After a lot of playing paaytesting and esigning and long talk with Paul today I have taken the view that too may people want to make an operational game out of a tactical game. If the games played online or PBEM are set to a maximun point total of 1500-2500 per side, then a lot of good tactical battles can be fought without having many balancing issues.
When each side has 10,000 points and buys 5 batallions of artillery each and 2 batallions of heavy tanks and 5 batallions of infantry, play balance can become a real problem.
I generally play generated battles of up to 12 turns using a 1000 point average which I can buy a couple platoons of tanks or mixed AFV's, a platoon of AT guns, a company of infantry a few transport vehicles or AT teams depending if an advance or defend battle, some mortars and an FO and any points remaining on MG's AA, scouts or snipers.
I know I have gone overboard with artillery on some of my scenarios, but usually it is to emulate the end of a several hour artillery barrage on the Eastern Front. The Villers-Bocage scenarios have no artillery at all for the Germans and a few guns for the British.
In conclusion, except for modelling historical battles in scenarios or campaigns,I feel the SPWAW engine is best suited for small tactical firefights of company to batallion size groups, not regimental or brigade combat groups. That is what SP3 and TOAW was designed for.
------------------
Grenadier
Matrix Games Technical Writer
Brent: As I see it, the size you like is only relevant to the size of the map. Just try guarding 5 objective clusters on the maximum map width with the size of the force you specified and try to stop a concentrated attack in only one or two of those areas to see what I mean. From the way I look at it, if all we are concerned about is having a front with almost no reserves, then your force works well with the smallest of the map widths. Myself, I like about 80-90 units in core, with maybe 10-15 in support. Anymore than that and it becomes quite laborious, though, in reality, a larger sized battle than that may 'seem' laborious, but really it's just a smaller force expanded. Huh? What I mean is that the time taken for turn two on a smaller battle, is just taken somewhat more on turn one of the longer one. So what?
I find your comments intriguing because we DO have maps very wide, while at the same time, we have some rather huge default core values to start with. Look at it this way: there is a point where density of forces to the amount of ground covered gets too thick, but as long as you have sufficient ground for larger forces, what difference does it make? Instead of fighting one small tactical battle on one small plot, you're fighting a second small battle on another small plot (and on and on), which just might be adjacent to the other area. To infer that having larger forces is akin to fighting non-tatically isn't true, for every single unit in the game fights tactically, it's just that there are more tactical fighters per turn, then there would be with a smaller force. If you have, say 10 units on a 40 hex wide screen and spend 3 hours to fight that battle, and I have 30 units on a 120 hex wide battle and take 9 hours to fight it, what difference does it make (notice in the example mine is triple yours)? After you fight three battles you will have spent 9 hours as well, but fought three monthes instead of one. On balance, given everything else is even, I don't see why anyone would take the smaller battle, because the time will be spent one way or the other, and it seems to me that if you're having quicker battles, you're also wasting an awful lot of time setting them up and all the additional time it will take to decide what you want to buy in support, etc. In other words there's more time spent actually fighting on a somewhat large battle.
Saying smaller battles are better or more tactical, doesn't address the somewhat strategic angle so many, including myself have wished for some of the tactical games would lean more towards, for as I said, there's not the slightest difference in the discussions we've had so far, as to whether one will be facing 3-to-1 odds or what not, the arguments would be the same regardless of how few units are used. The problem with this 3-to-1 type argument is that the game can't reflect a full strength force and a force symbolizing the strategic in the same battle.
The element of the strategic, being introduced in our minds, did in fact get something of a jump-start when SPIII was released. You bring up a good point, but the size of the force doesn't really address the problem of people wanting some sort of strategic considerations. If it were possible, we could fight every battle along the East Front that actually was fought and take decades to do that, but the battles could be just as non-strategic as the ones here.
I say, blame George Lucas, it seems his 'Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe' and those following that lead, that got a lot of people thinking that small battles on the screen should be representative of the nation the units are serving as a whole. Rough example [as I don't recall SWOTL's rules]: If the Allies get very few of their five bombers shot down, over tha course of the tactical air battles it speeds up Germany's demise by a year, and you win!
I don't see a problem here. SPWAW is so elastic that it caters well for both tastes.
I like my scenarios to be small because I can't afford the time to play a large one from start to finish, and suspending play removes the "aderenaline" factor that I like so much.
ButI like to thimk that if one day I want to play a really big battle, I can do so.
The important point to me is that the TACTICAL aspect of SPWAW is preserved in the scale.
I never warmed to SP3. I like to get the atmosphere of the fight, and for that 50m per hex and squad level/vehicle level units is just about the limit.
The platoon level, 250m/Hex model is much more impersonal and theoretical. It's more of a staff exercise than a recreation of smoke and fire combat. The sense of adventure is lost.
20m per hex would work better for urban, jungle/forest and Bocage fighting, but the sort of compromises that one has to make at the 50m/hex scale are not that uncomfortable.
Within the SPWAW structure one can, if one wishes, break infantry teams down to below squad level.
The only flaw in the game is the elevation model, otherwise it would be perfect.
I think that Fabs may be on the right track in this debate. I have often undulged in small (500 points or so) battles as I find it really gives on the feel for small unit action and allows one to experience a bit of hide-and-seek in the game, where the enemy is not easy to find.
MOre commonly, I have enjoyed battles in the 1000-2000 point range, and this is a comfortable force to play with, large enough to have flexibility, and yet small enough to finish in a few hours.
I think it would be a mistake to think that 10000 point forces are reaching operational level, however. I have tried fighting with 30+ tanks per side, and a battalion of infantry, and if you have the patience to move everything around and follow developments as they occur, it can be quite the experience.
I would say that SPWAW is well suited to model anything from a few platoons, on a smaller map, to a battalion or two of forces for each side, equally well. It's more a question of taste than anything else.
------------------
Securitas
_________________________
88mm is a really nice number
Securitas
_________________________
88 is a really nice number
The problem with really big battles is that you have so much control over your units, and the bigger the battle the more unrealistic it becomes. Paul Vebber (I think) made the point earlier that SPWAW (and all the SP games ) is really Borg with WW2 weapons. Well its somewhat reasonable for a company commander to be concerned about the placement of each tank and squad, its quite unrealistic for a Batallion Commander and just ridiculous for a Brigade commander to be maneuvering individual tanks.
Having said that, it is fun and I play the big battles too, but I pretty much agree with Brent, I prefer 1500-2500 points, especially for early war PBEM.
Kluckenbill: While your explanation sounds good, about brigade level and further up not controlling every tank, well big surprise, because 1000 pt. forces have a commander to tell everyone where to go, with no individual initiative either (the Borg is only a smaller one, but borging nonetheless).
Frankly, I don't see why people can't use their imagination here, it is not me, the general, who is telling all the units where to go, but it is me the commander of the tank that tells it where to go. It just so happens that there's noone to play co-op as I used to do in the old days, and even then, the other fellow commanded more than one unit (half of them to be precise), so that even in that situation we were commanding more units than was humanly possible, that is, if we insist on looking at the game as us borging every unit.
Tactical or Operational, that's the beauty of SPWAW, it's got the flexibility of both. If you have the mind for, or are in the mood for a huge scenerio like Operation Goodwood or North of the Psel, get some!!! The smaller one's are great also. It depends on what your in the mood for. When SPWW2 came out with the Stalingrad series, I HAD to play them. I haven't even touched, yet. SPWAW, the invasion series, I've been playing the crap out of them.
What do you feel like dealing with? What Theater? SPWAW, can do it, what a game!!!!!
------------------
"When do we get our flamethrowers, Top?"
Originally posted by Kluckenbill: The problem with really big battles is that you have so much control over your units, and the bigger the battle the more unrealistic it becomes. Paul Vebber (I think) made the point earlier that SPWAW (and all the SP games ) is really Borg with WW2 weapons. Well its somewhat reasonable for a company commander to be concerned about the placement of each tank and squad, its quite unrealistic for a Batallion Commander and just ridiculous for a Brigade commander to be maneuvering individual tanks.
Having said that, it is fun and I play the big battles too, but I pretty much agree with Brent, I prefer 1500-2500 points, especially for early war PBEM.
You don't have to have the pinpoint control if you don't want to. The first game I played of WaW I set all the units on my side to computer control except 1 platoon of armored cars. In essence I was a new platoon commander fresh from OCS. I let the computer run the rest of my side and all I worried about was the platoon that I was commanding. The other units didn't go where I would have put them (with my godlike view of the battlefield) and didn't always shoot where I thought they should (including dropping artillery on my platoon when I scooted out ahead) but a platoon commander should expect that sort of occurance when they are not in charge of the big picture. On the other hand I have also tried setting units to computer control, with only the A0 as human controlled, setting objectives and waypoints for the computer units, allowing the ai to do the manuevering of the platoons, again they didn't go where I would have put them, but when you give a unit a broader order like move to the crossroads just past the town, instead of move three hexes forward so you can ambush the armor that is shifting your way that you can't see yet, the game takes on a different feel.
thanks, John.
One has to realize that the balance can be twisted in a battle when your opponent buys 4- 5 batallions of artillery. This reaches Corps level artillery deployment which would rarely if ever be used to support a regiment level combat group.
Batallion and regimental size combat groups or kampfgruppes would have 2-3 batteries at the most in support of their tactical level actions, yet the OOB's and the points allow a player to buy one company of infantry and tanks and use the rest of his5,000= points to buy scads of artillery aor air support. How realistic is that?
I only use the large maps for scenario design. for battles I like to use the small or custom map size of less than 40 x 100, such as 40 x 60. On a map this size you can do a lot of small tactical battles that correctly use the OOB's and force the AI to do the same in generated battles. The action can start quickly and force the player to make combat decisions before being able to properly deploy. This is what makes it so exciting and adrenaline pulsing.
To each his own , yet most of the issues with OOB's center on large battles of more than 2500 points. You can buy a lot of 150mm howitzer batteries with 600 points, about whaat the AI will doin a 2500 point battle
------------------
Grenadier
Matrix Games Technical Writer
Brent you have a good point. The game is not fool-proof, and it is certainly possible to skew things badly if a player or the AI make unrealistic purchases. I have taken two approaches to this:
1) Trying to play very realistically, with proper unit composition that would be representative of the forces of that nation for that period. Since no country really was able to be totally true to its TO&E, you still have plenty of flexibility in your unit choices, and I VERY often pick inferior units even though better is available for a given time period simply because I know the inferior units were more common or more representative of a particular battle.
2) What ifs: It's often fun to find out what would happen if one side or the other had a disproportionate amount of one or the other sort of unit. As long as both players agree that the situation is atypical, I have no problem with this. Here is where your 2000 point artillery barrage comes into play. Yes, it *could* happen, but let's not do this often.....
------------------
Securitas
_________________________
88mm is a really nice number
Securitas
_________________________
88 is a really nice number
So I take it that Brent has clarified now. The problem, or one of the problems is people or the AI buying far too many artillery units for what would approach normalcy for the forces that get 3000 pts. and beyond.
Yes, I too see a problem there. I too am sick and tired of the AI buying so much blasted artillery that in a few cases, either my infantry have to rush forward or rush to the rear to escape it, or get decimated otherwise. I like to use my whole force, and furthermore, considering only the Russians can transport infantry on tanks (except if your infantry has already been laregly withered down) the artillery all but makes the infantry useless in a few battles. This of course strips the tanks of the infantry, which therefore has to chug along to the defensive spots without them (another reason to buy a few armored recon units). I understand there's a strategy to doing that, but it's a bit irritating. It's really to the AI's disadvantage, particularly if the AI is playing an opponent such as the Germans, who rally quite easily, so that artillery is practically useless against the tanks.
I recently decided, on the higher WWII campaign core starting 6/41 (higher than the one starting 9/39) to buy a couple of SP HT mortars and the Beob FO. I never would've dreamed of getting artillery in core before, much less a FO, but if your points start mounting, that's the direction you tend to go, so I see Brent's point even more. I think a lot of us are pretty happy with having anywhere between 10-35 tanks in core, but with so much direct-firepower, you start getting curious about artillery, particularly since tranporting infantry is out and that the AI buys such enormous amounts. To make matters worse, I'm still wondering whether the AI puts it's artillery into a continual supply feed, so that it might bombard MUCH more frequently.
On what john g, speaks, I'm interested. If nothing else, john has at least introduced to me the idea of putting some of the force into the hands of the AI, in order to dissimilate some of the Borg. Perhaps I'll give it a go sometime (or continue to use my imagination as the commander of each tank). It is interesting anyway.
BTW, for those who still believe the AI is too predictable, you need to play what I'm playing. Perhaps it seems so different because I'm not playing my familiar Germans. But the deal is that I'm campaigning as the Brits. The first battle was a meeting engagement with visibility of /four. Usually, if the pathetic visibility battle is the first, I will start the campaign over, but I decided to go with this one (the Brit core force is like 3900 - way too high for a nation that has a lot of very cheap stuff). The AI sent large amounts of Gerry tanks at me, and I held out fairly well, but I had to do quite a lot of manuevering. Now, that the tanks are seemingly dealt with, I decided to go forward and take the objectives in German hands with 25 pndrs. bombarding there to some extent in advance (non=spotted of course). About halfway to the objectives, I've run into infantry sitting in bocages, and it's murder! These Matilda IIs with only one MG, only get by with some luck in such a situation. Seriously, it's going to take me a while, particularly since some of my infantry was decimated with artillery to figure out how to weed the infantry out, and it looks as though a master tactician placed them. I can't believe it. The first infantry I saw was a VJ, and he destroyed a Matilda II on an assault. As I got a few units in there, it occurred to me that not only was this unit or units in the middle of the road, but he was perfectly situated so that even if you attack him from the rear, you cannot get at him without getting within a range of one, and then, what will you find even if you get back there (probably more VJ)? I have like three 3 in. HOW tanks and I need them up there bad.
There is one thing I like about the Brits, in some of the hapdash efforts I've made with them before, and it's their very weakness and that is the 2 pndr gun which has no HE. One neat thing about it, is that the tank can fire AP at tanks, and when the infantry move up, it can fire it's secondary gun at the infantry (a MG usually), so that the early Brit tanks can fire more frequently than the Gerry ones, because the Gerry commander will often have to ignore the infantry because since it's main gun has both HE and AP shot, he is trying to conserve the main gun for an AT role; as long as his main gun has any ammo, he cannot opt to fire the secondary gun on it's own. Perhaps this doesn't make sense, but there is a marked difference between how the Brits actually have something of an advantage in not having HE shot in the main gun, though it is sorely missed in the bocages in assaults.
Hey Charles, which campaign are you playing. I'm at the office so I can't take a look, but I don't recall a Brit campaign included with the game.
I also agree that John G's idea of really commanding a small unit in a generally larger force (of which all the rest are computer controlled) is kinda different. I will have to try that.
------------------
Securitas
_________________________
88mm is a really nice number
Securitas
_________________________
88 is a really nice number
The game is given a large scope so players can represent battles were large forces collided. THis does not mean the game can accurately protray EVERY large battle.
A Panzer Division nominallly had 3 BAttalions of artillery. Larger concentrations were generally used as a "pre-game bombardment".
Contrary to what the game might have you believe, most artillery was used enmasse, not placed under the control of lower echelon units for direct support.
Using heaping handfuls of battalions in direct support will mean the enemy will be hurt very badly. IF the enemy happens to have many battalions you will be hurt very badly. In real life this often meant the battle didn't occur.
We have tried to balance artillery between realism (which would mean that players woiuld have little if any control over it) and "fun" meaning players have control over their artillery that modern commanders would drool over.
IF you use more than 3 or 4 battalions of artillery the results will tend to be carnage. Same goes for tons of rocket launchers.
THe game is best at doing battalion to regimental scal battles with a few batteries to a couple battalions of artillery in direct support. Battles where dozens of battalions of artillery softened up the battlefield beforehand are examples of "operational fires" that were not controled by the "player" and as such are not good candidates to play.
You can play them, but artillery will tend to drive the results.
I've always thought that it was a shame that SSI never made some facility for a link between Steel Panthers and the Panzer General series.
You could have used Panzer General for the tactical level game, then when a battle occured the link could kick in and give you the option of resolving it with Steel Panthers, with all forces and terrain being set by what and where the battle occured in Panzer General
Originally posted by Brent: In conclusion, except for modelling historical battles in scenarios or campaigns,I feel the SPWAW engine is best suited for small tactical firefights of company to batallion size groups, not regimental or brigade combat groups. That is what SP3 and TOAW was designed for.
Exact, dear comrade.
People at Matrix, will be have a revamped SP3 for those huge battles some day?
What works really well for high point value games are meeting engagements on really big maps. Tank Div vs Tank Div is a good battle. You drop the non-sp arty and say that it's back a ways from the battle and you got a great game that is also gigantic. Artillery constraints are critical when it comes to larger battles.. (well small ones benefit from it too) The game is a very open system that allows for a lot of power on the part of the player. Agreements have to be made before the battle or everything is up in the air.
each and 2 batallions of heavy tanks and 5 batallions of infantry, play balance can become a real problem. 
