What makes SP...SP?

[Islander]

Likewise on all points...But I would like to pick SP apart to see what I do like...might well get implemented thereby making a better
wargame.

[Wild Bill]

I think most of you know my position on the best quality of SP...VERSATILITY!

The preferences, ability to edit units, weapons, numbers, naming, mixing units, a superb editor, terrain types, a wide choice of arms to make up any special units not included...and all of this without touching the oob editor.

So much versatility that it allows a creative mind great latitude in what he chooses either to design and/or play.

I've never seen it to this degree in any other wargame, and I've been involved with a few of them.

Wild Bill

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[Supervisor]

Accuracy and the constant dedication by those who create, edit, build, and are willing to supply their inputs (good or bad)to make it the best wargame hands down is what makes SPWaW so great. And I must agree with WB versatility is probably the biggest bonus. My hats off to all who have made this game what it is today, OUTSTANDING!!!!!

[Arralen]

Did anyone of you play the -old- Firefight Demo ?

I did - think it was around SPWaW 1.x - and I like it more than SPWAW in some aspects.

After all, it was like SPWAW, but you saw the little men walking, running, crouching (sp?), you hadn't to tell them to shoot at some enemy that you told them to go after.

And you had those two nice little Shermans, just like in SPWaW, to move around and scare the hell out of Grunts which tried to hide in some bushes. (Managed to roll over the ATgun once - man, that was funny to see the gun crew run for cover )

Why I didn't buy the game instantly?

Easy answers:

1) I didn't have a credit card, so paying is a bit complicated.

2) It seemed a bit costly to me .. can't afford much games which cost over $7 these days .. I have to feed the Incredible Timesink (R) which is about 10.5 months today

3) I wasn't shure if the game didn't play the same with every scenario, know what I mean?
I found the handful of units that where available in the demo more than enough to make me hurry from squad to squad, but there isn't much you can do using only 5 squads without repeating yourself.

4) Mr. Conner promised to give some scenarios etc. with the game, but in fact what I like best in SPWAWare the campaigns, but those weren't an option than.
But this could have change now

Little question from side, Paul :

How did you (or anyone else from The Staff) learn about Firefight ?

I remember I mentioned the game sometimes back when SPWAW 1.x was issued, but never got much reaction from anyone...

Arralen

[Pack Rat]

It's hard to guess just what CL will be like with the little that is known. I worry that a permanet command and control mode will be on, which would ruin it for me. I've always thought that a "real time/turn based" combo could be done and done well and I hope this is the one. I'm a consumer there is no doubt I've bought a bunch of RT games and they all with two exceptions have lasted a month tops on my hard drive, Railroad Tycoon 2 and Diablo are the exceptions. On the other hand I won't go through the list of turn based and the huge amount of time I've spent with them.

The analogy I'd like to use is chess. At one time I was a fair to middlin player and I enjoyed it very much. Then one day they put the time clock next to me, screw that, that wasn't why I played. I enjoyed it because of the thought process, relaxation, could I see something the other didn't in my time frame, excitment, and the kill. All this in a turn based game. SPWaW, improved and hopefuly further improved, gives me those feelings again.

------------------

Your mine is a terrible thing to lose.
Pack Rat

[Don]

From what I've read, Pack Rat, C&C can be turned off just like we do now. I, like you, play with it off. I think if anyone can do the "real time/turn based" game it's these guys, and I just hope all the SPWAW players give it a chance. When you see what Matrix has done already, there's no reason to assume that this game won't be to your liking. But, it'll be different, that's for sure!

Don

[Fredde]

Why is SP SP.. tough question Here are 5 points which I believe are quite essential.

1. Control in every single detail. What many SP players ask for is even more detail control (choose yourself which type of ammo to fire, when to fire and at what even for the opfiring etc.). Predictable results, you know what to expect when you fire at another unit at a certain distance.. not many surprises when it comes to the game mechanics. Units do what you tell them to, nothing more nothing less.

2. Flexibility. As so many said here already, if the game is not perfect as it is, you got the chance to make it that yourself. Maps, scenarios, campaigns.. everything is changable and fairly easy so also. You don't need to be a pro to play around with it and still get very good results.

3. Turnbased game.. obvious but its a big thing for any SP game. Fits in with point 1 as it adds to the feeling of detailed perfectioned control over everything that's happening on the battlefield.

4. Also stated above and agreed with ..campaigns.. follow your force through a campaign and watch them improve, get the feeling for the individual soldier.

5. Quite slow going. Take your time, pick your units, ponder your moves as long you wish.. (changed by the introduction of the online version of SPWAW, but still counts compared to the RT games out on the market today.. that i tried anyway).

[O de B]

Well, unfortunately i don't have enough time to read all posts at the forums here so please forgive me if this has already been posted... I'll try to not repeat what has already posted in this thread like leaders and campaigns and nice graphics

I was suprised no one spoke of Sudden strike in this thread. Truly, this games looks more like Age of Empires than Close Combat, but when i first saw it i dreamt that such a game with SPWaW combat penetration modelling and sighting would be simply wonderful...What seems nice in Sudden Strike is that you can command your individual men to lay mines, enter buildings or vehicles, etc. You can attach or detach any crew to guns, tow guns with vehicles, lay bridges, repair vehicles. When i tried it i chose the slowest game speed. Then i was able to think and plan things. But the HP system is so dumb that i couldn't play it more than 15 mins. The sole good thing is that small arms do not damage armor. After having been quite pleased of this, i saw that a 81 mortar section can ruin any tank platoon in 5 mins, and definitely closed this game.

Something i dislike in CC is the penetration modelling. The best tank in this game is simply the ISU152, you can smite any other tank by simply landing a 152mm HE shell near the ennemy. I once destroyed a tiger behind a hill by targeting the top of the hill, HE landed in front of hill and tiger was abandoned. Also the command is a bit too much realistic. Real war is not fun. I hate it when i don't know when this dumb Bazooka will have reloaded and fire again while the stug is slaughtering the smg squad nearby.

Once Paul said that SP is 'the borg playing WW2'. That's what i like in this game. I want to know how many shots have been taken by this infantry group in the woods, even if it's highly unrealistic. I love to know that the 88 AP shell penetrated only 150mm and needed 170 to go through this Jumbo front armor. I don't say a little fog of war is not good. I also like that almost every panzer IV is seen as a tiger in CM. But i'd like to have more info on kills in this game. There are plentiful details in WaW. I love to see 'radio mast' or 'gun optics' destroyed. I also like to know if my troops can execute the orders or are routed/pinned. Also keep the crew bailing out/in feature. That's deeply lacking in CM/CC.
Thanks if you had enough patience to read this whole message

[AmmoSgt]

Another detail that i think makes SPWAW SPWAW that hasn't been mentioned outright but aluded to is the combined arms aspect..i don't know if CC had it folks on the CL board talk bout arty and flak and stuff, like the games does that on some other map or something ..but in SPWAW leaving out one element of a somewhat balanced Combined Arms team is kinda like going to the grocery store and forgeting to put pants on ...uh you won't have your wallet when you need it

[waynef]

What I like most about the SP series...

Flexibility, Options...

The most important point... The ability to create Random Battles with equipment of MY choosing, where I want to fight, and when!


------------------
"At My Signal...Unleash Hell"
Thanks, Wayne

[Lars Remmen]

Originally posted by Arralen:
Did anyone of you play the -old- Firefight Demo ?

[Cut]

Arralen

Hello,

I did DL it a few days ago and war pleasently surprised! It was nowhere near what I had expected having only tried C&C (and clones) RT games.

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

[Panzer Capta]

What makes SP........SP?

I think that many of the mechanical aspects of SP have been adequately discussed. However, i believe one of the most significant things that makes SP stand alone is the invaluable interaction between the games developers/designers and the wargaming community that uses this great product. Such interaction can only benefit all, as it has with SP. It is refreshing to see game developers who are so closely tied to those who use the product....this is truely a big part of the formula for success, and i am certain that it will continue with CL.

[GeneralGordenBennet]

Dearie me....
I will say this much for the CC crowd....They have never shot the crap out of SP games that i have read of....and i go to a lot of CC forums.....The tech questions at these forums would astound you!
Guys, talking about Shermans protecting themselves on the normandy beaches is a moot point at this stage of the games developement....
Please, try not to keep blasting away at other peoples games, maybe if they had said SP is crap, it is this and that, then maybe i could sympathise with you flaming other peoples games.....but some people can't help it i guess....
Greg

[krull]

err general person. Maybe you dont read close? Cause most replys to posts On SP from CC types they act like we all old foggies or idiots because dont care so much about fancy pictures. Even Ammosgt he tried posting and got told he was bashing at least from way i read posts as well as charles22.
I been to CC forums and there aint that much tech stuff and if it is its mostly about the way it looks not what it does.
But yer right Id sugest until Sp types SEE a sample of CL you should quit pushing for comments. Most still have those terrifying pictures of Red alert and arcade games like that floating in heads.
CC isnt a bad game just not real personable to me. Maybe Cl make it that way. No way tell till i see. With Sp we can say hmm look at SP 1 and 2 or 3 and look at SPwaw or Spww2 We have things to compare. So far now we have red alert and close combat to comapre CL to and to alot thats not a pretty picture.And some others i cant think of of top of head. Not all remarks about dislikes are flames which you seem to take em as. People asked our opinion and we told them. I cant stand Starcraft but i dont say its a crappy game just that i dont like it. But some people on another forum took it as flames. Read content and facts in statements not what you precieve to be a flame. Most are simple statements about dislikes

[Mark Ezra]

Sp? Flexible, personal, and thoughtful.

I can do any combat sitrep in SPWAW

I can name my units and personalize their weapons as well as their abilities

I am allowed to control tactics as well as set limits on my C&C.

Any game that misses one or more of these doesn't stay on my hard drive long.

CM vs CC....CM vs SP BTS laid out their approach to wargames clearly. Matrix must do the same. In the end this will be a NEW game. Hopefully not a rehash of SP or CC or CM. Make the game with Grog-like detail with EASY playability. Offer big time flexibility to change units and terrain so the player has as much control over all aspects of the game as is possible. Finally, know this: IF you make it, they will come.

[Paul Vebber]

I know people are touchy about "their" game...the intent of this excersive was not to set the two camps at each other - bt as I think has happened, to explore the biases people have - for one reason or another.

THis is very helpful to us to make sure the game has pref erences that allow players to configure the game play to their own desires for control and info access, or not.

I don't exactly when we started fooling around with Firefight...I must have missed your first ref to it, As it wasn't as long ago as SP:WaW 1.0 - we were pretty focused on the game for a long time there and I guess I missed your ref to it!

[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited January 15, 2001).]

[BlitzSS]

Paul,
I don’t know enough about CL, but SPxx…has been an intrigal part of my life for many years. I’ve been an avid war gamer ever since I can remember, and will still play bd. games, when the opportunity arises. The fact is that this opportunity doesn’t happen often enough; that’s how the computer has helped. SPWAW comes the closest to war gaming then any other CPU game out there (in this relative scale and being turn based), and believe me I’ve tried them all. Many of the other responses have already spoken about what I think many of us Steel fanatics love about the game. To WB it is flexibility, as he well defines that. To me it is the fact that I’m in command, my units start and end with me. I’ll accept better command and control effects to realistically hamper my control of my units, but I do not want to lose the fact that the outcome is due to my strategy. The only other thing that I want now is greater realism, as to the accuracy of what is being simulated, both historically and physically.

[Paul Vebber]

Cross posted from another thread...

Common ground is difficult - but I don;t think impossible...

I don't think there is any SP'er who will say "Gee these graphics are too good, I'm not gonna play..."

Correct me if I'm wrong guys, but the biggest thing I see running through this so far ahs to to with control.

CC adherants are used to giving only "general orders" to their squads and watching to see if they succeed or fail in carrying them out - a more abstract view of command and control that takes into account the fact that for teh most part there really IS NO CONTROL in the heat of battle.

Like the SP'er and graphics I doubt that any CC'er would balk at having combat details added...

IF this is true, than a big part of the "crossover" success goes a great deal toward building a "control bridge" where SP'ers can exert the degree of control over their units actions that they are used to (and be free to ponder them at their leisure). While offering "friendly Fog of War" to the CC'ers so they are not quite so confident that the cyber warriors will do their precise bidding. CC'ers would pretty much like they do now. So its the SPer's teh bridge meust be built toward...

An example of how the game might be played by an SP'er. Command control limits are off, Fog of war is "low" (Unit class not type indicated until ID check made)

Turn starts - clock is stopped: Peruse the map and see which units have LOS to which enemy units and confirm that currently engaged targets are correct or shift some targets.

Then toggle "show orders" and the paths your units are currently ordered to take with phase lines(fancy sort of waypoint) would appear. Edit those where appropriate to account for the presence of new enemies that were just spotted and any ajustments to your plan you want. Check if new reinforcement arive, check on repair attepmts etc.

Attach and detach units to Leaders for the upcoming move and change the stance of some units to overwatch and designate a box you want them to engage enemy units that get spotted within. Perhaps review the opfire priorities of advancing units, change teir posture to "cautious advance" or "rapid advance" as appropriate and then when you are happy with the "plan" for that turn, begin execution.

If you are not in "pbem" mode which has to have "canned" execution" - your forces begin moving in accordance with your orders. THose designated to engage particular enemies begin firing. This may draw enemy return fire, which you may be prompted to confirm or deny as in "opfire" in SPWaW. Meanwhile moving units advance and spot contacts. This may trigger overwatch fire against them or other opportunity type fire. You may want to try to activate a leader to "take the initiative" and deviate from the indicated plan and do something else as the turn unfolds. Obviously in "pbem mode" you have to "let the clock run" and can't do anything until the next turn. But in "turn based mode" there will be limited opportunities to influence things.

SO you can have a large degree of control over your troops, you effectively "move" and designate shots as you would in SP:WaW, they just don't execute the moves until all the moves are "in".

The lack of hexes actually make this easier becasue you can designate the whole path you want the unit to travel, not just where it can reach that turn. You give the unit a posture that controls its speed, so it doesnt "stop" at the end of its move and accelerate, but is considered to be moving constantly in that posture (with short halts to fire if you designate). Moving by platoon allows realistic formations to be used, not just each tank running all over - but that would be up to you.

So imagine playing SP:WaW where you move all your units one at a time, but they didn't really move...it was really a "plot" of your move and then you fired all your units that you wanted to fire, but the shots didn;t shoot - they were "saved". THen when you where happy with the "plots" you watched all teh units move in proper speed relationship and fire. COmplete with opfire confirm.

There would be a set of "background rules" (SOP) that would govern situations that required "AI" to kick in, but you could micromanage that to the extent you desire, to deal with "pop-up" contacts. You would not necessarily relegate your troops to the whims of an "AI".

What would SP'ers feel about a systme that worked in such a manner

[orc4hire]

Paul,

Well, it would depend on the implementation, of course. :}

That system actually sounds more like a 2D Combat Mission, than anything else... The problem with programmed moves at a tactical level is how the units react to changing circumstances. I.E., a road looks clear, so I order a unit to move down it. After moving a hundred yards or so, it spots an enemy AT gun alongside the road. Will the unit continue to rumble along for the rest of that turn, serving up the best possible target for the enemy gunners, or stop and take cover, or open fire? That question aside, the CM style works okay, though I found that particular implementation tedious to use. (It was a PITA shifing 3D viewpoints around, give a unit its orders, move around the battlefield, find the next unit, shift the viewpoint so I could see where I wanted them to go, give them their orders, repeat....)

As far as control goes, sure SP gives you more control over your units than you have in the real world, but most real world commanders have subordinates who are smarter than SP's AI....

[Don Doom]

OK Can you explain your next to the last paragraft:
"So imagine playing SP:WaW where you move all your units one at a time, but they didn't really move...it was really a "plot" of your move and then you fired all your units that you wanted to fire, but the shots didn;t shoot - they were "saved". THen when you where happy with the "plots" you watched all teh units move in proper speed relationship and fire. COmplete with opfire confirm."
How can you have fluid movement and op-fire,
if you are just plotting your moves?
How would you have op-fire?
Don't get me wrong, but I must be missing something here. If I am plot my move or moves to where I want to go, how could I check to see if I was seen or look to see anyone, if I am only plotting my moves?


This old seadog just needs a little help.
Doom