Draws/Point Totals

[WhiteRook]

I really do have to chime in and say that it is really all about the learning curve in the game. I have found through all my personal years of wargaming experiance, that just because a few games may seem simular and use much the same units, the games still play inherintly differant! Which is a good thing in my book as if all the game I thought sounded good - all played alike, I would feel ripped off big time!
Speaking as a scenario designer for just about every version of SP I can say that balancing out the VP totals is one if not the most cruical aspect of the secnario's design. I have to think the longest and hardest on this point and more often than not having to go back and tweak settings more times than I had thought would be called for. Just to ensure that the means justify the end results don't ya know!
Again speaking from personal experiance, and not snobby as another poster stated also, when playing the A.I. a draw is usualy the result of not using your forces in some tacticaly proper way. Its really that simple, if the scenario is balanced correctly I must add.
I have noticed that most of the posts to your original question have been very friendly and have been trying to get the point across that its all about the learning curve. Please take what they say as meant in good sprits, because they are.
I personaly do not play against other humans as I totaly blow as a H2H player, why I am not sure but have learned to accept the fact. Plus I have this thing about beating a machine no matter what the A.I.'s scope and breadth. :rolleyes:
as an aside, seeing as Jess and Hawk have not chimed in yet, we still know that all Kat drivers are still Sissy's!

[rbrunsman]

WhiteRook, good points and thanks for carrying the Banner for Jess and Hawk. It's just not the same picking on M4s if someone isn't there to call us Katz drivers Sissies.

[Kirk]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I already know I'm not an expert at this game yet. That is not the issue. As a newbie I expect to lose until I've taken the time to learn the nuances of the game. Problem is, I don't lose or win. I just feel the range (from 1-3 to 3-1) for draws is too great. I get the feeling people think I'm complaining about not winning enough, but that's not it at all. I just feel a draw represents no clear victor in a battle. In SP that point range just seems too vast to me and completely different from any of the dozens of wargames I've played in my life. Apparently I'm the only person on the planet that feels this way so I guess I'll just shut up. Sorry to have wasted everyones time. I'll just crawl back into my hole now.

[radboy223]

SPWAW is not just another of the many games out there that are supposedly about war but are really about just playing a fancier version of "Monopoly or Battleship or something"; It's a game that attempts to come somewhere close to simulating how a real-life battle works(while still being fun to play for those of us who are interested in such things as real wars). "I just feel a draw represents no clear victor in a battle." That's exactly the point, there was often no clear winner in actual battles.

[Wild Bill]

Don't go anywhere, Kirk!

Let me speak first. I've designed over 1,000 scenarios for all the versions of Steel Panthers and had a lot to do with a lot of projects for the game since the very beginning with SSI in 1993. My gosh! That was 10 years ago! And SP is still alive and well!

Don't be too harsh on yourself because of the draws. Don't be too harsh on the game either.

If there is a finger of blame to be pointed, it might (I SAID "MIGHT") be blamed at some scenario designers. I've reviewed more scenarios from others than I can remember and one flaw that many designers have is making it nearly impossible to win.

I think the guys who worked with me on Mega Campaign Watchtower remember my haggling and reminding them of how important it was to make each battle winnable.

Now those who have done such a thing (made a scenario victory declaration out of reach )meant well when they do this. But it does not eas the frustration of the player.

Now we are into the subject of scenario balance, the key to winning.

Balance not only comes from the choice of forces, the ground on which they do battle, or the skills of the player, but how the objectives are figured.

The scenario designer must figure out a way by juggling objectives and points to assure that a major or decisive victory is possible. He can ONLY do this by testing and re-testing the scenario. Then and ONLY then can he be really sure that it is indeed possible. Now this requires time, patience and some skill mixed with experience.

He may not always get it right but it should be in the ball park. Now if the designer does intentionally set up a scenario so that a win is not possible, he should advise the player of that fact in the intro text. To not do so is quite unfair to the player.

If he is aware of that fact and still chooses to play, then accept the consequences.

Finally, don't let the computer tell you how well you have done. You should have yourself a gut feeling of how well you've done.

IF...

1. You have taken the objectives
2. Kicked the enemy's butt soundly
3. Kept your losses to a reasonable minimum

THEN

You have resounding triumph, Kirk. Pat yourself on the back. You don't need a computer to tell that you have really won. You know it.

So don't allow the computer's bland resume, "draw" upset you. Evaluate your skills as a commander and if in your heart you know you did well, who cares what it says!

You are a winner and you can be proud of it.

Wild Bill

[Goblin]

Too true, WB! Some of my favorite scenarios, as you know, are not the tough ones, but the ones where you get to flatten the bad guys but good!

That said, I love a challenge now and again, and have had the 'DRAW' demon emerge when I thought I did quite well, and the score indicated I had(2 to 1 is pretty darn good IMO). I hated it too, but was still pleased with my performance. I refought quite a few, and even with the knowledge of my enemies setup and routes from my previous try, was not able to improve them all that much. I then just ignore the stupid score-screen's label, and just 'know' I kicked butt.

Hang in there Kirk! Try Wittman's Gamble and Wittman's Return! Very enjoyable, and excellent morale boosters!;)

Goblin

[Orzel Bialy]

you are getting some d@mn fine advice from a true master of the trade.

As for "shutting up"....NEVER do that! (unless you're unfairly bashing other members that is...lol ) This forum has some of the best people around and many an answer or advice can be gathered from the vast pool of knowledge that resides here.

Perhaps your point was misunderstood by some...but don't take anything in an overly negative manner. Anyway, take Bill's advice to heart...like I said, his points can't be improved upon!

[Wild Bill]

Thanks Orzel and Goblin, two very proficient SPWAW aficionados!

Let me reiterate as they have done, you are the real final vote in how well you did.

Just don't let a computer score spoil your day! And don't feel intimidated around here. We are good guys, Kirk, we just are quite zealous about what we believe in...WB

[Buzzard45]

Kirk
I have had this same discussion in the past and I tend to agree with you. If its a win call it a win. The points are there. Its easy to see who has won. The World Cup keeps score and calls a win a win but the official results are almost always draws. Looking at that it doesn't make sense to call a victory a draw. IRL, If you have taken the the objective is it a win? If it costs too much in men and equipment to gain that win is it then a win? That is what I think the game is saying when it calls a 3 to 1 victory a marginal victory or a minor victory. To me that is huge. If I did that in "Sorry" or Monopoly it would be huge. In this game?.... If you play for the historical aspect then it may well take a ten to one to get a Victory. Look at Afganistan or Iraq.

But if you are playing the game for a better version of a chess match then.... Its easy. When the King is dead all you can say is.... "Long Live the KIng". I now only look at a the points score. The definition of the victory is immaterial. In WC03, you need only play well enough to win. In my mind that is one point. There are no draws. Play that way if you like.

Play for your own reasons. That is part of the beauty and depth of this game. It is what you want it to be. If you want to be the designer, its there. If you want to play solitare, its there. If you want to play H2H or as teams or on-line live or purely to get the details of history correct as best as humanly possible, that too is there. The more you become involved with the game you discover, and part of its addiction is, the layers that it has There seems to be always one more to discover and just when you think that you have reached the centre core, you discover that someone has added a whole new bulb to you onion and you have a new set of layers to discover. I have yet to see Wild Bill's name in the AAR/DAR but you know that he is well in tune with what is happening and evolving in the game. Me?...I just play. Play for fun.......always.

BTW Welcome to the Forums.

[Kirk]

Thanks for all the responses guys. As was previously mentioned more than once, I guess my way of looking at things will be purely based on the point totals from now on. I fully agree that it's a great game. I've been playing it since SP first came out in its original form quite a number of years ago. I call myself a newbie because I've never quite gotten into it at the depth of many others. I'll play a scenario against the computer now and again, but that's been about it. I'd really like to try playing against someone online, but I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how. I play other games H2H online, but from what I understand this game is better as a PBEM game. Anybody know of a SPWaW "looking for opponents" list? It would be fun to see how this game plays against another human being. I know every other computer game I've ever played has always improved tremendously when I played against a live person.

[Jim1954]

Kirk, the mechanics for playing pbem are really pretty straightforward and not difficult at all. The hard part comes in when you actually have to out think the live human being on the other end. My first attempt ended last night with an F9, but I'm going back for more if my opponent didn't tire of killing off my troops. Ouch!

Look a couple of forums down and you will see one for opponents wanted. There are some VERY good players in there and while they may kick your a$$ royally, they do it with dignity and politeness. Gotta go back for more, it's the only way to learn and improve.

[Buzzard45]

Originally posted by Kirk
I play other games H2H online, but from what I understand this game is better as a PBEM game. Anybody know of a SPWaW "looking for opponents" list?

Try the drop down box at the bottom of the page or back up one level in this forum. Click on Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns at the top of the page. Opponents wanted is in the menu.

[Martin Sabre]

Originally posted by Kirk
The first sentence in that statement is completely ludicrous. Are you saying Panzerblitz or Squad Leader aren't good games? They're classics for crying out loud. Heck, all SP is is a computer version of Squad Leader. I dare say many of the games I've played are even better (I can hear people gasping) than SPWaW. At least every time I play one of those games I know who won.

IMHO SPWaW is in no way just a PC version of SL/ASL, I have played both SL and ASL for over 10 years. Yes, there are similarities between the systems and both are excellent in their own rights, but there are things present in the one system tthat are absent in the other, such as in SPWaW German Fallschirmjager are not penalised too much on the turn of landing whereas in ASL they are, to represent the fact their weapons were dropped in containers and had to be retrieved before the squad was really capable of offensive action.

[Kirk]

I've never played ASL, but I've spent 25 years playing SL, CoI, CoD, and GIAoV (Squad Leader players will know what those are). The reason I stumbled on SP a bunch of years ago was because I wanted a computer version of those games. Obviously SP is FAR more detailed than any board game could ever be, and it is not a direct copy, but I get the same "feeling" when playing the two games. I just love all the detail. Strategically and tactically you're addressing the same issues in both games. I actually think Squad Leader is superior to SP in a couple respects. Rules like you mentioned, plus MG penetration, etc. I think are things that should be added to SP. Also, I used to really like the fact that in SL you could have guys that were heroes that would charge that tank and disable it (berserk Russians). Granted it was extremely rare, but there was still that chance. I've never seen an act like that by a lone squad leader in SP yet.

I remember many years ago thinking how great it would be if someone could take advantage of the power of the computer to create a really detailed version of Squad Leader. Well, with the invention of SP six or seven years ago we now have it.

[Jim1954]

Kirk, keep your eyes on the Combat Leader Forum, the next "level" if you will, of this type of game. From all that I have gathered, it will be a big leap up the ladder and may have some of those things that you miss.

Someday, whenever it gets finished.

[Wild Bill]

ASL is ASL. Its unique. First of all, it is a board game. We are talking computer games which in themselves offer us a different approach to gaming. They do a lot of the homework and guesswork for us.

I do think that SPWAW bears a strong resemblance to ASL, though it is not quite the same. So do also the Squad Battle Series by HPS. In fact, in appearance, these games "look" more like ASL than SP.

But currently no computer game (I've not tried VASL - "Virtual Advanced Squad Leader...I can't get the program to load.) is ASL exactly.

Frank Harmon has been able to convert many ASL maps to a close similiarity in Squad Battles and is even converting a series of scenarios to that format, using "Eagles Strike" as the basis for them.

I loved SL and ASL. I played them incessantly, solitaire mostly.

But I confess, having the computer doing a lot of the calculations that interrupted the flow of play in ASL is a great bonus.

Wild Bill

[rickh]

I know what you mean about getting discouraged with draws. That's probably what's keeping me from buying a mega-campaign; I keep getting draws
/ marginal results in the first scenario or two of the OEM" campains:( :rolleyes:
I do notice, as others have pointed out, the more you practice, think and devote time, the better you get:D

[Wild Bill]

I can tell you that you can achieve some decisive victories in Watchtower and Desert Fox. Those who have played them can attest to that. There are varying degrees of difficulty in both Mega Campaigns, but I purposely set out to offer the player the opportunity to kick some butt and come out a hero.

So don't let that anxiety keep you from trying one of these. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.

I can't speak for Lost Victories. That is Brent's baby. But I do know for a fact that many of the battles in Mega Campaigns Desert Fox and Watchtower can be won, and without the expertise of a few folks who seem to be magicians in battle.

I hope you will give one of them a try.

Wild Bill

[Jim1954]

Yes Bill, I can win some, actually doing better in MCNA than I did in MCLV, but I still hate MINES!!!!!

[Wild Bill]

Not my fault this time, Big Jim

As you know, Rommel loved mines! So did the Brits. The desert of North Africa took a long time to be cleared of mines. They were planted by the thousands in those parched and rocky desert wastes.

So, I'll use that for an excuse this time, but don't press me too much , or I'll have to admit that mines are indeed the devil's tool.

Wild Bill