What makes SP...SP?

[orc4hire]

Don,
If I understand it right, you have op-fire by giving the orders, "If any enemy units appear in this area, shoot 'em." For movement, you are indeed just plotting where you'd like your units to go, based on current intelligence, and I have the same concerns...

[Paul Vebber]

The big difference between this implememtaiton iand CM is CM has worked up an AI ruleset that the player has no real control over. In CL we hope to provide a much greater ability to tell your unit what you want it to do when it encounters an enemy unit.

There will be "defualt" SOP order sets for certain missions (right now we have Attack, Probe, Exploit, Fluid Advance, Elastic defense, Mobile defese and Static Defense, with the ability to specify theater specifc subsets for Web, East, West, Pac, All Europe or all theaters.)

That gets to Don's question - you won't be able to respond to enemy actions or opportunites when you plot, but given you are playing "online" turn based mode or vs the AI, when a shot opportunity occurs and you want "Opfire confirm on" for as close to SP:waW as you can get, as your units move and spot new units that their SOP says they should dhoot at, you would get teh little red line and opfire yes or know as you do now. Your predesignated fire would go per your instructions. You would simply "step through the turn" action by action (with actions being paused on or automatcally perfomed based on the SOP.

It would be like watching the other players turn in SP:WaW online, is now but your units would be incrementally moving per your plotted orders. And if you want to "abort" something during the turn you would try to "activate" a leader to shift gears if you see a unit moving into a trap. With C2 on there would be a time delay in the leader responding that might make it OBE (by the time your orders get there, it has already marched into the ambush - but with C2 off it will be "automatic")

So both players would plot their moves and designate planned fires, and then watch the results of both plans unfold in "increments" event by event as you do now in watching the other players turn in SP:Waw. THe difference is that you could try to "change things on the fly" while the turn is unfolding. The result would not take much longer (iin fact would likely be shorter) than two seperate online player turns of SP:WaW.

THe big difference is rather than you moving each unit, the units would all move proportionally until an event you flaged as a trigger (ie spotting a unit ro taking fire) cues you to do something.

SOme have said "Wego" will just be Real time with pauses at fixed intervals. It will be more event based than that, with pauses for a short time (like opfire confirm in SP:WaW) to allow the players to respond to what is happening at their own pace (per what you set the max "pause per event" to be.)

So I guess the proper terminolgy would be to call the "SP:WaW - like mode" event based - not strictly Wego like CM. Online and vs teh AI there will be opportunity to interact during the turn. PBEM will be different and will require that players let their SOP function without "help" and the AI will be competant enough to hopefull keep stupid occurances to a minimum. But the the players will have to micromanage their orders a lot more in pbem, and of course they will have the time to do so.

Does that help clarify things?

The big change for SP:WaW plpayers will be tat from moving the units , to making tactical decisions as the "plan" unfolds each turn. We think this will capture a lot of the "controlability" SP:WaW players like, let them "automate" behaviors to the extent they want, and "freelance" during the turn as they feel appropriate and set the prefs to allow or restrict.

[Don Doom]

Well, this might be clearer if I had the opert. to play on line or pbem. I have not had the pleasure yet.
But what it sounds like is i would be setting up what i would like my units to do like "panzer 314 take a squad of infantry and go down road e-21 to the fork and go down d-1 and take hill243 at the end of the road, and should you encounter any infantry
make them duck under cover and call the divisional artiliary to pound them then continue with your orders"
All this before i move any units? I don't see how this would be quicker? I would be spending more time setting up orders than moving?
I quess to answer to your question is no/well maybe I don't know.

Doom

[orc4hire]

Paul,

Way back in the day, SP1 had just recently come out and some of the design team hung around in the SP topic in the Games forum on GEnie, and a few of us beat on, er, gave helpful feedback to them about what didn't seem to be working right and so on, and one of the things I wished could be implemented was a set of contingency orders, like, "If fired on, retreat to _here_." (I'd just had a squad cut apart while it sat in the middle of a road because its morale was too high to retreat on its own.) So I can't say as I'm opposed to that idea. :}

A well implemented set of 'SOP responses', I think, would make a 'wego' sort of system work on a tactical level.... in fact, as I implied earlier, something like that, I think, is _necessary_ for a tactical 'wego' system to work. We'll just have to see how good a job you guys do on it. :}

[Panzer Capta]

During your units movement phase an enemy unit is encountered (i.e., the enemy unit fires). Immediately an option window pops up:

A) Return Defensive Fire (with option of selecting specific weapons).

B) Aggressive Counter-Attack (with option of selecting specific weapons).

C)Take cover/dig in and continue defensive fire (i.e., Hold your own).

D) Retreat from threat (keeping pre-assigned objective).

E) Retreat and abort objective.

Are these the types of options that you are considering on a unit-by-unit basis during the orders/movement phase at the time of enemy contact?

It would also be interesting to limit the options available if a commanding unit is KIA or based on the units experience and morale (i.e., a low morale/low experience unit would not be able to aggressively counter-attack and would be more prone to abandon the objective mission entirely).

[Paul Vebber]

Don - the scheme would work vs the AI the same way. THe time may longer in some cases if you are very intricatein the orders yougive nad change them every turn. THe thing is that this is the only way to get around the problem of each unit having its whole move independant fo all the others. You have to use a time stepped execution. to get the units to more in relation to eaach other properly. COmmand control delays can then be added to address teh problem of "clockworks war" that can result if the units are slaved to closely to the time steps...

At this point its hard to visualize - TacOps comes about hte closest to the sort of exectuon "With SOP" we are talking about, but that game doesn't prompt you for input when something happens, it just marches the time line along.

Orc4hire: THe SOPs are where the rubber meets the road. Being able to choose a trigger forma set of options and a response in "If...then" style to create orders is at the heart of what we are trying to do! We think we can do a good job, the real problem will be keeping a baseline simple enough to keep ease of play low, yet with the flexibility for the hard core.


Panzer Captian - that is the idea they can be done unit by unit, or formation by formation. With C2 "off" the units would respond directly as commanded, with C2 on, there would be delays and other problems if a Leader is killed.

The idea is to keep it as simple and straightforward as possible for those wishing "direct control" and add C2 and other limitationas as prefs for folks who want a more realistic (but more frustrating) command and control model.


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

[orc4hire]

Panzer Captain,

Easy enough to do; you rate each response by the level of unit skill/experience required to use it, so more experienced units/more capable combat leaders will have more 'reaction' options available to them. So higher quality units will actually have more tactical flexibility than less skilled units, rather than just being better shots and less likely to retreat.

[Paul Vebber]

That is what command and control will do, with it off, everybody will do what they are told, but if you want limits then leaders characteristics will play as orc4hire suggests. A tactically inept leader will tend to do exactly what you tell him without "checking in" a good leader will alert you to the fact that a trigger has been met and ask you to confirm his action, or try to change it. Or just do it anyway.

Once you have the system of triggers and responses set up, you can do all sorts of things to limit or expand on tactical flexibility and imrovising under fire.

[lnp4668]

I guess I adds my 2 cents |-)

The make or break point of a WEGO system will be the individual unit's AI. If they react realisticly in a given situation, then it will definitely be the way to go for the future of wargamming. This way, the AI for the early years German could react quicker to fluid situation, while the French would just duck their heads. Thus we could better emulate the C&C of individual countries as well as units

The current system in SPWAW gives us player too much of a god-like ability to beat the AI to pulp even with green troops. Right now, the better the weapon system will have advantage everytime.

In short, I hope the new game will have intelligent AI that will matches closely the quality of the troops in WW2

[orc4hire]

Paul,

To clarify, would the SOPs be something assigned to the unit during the 'plot' portion of the turn (sort of an expanded version of SP's 'stances,' or a pop-up list of options you get for that unit when a trigger event takes place? Or both, or either? :}

Here's sort of what I'm picturing as a possible, from what we've seen so far (sort of thinking through my fingers here...)

I select my recon platoon leader with the intention of scouting out a hill I suspect is infested with badguys. Their experience is good enough, so I give them Probe orders, then plot their movement. They begin advancing, come under sniper fire. The platoon leader makes a reaction/skill check and I get a pop-up asking me if I want them to continue moving or execute their SOP. I tell them to continue. A few second later a machine gun opens up on them, the leader fails his reaction check, the SOP I've assigned kicks in, and the platoon takes cover and tries to return fire.

Of course, Preferences would configure a lot of how this would work for the individual player....

Is that at all close to what you guys are thinking?

[Don Doom]

OK what is wego, maybe that is what is confusing me.

Doom

[orc4hire]

Don,

Ever play any of the old V for Victory series games? Basically, both sides plot their moves, then both are simultaneously executed.

[Panzer Capta]

As an example of the importance of control:

Captain John Miller's squad had the oppurtunity to avoid the MG-34s but chose (the operative word) confrontation instead. Not sure if this currently exists in SPWAW. What i mean is that if an isoltated recon unit is able to see an enemy unit, it shouldnt mean that the enemy unit automatically can see the recon unit. My experience with SPWAW has been that if a recon unit is moving and an enemy unit becomes visible, the enemy unit automatically sees the friendly recon unit (i.e., if you can see them, they can see you).

[Don Doom]

No I never played the v for victory series of games.

doom

[Paul Vebber]

Orc4hire - that is the sort of thing yes! It would some sort of menu with some "defaults" for common missions, and the ability to customize them to your tactics. The anaolgy would be from computer football. You can either play in "arcade mode" where you have a dozen maybe generic plays, some running and some passing with a trick one or two, but with the option to "edit the play" and create your own so to speak. THen add thsoe to the "playbook" with the generic ones. adn lstly if your leaders are good, you will be able to call an audible at the line of skrimmage after you read the play and see teh blitz coming.

(and speaking of football wasn't it glorious the way the Vikings got EMBARRASSED (cough cough choke choke )

WeGo is an alternative to "IGO UGO" or I maove all my men, then you move all your men. in WeGo both sides plot where they want their units to go (either hex by hex or with waypoints) and both side units move at the same time while both players watch them.

SInce you can only focus on a small par of the battlefield at a time, the triggers for pause events allow you to respond as needed. As opposed to raeal time where alerts come up that things are happening, but you can;t necessarily stop the game clock to think about what to do.

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

[orc4hire]

Paul,

Okay, I think I've got it. :} As someone a few messages upstream said, it's all going to come down to the AI, especially since the same AI routines will be controlling both the computer player's and human player's forces at various times. And, with my amazing oracular powers I'm going to predict many long discussions about the details of the 'SOPs'. :}

If you guys can make it work, I think you've got something; I can't see any inherent reason why someone who likes SP or CC wouldn't like it.

[Nikademus]

what makes SP.....SP?

That is a tough one, kinda like when someone asks you why you prefer Bass over Harp. But i'll give it a try. I browsed quickly thru the previous entries and it looks like most of the essentials are covered but i'll add my 2 cents even if it is only to re-emphasis (that way i cant feel guilty if CL does'nt have "it" and i had'nt bothered to give any input.....kinda like not voting and then complaining about the guy who won the slot )

What makes SP, 'SP' for me personally, is the game's finely honed 'Balance'

Balance between realism and certain wargaming essentials, essentials that IMHO are either missing entirely or buryed under a mryid of new features and viewpoints as represented by many of the newer wargames that have come out in recent years.

the elements of realism are pretty much self explanitory, accuracy of weapons data, TO&E/OOB, ability to use and exploit reallife tactics used historically etc etc.

As to wargaming 'essentials'. What these are for me are,

1.) Turn based

I'll admit it.....i'm a hands down turn-based fan. The reason for me is simple. In 'real life', you are not expected nor are you able to physical command and view all of the units that are under your command (unless your a squad leader i suppose) A Coronel or Major, commanding a battion/company/regiment will of course, be in the background, well behind the lines in most cases and issue his orders based on data at hand. He will then have to sit patiently while the men under him carry out his orders and then its up to the grunts to 'get it done' so to speak.

Even if your a Rommel or Guderian and are leading from the front, your still not going to see everything. Too much is happening. When i play a RT game what invariably happens is that i'm sweating buckets trying to view and manage everything all at once, and no matter how vigilant i am, i'll always miss something exciting or issue a key command just shy of too late. Its not enjoyable, its not even fun. Its frustrating. I wish to God that the developers who've made the last batches of WWII naval sims would get this lust for RT
out of their systems and return to the tried and true method of the turn based game. I'd be waiting in line at the software store, checkbook in hand.

2.) Hex based map/or varient thereof.

As with turn based, having a grid'ed playing map does impose a few disadvantages, but I think that there are more ADvantages than DISadvantages. Using a Hex eases the burden on the wargamer allowing him to get a 'feel' for the playing field vs a totally free map in which everything is all higgidy piggidy and you need to pause (If RT) and put the mouse button over said unit to see if you can get some hard data on the target.

I actually have always played SP with the Hex grid turned OFF, but i still know its there, and when the enemy starts closing its far easier for me to estimate/guesstimate when the moment of truth has approached and i can unleash my firepower. SP1 when it first came out, with its 50yard hexes was SUCH an improvement over earlier games which had far bigger and clumsier distances per hex. It allowed a huge increase in detail without sacrificing the advantages and familiarity that a hex system offers. I could live without it if i had too, but i still prefer it....makes familiarization of effective weapons ranges easier, and perhaps more importantly, allows weapons comparisons to me made far more easily.

3.) A view to a kill

I probably should have made this one #1, this is THE wargaming essential. Its what makes the game worth playing. The view. I want to see everything thats happening. Everything, that is....that my units can see. If a unit is hidden and about to spring a trap on me, or if i'm a carrier commander, looking for my opponent, i dont want to see 'that'. I'm not advocating an abcense of FOW, What i'm saying is that once discovered, and once the lead starts flying, i want to SEE IT. I dont want a 'combat report' or post battle analysis.

I think some software developers, in their search for the ultimate level of realism have forgotten an essential fact of wargaming
that at its heart, said wargammer is sitting at a terminal waiting to see something happening, otherwise he (or she) is just sitting there getting bored because he/she is deaf blind and dumb.

If i wanted to be that Major or Colonel sitting back at some HQ tent, biting my nails and grabbing the phone every couple of minutes waiting for an update on whats happening, i would have joined the Army for real. (assuming they'd have me.....eh....probably not )

Some of the best wargames i've ever played up to this present day are some of the old computer text based wargames from the 80s. Depending on age (of which i've just dated myself....DOH) some may be surprised or even agasht at such a statement but its true. Some old wargames, using nothing but text with maybe some primitive graphics (map/unit) have given me far more hours of entertainment and education in the art of wargaming than many or dare i say most of the modern and graphically rich wargames that have come out in the last decade.

If there was anything about SP that made this game have "it", it was this, what i've quite improperly put into words in #3 of the wargaming essentials.

Maybe i should put it another way.

SP has "it" because it has the pefect blend of combat leader and spectator that the other wargames, those text based ancestors had.

Back then, there were no fancy graphics so to 'entertain' and provide excitement, the wargame designer had to go to the only thing available to him, providing a text based description of the 'Actual fighting', usually in a sequencial turn based manner that allowed the player to see ALL that was happening as events unfolded.

Gary Grigsby designed IMO the best versions of these, as showcased in such notables as Carrier Force/Carrier Strike, USAAF, Kampgruppe, War in Russia, and Pacific War.

All of these games, especially the tactical level games, employed very realistic FOW elements and wargaming strategy, but when the gloves came off , you were THERE, Front Row Seat, you saw the ME-109's engage the B-17's. You saw the Val's dive bombing the Yorktown, You saw you Panthers opening up on a wedge of T-34's as they entered that golden 1000 yard kill zone.

all with just text and primitive graphics.

Gary took that wargaming essential, that of spectator, and perfected it with a game called Steel Panthers.

that perfect blend of strategist/combat leader and spectator. Thats what makes SP have "it" vs pretty much any other wargame out there that deals with a similar topic.

Close Combat series? not for me. Too chaotic, too hectic, and this will make some people laugh, not detailed enough.

Talonsoft's East Front/West Front? Nope, tried it. granted, i might have liked it better if the AI phase did'nt take so long (that bordom threshold again!) but again, the detail lacks.

that word again, might as well make it wargaming essential #4

4. Details Details Details

and thanks to Matrix, SP now holds the undisputed crown of detail. No woosie attack or defence 'ratings' for me, no give me actual thickness of armor and slope any day.

Same with the weapons. Actual pen/range/size data, not abstract values. How does one compare that adequately?

SP had this even before Matrix though. the Armor 'factors' were still very realistic and far more detailed than just a all-in-one attack/defence factor. I was weened off Kampfgruppe, and was used to 'detail' meaning a tank being given a Front armor and Back armor rating. Needless to say i was amazed at the level of detail when SP introduced Front/side/rear hull armor values 'and' front/side/rear turret armor values and even a top armor rating or exposed top.

wow. brings a tear of joy to my eye when i rehash the memory of that first night i played SP. I had recently been vastly let down by SSI's previous entry in this genre, Tanks!. Yuk.....ok it had some good points but giving 50mm guns a better attack value than a 75mm oh the pain. First thing i did when i got SP was i set up a test with Russian T-34's vs a variety of German tank guns. I was'nt phazed by SSI's lack of data on the game, or by the encyclopedia's description only version as opposed to the data-rific version we were introduced to when SP-2 came out. I knew how all the guns should behave reletive to each other from all the reading i'd done.

yes the tears of joy did start to flow when i began hearing the first of those 'Tinks' against the T-34's hull armor when those 50mm's went off at beyond 400 yards. Yes that was not only quite historically correct but fun to watch at the same time (me being used to text based info only!) Then the 88mm fired and it was Thud/ROOOAAARRRRR as the tank went up in amazing detail.

ok enough reminincing....you get the idea.

That is what makes SP, SP for me. Detail, balance of spectator/combat leader, and all the other mentioned factors in previous posts, Flexibility, variation, ability to edit data, turn based, hex grid etc etc yada yada yada.

I will now be honest and admit that though i hav'nt publicly made it known, that i do kind of fall into that group of skeptical wargamers who view Combat Leader with suspicision and even a little dread.

Dread in that i dont want to see support for SP fall off, because it already has "it", as mentioned.

Of course there's always room for improvement, but there's a big difference between improvement and an entirely new game that may or may not keep all of the essentials that make SP, SP.

Specifically, i'm a bit concerned over the RT element, and the hexless map. I understand there is a WEGO alternative to that but whether it will work as well as SP's IGO UGO remains to be seen. Having played SP right from the start with SP1, i'm also very used to being able to directly control my units. I like that. I'd hate to give that up in favor of going back to 'plotted movement' again 'ala' Kampfgruppe with its plotted movement and four 'pulse' combat phase.

more realistic? perhaps. But i think elements like that will tip the balance factor that i mentioned, the balance between leader and spectator. Or in this case 'control' vs 'realism' Like i said, i've gotten used to being able to control that Tiger tank. Its cool to hold a tiger by the tail. >

I'll try to keep an open mind about Combat Leader but i have to warn ya, You've got a die-hard SP fan here and we tend to be an ornary bunch. But then again you already know that having braved this forum and all the endless BUG/ERROR/THIS ISNT RIGHT posts that we know you SO love.

This is considerably more than 2 cents worth so i think i'd better stop now and go soak my fingers.

hugs and kisses and good luck with CL

[Fredde]

Personally, even though I am a quite fanatic SP player..I would really enjoy the "loosened" control where the squads carried out orders by themselves. This is very realistic. The big thing here is if the AI controlling the unit will be good enough to handle the task in an adequate way and not do stupid things trying to execute the order(at least not more stupid than the skill of the unit commander suggests).

What you are writing here seems like a good compromise between the two systems..

Originally posted by 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

[Larry Holt]

Its been said that the ability to build your own secenarios by editing everything is great. I just want to emphasize that.

Also the realistic simulation basis of the game is important. If it were not so realistic, it would not be so fun. By realistic, I mean that tactis, actions, etc. that work or fail in real life do so in the game. I also like the evolution of units through a long campaign which forces your tactics to evolve. The ballet of technology and tactics is very realistic.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Bondy]

What makes SP great in my opinion is the tension. The tension that comes with gradually bonding with your leaders and units as you go through campaign games. Every mortar and arty attack is tense as you imagine your favorite game characters diving for cover. The tension of getting off a shot from your concealed AT-gun or sniper or tank knowing that the position will soon get fired upon.