What makes SP...SP?

[Paul Vebber]

Cross posted from the CL forum to try to get at what folks see as the "essence" of SP and why so manyseem to think CL won;t have "it"...

Is the reason this is "not an SP game" the fact that you don't move each unit individually?

What we are trying to get it is the "thing" that makes an "SP game type game an SP game"

Is this the way you move the units about? The lack of hexes? the addition of individual "leaders" that are not integral to a unit, but can move around seperately?
Change in scope (ie company/platton vice battalion/company).

Help us out getting a handle on this!

I am doing most of the "combat guts" as I did for SP:WaW and am allowed much more flexibility now becasue we have broken out of the SP architecture limits.

SO I'll cross post this over to the SP foruma and see if we can get our arms around why the game concepts are seen by many as so alien to SP!

[Alby]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Cross posted from the CL forum to try to get at what folks see as the "essence" of SP and why so manyseem to think CL won;t have "it"...

Is the reason this is "not an SP game" the fact that you don't move each unit individually?

What we are trying to get it is the "thing" that makes an "SP game type game an SP game"

Is this the way you move the units about? The lack of hexes? the addition of individual "leaders" that are not integral to a unit, but can move around seperately?
Change in scope (ie company/platton vice battalion/company).

Help us out getting a handle on this!

I am doing most of the "combat guts" as I did for SP:WaW and am allowed much more flexibility now becasue we have broken out of the SP architecture limits.

SO I'll cross post this over to the SP foruma and see if we can get our arms around why the game concepts are seen by many as so alien to SP!

Maybe I have played the SP games so long I am biased?? who knows...One thing I do think is...I wish all the bugs and oob follies be correct and finalized before new games take over everyones time.


[This message has been edited by Alby (edited January 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Alby (edited January 14, 2001).]

[Lars Remmen]

Paul,

The great thing about SP is its flexibility. If you want to (re)create a specific battle you can do that using the battle- and map editor. If you think the armor values are incorrect you can correct them. Same thing with formations.

Then there's the immersion. Play a campaign and you start feeling close to those litte virtual soldiers. Who hasn't put a great crack in their desk (using their forehead) when this or that special unit suddenly got killed.

Whats more (and this is not neccesarily good) we KNOW a lot of things when we play SP. We know when the artillery are out of contact. We know excately when that 105mm bty. will land its shells on the hill. We can see how badly a unit is surpressed, excately what weapons are out on a tank etc. And we can PLAN. In the middle of a turn we can go for a cup of coffee or a whisky. Or anything else we like. Yes, I know you can pause most RT games but you kind of loose the feel with a RT (not neccesarily a strategy game - I get blow out of the sky every time I pause my Flight Sim) when you pause it.

Just my thoughts

------------------
Lars
Nec Temere - Nec Timide

[This message has been edited by Lars Remmen (edited January 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Lars Remmen (edited January 14, 2001).]

[Don Doom]

Hmm.
Well I can not speak for everyone else. I believe it the feeling you get when you can pick the forces you are going to cammand, when you place them in positions you believe is safe for them and deadly for the opfor's. Its when the artiliary comes slamming in killing your best troops who have pulled your fat out of the fire more times than you can count.
It is the feeling when your armor breaks through their front lines and destroys the reserve units or artiliary they fine.
It is when your air sopport routes the massive armor attack the russians have just unleasted on your poor infanty.
Ok in other words, it's the feeling of being there with the troops and the ability to design, created and play your own or someone elses campaign. The attachment you can have or get when you play them. I have played sp1-3, panzer commander, the old board squad leader, the old giant map games by ssi.
They still do not bring out the feelings Steel panthers world at war does.
Hopefully that is clear as mud. Paul[by the way nice picture].

Doom

[Hortlund]

To move units individually:
To move your little men around, trying to position that MG on the best possible spot etc is fun and interesting. When you add the campaign function, that lets you follow your men throughout several battles makes it even more fun. Why is this fun for me? It makes it personal. I know my squad leader, I know that he is the one who saved the situation in Poland when he ambushed that tank etc. I can watch his skill and experience grow. I know what I can expect of him. I dont know if others feel the same way, but this feature adds enormously to the "feel" of the game for me. I still remember some squad leaders and what they did. I can recall how Lt Baumann, one of the great heroes of my long campaign got surrounded in a small farmhouse outside Smolensk 1944, and how he and his men singelhandedly held the Soviet advance for 5 turns against hopeless odds. Desperately I tried to save him and his men, but alas, to no avail, they all perished in that small wooden building. And it truly pissed me off.

Whats my point to all this?
It gets personal. I know all my men in my core, I know all they have done, and I desperately want them to survive the war. This is something that is lost in SP3 where you move around platoons instead of squads. It simply isnt the same feeling.

Control over your men:
Another aspect is that the player has full control over his units. He decides when to fire, and at what. He decides how and when the unit moves, what weapons the unit will use etc. This adds more to the "personal" side, this makes it easier to get personal with your troops. "Ok..Lt Baumann will advance behind that barn towards that treeline..hmm what is that, russians...pop smoke in that hex, and let sgt Schultz in his StuG move in to give supporting fire"

This aspect is completely lost in CC. You have almost zero control (well..relatively speaking that is) over what your units do,
and how they move. I dont know how many times I have roared in agony over the stupid move by my panzer when he decides to go on the left side of the building and gets killed by that tank I saw all along, when I ordered him to go around the house on the right side. I'm not sure if this is the way it should be, after all the tank *is* under command by its armor leader. Perhaps it is more realistic, but it is frustrating as hell.

So, what makes SPWaW unique so far is that it gets personal, and it lets the player control his units the way he sees fit.

Now there are thousands of more aspects that is important for me in a wargame, but in my opinion, these two are very important aspects that makes SPWaW the best wargame ever for me.

Steve


------------------
Panzerjaeger Hortlund
-=Fear is only a state of mind=-

[rfox]

I have always been a fan of turn based computer wargames. I have also appreciated developers who allow the player to "look under the hood" at the game engine and know how combat resolution calculations take place. I don't view this as cheating. Any good commander knows the limitations of his troops in any given combat situation. There is always the element of surprise both from the enemy and conditions on the battlefield. Not everything can be quantified, but any good tactical combat game takes into account combat variables within refined mathmatical formulas. If this is done well in a wargame, it not only allows the player to plan in a strategic and tactical sense, but it helps the player to learn what is feasible and what isn't in any given tactical context. In other words, you get a good sense of the joys and frustrations of the battlefield commander.

I'm obviously not speaking for everyone who is a fan of SP:WAW, but in my opinion, this game (SP:WAW) is the best tactical simulation/game of WW2 small unit combat out on the market primarily because it takes into account the things I mentioned in the previous paragraph. The turn based engine allows the virtual commander to take stock of the battlefield and think over the tactical situation, unlike the CC series of games or any other RTS game. A game such as this allows the player both to have fun, and to learn, which is an ideal situation. I was always a fan of Advanced Squad Leader, and SP:WAW is the closest thing to that system that I have found available on a PC. The ability to create your own maps, campaigns and scenarios is a wonderful advantage to any system such as this. The dynamic/long WWII campaign is amazing. The fact that SP:WAW uses a hex based map system is an advantage in my view, not a disadvantage. This is far different from any RTS game that I have seen on the market, including Combat Leader (although I must admit I'm not familiar with all of the details of the CL system). We have to face the fact as wargamers that any PC tactical game is going to have some level of abstraction. Whether its displaying squads of men as a static unmoving herd of men, or armor penetration "quadrants" on a tank sprite (graphic icon), abstraction is here to stay. What other tactical wargame system on the PC do we know of that models in a practical way the significance of an HE round or grenade hitting the radio mast of a tank...and have it mean something for the tactical situation at hand? SP:WAW doesn't just have cool wargame "chrome"...it has cool wargame chrome that means something and helps to make the game extremely fun and addicting. Being able to pause the battle and consider this level of detail in a turn based system is polish to the chrome, in my opinion, and helps the player to grasp the significance of the high level of detail that has been put into this type of system.

Sorry about being so long winded. Just my 2 cents.



------------------
-------------
Rob

[orc4hire]

Hmm.... the 'essence' of SP.... Well, there's the following troops through one battle after another, as has been mentioned. Hex based; you can easily see where all your troops will be relative to each other after movement, and simplifies LOS and unit placement. Turn based. This is my biggest gripe against any realtime wargame; people say, "well, in combat you don't have time to think over every decision; things happen too fast, you have to make quick decisions." Yeah, sure. But the real commander isn't having to give orders to more than about 5 people, who can --presumably-- be trusted to carry out their orders competently. He isn't individually controlling every soldier's actions because if left to themselves they'll either just sit there or wander right into the middle of the spotted enemy position they're supposed to be flanking. Until AI is up to the task, a wargame _has_ to be paced so that the player has time to think and make his decisions, because he isn't just filling the role of the force commander, but every subordinate as well. I don't have a good feel yet for how the 'wego' feature of CL is going to handle this; I understand it's going to be a matter of giving orders, plotting a move, then watching those moves be carried out, but is it going to be like the way the V4V series and OpArt did it, or just a CC model with built in pauses at set intervals?

Here's the thing I'd really like to see in a tactical combat game, though a modern game would be more appropriate for it: A system for designing your own TO&E and OOB, then being able to easily import that force into a random generated battle or in a scenario editor. That is, the ability to experiment with force structures right down to how many men are in each squad and how they/re armed. OpArt has a pretty good implementation of this 'TO&E and OOB creation' feature, but actually using the force you've created is a PITA (my biggest gripe about OpArt; most of the scenarios are HUGE and it's hard to just throw together a quick battle).

[Tombstone]

I believe that CL can have "it" the hardest part I think to overcome when it comes to convincing the SP market to dare a change is the fact that we've had SP games in various forms for a long ass time. Certainly SPWAW has all the tools to make scenarios and edit units which is a HUGE thing in my mind. Were it not for the tools that came with the game I don't think I would have every ventured to try scenario development. CL needs to break us out of our SP shell and show us where SPWAW is weak as well as provide us what it does well. I think those things are: squad/vehicle scale, attachment to units (especially in campaign) lots of control (remember we dont have control of our units when they are routed though), HUGE unit database, tools strong enough to allow a player to play around with the engine almost forever.

Tomo

[B52g]

One word, "puddy". Its like puddy in your hands. All of the really good games are like that. They let you control all the aspects of the game. You can modify them or create your own special battle, level, icons, skins, etc... With Steel Panthers, you are in "god mode" Leading all of your troops on to victory. You know exactly what is where and why because you told them to do it.
It gets personall, I created and named my units in my campaign, and I dont want them to die. (Especially Silver 1, that tank is me)
I think the real catch that gets people hooked on SP is the fact that you can be any army, any place at any time. So it appeals to everybody.
I dont care too much for real time games because of the experience I had with Sid Meyeres Antietam. I felt the game was programmed to overwhelm the human by simply giving him to much to do at once. The computer can do a billion or whatever they are up to now, calculations per second. I can do about 3 or 4 per second on a good day.

[troopie]

1: The ability to take my time on a move. Until I can SAY to a computer unit "Carruthers, your platoon will assault Hill 204. Van Kleeck, you will support Carruthers. You will have first call on the company mortars. Webb, Section Alpha of your Marmons and Gorton's platoon will make a diversionary attack on the ravine. Good Hunting!" and leave them to do it with an assurance they will do it (with perhaps an assist from me) real time will not have the proper verisimilitude.

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

[krull]

Amen to the above statements. i haven't played alot vs people but i have vs Ai on WB campaigns and etc. I know my units, I feel when my favorite units die or are in a bad way. When i tried CC and stuff i felt like oops he died too bad. I didnt like that plus i started on SP 1 And I can make changes to way thing happen if i wont a HUGE battle i can or a small battle i can. i can play Several types as in germans US Russian etc.
Just seems i can do more plus i can actualy see my men improve and how and what they do in battles.
In CC i was like hmmm if i give an order will they do it? Where as SP i know if they would depending on supression or camand and control factors.

[pops]

The magnitude of what is available to you..the encyclopedia and all the troops of various nationalities and time lines gives one the feeling of having an awful lot at their finger tips.

[AmmoSgt]

I think my Resistance to the CL thingy is that I think that serious wargamers "grognards" seem rare and arcade wizzbangy NFL football racecar drivers would like to have a squad and a fast tank to drive over things with of don't forget the Doom shoot them up arcade RTS feel ..however nice the trees are .. is just going to be a more adavanced arcade /movie experience ..to me the fun is in the playing not the watching to me the knowledge of the equipment and how to properly deploy it at mulitple levels of command to design/pick/but a core force that can handle various situations .. is more important than how fast you can finish a game ... i have been over at the CL Forum i have probably pissed some folks off with my thoughts but you sure as heck aren't going to find anybody over there freting about how to simulate the extra vunerbilites of extra ammo on a DD Sherman at Normandy ..
I am sure it will be a comercial success and i am happy for Matrix and i understand that Matrix needs to make money i will buy any game Matrix publishes i may not play it but i will buy it in hopes that they can stay in bussiness long enough to do a full blown SP type game that is for serious wargamers who want to wargame .. not have a realistic RTS experience that they can watch from 17 angles in play back and say cool trees man those shadows are the bomb ....

[AmmoSgt]

Paul what makes SP games SP games look at the posts over there I see you talking about a hot new armor penetration modeling even better than SPWAW is that getting a lot of reaction ??? you see the posts about ammo selection ?? can't see them scaling the management down another level if they are scaling up the map don't get me wrong they want the various capabilities and they want tanks at least by nationality to be what they have seen on TV German Big think armor AT guns can knock out tanks wow There are some SPWAW types over there wanting some level of technical realism but be honest do you see anything like the level of technical interest in the Ordnance over there or is it all game game game .. here we don't stop at we want MG's to suppress crews we want 7.92 MG34's to do this much , and 42's to do this much and can we find an excuse to use 13mm aircraft MG's in a ground role so we can penetrate the side armor on M2 halftracks at 750 meters ... Try to get that thread running over there ..

[Don]

I must say I'm suprised at all of the resistance to CL. Now I love SP too, and haven't played CC since I found SPWAW. The other games I've tried - Combat Command, Tanks - seem to be good games, but just don't give me the enjoyment that SPWAW does.

But one thing is for sure - CL will not be Close Combat! As Paul has said about 100 times, there will be a choice of RTS OR turn-based. The trick is to find the right balance between the games, with the advantages of both, and I believe that is the stage the game is in right now.

I also agree that there is a resistance to get on the CL forum because it feels like a "CC convention", but we need to change that. We need to let Paul and the team know what we want in CL, and believe me they are open to suggestions!

You will also like the scenarios for CL - all of your favorite designers, starting with WB, are there.

Tomo is right - with SPWAW we have CONTROL, both in playing and in scenario design, and hopefully we will have that in CL. I just hope that we SPWAW players will give it a chance.

Don

[Paul Vebber]

I appreciate all the comments here, and we will work hard to avoid the "give units orders and sit back and watch" impression RT gives a lot of people.

In any case, a lot of food for thought here as we work to implement as much of this good stuff as we can!

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited January 14, 2001).]

[Islander]

and they want tanks at least by nationality to be what they have seen on TV German Big think armor AT guns can knock out tanks wow

***I resemble that remark .
I don't think you'll find a single CC'er
at the CL forum not wanting technical specifics/historical accuracy to the nth.

I would assume that when Paul asks for weapons/armor/ballistics specifics..you'll be there rite. Tho I'm pretty sure his crew
has a lot of that info already..the great thing about them is that they have'nt hesitated to ask..for items like formation doctrine...basically they want everyone's lame or not ideas.

What do you think about the strategic layer
CL will have? What about them making this a global game instead of theater specific? You don't think it'll water things down?
Random maps? number of pixels? 2km maps?

Those are the kinds of items being dealt with currently.

[AmmoSgt]

Islander i went over every inch of the 4 pages of threads at the CL forum i saw maybe a handful of threads that even touched on Ordnance techy stuff ..i saw a lot of indications of the CC'ers not wanting hands on control Look at the Glider posts and the AirDrop Posts they like the SPWAW features but they can't see how they might actually have a hand in actually planing where they might come down ..just a vague kinda wish that it could happen kinda randomly to sorta have the confusion factor ..and then the questions about wouldn't it be nice IF Flak could engage them .. they don't see the Flak as in there control the gliders and parachuitists of course would not be under player control ... whats with that??? .. thats what makes SPWAW SPWAW and CC CC and don't get me wrong the CC players are just as deserving of a CC upgrade to CL as us SP1,2,3ers are of SPWAW but they ain't in the same mind space... We think excellent playback means you see the arty that hits something and you get a clue from what direction the shots came from .. not 17 angles of semi 3d with the shadows on right and the trees in seasonal foliage ...

[Paul Vebber]

We are doing our best to give folks there cake and nuts and bolts too...

We have a bunch of folks working to make the game as visually stunning as we hope it will be technically beefy.

I think both sides are having a lot of trouble geting past preconcieved notions of "the other guys game".

THis is the very mud pit we want to slog into! TO get into the knockers of WHY there is this dichotomy between the two "camps" and see if there isn't really a lot of middle ground that is muddled right now becasue of the design constraints of the too game engines.

we can't do EVERYTHING...but we want to do THE IMPORTANT THINGS both "camps" value most, and then give the needed options to turn them on or off.

THere is no reason a game can't have highly detailed combat models AND highly detailed graphics. A command and control system can be modeled so you can have greater or lesser control over what the units do and what the AI interferes with.

On the graphics side we are limited to compromises between detail and scope of area shown. On the technical side, when you get down into the knickers of whether a Mauser or enfield rifle was better and why, you get highly subjective in many ways. THere is only so much technical detail and "drilling down" too far means assumptions of sometimes dubious validity must be made...but we have the advantage that its only a game:-)

THis whole discussion is very valuable - please keep it up!

[orc4hire]

Don,

I wouldn't say I'm resistant to CL, but I admit that when I looked in the CL forum and saw all the CC guys, it made me a little leery... look at it this way; CL is being described as a cross between SP:WAW and Close Combat, with a dash of the old Squad Leader. Okay, I like SP:WAW... but I don't like Close Combat. Saying something is a cross between the two is another way of saying, "Something you like mixed with something you don't."

Maybe CL will combine the best of both worlds (though, off hand I can't recall anything I particularly liked about CC), but there's also the chance it will combine the worst of both....