Gaming Today - Some Choices

[lnp4668]

One thing I love about spwaw is that you could fully customize your force. That why Europe in Flames have left my HD, but SPWAW still the most often used games.

It maybe unrealistic to upgrade all your tanks to Tigers once they are available (that was how I started) but it was just too fun to resist.

As I learned the game, however, I begins to experiment with more historical mix. In doing so I have to play with proper tactics in order to be effective. Thus I am a much better wargamer now (I think |-)) than before I started with spwaw.

In short spwaw allows gamer the ability to play with a training wheel, then to take it off when you are ready. I guess those who continue to use the training wheel to win are not ready to grow up.

[Lou]

Good points, all. It seems that if ahistorical games are a problem, then better communication with our opponents is one answer. If two people make clear and reasoned guides for the game, the resulting contest will be much more satisfying to both parties.

I would suggest one strong guide over all, however. Avoid max points games. If ever there was a kid-in-the-candy-shop temptation, this is it. And, I speak to this with an enormous mea maxima culpa here. I'm playing a max point game and I freely admit that I got happy with the artillery (also, for the large forces we're playing with, I'm not sure what is an appropriate amount of arty). Luckily, I'm playing against a 'net pal of mine and we're joking about it in the email (the email discussions are almost more fun than the game for me). He has swarms of tanks, I have clouds of artillery. This wouldn't have been the case if we played without going to max points.

SPWAW is a great game to spark learning about military history...but it can also be a great chance to improve communication.

Excuse me...but I'm expecting a call from my FO.

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited March 01, 2001).]

[Warhorse]

Originally posted by Resisti:
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...

Of course, you are correct. I too often forget that everyone is not as fortunate as myself and others, to have an extensive military library! If I had the time, it would be a great venture to assemble TOE's for all the countries, for all to browse through. There are sites out there that somewhat cover this, but not too easy to find. Scott Grasse's work is very good, but unfortunately only cover a few nations. This is a very hard thing to overcome. I think I sometimes get more of a kick assembling my force, than actually playing.....almost!!

------------------
Mike Amos
Meine Ehre Heisst Treue

[skukko]

For hysterical values for your games you can look up these links:
http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/003863.html

Was it at Pack Rats or Tankheads page theyhad that nice tiny program that tells you just about what you can buy in 'hysterical' values? Surf up there and look. Links to those sites can easily found by looking their posts.

mosh

"Sleeps with the spwaw"

[Wild Bill]

It takes some time and research, Resisti. Here are a few sites to get you started.
http://155.217.58.58/atdls.htm
http://www.feldgrau.com/
http://perso.infonie.fr/enpointe/
http://www.nauticom.net/www/harts/army.html
http://www.britwar.co.uk/lists/index.htm

Check your library for books in military history on this subject.

I hope someday someone will do just that, prepare us an adequate selection of units that is fair and historical.

Wild Bill



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

[David boutwell]

Gentlemen,

So, what do you prefer? Custom scenarios that , because they are accurate historically, are not shoot 'em up tankfests...or shoot 'em up tankfests?

I have an Arnhem scenario that I could be about 4 or 5 hours away from posting. It uses the largest map possible, and uses all possible units on both sides, and they are, for the most part historical oob's. Trouble is, I asked some guys (several of whom just happened to be tank, artillery and air happy) to play test it, and they complained that there weren't enough "glamour weapons" to put it in a nutshell. Arnhem was for the most part, a grueling, house-to-house infantry, which, if you are not a historian, is not interesting. Pretty much turned me off, no pissed me off.... It seemed that several of them knew nothing of the details of the battle. They seemed to approach the scenario, which took me over 100 hours, at the minimum, to research and create, not with an appreciation of what it was trying to recreate, but with a critical eye for what it didn't have, that they wanted!

Kind of turned me off to scenario design for the purpose of posting...If there was no one out there that appreciated a historical scenario for what it was, as opposed to what it wasn't, then what's the point.

The predominant flavor of many forum threads have seemed, to me, to lean toward the "non-historical", and, instead, have seemed to focus on things like winning campaigns with whatever it takes to win them (kind of the way my high school students approach games). I like warhorse's perspective. Where are the scenarios that are darn near unwinnable by one side or another, but are historically accurate and educational to play? (Dunkirk, Calais, France 1940, the low countries) There are plenty of scenarios based on Tigers, guys. Let's have some diversity.

So...I am very refreshed by this thread. It makes me feel better to see that many of the "old veterans" still have that vision of recreating history, not running up kills. I still think we need a historical scenario "room", or whatever, where us "purists" can exchange ideas.

That's my two cents, for what it's worth.

Dave Boutwell

[victorhauser]

Well... I'm an "old veteran".

I respect the opinions in this thread. But...

I ALWAYS play to win. Even when playing with mutually agreed limits or with "historical" forces. The debate about "gaming vs. historical" play has been going on for decades, long before Steel Panthers.

In real war, the soldiers are not looking to be "historical". They are looking to win (and live) by ANY means possible.

I've spent much of my wargaming career (33 years) playing against individuals who are cheerful and sociable and friendly--and absolutely cutthroat ruthless gamers. I've learned that one person's "historical" is another person's "gamey behavior".

And since I cannot know that beforehand, no matter what words are spoken ahead of time, it is safer to assume that even if a player believes HE is an "historical" player, there is no guarantee that I will believe what he believes. So, I will ALWAYS choose the most brutally efficient combat force that the game will allow me to if I have the option to do so.

And here is another thought. Even when using "historical" forces, do we not as players use every means at our disposal to win any way we legally can? I loathe cheaters and will not tolerate them, but, short of cheating I expect my opponent to try his very best, using whatever resources he can muster, to win.

So, to me, it still comes down to winning. Whether I win with an "historical" force (even though I have no clear idea how that word is defined) or with an "ahistorical brutally efficient" combat force, it is still a game. And since the game we are playing here models real combat (the most absolute form of competition I know of), I have no problem with SPWaW players who use their competitive instincts to the best of their ability using whatever means at their disposal (besides cheating).

[victorhauser]

It just occurred to me that if the points costs of the units were 100% balanced then we would likely not be having this debate.

Please do not misunderstand me. I believe that the Matrix team has done a superior job in pricing units. But I'm sure they would agree that the pricing lists aren't perfect.

Players always seek to find the best bargain for the available points. So part of the problem with discussions about "gamey behavior" concerns the question: Why are players buying and using the units they do? The answer is because they are the most cost-effective in game terms (I used the term "brutally efficient" in an above post).

Unfortunately, simply changing the costs of the most frequently "abused" (at least according to the "historical purists" out there) unit types will not necessarily solve the problem. Instead it will likely create a new list of cost-effective units which will in turn be "abused". And on and on. Such is the nature of the game. It is just a game after all.

I'm certainly in favor of refining unit prices to as close as perfect as we can, but I also realize that doing so is a very difficult and time-consuming process. I salute the Matrix staff in their ongoing efforts.

[Reg]

Why does this thread sound all too familiar???

Maybe because we've been through all this before on the Combat Command board. http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000147.html http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/Forum17/HTML/000154.html

You gotta love Captn_Jack's original submission.

Reg.

[MaxGross]

Well, I may as well throw my two cents in as well.

I believe in freedom of choice. I prefer AI play. I believe I am adult enough to pick and choose my units and create my own scenario's, as well as play historic ones. Yes, sometimes its fun to stack it against the AI and blast him off the board, especially after a stressful day. And I am sure everyone can relate to that. It's not something I do very often, but It's my choice, and I don't think I, or anyone else should be penalized by limitations of percentages, higher costs, or whatever folks have mentioned in these posts. I believe most of the time we all play according to the rules of reasonable play.

I might remind you that in the Gulf war (only as an example of bombing into the stone age) we reduced the Iraqi army's armor by nearly 50% through air supremacy, and interdiction. Then mauled them on the field. If we can do it in real war, we can do it in a game. It's historical right? OK, I understand, it's the self satisfaction of maneuvering on the field with as much realism as possible, fine, no argument there.

Having been there, I can tell you by personal experience if you can get it you always went with 8" or 175mm, or a B52 strike to blast the the little buggers to the happy hunting ground. Excessive force? Maybe but in war who cares. I only wish we had had MLRS in those days.

Now if you want to do historic things imagine if the Germans had moved their forces in Dec '44 to the east instead of the west. Or what if they moved their forces out of Italy up through eastern Europe to flank the Russians instead of trying to hang on to Italy. There are a thousand "what If's" but the point is you can do both. Again It's freedom of choice. To each his own.

I think, as someone else posted, it would be a shame to make any limitations on the existing setup. So I guess that was my point.

[Wild Bill]

The content of these varying points of view prove one salient point. There are all types of gamers out there and all have their preferences.

As stated, mine leans toward the historical. Others prefer the other approach, to a more Gaming type of battle. Can I pick better units than my opponent, or the right ones to counter what he is picking?

That can be pretty exciting too.

All of this of course is possible due to the versatility of the SP game. You can have one or both.

David B, I learned long ago that you cannot let yourself be swayed by the opinions of a few. Listen to your testers, but remember, there is a group of die hard historians who want to play your Arnhem.

It's a good scenario, superb map, and I hope you will continue to do those you enjoy. If you do, you will have fellow gamers that will play your scenarios and enjoy them.

Wild Bill

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

[This message has been edited by Wild Bill (edited March 02, 2001).]

[Redleg]

I think the problem lies in expectations not being stated beforehand. Pure and simple.

Another problem lies in definitions. A lot of "history" guys I play use fleets of Tigers, SS, engr battalions... that seems to be their definition of history.

A good battle proposal should include some guidelines about "history". Pure and simple. But that seldom happens.

Nothing is usually said by the "history" guys unless they lose. Then, after the fact, "history" comes up.

Having played hundreds of pbem battles, I think I have seen every trick dreamed up by pbem players. I seldom see new ones anymore.

My favorite approach is to issue a challenge such as:

"I propose German - Soviet June, 1943 4,000 points each. All settings and map default except 0 air units and a limit of 1 battalion of off-board artillery each. No on-board artillery that is not part of an infantry unit. Limit of 50 landmines/obstacles.

You can choose the sides!"

The last part is the key. I am the *only* player I have ever seen to issue such a challenge! I try to never issue a challenge that I wouldn't play either side in.

The last part of my challenge is something like this: "If you don't like my proposal, please offer your ideas".

I have seen people sneak custom OOBs, custom maps, pick a certain month when things happen in either OOBs or maps. Disappear when when things go badly, try to mess with visibility settings, etc. All in the name of "history" and never mentioned beforehand.

But every now and then, there is some super pbem gaming that makes it all worth while.

So, I periodically play anyone who wants to play. But please, if you have some sort of idea about "history", say so up front - not later. I have seen some strange "history" in pbem battles.

There is so much of this that unless I know the guy, I always generate a sample battle that someone proposes to look for the reason the guy wants that particular country in that particular month/year.

Once the ground rules are established,I play to win within those guidelines. Period.

[Reg]

The Games Network guys used to organise leagues using specially designed scenarios that nobody had seen before.

I wonder if that could be an avenue to prevent Civil War (and keep Wild Bill in a job)??

Reg.

[DELTA32]

WB..........

I played board wargames for over 30 years. As anyone knows...the designers always established the rules to best reflect the historcal circumstances of the battle being depicted. Of course, one's interpretation is always subject to scrutiny. Often we added, deleted or modified rules in games we truly enjoyed.

The problem with PBEM point selected forces is that many of the players of SPWAW have NO clue of WW II ground combat history at the tactical or opertaional level (any level for that matter). They probably know the NFL's rulebook in and out but God forbid they know any history.

The problem I have with PBEM League Challenges is that I don't know who I'm challenging if it is a new opponent. I don't know if he is a follower of historical gaming or one who likes to have "FUN" picking the best there is and bastardizing his Tables of Organization. This I blame on MATRIX' manner of allowing one to buy "anything".

Basically......a 4 - 6,000 point game is only going to allow for a Battalion level game. What I believe should be done in 5.0 is to prevent players from buying individual platoons. Rather, points should be used to buy Battalion level units..and those attachments you would receive from Regiment or Division...i.e., Scouts, AT assets, dedicated artillery assigned to YOUR sector, etc.

A continuing problem with PBEM challenges is that challenging one you do not know is also tricky. I hate to waste the time challenging, waiting for a reply, then having to find out if my potential opponent is a wargamer or some idiot living in fantasy land ! I use the PBEM program, Scott Grasse's SP Guidelines program, and have to go through all kinds of crap to find out what each listed opponent uses. I believe it's time to provide a gaming profile for League opponents registry...because I really don't want to have to deliberate with some guy who likes to have "FUN" picking the best of everything his points will buy......history be damned !

Anyway....my 2 cents.....for what it is worth.

Delta 32

[Charles22]

Since we got on the subject of V.5, I have one vital question, which I believe I've posed before, and that is if the WWII and generated campaigns will implement the possibility of WIDER maps? I know to expect this somewhat with the mega-campaign since they essentially are stringed scenarios, but what about the regular campaigns? It seems noone has ever commented on that this will never be done, or has been considered, or if it's so many versions down the road. Thanks.

[Wild Bill]

You'll see a lot of great things in 5.0, but you won't see wider maps. That is a change that would involve many, many hours of coding work.

It is something that I too would like, but I have to understand and accept the fact that Matrix programmers have to get to work on other projects.

After 19 months of work (can you believe that!) on SPWAW, we have to move on or move out. That is an alternative that we do not want to face.

So perhaps one day...but not in 5.0, I fear.

Wild Bill

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

[David boutwell]

Originally posted by Wild Bill:

David B, I learned long ago that you cannot let yourself be swayed by the opinions of a few. Listen to your testers, but remember, there is a group of die hard historians who want to play your Arnhem.

It's a good scenario, superb map, and I hope you will continue to do those you enjoy. If you do, you will have fellow gamers that will play your scenarios and enjoy them.

Wild Bill

[/B]

Bill,

Don't worry. It's gonna get posted. I got slightly sidetracked when I found Osprey Publications' Campaign Series OOB's for the Central Sector of the Ardennes campaign. The U.S. and German volumes have excellent small scale topographic maps of all of the engagements around Bastogne. I've always been fascinated by the battles conducted by the different armor task forces and the 101st Airborne Division to the east of Bastogne, as well as Champs/Longchamps. I just had to create some nice maps for the different battles.

I plan to post them as a set soon. They will include the terrain around Marvie, Wardin, Noville, Longvilly, Neffe, Magerey and other villages. I used Fred Chlanda's WAW MAP to "cut and paste". These maps are interlinked (meaning, for example, the village of Wardin appears in several different maps, and the village is identical in each map.) If all of them were layed on a table and overlapped, they would make one HUGE map!

Anyway. I needed a break from Arnhem. I can get myself so immersed in big projects that, occasionally, I burn out before I finish, and have to come back to it. All I need to do to "version 2" (post play-tested) of my Arnhem scenario is modify the command and rally ratings of all of the units. I didn't get to this before I submitted verion 1 for playtesting.

From what guys who have a knowledge of the battle say after they have playtested the scenario, it is all that I intended it to be, so verion 2 should be even better!

I appreciate your support, Bill.

Dave Boutwell

[Wild Bill]

Sounds like some great stuff, Dave. Bring it on.

And you'll have to give me a tutorial on that map editor. I love it, but can't make it work.

Good luck with the Bugle (Battle of, that is! )!

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

[Charles22]

Thanks Wild Bill, it's good to at least have it shot down, though before I read this I submitted lack of wider campaign maps as my idea of shortcoming number one for V.5.