Gaming Today - Some Choices
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Wild Bill posted some good points and I agree with what he says but i'm sure he would also agree that SPWAW is a big enough game to hold both the historical and the recreational approach. I personally believe the two are compatible and can co-exist. the problem probably exists in the expectations of the two opponents. If guidelines can be established in advance, then expectations can be realized. Some of the players are historical scholars and know their OOBs by heart, but I think most of us are just guys who like the play of the game and don't mind playing by guidelines if that is what the other wants.
Col Saito: "Don't speak to me of rules! This is war! It is not a game of cricket!"
Absolutely! That is the beauty of the game...its versatility. It allows for so many different approaches.
Mine is only one of many. Of course it is the best because it is mine
.
The only area where some ground rules need to be put into play is where both opponents agree on what limits are to be imposed and not seek to take advantage of the other player.
I personally pick units based on historical availability. Tiger tanks on the SP level would not be more than a platoon or a ratio of one Tiger to about 10 PzIVs or 3 MkV's.
This gives a touch of realism that makes it more enjoyable for me.
But as you all have stated, each should make his own choices.
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
Mine is only one of many. Of course it is the best because it is mine
.The only area where some ground rules need to be put into play is where both opponents agree on what limits are to be imposed and not seek to take advantage of the other player.
I personally pick units based on historical availability. Tiger tanks on the SP level would not be more than a platoon or a ratio of one Tiger to about 10 PzIVs or 3 MkV's.
This gives a touch of realism that makes it more enjoyable for me.
But as you all have stated, each should make his own choices.
WB
------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
I Tend to agree with most here. I am in the process of an Infantry Heavy Campaign following the 30th Infantry Div. 2 Infantry Co. 1 Sec At Guns, 1 sec Med Tanks. I am onlypart way finished.
It is fun to see close to historicaly correct OOB facing close to histoprically correct German OOB's.
US Infantry against German Panzer Div.
It goes slow, but steady.
Not having played PBEM games, I cannot make to many comments, But hopefully my scedual will alloa me a game or 2 here and there.
It is fun to see close to historicaly correct OOB facing close to histoprically correct German OOB's.
US Infantry against German Panzer Div.
It goes slow, but steady.
Not having played PBEM games, I cannot make to many comments, But hopefully my scedual will alloa me a game or 2 here and there.
-
BruceAZ_MatrixForum
- Posts: 613
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: California
WB,
I have to agree with you on this one. Historically playing is something I find more satisfying then just going for the "Big Win". I always like comparing my decisions as a commander to those of the person actually there.
There is though, a certain amount of enjoyment in "what if" play. The were many battles throughout WW2 and the rest of history that were decided by one factor. Sometimes it was weather, bad decisions, or even just luck. It is fun and enlightening to see how things may have played out under slightly different circumstances. Such things as, "What if the Germans were able to seize enough fuel to continue in the Ardennes?" or "What if the weather had been better during the Battle of the Bulge allowing American Air power to be active?" These are deciding factors that well could have seriously changed how WW2 played out from that point on.
Think I'll just keep on, keepin' on, and try to stay away from those folks who like to load up on the IS3's and arty.
------------------
USMCGrunt
-When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.
I have to agree with you on this one. Historically playing is something I find more satisfying then just going for the "Big Win". I always like comparing my decisions as a commander to those of the person actually there.
There is though, a certain amount of enjoyment in "what if" play. The were many battles throughout WW2 and the rest of history that were decided by one factor. Sometimes it was weather, bad decisions, or even just luck. It is fun and enlightening to see how things may have played out under slightly different circumstances. Such things as, "What if the Germans were able to seize enough fuel to continue in the Ardennes?" or "What if the weather had been better during the Battle of the Bulge allowing American Air power to be active?" These are deciding factors that well could have seriously changed how WW2 played out from that point on.
Think I'll just keep on, keepin' on, and try to stay away from those folks who like to load up on the IS3's and arty.
------------------
USMCGrunt
-When it absolutely, positively, has to be destroyed overnight.
USMCGrunt
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll!
-Rudyard Kipling-
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?" But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll!
-Rudyard Kipling-
-
Mike Rothery
- Posts: 129
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Canberra, Australia
I have made no secret about my preference for more realistic choices in players buying their forces, and I fully support Bill's points.
This is not to say that we should never see som of the gross soviet and german units, only that they should be in proportion. None of us want play all our games along an "average" section of the front, with little armour and only occassional arty and air support. We want to play the attacks on the key sectors, the pointy end of the Division or Corps advance.
What we have to remember is that the armoured warfare consisted of probing attacks by recce units, followed by concentrated assaults, and then exploitation. We only ever play the middle section in the leagues. The other two get overlooked, yet they offer some exciting scenarios.
I think we just have to break the mould.
Mike R
This is not to say that we should never see som of the gross soviet and german units, only that they should be in proportion. None of us want play all our games along an "average" section of the front, with little armour and only occassional arty and air support. We want to play the attacks on the key sectors, the pointy end of the Division or Corps advance.
What we have to remember is that the armoured warfare consisted of probing attacks by recce units, followed by concentrated assaults, and then exploitation. We only ever play the middle section in the leagues. The other two get overlooked, yet they offer some exciting scenarios.
I think we just have to break the mould.
Mike R
MikeR
-
Commander Klank
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Killleen, Texas
- Contact:
Bravo Wild Bill, you hit the nail squarly on the head.
I think the word your looking for to discribe the "win at all cost" folks who ignore any type of historical background is "Powergamer". I'm very active in playing and developing a minitures based game (Warhammer 40,000) and belive it or not for a science fiction based game we have the same problum! So I guess its safe to say this problum is a common one amoung any type of gaming comminity, weather its historical, sci-fi or whatever.
Having said that I also think theres a common way to deal with it; talk to your opponent and make sure you both understand each others expectations. If you can't agree on unit selection restrictions then don't play him (or her!!!).
Unfortunatly I have made agreemnts before games on unit resrictions only to find my opponent had found a loop-hole. Its like I'm suddenly fighting 16 Flame tanks with Mechanized SS infanty support with regular Russian Infanty and a few 45mm AT guns, and its "What? You didn't say anything about Flamethrower tanks!".
Theres like 16 Flame tanks in a whole freak'in Division and you got them all supprting your Company?!? Who are you? Hitlers secert illigitamate son or something? When I get into a situation like that I just laugh and drive on to do my best to inflict as much damage to him as possible. Even thought I offically lose in the end I consider myself a winner for getting the satisfaction of blowing up a few of his freak'in flame tanks with assaulting infantry. Not to mention the great belly laugh I get when one of my 45mm AT guns manages to crack open a Flamer or halftrack with a succsessfull Op fire shot.....
As of late I've been playing alot of early war battles on-line and PBEM to avoid the "Powergamers". For some strange reason most of them don't like this time period (Gee Wiz I wonder why?..LOL).
Besides I've discovered the the joy of fighting what I call "Junk Wars". Light Tanks VS Light Tanks is one of the best kept secrets of this game; espessaly in the Spainish Cival War Era. I never thought I'd repesct a T-26 like it was a Tiger tank....LOL
I actully tied up a unit of BT-7s (unsupported by infantry) in a wooded area with calvery long enough for my T-26s to get into good ambush positions when the BTs finlly broke through. Of course most of the T-26s shots missed but hey it still good stuff!!!!!
I'm ranting I know so I'll get to the point; I like Charales22's idea about a "Historic avalability" button for unit selection. Close Combat III has this option (and Powergamers don't like it) and it works great. you can only get so many of a unit based ot the time poriod of the game. You guys might want to look into something like that. It might help gamers who what to be historicaly accurate but really don't know what the true OOBs for differnt armies were.
Another alternitve (but complex) would be to designate certian units, amounts of units and certian equipment during certain time periods as "Elite" and "Heavy Support" choices (Special Units). So at the end of the game if an opponent has more or less "Special" units than his opponent his score would be ajusted accordingly. So in the fight with the bazillion Flame Tanks and SS Infanrty I would have recived some bonus points for having only "Troop" types. I think you get the idea.
I'm sure something like this would require alot of new programing and I dout if it would be feasable to incorperate it into the game this late into its development. I just thought I'd throw that out there for you guys............
As for Leauge play I like the core unit idea.
And one last thought on the WARF ARTY issue: perhaps make it so a Ammo truck can only reload them once or twice at the most; that ammo is big and bulky after all. I should know about rocket artillery ammo, I'm a retired MLRS Platoon Sargent. As for a ammo dump I'd say leave it as it is; if you got the balls to stay around it after you've fired a few times (smoke will give you away!) more power too you!.......
Go for it stud
Commander Klank, feeling much better now!
I think the word your looking for to discribe the "win at all cost" folks who ignore any type of historical background is "Powergamer". I'm very active in playing and developing a minitures based game (Warhammer 40,000) and belive it or not for a science fiction based game we have the same problum! So I guess its safe to say this problum is a common one amoung any type of gaming comminity, weather its historical, sci-fi or whatever.
Having said that I also think theres a common way to deal with it; talk to your opponent and make sure you both understand each others expectations. If you can't agree on unit selection restrictions then don't play him (or her!!!).
Unfortunatly I have made agreemnts before games on unit resrictions only to find my opponent had found a loop-hole. Its like I'm suddenly fighting 16 Flame tanks with Mechanized SS infanty support with regular Russian Infanty and a few 45mm AT guns, and its "What? You didn't say anything about Flamethrower tanks!".
Theres like 16 Flame tanks in a whole freak'in Division and you got them all supprting your Company?!? Who are you? Hitlers secert illigitamate son or something? When I get into a situation like that I just laugh and drive on to do my best to inflict as much damage to him as possible. Even thought I offically lose in the end I consider myself a winner for getting the satisfaction of blowing up a few of his freak'in flame tanks with assaulting infantry. Not to mention the great belly laugh I get when one of my 45mm AT guns manages to crack open a Flamer or halftrack with a succsessfull Op fire shot.....
As of late I've been playing alot of early war battles on-line and PBEM to avoid the "Powergamers". For some strange reason most of them don't like this time period (Gee Wiz I wonder why?..LOL).
Besides I've discovered the the joy of fighting what I call "Junk Wars". Light Tanks VS Light Tanks is one of the best kept secrets of this game; espessaly in the Spainish Cival War Era. I never thought I'd repesct a T-26 like it was a Tiger tank....LOL
I actully tied up a unit of BT-7s (unsupported by infantry) in a wooded area with calvery long enough for my T-26s to get into good ambush positions when the BTs finlly broke through. Of course most of the T-26s shots missed but hey it still good stuff!!!!!
I'm ranting I know so I'll get to the point; I like Charales22's idea about a "Historic avalability" button for unit selection. Close Combat III has this option (and Powergamers don't like it) and it works great. you can only get so many of a unit based ot the time poriod of the game. You guys might want to look into something like that. It might help gamers who what to be historicaly accurate but really don't know what the true OOBs for differnt armies were.
Another alternitve (but complex) would be to designate certian units, amounts of units and certian equipment during certain time periods as "Elite" and "Heavy Support" choices (Special Units). So at the end of the game if an opponent has more or less "Special" units than his opponent his score would be ajusted accordingly. So in the fight with the bazillion Flame Tanks and SS Infanrty I would have recived some bonus points for having only "Troop" types. I think you get the idea.
I'm sure something like this would require alot of new programing and I dout if it would be feasable to incorperate it into the game this late into its development. I just thought I'd throw that out there for you guys............
As for Leauge play I like the core unit idea.
And one last thought on the WARF ARTY issue: perhaps make it so a Ammo truck can only reload them once or twice at the most; that ammo is big and bulky after all. I should know about rocket artillery ammo, I'm a retired MLRS Platoon Sargent. As for a ammo dump I'd say leave it as it is; if you got the balls to stay around it after you've fired a few times (smoke will give you away!) more power too you!.......
Go for it stud
Commander Klank, feeling much better now!
Commander Klank
Hello all!
I do not believe it is unrealistic and unhistoric when someone uses great amounts of high quality tanks. The idea of the percentages is nice but really unhistoric
.
Armies are usually built up by brigades or regiments, these consisting of bns. These Bn (and that is the game size in SPWAW) consist of 3companies (in most nations) and these companies use the same material. So, if your opponent likes to play a SS panzer bn he should historically have Panthers or even Tigers, supported by artillery. Even the famous Kampfgruppen consisted the most times of bn size forces.
I personally do not like big unmixed historic forces but the good balanced unhistoric mixes of infantry supported by some tanks and a little offboard arty.
I do not believe it is unrealistic and unhistoric when someone uses great amounts of high quality tanks. The idea of the percentages is nice but really unhistoric
.Armies are usually built up by brigades or regiments, these consisting of bns. These Bn (and that is the game size in SPWAW) consist of 3companies (in most nations) and these companies use the same material. So, if your opponent likes to play a SS panzer bn he should historically have Panthers or even Tigers, supported by artillery. Even the famous Kampfgruppen consisted the most times of bn size forces.
I personally do not like big unmixed historic forces but the good balanced unhistoric mixes of infantry supported by some tanks and a little offboard arty.
If you like what I said love me,if you dislike what I say ignore me!
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
"Extra Bavaria non est vita! Et sic est vita non est ita!"
I also thought for the "nest" problem, if the unit fires it gets no ammo that turn. Both the ammo truck and the unit next to it have to stay very still.Originally posted by Commander Klank:
And one last thought on the WARF ARTY issue: perhaps make it so a Ammo truck can only reload them once or twice at the most; that ammo is big and bulky after all. I should know about rocket artillery ammo, I'm a retired MLRS Platoon Sargent. As for a ammo dump I'd say leave it as it is; if you got the balls to stay around it after you've fired a few times (smoke will give you away!) more power too you!.......
Go for it stud
Commander Klank, feeling much better now!
------------------
PR
http://electricwar.tripod.com/
PR
I think, if you have to modify wulfraums , then their are several ways
1 minimum range
2 make them 1 type (HE) only so they reload considerbly slower.. i start my career on a SWOD Mk13 BatBomb and some of those old systems took a while to get into battery so to speak...these new fangled hitech toys make folks forget that sometimes ..
3 consider possibility of making them non reloadable
4 I like the not firing to reload .. i can't see guys straping rockets on one side while they are flying off the other but that just me ..
5 Let the US have 4.5" MRL and the Russian have Katuska onboard and let the german player write the rules for both sides ...
1 minimum range
2 make them 1 type (HE) only so they reload considerbly slower.. i start my career on a SWOD Mk13 BatBomb and some of those old systems took a while to get into battery so to speak...these new fangled hitech toys make folks forget that sometimes ..
3 consider possibility of making them non reloadable
4 I like the not firing to reload .. i can't see guys straping rockets on one side while they are flying off the other but that just me ..
5 Let the US have 4.5" MRL and the Russian have Katuska onboard and let the german player write the rules for both sides ...
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
When a child grows and opens eyes to see surrounding world, child looks close and sees parents. Kid takes word of mom and dad as a messages from a God. Child don't understand all, but that misunderstanding he hides behind the behavior of his parents. He duplicates and acts as his 'Gods' do. If he ain't doing so, he gets older ones angry, and he don't want that. As soon as kid realises that, -despite of acting like his parents, he gets 'Gods' anger on his thinny neck, he starts to grow knowledge of himself. In this point blanc child begins to think on his own. He don't understand methods of separating good thoughts and bad acts. Child starts to search for thin red line between light and darkness and again looks first to his close support, parents and the community where he lives. He sees people doing same things in different ways and gets more confused about what is expected of him. He asks for guidance on the hard road he is starting to see. He gets flow of possible truths and he starts to analyze information. First he takes common opinion, the one that is yelled louder than others. ( Starts engine )He notices that even if it is comfortable way, there are some scratches at the shield it covers. He looks second best of his 'What to think to be accepted'-list, and starts to investigate voice that can be heard thru the yelling. ( Gets first gear on ) By his learned common sense he can melt these thoughts together and create his own. ( Drives out of garage ) He focuses to justify his own thoughts and starts to seek more information to clear that mess in his mind. He starts to live. He likes the taste of having an own opinion.
How can I say to new person that he can't go that way or this is right road to roam, without making my own opinion clear and giving him opportunity to deside himself what to accept ? I am a question, not a answer to him as well as he is question to me.
Rules of meeting human has been written in the common knowledge of our own history. I can't get angry if this meeting an alien starts a war because I forgot to say: RTFM before opening any discussion.
In this Forum that manual can be found under the 'search' -button and by filling empty line in there with words that are missing. What alien do find from there is manual to understand why we get angry of prelayed mines in meeting engagements, why we yell because some has seen rocketlauncher in the topic, why we do get along with each other in here.
Apologises for insulting myself by thinking my own is not accepted.
simo kukko aka mosh
How can I say to new person that he can't go that way or this is right road to roam, without making my own opinion clear and giving him opportunity to deside himself what to accept ? I am a question, not a answer to him as well as he is question to me.
Rules of meeting human has been written in the common knowledge of our own history. I can't get angry if this meeting an alien starts a war because I forgot to say: RTFM before opening any discussion.
In this Forum that manual can be found under the 'search' -button and by filling empty line in there with words that are missing. What alien do find from there is manual to understand why we get angry of prelayed mines in meeting engagements, why we yell because some has seen rocketlauncher in the topic, why we do get along with each other in here.
Apologises for insulting myself by thinking my own is not accepted.
simo kukko aka mosh
salute
mosh
If its not rotten, shoot again
mosh
If its not rotten, shoot again
Hello,
I would try to add a few ideas that I hope you'll find useful.
First, the best way to play "historically" is to play with historical scenarios. After having played several randomly generated battle, I tried a scenario ... and I love it (it's still in process ...). By the way, as I know that several famous scenarios designers read those threads, I would just make the suggestion that, for each scenario they design, the txt file specify if it is suitable for PBEM game or not. When you send a scenario to one of your friend, you usually don't want to disappoint him. But as you can't test it if you want to play it with him, you just don't know if it will OK for PBEM or not.
Otherwise, to play interesting battles (historicaly settled or not), I'll advice first to choose a custom map instead of a randomly generated one. I promess that, if you've never tried yet, that once you'll have tested it (one designed by Wild Bill for example), you won't even think of using random ones anymore ! You'll find plenty of them in the game or on web sites.
Then adjust the fronts and victory hexes with coherence. It's supprising how some imagination in those areas can change the face of a battle !
Then design an introduction briefing. It can be something like : "Village X is lying on the path of the 3rd Pz division. Intelligence reports that a small enemy group is trying to reach it in order to establish a defensive perimeter. Your orders are to form a recon group than must secure the area before the bulk of the division arrives."
Then, you can establish a few special rules to fit your briefing. For example : no offboard arty, 1 air section maximum. No heavy tanks and 1 platoon of elite infantry maximum. Insist that your opponent respect the spirit of the briefing (ie : recon group).
Or course, these are only examples. You can let you imagination run ...
In addition, for those who want balanced games, a good solution is to play "mirrored games". You can settle one battle as described previously. Then, you send the map files so that your opponent set the same battle, but swapping sides. Both battles are then run at the same time. To calculate the score, just add your score in both battles, then compare it with the one of your opponent. The victory rules can then be applied.
And at last, if you feel your opponent doesn't suit your gaming style, just tell him (politely) ... and look for an other one. There are plenty of PBEM players, and I'm sure you'll eventuelly find a good numbers that will suit your style.
I was a bit long, but I hope that will help some of you ...
a PBEM fan, Silvarius.
I would try to add a few ideas that I hope you'll find useful.
First, the best way to play "historically" is to play with historical scenarios. After having played several randomly generated battle, I tried a scenario ... and I love it (it's still in process ...). By the way, as I know that several famous scenarios designers read those threads, I would just make the suggestion that, for each scenario they design, the txt file specify if it is suitable for PBEM game or not. When you send a scenario to one of your friend, you usually don't want to disappoint him. But as you can't test it if you want to play it with him, you just don't know if it will OK for PBEM or not.
Otherwise, to play interesting battles (historicaly settled or not), I'll advice first to choose a custom map instead of a randomly generated one. I promess that, if you've never tried yet, that once you'll have tested it (one designed by Wild Bill for example), you won't even think of using random ones anymore ! You'll find plenty of them in the game or on web sites.
Then adjust the fronts and victory hexes with coherence. It's supprising how some imagination in those areas can change the face of a battle !
Then design an introduction briefing. It can be something like : "Village X is lying on the path of the 3rd Pz division. Intelligence reports that a small enemy group is trying to reach it in order to establish a defensive perimeter. Your orders are to form a recon group than must secure the area before the bulk of the division arrives."
Then, you can establish a few special rules to fit your briefing. For example : no offboard arty, 1 air section maximum. No heavy tanks and 1 platoon of elite infantry maximum. Insist that your opponent respect the spirit of the briefing (ie : recon group).
Or course, these are only examples. You can let you imagination run ...
In addition, for those who want balanced games, a good solution is to play "mirrored games". You can settle one battle as described previously. Then, you send the map files so that your opponent set the same battle, but swapping sides. Both battles are then run at the same time. To calculate the score, just add your score in both battles, then compare it with the one of your opponent. The victory rules can then be applied.
And at last, if you feel your opponent doesn't suit your gaming style, just tell him (politely) ... and look for an other one. There are plenty of PBEM players, and I'm sure you'll eventuelly find a good numbers that will suit your style.
I was a bit long, but I hope that will help some of you ...
a PBEM fan, Silvarius.
Very agreed with WB..
I would like to tell you this : One day I invited a friend to play SPWAW at my home...I was so enthusiastic to be able to play SPWAW with a human opponent that I organized in one second hundreds of campaigns with limited points ecc.ecc. I was dreaming about what we could be able to do ..but he downed me simply telling me " Let the carnage begin .. "
...and we played a battle with thousands of TIgers and JSII...Before battle started I felt very alone...I played that battle just for fun but I thought how could be some players so interested in that unrealistic Suddenstrike-like unuseful ways of playing a wargame...
I can summarize this in two issues :
1) Learn to understand the sense of existence of minor Panzers as PzII-f or MArders or Sdkfz..and learn to use it
2) the taste for defeat...
1) I love scenarios very much because they provide an exstensive use of minor kinds of units and weapons..the first thing I love to do in the first turn of a new scenario is discovering in it which is the 'limited' composition of my battalion...and how that weapons are intended to be used there at their best !
2) Mistakes in moving units , lost firings , bad deployments are the best calls for reality..
and so does the concept of defeat..
These things are beyond victory...
I am looking for opponents that are able as me to "share the experience" rather than living for the purpose of victory..
Recently I played three PBEM scenarios of Ardenne's battle for SP1 edited by WB with another friend ...
I 've lost two battles and won the last...
but inside me I was very grateful to the scenario designer and to my friend ...It has been a way for me to go back in history and to live 'on the field' that dramatic moments.
Experiencing wins against the final need for victory..
Very glad to read here that finally I am not alone anymore !
I would like to tell you this : One day I invited a friend to play SPWAW at my home...I was so enthusiastic to be able to play SPWAW with a human opponent that I organized in one second hundreds of campaigns with limited points ecc.ecc. I was dreaming about what we could be able to do ..but he downed me simply telling me " Let the carnage begin .. "
...and we played a battle with thousands of TIgers and JSII...Before battle started I felt very alone...I played that battle just for fun but I thought how could be some players so interested in that unrealistic Suddenstrike-like unuseful ways of playing a wargame...
I can summarize this in two issues :
1) Learn to understand the sense of existence of minor Panzers as PzII-f or MArders or Sdkfz..and learn to use it
2) the taste for defeat...
1) I love scenarios very much because they provide an exstensive use of minor kinds of units and weapons..the first thing I love to do in the first turn of a new scenario is discovering in it which is the 'limited' composition of my battalion...and how that weapons are intended to be used there at their best !
2) Mistakes in moving units , lost firings , bad deployments are the best calls for reality..
and so does the concept of defeat..
These things are beyond victory...
I am looking for opponents that are able as me to "share the experience" rather than living for the purpose of victory..
Recently I played three PBEM scenarios of Ardenne's battle for SP1 edited by WB with another friend ...
I 've lost two battles and won the last...
but inside me I was very grateful to the scenario designer and to my friend ...It has been a way for me to go back in history and to live 'on the field' that dramatic moments.
Experiencing wins against the final need for victory..
Very glad to read here that finally I am not alone anymore !
Italian Soldier,German Discipline!
Having started out using the best equipment, I have moved to more realistic forces.
Generally I think most gamers start off with the glamour stuff because of the legends that surround it and because you want to win 8)
As you play more many (not all!!) players start thinking ...what if?
And from there you start to play with the lesser units or an historic oob.
But I think for the newbies at least there is nothing like commanding a company of the best. They will soon learn against decent human opposition that superior tactics often neutralises these uberunits.
Then you try thinking sneaky.....
Honestly though I think it is dead wrong to limit people's choices how they want to play. I really think it is up to the players to set the rules for their particular engagement. If you forget a loophole and your opponent exploits it, well that is like real life (& battles)you should know better next time
Generally I think most gamers start off with the glamour stuff because of the legends that surround it and because you want to win 8)
As you play more many (not all!!) players start thinking ...what if?
And from there you start to play with the lesser units or an historic oob.
But I think for the newbies at least there is nothing like commanding a company of the best. They will soon learn against decent human opposition that superior tactics often neutralises these uberunits.
Then you try thinking sneaky.....
Honestly though I think it is dead wrong to limit people's choices how they want to play. I really think it is up to the players to set the rules for their particular engagement. If you forget a loophole and your opponent exploits it, well that is like real life (& battles)you should know better next time
Robert Lee
A thought or two on PBEM:
For years I wargamed alone. When I got my first PC and found SP I was in heaven...but still alone. Playing the AI seemed enough to me. Besides everybody seemed so knowledgeable and sharp I was afraid of embarassing myself (not losing). This went on for years. It was the advent of the CM beta Demo that broke the log jam for me. A new game made for a level playing field was my logic for trying PBEM. So upwent my name on a PBEM play list (with the normal "please be gentle I'm new to all this" plea.) Wow...a brave new world. Guys who think like me, guys that don't. Guys who love the historical accuracy and guys who love to crush the OPFOR, Funny, bright, or just plain pains in the butt...Gee just like the real world. A filtering process developed and continues to this day. I play PBEM with SPWAW and CM almost exclusively. I've learned I can play against the A-historical types just as well as my preferred historical buds. The funny thing is (and the point of all this) If I like the guy I'll deal with the style. I say try PBEM, you may never play the AI again.
For years I wargamed alone. When I got my first PC and found SP I was in heaven...but still alone. Playing the AI seemed enough to me. Besides everybody seemed so knowledgeable and sharp I was afraid of embarassing myself (not losing). This went on for years. It was the advent of the CM beta Demo that broke the log jam for me. A new game made for a level playing field was my logic for trying PBEM. So upwent my name on a PBEM play list (with the normal "please be gentle I'm new to all this" plea.) Wow...a brave new world. Guys who think like me, guys that don't. Guys who love the historical accuracy and guys who love to crush the OPFOR, Funny, bright, or just plain pains in the butt...Gee just like the real world. A filtering process developed and continues to this day. I play PBEM with SPWAW and CM almost exclusively. I've learned I can play against the A-historical types just as well as my preferred historical buds. The funny thing is (and the point of all this) If I like the guy I'll deal with the style. I say try PBEM, you may never play the AI again.
All Hail Marx and Lennon
-
Don Eddins
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Columbia, MD US
Amen to the comments by Silvarius and ruxius above. A well designed scenario balanced for pbem or online play, with an historically realistic mix of units is a thing of joy and beauty. Eternal gratitude and blessings on Wild Bill and Figmo and the others who have exerted the effort and time to produce those that exist. Silvarius is quite right that it would be a big help if the designers indicated in the notes or in the title that a scenario was balanced for human vs human. To those of you who have not yet attempted pbem with a scenario designed to be played that way, try it. You won't like it; you'll love it. I have been fortunate to find players who, like me, don't mind losing if the battle has been hard fought. For us, it was not winning or losing, but the fighting of the battle to the best of our abilities, in a situation that has the feeling of reality. This is where SP:WaW really shines, and where the talents of the best scenario designers become so evident.
It seems to me that the solution isn't to alter or remove units, entirely, but to have an enforceable nanny. You click "all the best" and you can pick endlessly. You pick "historical" and you're left to only one heavy tank platoon. You pick "percentages" and you're allowed only a force that represents that countries total output of tanks (this isn't to say that there should be 3 T34s to every Panther [if RL reflected that or not], such that 1 tank would represent every 5% produced etc.
The prededing is an outstanding idea. Personnally I play both realistic and "best available" the game should be able to accomodate both. Historically accurate balance is built into most scenarios but I would simlply LOVE a setting in the battle generator that would place historical limits on force structure. Of course that would have to have some complexity to be totally realistic for player generated battles and player purchased units. For instance year, location, season, theater, country, hell even political considerations could be brought into it. I think that this idea warrants further study and would be an outstanding addition to v. 5.0
The prededing is an outstanding idea. Personnally I play both realistic and "best available" the game should be able to accomodate both. Historically accurate balance is built into most scenarios but I would simlply LOVE a setting in the battle generator that would place historical limits on force structure. Of course that would have to have some complexity to be totally realistic for player generated battles and player purchased units. For instance year, location, season, theater, country, hell even political considerations could be brought into it. I think that this idea warrants further study and would be an outstanding addition to v. 5.0
It amuses me somewhat that on at least a couple of occassions when we've talked about excessive use of rare or super-powerful units, that someone came along with excessive forces in my opinion, but they didn't think so. Recently one poster said they used 8 rocket launchers, while I recall another used 8 88mm flaks. True, such numbers may be somewhat proportionate or historic, but only in the event that you're using 200 units or more.
One of the problems we have, for campaigners anyway, is that some of us come from the old school. In the old school you didn't get so many upgrade points, and if you used too many at one time (more than 10% of your force) you were delayed fighting for a month or more. So what can happen in this game, is that you have so many upgrade points available without a penalty for upgrading the entire army, that you might feel like you're not doing as well as you could if you leave the points to build. Here's an idea!!! Why not gift the campaigner who "doesn't" use the points, not with the penalty system necessarily since the AI could have the newest stuff all at one time, theoretically, but instead give the campaigner bonus points for not using them (which wouldn't add to the status of the outcome of the battle)? Now that would make things interesting. Although this is getting a bit tedious on my part, I would suggest the same thing be done for unused ammo, but clearly perhaps both idea may necessitate being regulated to CL.
One of the problems we have, for campaigners anyway, is that some of us come from the old school. In the old school you didn't get so many upgrade points, and if you used too many at one time (more than 10% of your force) you were delayed fighting for a month or more. So what can happen in this game, is that you have so many upgrade points available without a penalty for upgrading the entire army, that you might feel like you're not doing as well as you could if you leave the points to build. Here's an idea!!! Why not gift the campaigner who "doesn't" use the points, not with the penalty system necessarily since the AI could have the newest stuff all at one time, theoretically, but instead give the campaigner bonus points for not using them (which wouldn't add to the status of the outcome of the battle)? Now that would make things interesting. Although this is getting a bit tedious on my part, I would suggest the same thing be done for unused ammo, but clearly perhaps both idea may necessitate being regulated to CL.
I'd agree with WB, but for an "insignificant" particular:
what you all WWII/OOB experts/historians out there would do with people like me (and I think I'm not alone) who LOVE playing this game but are not able to make an "historic" buying phase,cause they dont know the military history of WWII ?
do you put them all in a ghetto saying,pls come back when you've learned at memory the OOB's of at least three countries ?
do you refuse to play with them ?
I REALLY wanted to play historic battles,but I'm simply not capable to make the right historic choices.
And then? What to do ? I think this is the only realistic solution:
And be sure that,if something like this will be implemented in the game,you'll see me choosing 100% of the times for the historic button...
------------------
Federico "Resisti" Doveri
If you cannot defeat your enemy,join him.
what you all WWII/OOB experts/historians out there would do with people like me (and I think I'm not alone) who LOVE playing this game but are not able to make an "historic" buying phase,cause they dont know the military history of WWII ?
do you put them all in a ghetto saying,pls come back when you've learned at memory the OOB's of at least three countries ?
do you refuse to play with them ?
I REALLY wanted to play historic battles,but I'm simply not capable to make the right historic choices.
And then? What to do ? I think this is the only realistic solution:
Originally posted by Charles22:
It seems to me that the solution isn't to alter or remove units, entirely, but to have an enforceable nanny. You click "all the best" and you can pick endlessly. You pick "historical" and you're left to only one heavy tank platoon. You pick "percentages" and you're allowed only a force that represents that countries total output of tanks (this isn't to say that there should be 3 T34s to every Panther [if RL reflected that or not], such that 1 tank would represent every 5% produced etc.
And be sure that,if something like this will be implemented in the game,you'll see me choosing 100% of the times for the historic button...
------------------
Federico "Resisti" Doveri
If you cannot defeat your enemy,join him.
Federico "Resisti" Doveri