942, NOBODY had them. We don't get them until 1943, and then, only for engineers and specialized assault teams.
Obviously, I'm playing devil's advocate here, and you are still stirring the pot.
Let me make this clear -- I don't wanna ride Vahauser out on the rails for his opinions. He's entitled to hold them.
He's not like TBT (good riddance). This guy has some credentials, and the guts to back up his opinions.
Cool your heels for a moment, OK?
Obviously, I'm playing devil's advocate here, and you are still stirring the pot.
Let me make this clear -- I don't wanna ride Vahauser out on the rails for his opinions. He's entitled to hold them.
He's not like TBT (good riddance). This guy has some credentials, and the guts to back up his opinions.
Cool your heels for a moment, OK?