SPWaW vs winSPWW2

[Zovs]

Sorry but I have tried all the incarnations to get SPWAW to work on Windows 7 or Windows 8 and all have failed miserably on my end, second of all the closest I got it to work it was running in the horrible graphics mode of 640 x 400, totally sucked on a modern computer screen.

The deal killer is the SPWAW is outdated and not maintained nor updated. Whereas Shrapnel Games SPWW2 is updated yearly, and works with modern computers. PERIOD.

Sorry fellows but SPWAW is dead and does not work on Windows 7 or 8 or in Linux running Wine, I have tried all three and its just a waste of time, the code base has not been updated in 14 some years. And even if you get it to work your stuck in 640 x 400 mode, which is very lame when most monitors can render much higher resolutions.

[The Almighty Turtle]

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

Sorry but I have tried all the incarnations to get SPWAW to work on Windows 7 or Windows 8 and all have failed miserably on my end, second of all the closest I got it to work it was running in the horrible graphics mode of 640 x 400, totally sucked on a modern computer screen.

Sorry to hear mate. Bad luck fo ryou. WHendid you give up?

ORIGINAL: dlazov66 The deal killer is the SPWAW is outdated and not maintained nor updated. Whereas Shrapnel Games SPWW2 is updated yearly, and works with modern computers. PERIOD.

This.

This I think sums up the greatest advantage Shrapnel has over Matrix, and WW2/MBT have over WAW. When history comes knocking the first question it has is "who's there?" And in this case, Shrapnel undoubtedly is while Matrix is Not. And in the end I believe that is decisive.

In the end, I do believe Shrapnel can continue improving the games and can and will even fix the clunky interface/game, the invincible infantry, the frequent AFV kills with small arms, and the like. So Long As They KEEP At IT. They have been tending to this while Matrix has fallen away, and as a SPWAW fanboy who is not fond of the Shrapnel engines I believe they deserve all the praise they can get for it.

And I do believe that if they do and Matrix continues to do nothing, Shrapnel will indisputably earn every right and justification to be the inheritors of the SP legacy.

But that in no way changes the fact that as things stand, I find their products to be Not Right For Me, and far more crippled in comparison to SPWAW even with all this than many people think.

[Zovs]

I gave up right after I finally go it to work but it was suck (permanently) in the dreaded 640x480 mode. That video mode is completely useless.

To me each interface has its pros and cons, but the Matrix version is clunky to me, the scrolling is horrible, the video limitations the only two pluses I could find were a lot of scenarios (which I don't play) and the sound effects. With Shrapnel I find the opposite; the scrolling works fine, the video is great the sound effects or meh and the scenarios are now up to a little over 300.

I mostly play CG.

The infantry or armor can be tweaked up or down in Shrapnel pretty easily via the settings. My laptop runs in 1600x900 and I can put Shrapnels in full screen mode no problem and have no vid issues what-so-ever.

[BigDuke66]

I have yet to see what "frequent AFV kills with small arms" is. If the weapon can penetrate the armour the unit can be killed so I wonder what is so strange about it.

Same goes for infantry, in an environment that depicts such a short timeframe(1 turn = roughly 3 minutes of real time) I don't expect to easily movement my squad around an be than able to wipe an enemy squad out.
Infantry takes a lot casualties if the situation is static defender vs moving attacker but if both squads are "manoeuvring" the fire is simply too imprecise to get anything beyond a lucky kill.

[The Almighty Turtle]

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

I gave up right after I finally go it to work but it was suck (permanently) in the dreaded 640x480 mode. That video mode is completely useless.

To me each interface has its pros and cons, but the Matrix version is clunky to me, the scrolling is horrible, the video limitations the only two pluses I could find were a lot of scenarios (which I don't play) and the sound effects. With Shrapnel I find the opposite; the scrolling works fine, the video is great the sound effects or meh hand the scenarios are now up to a little over 300.

If anything I found the opposite. SPWAW scrolling feels pretty smooth, while the Shrapnel versions feel like they have the same lag when moving the screen around that I feel when doing almost anything. My main issue with SPWAW besides the relatively-recently fixed incompatibility issue is the fact that once in a blue moon it will CTD (for instance, if you click something a bit too early or soon).

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

The infantry or armor can be tweaked up or down in Shrapnel pretty easily via the settings.

I already mentioned this, and it's Still A Major Problem. I've actually run plenty of games (more than I ever should have to do) with one side's values tweaked all the way up and the other side's tweaked all the way down. And on Shrapnel even when that is there and you have an elite rifle squad and/or MG unit right on top of an enemy infantry unit *with those max/mined settings*, casualties are still pretty low.

Hence the Somme Joke. It's pretty hard to imagine exposed infantry being subjected to that amount of MG fire at close range with far less of an effect than it should be. It practically makes the Japanese/Chinese/Jihadis look visionary with their human wave charges, because it's far more difficult than it should be to actually punish infantry with direct fire.

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

I have yet to see what "frequent AFV kills with small arms" is. If the weapon can penetrate the armour the unit can be killed so I wonder what is so strange about it.

Wiping out a full section of light armor (in this case Italian Autoblindas and tankettes) with rifle fire comes to mind. And yes, that is something I accomplished on SPWW2.

In contrast to jeeps or other relatively light vehicles, where it isn't counted as destroyed until you plink away at one man after another. Whereas it's very reasonable and common in SPWAW for a vehicle to be destroyed or terminally effed up from a single shot without all the crew or passengers being killed, in the Shrapnel games I've occasionally seen Jeeps as more durable than light armor because of the "men as hitpoints" of the former while the latter deal with what I personally think is a too generous allowance for small arms armor penetration.

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Same goes for infantry, in an environment that depicts such a short timeframe(1 turn = roughly 3 minutes of real time) I don't expect to easily movement my squad around an be than able to wipe an enemy squad out.

You might be surprised. I certainly don't expect it to happen every battle (that would be just complaining because the soldiers act like human beings and don't get killed easily), but the average firefight can be very fast moving and deadly. The German 94th division was devastated to the point of dissolution in a few hours of urban fighting by attacking Soviet troops, and its' picket units in particular all but disintegrated entirely from the initial weight of the attack. Often times in just a minutes, as a turn represents. Likewise, the entrenched defenses at Sword Beach were decisively overrun (and their units destroyed) in maybe 45 minutes (the length of the average scenario), most of which in the span of a few minutes after the Commonwealth managed to ascend and flank the entrenched defenses.

Much of the problem with destroying a modern infantry squad (which is broadly what we're talking about) comes from actually getting a bead on its' people. If the enemy has brains, is using the cover appropriately, and is aware it's under threat that can and should take a while (and often does, I feel, even in SPWAW), though it can still be decided in a matter of minutes.

On the other hand if the enemy is exposed or otherwise unawares, if they've been suppressed and flanked in a battle of maneuver, that unit might be going from full to zero in seconds. And Which is something I'd be hard pressed to find in any Shrapnel game.

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
Infantry takes a lot casualties if the situation is static defender vs moving attacker

I want to take this aside and underline it, because this is still far rarer than it almost certainly should be in a Shrapnel game. I can have a full squad of infantry exposed on a trail walk right up to a machine gun and/or entrenched rifle support and frequently take nil or minimal casualties. even after full turns of having them just sit there and get shot at.

This isn't explainable by "the first guys got picked off but the others pulled back and took cover really well" like the war movies (and reality) have had. It is mind bogglingly dominant in my experiences.

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
but if both squads are "manoeuvring" the fire is simply too imprecise to get anything beyond a lucky kill.

Again, I think this can be true but isn't always. In particular, if a unit has been pinned and flanked that entire unit could be destroyed. Which is why fire and maneuver is such an important precept, and why maneuvering in and of itself was not a panacea. In Shrapnel it's of jarringly less use. It still gets you significantly more casualties on infantry than almost anything else, but it is almost not worth the risk of approaching a suppressed infantry unit with one of your own.

When you really get down to it, infantry is squishy. Very squishy. They are the backbone of battle and have been forever, but in the end cover, maneuver, entrenchment, and other protection are rather weak safeguards between yours squishy body and a bullet or shrapnel shell that can kill you without even recognizing you.

I would argue that leaning towards that squishiness is almost certainly more realistic than going the other way. Because then you have simulations of the First Day of the Somme or the average Japanese banzai attack that can survive withering fire on open ground well beyond what can be justified by the records. Infantry are not stupid and are not lemmings, but assuming they will be Super Cover Men is not a good balance decision unless you're pivoting your entire engine towards it.

[The Almighty Turtle]

I know this is long delayed, but something else i felt like mentioning that I forgot.

SPWAW actually allows you to set artillery values differently for both sides. The Shrapnel games require one uniform value for both. I can understand the merits of this, but I feel it is still a misstep.

It makes it all but impossible to try and simulate different quality of artillery fire for both sides. Let's say I want to play a game of China v. Japan, and I want to simulate how Chinese artillery left much to be desired (shoddy gear, concrete filled shells, etc) while I want to simulate the quality of Japanese artillery (from the superior equipment, training, quality ammo, etc).

Well, on a Shrapnel game I can't. Or at least not really. With one uniform value and simultaneous fire, it's either that everybody has concrete in their ammo or everybody has high quality gear, no ability to differentiate. SPWAW does.

I realize that it's vaguely possible to simply wait until one side's artillery has fired, set the values to the desired effect for the other, wait till they fire, and then set them back.

But in addition to be tedious and repetitive, this is no guarantee at best.

To give you an example of what this would mean, let me use the Battle of Tsushima as an example. I realize that SP is not a naval war game by any means, but I believe the principle works as well.

Both sides received very rigorous artillery training, but the the Russian shells were infamously bad with obsolete black powder of dubious quality (though not quite as bad as Chinese ones). In contrast, the Japanese had been trained even further than their Russian adversaries, had supplies in even better quality, and were using the terror of Shimose shells. Which were even more devastating than the mainstream shells.

It was a smashing Japanese victory, with the Japanese putting the Russians out of commission in very brutal and short order while the Russians were largely hapless to prevent it. Even when Russian gunnery told, it was nowhere near effective enough. The Japanese flagship was hit savagely at the start of battle, including right in the Command Bridge where Japanese CO Togo and the future-famous Yamamoto were.

But because of the poor quality of the shells, they failed to detonate or did not do much if they did at a time when if they did, they would have almost certainly killed Togo, Yamamoto, the command staff, and countless others while destroying the Japanese flagship.

If I wanted to replicate something like this in SPWAW, it's fairly simple. Determining a fair value for the Japanese and Russian shells, plugging them in for both sides, and doing it.

With Shrapnel Games, it's nowhere near the same. You'd have to determine a good value for the Russian and Japanese shells, and then figure out *how you are going to manage plugging them in and firing.* Because with only one value, everybody is using either Soggy and Decayed Black Powder or everybody is using Shimose shells. Meaning that if you put it for the former, it becomes a gum fight unlike history (or what would be productive to the average player on a schedule), while if you're using the latter the Russians would be able to get a lot of kills far easier than intended. And unlike SPWAW where you can time for the different sides' artillery landing at different times, the simultaneous resolution means you can't.

Again, the essentials cam be applied to plenty of other cases that SPWAW would actually cover on land. And this does nothing but limit what the player can do. And I think it is a weakness.

It is arguably fairer and more solid against cheating, especially in multiplayer. Especially when combined with the Shrapnel system of having the artillery of both sides slam in at the same time rather than separately for SPWAW.

But I think in the end of the day, looking for a solution to cheating in gameplay mechanics is problematic because Cheating Is A Human Defect. No amount of coding will prevent the basic problem of your opponent trying to take advantage of you, the game, and/or the AI. So you should look to Humans to resolve it, such as moderation. Because you will Never Be Able To Stop It Otherwise.

As a solitaire player, I can safely say that it does nothing but cause problems.

[BigDuke66]

Not sure what you exactly mean but in the Mobhack Editor I could simply raise or lower values for warhead size, HE Pentration, HE Kill etc. if I don't like the results.
Each country has it's OOB with units and in it slots with the weapons used, and these weapons of there own entry were I can set a lot things.
So if I what artillery from 2 different countries to have a very different effect I don't see a problem.

[The Almighty Turtle]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Not sure what you exactly mean but in the Mobhack Editor I could simply raise or lower values for warhead size, HE Pentration, HE Kill etc. if I don't like the results.

Saying it's not a problem because you can use Modhack Editor to fix it is a nonstarter. You can use the Modhack Editor to turn a 20th century combined arms SP into a game about rifled musket warfare in the 19th century. That doesn't matter when it comes to evaluating the base mechanics in the base game.

If you know how to use Modhack and what you want you can do almost everything, but most players are almost certainly Not going to have a mastery of Modhack that deep, are unlikely to want to bother with it even if it did.

And even if they did it would probably be A Lot Less Hassle to have faction-specific setting for those than to muck around in your weapon directory permanently. And thus affect the rest of your gameplay.

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66Each country has it's OOB with units and in it slots with the weapons used, and these weapons of there own entry were I can set a lot things.
So if I what artillery from 2 different countries to have a very different effect I don't see a problem.

I'm aware, but that is the problem. In addition to having unforseen problems on balance in the rest of the game.

A weapon in a given OOB fires one kind of ammunition in the same way. A Soviet 76mm Artillery gun is going to fire HE shot with the same effects whether it is watered down black powder or even concrete or it's a Shimose, it will come out of the same gun the same way.

Adjusting that value to accommodate for one or the other is going to adjust every other unit that uses that weapon in the slot (mostly of the same faction, but not always in custom scenarios).

Which means if a player suddenly wants to play with onetime house rules for a scenario, it's overkill and unhelpful. Compared to flipping the two side's artillery stats, playing, and flipping them back.

It's convenience, and frankly is probably a superior way to replicate such equipment/ammo differences. There's nothing innately less powerful in a Japanese artillery piece just because it was captured by Chinese troops and turned against its' users. It could still logically fire the same devastating (higher stated) ammo it would have under Japanese control.

It's just that it often didn't, or even if it did the crew *might* not have been trained to handle it.

Editing the weapon itself makes it hard and concrete one way or the other without altering the innate stats of the weapon. Having values that you can edit *or not* allows you more control over whether or not This Crew or This Artillery is poor, average, or even great. And it lets it be accessible in a way people who are not seasoned with Modhack can still work with.

[Zovs]

SPWAW actually allows you to set artillery values differently for both sides.

What exactly does this mean?

In Shrapnel's you can for OBA set specific gun tubes on/off. So for example if you have a OBA of 4x 105s you can turn tubes 1 and 3 off or on and same with 2 or 4 or all on or off. Or are you talking about the specific ammunition?

I don't quite understand what your meaning with artillery values for both sides.

[Major_Mess]

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

SPWAW actually allows you to set artillery values differently for both sides.

What exactly does this mean?

In Shrapnel's you can for OBA set specific gun tubes on/off. So for example if you have a OBA of 4x 105s you can turn tubes 1 and 3 off or on and same with 2 or 4 or all on or off. Or are you talking about the specific ammunition?

I don't quite understand what your meaning with artillery values for both sides.

I think that TAT is referring to the Artillery vs Soft Targets / Artillery vs Armor on the Preferences Screen.


HTH



MM

[The Almighty Turtle]

Pardon my delay. And I forgot to say that I hope you've all had good THanksgivings.

And yes, the Artillery v. Soft/Armor preferences were what I was referring to. Thank you Major Mess.

That allows you far more leeway and I believe accuracy in simulating the effects I mentioned than what Shrapnel has to offer.

[JEB Davis]

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

SPWAW actually allows you to set artillery values differently for both sides.

What exactly does this mean?

In Shrapnel's you can for OBA set specific gun tubes on/off. So for example if you have a OBA of 4x 105s you can turn tubes 1 and 3 off or on and same with 2 or 4 or all on or off. Or are you talking about the specific ammunition?

I don't quite understand what your meaning with artillery values for both sides.

I just wanted to clarify 2 things in this thread for the record:

1. The screen resolution is 800 x 600 rather than 640 x 400.

2. For OBA in SPWAW, you can turn off any 1, 2, 3, or 4 tubes of a battery just the same as you mention, so no advantage for Shrapnel there. You can turn off any given weapon (or all of them) in any unit in SPWAW.