[QUOTE]Originally posted by Randy:
I think I've mentioned my idea of a solution
for a combination game that has the tactical
and operational level before. I would propose
a combination game using the play of TOAOW with SPWAW! You would start the game at battalion/brigade level using the military map symbol icons. When units came into contact with each other the player would go to another screen for SPWAW level combat.
Randy. I used to do this with the board games Panzer Blitz-ASL, very tedious, but I liked it!!
------------------
Mike Amos
Meine Ehre Heisst Treue
SPWAW and its limits (LOOOOONG POST)
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Mogami talks a colorful battle, but to me I'm all-out for eliminating the opponent, as the faster the better. I'm not saying I rush in, especially on the attack I can be quite slow, but the three-deep mine idea is precisely what slows down Mogami's game. I hardly ever have any battles where it gets past turn 10. My boys are all about destroying the maximum amount of units, with the least loss, in the quickest time. I find it ironic that Mogami described a defensive stance, because it is precisely that type of battle where I find the AI is destroyed by turn 7 or has conceded. The older games used to have an atmosphere of hurry, as indeed war often gets to that sort of approach, for we were getting points for getting units off of the map. I suppose this game, campaign-wise could give points for exiting units, but I've yet to see it, for all the innovations seem to come on the scenario level (with the exception of the timed objective hexes).
As I look at it Mogami likes LONG battles, only he likes long battles of a different sort than I do. If I had my way, all my battles would 'potentially' be 30 or more turns, but in reality it's mostly ten or less, while I might play with twice the forces he does. The amount of time playing the type of battle he describes and the one I on average actually play, would probably find his actually took a little longer. My forces elongate a quicker play, while his playing cat-and-mouse elongates his.
As I look at it Mogami likes LONG battles, only he likes long battles of a different sort than I do. If I had my way, all my battles would 'potentially' be 30 or more turns, but in reality it's mostly ten or less, while I might play with twice the forces he does. The amount of time playing the type of battle he describes and the one I on average actually play, would probably find his actually took a little longer. My forces elongate a quicker play, while his playing cat-and-mouse elongates his.
warhorse: I agree with you, but since you haven't had a great deal of experience with WIR, you may find my idea better. One thing crucial about WIR, as compared to TOAW, is that WIR has factorys that can be lost, and I like it's use of air forces much better. WIR can take a while to play, but I don't think the player should be able to SPWAW every battle, for that would probably complicate the idea far too much, and noone would dare play every blasted battle tactically anyway. Though there would be times where you might want to fight more than one battle, being limited to one would make for interesting decisions.
TOAW can take quite a whiel to play as well, and it would seem as though allowing the player to SPWAW every battle, would get some people to thinking that they 'had to' do it that way therefore, and it would certainly be discouraging. One battle per turn would surely make, again, for an interesting decision making process. Just where would you want to put forward the best effort on a given turn, assuming you fight better than the computer's operational/strategic model does?
TOAW can take quite a whiel to play as well, and it would seem as though allowing the player to SPWAW every battle, would get some people to thinking that they 'had to' do it that way therefore, and it would certainly be discouraging. One battle per turn would surely make, again, for an interesting decision making process. Just where would you want to put forward the best effort on a given turn, assuming you fight better than the computer's operational/strategic model does?
Ok...here's my long and possibly OT post.
Everyone in this thread seems to be focusing on the need for realism. Command structure, smoke, broken units, and all. Perhaps we're looking in the wrong direction? I love war gaming and have been playing since my early 'teens (anyone remember Richtofen's War?). One thing that always disappointed me with Panzerblitz, ASL, and the rest was that, great as these games were, unless you were playing a double-blind game with two boards and a referee, you always pretty much knew where the bad people were. That was cool since these games were fun in their own right. Of course, we gamers wanted more and more detail until we reached a point with ASL where the detail reached a critical mass. (Let's see, the hand grenade my squad leader is throwing was made by the Acme Weapons Plant in Memphis TN and the young female fuse cutter was up late with a supply sergeant…you role a 3…opps, your hand is blown off) However, detail alone does not a simulation make. And let's face it…the top-down, "I'm God and I see everything" board is efficient and convenient, but it's not realistic.
How's this… Take one of the 3-D first person shooter engines and modify it. Now, you start as an infantry company commander and you're in the command dugout on the front. You have a map, your staff, the phones, radio, and maybe a candle. If artillery cuts the phone lines or the radio jams or dies, you either have to depend on runners or go out and see what's happening for yourself. Do you take some rifleman for security (do you even have the spare riflemen?)? Do you trust your platoon commanders to give you the straight info? How far can you push them? How well can you mollify the battalion commander? If you do your job well, you get promoted to battalion command…but now the fog of war is even worse…and it gets worse the farther up the chain of command you go. You've got your smoke, and burning tanks, flares, you have that last fleeting glimpse of your 2nd platoon racing for the rear. Was that scraping noise behind you one of your troops or is it an enemy scout?
I may not be doing a good job of describing this 'cuz I'm at work and sneaking a few minutes. However, from all that I've read about land combat -Ambrose, MacDonald, Wilson- what we play as a game is nothing like what really happens in combat and short of actually fighting in a war, it can't be. The grunts-eye view would provide a more realistic experience and unlike the recent Combat game (I forget the full name, but it's 3-d), your character could die.
Maybe that's it…a 3-d, first person, land combat role playing game.
That's my opinion…I could be wrong.
Lou
Everyone in this thread seems to be focusing on the need for realism. Command structure, smoke, broken units, and all. Perhaps we're looking in the wrong direction? I love war gaming and have been playing since my early 'teens (anyone remember Richtofen's War?). One thing that always disappointed me with Panzerblitz, ASL, and the rest was that, great as these games were, unless you were playing a double-blind game with two boards and a referee, you always pretty much knew where the bad people were. That was cool since these games were fun in their own right. Of course, we gamers wanted more and more detail until we reached a point with ASL where the detail reached a critical mass. (Let's see, the hand grenade my squad leader is throwing was made by the Acme Weapons Plant in Memphis TN and the young female fuse cutter was up late with a supply sergeant…you role a 3…opps, your hand is blown off) However, detail alone does not a simulation make. And let's face it…the top-down, "I'm God and I see everything" board is efficient and convenient, but it's not realistic.
How's this… Take one of the 3-D first person shooter engines and modify it. Now, you start as an infantry company commander and you're in the command dugout on the front. You have a map, your staff, the phones, radio, and maybe a candle. If artillery cuts the phone lines or the radio jams or dies, you either have to depend on runners or go out and see what's happening for yourself. Do you take some rifleman for security (do you even have the spare riflemen?)? Do you trust your platoon commanders to give you the straight info? How far can you push them? How well can you mollify the battalion commander? If you do your job well, you get promoted to battalion command…but now the fog of war is even worse…and it gets worse the farther up the chain of command you go. You've got your smoke, and burning tanks, flares, you have that last fleeting glimpse of your 2nd platoon racing for the rear. Was that scraping noise behind you one of your troops or is it an enemy scout?
I may not be doing a good job of describing this 'cuz I'm at work and sneaking a few minutes. However, from all that I've read about land combat -Ambrose, MacDonald, Wilson- what we play as a game is nothing like what really happens in combat and short of actually fighting in a war, it can't be. The grunts-eye view would provide a more realistic experience and unlike the recent Combat game (I forget the full name, but it's 3-d), your character could die.
Maybe that's it…a 3-d, first person, land combat role playing game.
That's my opinion…I could be wrong.
Lou
-
G. K. Zhukov
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Paul Vedder just said that SPWAW would go into bug-elimination mode, meaning its development is considered as more or less complete.
There is another group working with the successor to SP2 (SP Modern Warfare).
Then why not doing the same kind of job with Steel Panthers 3? If you do not like the game, no one would force you to download it...
There is another group working with the successor to SP2 (SP Modern Warfare).
Then why not doing the same kind of job with Steel Panthers 3? If you do not like the game, no one would force you to download it...
Well, like I said, Zhukov, if the SP3 scale is what you like, try the Talonsoft products. They are superior to SSI's in that scale.
I suspect that SP3 was a panic reaction by SSI after Talonsoft had launched their graphically revolutionary products.
I can think of no other reason why they should have migrated to that scale.
I have owned ad played both systems, the Talonsoft system is superior for that scale of simulation.
SSI should have stuck to their guns and developed what is effectively the combination of SPWAW and SPMW instead.
Clearly, different guys like different styles of battles.
I was impressed by Mogami's description of his preference, it makes great reading.
I am short of time, and like Charles 22 I am looking for an exciting, highly personal battle.
It is an excellent feature of the SPWAW system that both styles can be enjoyed.
------------------
Fabs
I suspect that SP3 was a panic reaction by SSI after Talonsoft had launched their graphically revolutionary products.
I can think of no other reason why they should have migrated to that scale.
I have owned ad played both systems, the Talonsoft system is superior for that scale of simulation.
SSI should have stuck to their guns and developed what is effectively the combination of SPWAW and SPMW instead.
Clearly, different guys like different styles of battles.
I was impressed by Mogami's description of his preference, it makes great reading.
I am short of time, and like Charles 22 I am looking for an exciting, highly personal battle.
It is an excellent feature of the SPWAW system that both styles can be enjoyed.
------------------
Fabs
Fabs
Hi all the battle I discribed is Tankheads Brits 15k attacking my Volksgrenadiers 5k in 44' league battle. I hate the AI but love online human versus human attack/defend/meeting I don't care just give me smoke fire and chaos for a few hours and I am a happy shell shocked trooper
PS the mine belt is only 2 hexes deep just trying to psych Tankhead.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited December 02, 2000).]
PS the mine belt is only 2 hexes deep just trying to psych Tankhead.
------------------
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!
[This message has been edited by Mogami (edited December 02, 2000).]
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Joe Osborne
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: Somewhere on a beach
- Contact:
After reading all the wonderful posts in this thread (Man, can some of you guys write!) the one thing that seems clear to me is that SPWAW seems to fit the bill from small to "momo" size games....it's all just a matter of how you decide to play it. (I loved Mogami's post, and this is indicative of preferred playing style)...how much time you have to play it....I think Wild Bill summed it up..."some like it long, some like it short etc"...SPWAW pretty much satisfies it until you try and get above Regimental/Brigade sized play....then I tend to agree that East Front/West Front series handles that size game better (although not without problems....but THAT discussion is for a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away 
)
I've been playing SP since the old AOL/SSI/Leadeaters days and my feeling is SPWAW handles the less than Brigade sized engagement better than anything I've seen come down the pike...now granted being on the Matrix team I'm probably a little more than prejudiced in the matter ...
But to tell you the truth I had pretty much stopped playing any SP games for a couple of years as SP3 just couldn't compete with the Campaign Series or TOAW series and I'd found myself playing those games exclusively.
Since the begining of SPWAW development though my interest has been rekindled in the SP gaming engine and now I'm exclusively playing SPWAW. With the promise of the VCR fix (Christmas comes early for us PBEM 'ers) I agree with Paul that we're pretty much into a bug elimination mode with the game.
Now for those of you who might want to see what the future will hold for SPWAW you might want to move on over to this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000057.html
at Matrix Games Network and see what's beginning to be developed in web based gaming with SPWAW. I'll warn you it's still pre-pre alpha, but we think it has some promise.
Joe Osborne
Director
Matrix Games Network
)I've been playing SP since the old AOL/SSI/Leadeaters days and my feeling is SPWAW handles the less than Brigade sized engagement better than anything I've seen come down the pike...now granted being on the Matrix team I'm probably a little more than prejudiced in the matter ...
But to tell you the truth I had pretty much stopped playing any SP games for a couple of years as SP3 just couldn't compete with the Campaign Series or TOAW series and I'd found myself playing those games exclusively. Since the begining of SPWAW development though my interest has been rekindled in the SP gaming engine and now I'm exclusively playing SPWAW. With the promise of the VCR fix (Christmas comes early for us PBEM 'ers
) I agree with Paul that we're pretty much into a bug elimination mode with the game.Now for those of you who might want to see what the future will hold for SPWAW you might want to move on over to this thread:
http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000057.html
at Matrix Games Network and see what's beginning to be developed in web based gaming with SPWAW. I'll warn you it's still pre-pre alpha, but we think it has some promise.
Joe Osborne
Director
Matrix Games Network
-
amatteucci
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ITALY
I agree that Talonsoft CS games are not too bad to model WW2 combat at divisional or corps level. What I'd like to have is a graphical mod that allows me to see platoons with the number of tanks they actually have (just like in SP3 preferences), a different rating to model experience along with morale and, very important, a formation mode! Tank platoons operate in various kind of formation that were different also from nation to nation. Platoon formation are important if I'm trying to model warfare at that scale. Did anyone played the old boardgame "Highway to the Reich" detailing Market Garden at platoon/company level? The system was primitive but they had at least travel/combat formation for platoons.
With those addictions I think that a CStype game could be a rocker.
Amedeo
With those addictions I think that a CStype game could be a rocker.
Amedeo
-
G. K. Zhukov
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain
- Contact:
Wow. Thick thread. I'm sure people have seen me post about this sort of thing before, but here goes.
It's a simple fact that the personal scale of SPWAW/SP1 is a significant factor in its popularity. The fact that it is also an excellent game makes it crazy good. That wont change, and for a game like sp3 there will never really be the kind of audience necessary to keep it afloat. However, I sympathize with Zhukov's desire for big. I'm just starting with the whole scenario design thing (it's addictive) and my bent is clearly toward the excessively large. I was a GIGANTIC sp3 fan, and I personally find it to be way more fun than East/West/Pacific Front. What really gets me going about larger engagements is the fact that your planning becomes more significant. I like a scale where a player can't respond to threats immediately. Once you reach a certain size of force and area of operations, a lot of what's really exciting about modern warfare comes into play. Real outmaneuvering can't happen unless there's enough space to do it. The classic 100x80 hex 50m board is a little shy of the necessary space to have really dynamic battles. Even the new larger maps are a little thing (not that anything can be done about it). Dont get me wrong, the new 100x240 is way cool, but given that space you really need to have a unit limit that can support the historical unit frontages along 12km. That could easily get to corps scale (clearly unreasonable), but in order to get anything reasonable as far as the numerical ratio of infantry squad to tank the unit limit would need to go up some (this is not a request). This is more significant now that the game has taken on infantry in a much better light. You can play strictly infantry battles and have a damn good game of infantry combat now. (Sheesh this game is pleasant.) The tension between slow and fast troops (especially in WW2 era) is something critical to a game that models modern war. Certainly, that tension is mostly operational, but the effects dip into the tactical and can/does play a huge role in SPWAW already. In my scenario "North of Psel" that deals with Kursk, I made every effort to challenge the player to answer the following questions: Dispersion vs concentration, speed vs caution, annihilation of units vs bypassing them, how much flank security do I need, how much force do I need to take a given objective, which objectives should I commit to capturing. After toiling for ages, I felt that the only way for me to achieve any of that was to have enough space relative to the speed and attack range of units so as to maximize the effect of "what I do now will affect things later." That then forced me to adequately fill the space. If there was more space to take and more units to fill it with I feel that my objectives would be better fufilled. Blah blah, thats my take on size. Scale is simply another tool to achieve it. It's nice cause it reduces the number of units to something more manageable.
But then theres the other problem with all this stuff that is... I argue for what war is to me, and what about it I find challenging and exciting. For me, It's not about what it's like to pit a company against another company, or see a Tiger tank stand triumphant among a dozen wrecks. I want to know why one company had to fight of ten and won(or lost), or what made this commander think that a certain sector was safe from serious attack, or why this battalion was able to take some position with a minimum of loss while another couldn't get past square one. I want to go through the motions of having a situation develop, and have to react and adjust to it. My most satisfying wargame experiences are in sp3 against excellent PBEM opponents... Bigger maps and unit counts and it becomes a bigger game, but I dont mean that in the obvious way. On one level I am using my units tactically and trying to maximize their effectiveness, but on a higher level I'm making judgement calls on how densely and where to allocate forces(I know that this is starting to enter in the realm of operational warfare). At that level against other humans the game takes on a level of excitement I have great difficulty expressing as anything other than 'really good'. I know I'm kinda just ranting and raving, and my point here is really that I'm not crazy. I'm a believer because I've been able to play games that have made me see the potentially huge amount of fun and satisfaction one can derive from those taking a detailed interest in really big battles...
Man, I gotta stop typing.
Tomo
It's a simple fact that the personal scale of SPWAW/SP1 is a significant factor in its popularity. The fact that it is also an excellent game makes it crazy good. That wont change, and for a game like sp3 there will never really be the kind of audience necessary to keep it afloat. However, I sympathize with Zhukov's desire for big. I'm just starting with the whole scenario design thing (it's addictive) and my bent is clearly toward the excessively large. I was a GIGANTIC sp3 fan, and I personally find it to be way more fun than East/West/Pacific Front. What really gets me going about larger engagements is the fact that your planning becomes more significant. I like a scale where a player can't respond to threats immediately. Once you reach a certain size of force and area of operations, a lot of what's really exciting about modern warfare comes into play. Real outmaneuvering can't happen unless there's enough space to do it. The classic 100x80 hex 50m board is a little shy of the necessary space to have really dynamic battles. Even the new larger maps are a little thing (not that anything can be done about it). Dont get me wrong, the new 100x240 is way cool, but given that space you really need to have a unit limit that can support the historical unit frontages along 12km. That could easily get to corps scale (clearly unreasonable), but in order to get anything reasonable as far as the numerical ratio of infantry squad to tank the unit limit would need to go up some (this is not a request). This is more significant now that the game has taken on infantry in a much better light. You can play strictly infantry battles and have a damn good game of infantry combat now. (Sheesh this game is pleasant.) The tension between slow and fast troops (especially in WW2 era) is something critical to a game that models modern war. Certainly, that tension is mostly operational, but the effects dip into the tactical and can/does play a huge role in SPWAW already. In my scenario "North of Psel" that deals with Kursk, I made every effort to challenge the player to answer the following questions: Dispersion vs concentration, speed vs caution, annihilation of units vs bypassing them, how much flank security do I need, how much force do I need to take a given objective, which objectives should I commit to capturing. After toiling for ages, I felt that the only way for me to achieve any of that was to have enough space relative to the speed and attack range of units so as to maximize the effect of "what I do now will affect things later." That then forced me to adequately fill the space. If there was more space to take and more units to fill it with I feel that my objectives would be better fufilled. Blah blah, thats my take on size. Scale is simply another tool to achieve it. It's nice cause it reduces the number of units to something more manageable.
But then theres the other problem with all this stuff that is... I argue for what war is to me, and what about it I find challenging and exciting. For me, It's not about what it's like to pit a company against another company, or see a Tiger tank stand triumphant among a dozen wrecks. I want to know why one company had to fight of ten and won(or lost), or what made this commander think that a certain sector was safe from serious attack, or why this battalion was able to take some position with a minimum of loss while another couldn't get past square one. I want to go through the motions of having a situation develop, and have to react and adjust to it. My most satisfying wargame experiences are in sp3 against excellent PBEM opponents... Bigger maps and unit counts and it becomes a bigger game, but I dont mean that in the obvious way. On one level I am using my units tactically and trying to maximize their effectiveness, but on a higher level I'm making judgement calls on how densely and where to allocate forces(I know that this is starting to enter in the realm of operational warfare). At that level against other humans the game takes on a level of excitement I have great difficulty expressing as anything other than 'really good'. I know I'm kinda just ranting and raving, and my point here is really that I'm not crazy. I'm a believer because I've been able to play games that have made me see the potentially huge amount of fun and satisfaction one can derive from those taking a detailed interest in really big battles...
Man, I gotta stop typing.
Tomo