Historical Accuracy vs Playability
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Preferences can indeed change the course of the battle, but the question arises, if I make "supermen" and "supertanks" of the outclassed side, would that be historical?
I think Steeler has a good point. Even a hypothetical battle should have some basis. If units are introduced that had no possibility at all of being in the battle, then that is hypothetical to an extreme.
Wild Bill
I think Steeler has a good point. Even a hypothetical battle should have some basis. If units are introduced that had no possibility at all of being in the battle, then that is hypothetical to an extreme.
Wild Bill
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Independent Game Consultant
Bernie, I think you just have too many choices with 10 options. Perhaps 5 would give better clarity of opinion. I'm in the middle somewhere. If I wanted ahistorical/inaccurate stuff, I'd be playing some realtime space shoot 'em up crap. I love that the physics are so well modelled in SPWAW. But, I don't think, as it's been said before, that it would be fun to play against the US and get pounded by arty and airstrikes until the infantry can just walk up and count bodies. That's boring, but probably historic in many cases.
I like the "chess-like" aspect of SPWAW. I want to agonize over every move I make. The fog-of-war presented in SPWAW makes decision making that much more excrusiatingly fun. I don't mind putting up the best fight possible in a pre-designed losing battle, but for the most part, I want to know that, given equal buying power, the best player will win (luck excepted).
I like the "chess-like" aspect of SPWAW. I want to agonize over every move I make. The fog-of-war presented in SPWAW makes decision making that much more excrusiatingly fun. I don't mind putting up the best fight possible in a pre-designed losing battle, but for the most part, I want to know that, given equal buying power, the best player will win (luck excepted).
Everyone is a potential [PBEM] enemy, every place a potential [PBEM] battlefield. --Zensunni Wisdom
NaKATPase wrote: Elaborate and arcane game mechanics can end up being unplayable AND not accurate, while sometimes relatively simple mechanics can help give a more accurate picture of what a particular command was like for those involved. .
Yo NaKATPase,
I totally agree with you. I realize what I am about to say will brand me a heathen, but your example of Elaborate game mechanics that ended up not being accurate, brings to mind for me Norm Kroger's Operational Art of War.
I know Norm is a great wargame designer, and for me the first OAoW was eagerly awaited when it was in development: political factors, slowed by refugees on the road, Realistic Morale Checks influenced greatly by other areas of the battle, etc. What amazing concepts to include in a wargame, methinks at the time.
But alas, my playing experience indicated there were too many dice rolls and too many improbables. Someone on here, forgive me for forgetting who, has for a sig a quote from Tom Clancy about Fiction has to make sense when truth often doesn't....but in the first OAOW I had such constant weird results I ended up losing interest in the game. I remember Mr. Kroger was very generous to elaborate in quite detail about all the intricacies of the game mechanics to account for so many different situations, but still I felt lost as to why consistently a full strength US tank regiment was chased from one end of the map to another by an undersize NK infantry company with low morale which proceded to wipe the Yanks off the map!
I realize on this board people will comment about the SPWAW "dumb luck" and the occasional sniper taking out a T34, but to me those are occasional factors which I chalk up to the oddities of war.
In my experience with OAoW, however, even in scenarios I or others designed, I couldn't shake the consistently odd outcomes.
Ok, I just criticized a "classic" and I am due to be roasted over a great fire.
But it is one reason why I have always stuck with SP and its different variations especially SPWAW. Sure the roll of the dice is still unpredictable but at least more depends on tactical skill then plain luck, which makes it an enjoyable game for me.
BEST WISHES,
STEELER
STEELER
-
Belisarius
- Posts: 3099
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
- Contact:
Hmm... as accurate as possible... IF and oh, just IF there'd be a decent way of creating historically correct balanced forces for PBEM!
"rarity" doesn't work with SP:WAW since it'll leave you out of MG's way too soon and thus the HTs that the MGs are supposed to be mounted on are out of supply as well....as we all know. :p Also, I want to use more C&C on, even if it's flawed in player-vs-player, since it'll give a better feel of command after all. :p
However, in the end I want as much realism as I can take, and that's why I can't wait for Combat Leader.
"rarity" doesn't work with SP:WAW since it'll leave you out of MG's way too soon and thus the HTs that the MGs are supposed to be mounted on are out of supply as well....as we all know.
:p Also, I want to use more C&C on, even if it's flawed in player-vs-player, since it'll give a better feel of command after all. :p However, in the end I want as much realism as I can take, and that's why I can't wait for Combat Leader.
Got StuG?
WIld Bill; Agreed on the preferences , ofcourse. I dont think anyone here would like to see SPWaW turn into Command & Conquer. I just have a feeling this poll points somewhat to ongoing discussions on the accuracy and historical correctness of the OOB's. (Correct me if I am wrong Bernie)
Looking at myyself for a moment, I don't have either the knowledge nor the skills to mess with the oob's, however the preferences do give me, as a player, some choices as what happens on the battlefield, while the OOB's leave that choice to a large extent with the programmers.
Come to think of it, it is the open design of the SP series that allows users of various skill levels to change data very easily, while at the same time we can enjoy the fruits of the hard work of scenario designers such as yourself. I for one have yet to find another game with such an open structure. You can go anyway you wish as a player in this game, if you don't like something the way it is delivered by the programmers, change it yourself, either in minute detail in the OOB's, or in broad sweeping terms using the preferences.
Looking at myyself for a moment, I don't have either the knowledge nor the skills to mess with the oob's, however the preferences do give me, as a player, some choices as what happens on the battlefield, while the OOB's leave that choice to a large extent with the programmers.
Come to think of it, it is the open design of the SP series that allows users of various skill levels to change data very easily, while at the same time we can enjoy the fruits of the hard work of scenario designers such as yourself. I for one have yet to find another game with such an open structure. You can go anyway you wish as a player in this game, if you don't like something the way it is delivered by the programmers, change it yourself, either in minute detail in the OOB's, or in broad sweeping terms using the preferences.
NaKATPase wrote:I disagree entirely with the unstated premise of this poll, which seems to be that accuracy and playability are two ends of the same spectrum. This is not true.
If it's unstated how can you disagree with it?
In any case, since it may not be perfectly clear, the purpose of the poll was to find out which was more popular, a recreation of a historical battle, as accurately as possible, or just a battle in general (computer generated) using WWII era forces & equipment.
For example, I'm running a 15 game WWII campaign of Japan (me) vs Belgium (AI). Not exactly a historical setup by any means, but fun and interesting nevertheless. I'm no military historian, and while I appreciate a good recreation of a pivitol battle as an intellectual excercise, I have just as much fun with SP:WaW playing "what if" setups. I simply wanted to know what the rest of you prefer, without going into the merits of the various preferences. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers to the poll, or to the choices, because they are all personal choices of entertainment.
What, me worry?
Actually, there were a few other things besides those discussions that prompted me to post this poll. Some of them were:Rhodan wrote:WIld Bill; Agreed on the preferences , ofcourse. I dont think anyone here would like to see SPWaW turn into Command & Conquer. I just have a feeling this poll points somewhat to ongoing discussions on the accuracy and historical correctness of the OOB's. (Correct me if I am wrong Bernie)
Wild Bill's excellent article on Wargamer (previously mentioned)
My current "what if" campaign of Japan vs Belgium (also previously mentioned)
3+ months of reviewing articles for the new MC, and seeing how widely descriptions of certain battles can vary, depending on the source, leading to the question of, "Just what is 'historical accuracy'? Historically accurate to whose version of history?"
Discussions that have taken place in the forums in the past over things like unconventional uses for units (like MC units as fast scouts/raiding parties)
6 cups of coffee (starting at 1AM after I got home from work) that were supposed to have been decaf so I could get to sleep before 7AM...but weren't.
The widespread use of ad-hoc "rules" in PBEM games (no infiltrators, 10% arty, etc.) which seem to point towards players just wanting to play a grown-up version of "Army men" (Forgive me for that one, but it's 6AM, I just worked a 16 hour day and have to leave for work again in an hour. My brain isn't functioning well enough to come up with a better way to describe a non-historical PBEM game)
The OOB team(s) never-ending quest for the ultimate, perfect, set of OOB's that address all the issues, right down to what color underwear the tank crews are changing after the 88 shell passes through the hull without going off. (I'm not trying to trivialize the teams laudable goal of giving us a OOB set we all can live with, and the hours and hours of research and discussion that entails. But at what point do you all feel the line should be drawn in the name of historical accuracy?)
M4Jess' concerns over releasing a scenario involving the German death camps, and what that says for the whole "history" vs "play" debate. (Which is more important, history or playability, if a designer has second thoughts about including certain historical facts in a scenario?)
A desire to get the forums moving again, since it got too darn dull around here with so many of the frequent posters working on MCSE.
Oh, and I couldn't think of a really funny "Top Ten" to do that night.
(Reply delayed 8 hours by technical issues)
What, me worry?
That would be decidedly brown.Bernie wrote:
The OOB team(s) never-ending quest for the ultimate, perfect, set of OOB's that address all the issues, right down to what color underwear the tank crews are changing after the 88 shell passes through the hull without going off.
There was a good point brought up, that rules don't necessarily make for accuracy, and some rule-sets make it difficult to simulate other aspects.
Example of rules not making accuracy: There was a particular tabletop RPG that was of the person-vs-person variety. Instead of writing a very complex set of rules for jet vs. helo combat, they simply put down that "the jets win. Period." That's one simple rule that--pardon the pun--as a rule, is quite accurate, whereas having a sourcebook just on jets vs. helo's which would result in 9 times out of 10 the same result is just silly.
Example of some rules hampering others: Garvis Narcia (??) brought this one up--why doesn't flak, especially 88's and the like, effect level bombers? The (an?) answer is that it's just outside the scope of the game. Kinda' like why you can't shoot blindly through smoke, or blindly past your visibility even though there's no object blocking the way. To allow that would be to introduce another set of rules that would add a little but also perhaps complicate other issues immensely.
Irinami wrote:Example of some rules hampering others: Garvis Narcia (??) brought this one up--why doesn't flak, especially 88's and the like, effect level bombers? The (an?) answer is that it's just outside the scope of the game. Kinda' like why you can't shoot blindly through smoke, or blindly past your visibility even though there's no object blocking the way. To allow that would be to introduce another set of rules that would add a little but also perhaps complicate other issues immensely.
Can you say that flak doesn't affect level bombers at all? How do we know? Look at how inaccurate level bombing can be, could that not be caused by flak? Have you ever counted the bombs to be sure all planes dropped their loads, and none were shot down? Yes, I know I'm reaching here, but I tend not to take things as "facts" until I know they are facts.
As for the firing aspects of your post, I agree it would be nice to fire blindly through smoke, but what would your chances be of actually hitting anything, given that each hex is 50 meters across? It's hard enough to hit things you can actually see, and "Z" fire is only minimally effective when you can see the hex but not the unit. I think your hit chances would be around 1 or 2%, making it not worth the ammo expenditure (IMHO).
What, me worry?
I answered #1 (historical, all else be damned ), for the many reasons already stated above, but with a caveat.
Like a wiser fella said earlier in the post, I feel “imbalance” could be remedied with the Preferences tool, but not by tweaking the quality of troops/armor. I think there should be a feature (other than Assault/Defend) that would enable a setup for differing points for each side. For example, if you want to play a “historical” battle, equal points should be able to replicate that if the OOBs/mechanics are as close to historically accurate as possible. If you’re trounced at that level, then adjust the starting/purchase points higher for the historically weaker side. Yes, that’d open the door for another “how much is the right amount to add for balance” debate, but that way you could have the historical accuracy, and an idea of how much you’d have to tweak one side (or how much better your tactics would have to be) to achieve a victory (or draw).
Just my two cents.
), for the many reasons already stated above, but with a caveat. Like a wiser fella said earlier in the post, I feel “imbalance” could be remedied with the Preferences tool, but not by tweaking the quality of troops/armor. I think there should be a feature (other than Assault/Defend) that would enable a setup for differing points for each side. For example, if you want to play a “historical” battle, equal points should be able to replicate that if the OOBs/mechanics are as close to historically accurate as possible. If you’re trounced at that level, then adjust the starting/purchase points higher for the historically weaker side. Yes, that’d open the door for another “how much is the right amount to add for balance” debate, but that way you could have the historical accuracy, and an idea of how much you’d have to tweak one side (or how much better your tactics would have to be) to achieve a victory (or draw).
Just my two cents.
To talk of a game being historical can mean many things to many different people. Some folks think is means perfect OOB's , Other correct force ratios , others what actual units were present.
To me the most outstanding historical faults in this game is the reluctance to admit to the vast differences in National tactics and the rairity of armor on the battlefield.
Someone a little up this thread made mention of a single M4 v 5 Tigers .. The simple truth is the main AT weapon on the M4 is a radio connected to a cab rank of P-47's and a Bn of 155 arty. All the M4 has to do is stay out of line of sight. Somebody else mentioned King Tigers at Normandy .. there were 4 King Tigers at Normandy .. but the Allies didn't know that until a long time after the Battle .. seems they all broke down before they got to the battle and the Allies never even saw one until September. Vechicles have a know, quantifable MTB ( mean time between breakdowns). But breakdowns give only slight aknowledgement to this , none to restrictive terrain based on Ground Pressure other than wheeled or tracked, even 4x4 v 2x4 is pretty much ignored.
To me, Historical means a Country should at least have the ability to use the basic fundamental tactics that they used in the war, or at least tried to use. Factors outside the scope of this game occasionally prevented every country from implmenting their national Doctrine, but more often than not General Commands worked very hard to shape the battle , pick the place , prepare the logistics so that some level of National Doctrine was implemented.
These National Doctrines are totally absent from SPWAW. If one was to believe this game Tanks are present at every battle for the Germans , and the US never used any more artillery than any other nation. Somebody eariler in this thread laments that they often win as the Germans only to be told "thats nice good job , but the Germans lost anyway" .. Simple fact is the US ( for example) lost less troops in ground Combat from Normandy to the Elbe in 1944-45 than the Germans ( for example) Lost in May and June 1940 from the Rhine to Paris.
Game Historically speaking it should be at least possible to implement tactics that can result in such results , obviously The US was capable of shaping the battle often enough to use thier tactics at least on occasion. The German national tactics of Massed High Quality Armor meant that they had 85% of thier Military comprised of Horse drawn wagons supporting divisions of foot Infantry with no armor and very few motorized vechicles relying on Horse drawn AT guns for AT support , but deployed in depth ( that is very hard to model within the game map and Victory hex construct).
I don't expect folks who know what they know about WW2, soley from playing this game to understand what I am talking about, But the basic Historical inaccuracies come from such issues as all terrain being more or less passable to all armor and tanks in every battle and everybody having trucks and halftracks. the Flaw in the Games rarity ratings is that rarity is not absolute across all armies , but relative within a Nation. Tactics are of no consequence what so ever the minute you cram 10,000 points on a 80 hex frontage 50 hexes deep ( half a map deep) . Actual ratios of combat troops are tightly restricted usually to a even on even points . The funniest thing I have heard was the complaint earlier in this thread about masses of Jeeps and scout cars swarming the Battlefield , if we are talking about a meeting engagement , about all you should, in reality, have is scout elements . Masses of scouts agressivly combing the route of advance backed by air and massive artillery is the most likely situation for some countries ( US in Particular) , But hardly an Nation would run Main Force Armor/ Mech Infantry blindly into unreconiotered terrain.
All this being said about the limits of the game , the players have to accept thier own responsibilites ( the poll notwithstanding) for this game beiong so inaccurate.. players pick the forces , they overload the map with units , always include armor , exclude arty and air , make no attempt to execute or even learn national tactics ) preferring the sholder to sholder unit placement, and have no idea as to what are appropiate casuality rates are. Just as a "For Example" In Sept 39 the Germans invaded Poland , the Germans lost 14,000 dead taking Poland in that one Month , The US only Lost 80,000 dead in Ground Combat in the Whole ETO inculding North Africa and Italy as well as Germany, US Lost More in the Air from Aircraft Losses over Germany than they did on the Ground.
I would not want to lose the "unusual events" like a sniper taking out a T-34, but I sure do wish the Usual events were possible in the game. So long as the game does not allow for the possibility of the ordinary results in the ETO that were obtained by the US tactics of Aircraft Spotters ( aprox 1 per maneuver BN ) directing timely Artillery on targets and overwhleming air superiority neutralizing any armor in daylight , it is moot to even discuss "Historical" gaming. You might as well just make this game about a single M4 v a Single Tiger tank and think is somehow represents something Historical.
To me the most outstanding historical faults in this game is the reluctance to admit to the vast differences in National tactics and the rairity of armor on the battlefield.
Someone a little up this thread made mention of a single M4 v 5 Tigers .. The simple truth is the main AT weapon on the M4 is a radio connected to a cab rank of P-47's and a Bn of 155 arty. All the M4 has to do is stay out of line of sight. Somebody else mentioned King Tigers at Normandy .. there were 4 King Tigers at Normandy .. but the Allies didn't know that until a long time after the Battle .. seems they all broke down before they got to the battle and the Allies never even saw one until September. Vechicles have a know, quantifable MTB ( mean time between breakdowns). But breakdowns give only slight aknowledgement to this , none to restrictive terrain based on Ground Pressure other than wheeled or tracked, even 4x4 v 2x4 is pretty much ignored.
To me, Historical means a Country should at least have the ability to use the basic fundamental tactics that they used in the war, or at least tried to use. Factors outside the scope of this game occasionally prevented every country from implmenting their national Doctrine, but more often than not General Commands worked very hard to shape the battle , pick the place , prepare the logistics so that some level of National Doctrine was implemented.
These National Doctrines are totally absent from SPWAW. If one was to believe this game Tanks are present at every battle for the Germans , and the US never used any more artillery than any other nation. Somebody eariler in this thread laments that they often win as the Germans only to be told "thats nice good job , but the Germans lost anyway" .. Simple fact is the US ( for example) lost less troops in ground Combat from Normandy to the Elbe in 1944-45 than the Germans ( for example) Lost in May and June 1940 from the Rhine to Paris.
Game Historically speaking it should be at least possible to implement tactics that can result in such results , obviously The US was capable of shaping the battle often enough to use thier tactics at least on occasion. The German national tactics of Massed High Quality Armor meant that they had 85% of thier Military comprised of Horse drawn wagons supporting divisions of foot Infantry with no armor and very few motorized vechicles relying on Horse drawn AT guns for AT support , but deployed in depth ( that is very hard to model within the game map and Victory hex construct).
I don't expect folks who know what they know about WW2, soley from playing this game to understand what I am talking about, But the basic Historical inaccuracies come from such issues as all terrain being more or less passable to all armor and tanks in every battle and everybody having trucks and halftracks. the Flaw in the Games rarity ratings is that rarity is not absolute across all armies , but relative within a Nation. Tactics are of no consequence what so ever the minute you cram 10,000 points on a 80 hex frontage 50 hexes deep ( half a map deep) . Actual ratios of combat troops are tightly restricted usually to a even on even points . The funniest thing I have heard was the complaint earlier in this thread about masses of Jeeps and scout cars swarming the Battlefield , if we are talking about a meeting engagement , about all you should, in reality, have is scout elements . Masses of scouts agressivly combing the route of advance backed by air and massive artillery is the most likely situation for some countries ( US in Particular) , But hardly an Nation would run Main Force Armor/ Mech Infantry blindly into unreconiotered terrain.
All this being said about the limits of the game , the players have to accept thier own responsibilites ( the poll notwithstanding) for this game beiong so inaccurate.. players pick the forces , they overload the map with units , always include armor , exclude arty and air , make no attempt to execute or even learn national tactics ) preferring the sholder to sholder unit placement, and have no idea as to what are appropiate casuality rates are. Just as a "For Example" In Sept 39 the Germans invaded Poland , the Germans lost 14,000 dead taking Poland in that one Month , The US only Lost 80,000 dead in Ground Combat in the Whole ETO inculding North Africa and Italy as well as Germany, US Lost More in the Air from Aircraft Losses over Germany than they did on the Ground.
I would not want to lose the "unusual events" like a sniper taking out a T-34, but I sure do wish the Usual events were possible in the game. So long as the game does not allow for the possibility of the ordinary results in the ETO that were obtained by the US tactics of Aircraft Spotters ( aprox 1 per maneuver BN ) directing timely Artillery on targets and overwhleming air superiority neutralizing any armor in daylight , it is moot to even discuss "Historical" gaming. You might as well just make this game about a single M4 v a Single Tiger tank and think is somehow represents something Historical.
"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
Very good post Ammo.
I have a few questions for you with regard to what you wrote.
The force composition issue that you equate with "historical accuracy" is determined in the purchase/deploy phase of the game, and is player-dependent is it not?
I don't have the depth of knowledge you possess with regard to the historical force composition, but if the game manufactorers/designers get the OOBs right, then it's up to the player to make a "realistic engagement", correct?
To that end, I think we're talking about historically correct OOBs. Once we have that, we could then ask experts on the actual battles for historically accurate force compositions, then go from there. My idea about having "custom points for each side & as-close-to-perfect-as-possible OOBs" would then enable us to (should we so choose and with the help of those familiar with those battles) actually set up the "historically accurate" engagements, should the two opponents choose to do so, yes?
I'd love to play one you designed once they'd developed a "most accurate" version, with limits as you've discussed. For example, unlimited Air sorties for US and unlimited Artillery. Less in terms of Armor composition for the US, and the Germans with more armor, less HTs and more horse-drawn transport assets.
I guess my point (and forgive the rambling please) is that if we have a super-accurate game model (with respect to the OOBs and movement/balistic physics i.e. penetration angles and 2 vs. 4wd), then the historical recreation is simply a function of force composition IMO. And that's largely up to the participants. But having the tools to do so would be a big plus as far as I'm concerned. And I think they designers (God bless 'em) have done an excellent job so far, with only a few tweaks to go. Your thoughts?
I have a few questions for you with regard to what you wrote.
The force composition issue that you equate with "historical accuracy" is determined in the purchase/deploy phase of the game, and is player-dependent is it not?
I don't have the depth of knowledge you possess with regard to the historical force composition, but if the game manufactorers/designers get the OOBs right, then it's up to the player to make a "realistic engagement", correct?
To that end, I think we're talking about historically correct OOBs. Once we have that, we could then ask experts on the actual battles for historically accurate force compositions, then go from there. My idea about having "custom points for each side & as-close-to-perfect-as-possible OOBs" would then enable us to (should we so choose and with the help of those familiar with those battles) actually set up the "historically accurate" engagements, should the two opponents choose to do so, yes?
I'd love to play one you designed once they'd developed a "most accurate" version, with limits as you've discussed. For example, unlimited Air sorties for US and unlimited Artillery. Less in terms of Armor composition for the US, and the Germans with more armor, less HTs and more horse-drawn transport assets.
I guess my point (and forgive the rambling please) is that if we have a super-accurate game model (with respect to the OOBs and movement/balistic physics i.e. penetration angles and 2 vs. 4wd), then the historical recreation is simply a function of force composition IMO. And that's largely up to the participants. But having the tools to do so would be a big plus as far as I'm concerned. And I think they designers (God bless 'em) have done an excellent job so far, with only a few tweaks to go. Your thoughts?
Val .... Not sure , but it sounds like you missed my point..
IMHO critical to any kind of Historical play is some modeling of troops on the ground in relationship to the amount of ground in play .. and 80 hex front would be about a Bn of Infantry but that Bn of Infantry would be deployed about 200 hexes deep, about 6 miles deep. The Attacker would be using about 3 Bn's with 1 Bn being in the front rank and that Bn would NOT be Armor. It would be recon and mounted Infantry .
In the German Army , under the doctrine that we call blitzkrieg, The Armor was an exploitation force , if the Armor became the force doing the immediate breakthru , the the defenders had already won, Because there wasn't any mobile force left to expolit the breakthru .. in the German Army, the Armor engaged the responding hole pluging/ counterattacking reserves , or even better and more according to plan disrupted the rear echelons 15-20 miles deep . This is my point WW2 was seldom a head to head slugfest with even forces. Look at the Battle for the Bulge or Kursk, look at what the Objectives for the Breakthru forces were , look at how deep they wanted to go , and look at what happened when the Armor got tangled up at the main line of resistance. On Cobra look at which American troops got blasted by thier own B-17's , it wasn't armor , it was infantry , the armor was in the rear waiting for the Infantry to make the Breakthru.
The Germans had some 100-150 Infantry Divisions holding the line or making the advance moving basically at foot speed using basically horse drawn transport and supply, they backed them up with some 20 divisions of armor and Panzer Grenaders, almost all the German Armor was in these 20 divisions , and they came into play and were positioned to respond on the Defense about a day or so after a breakthru or main axis of attack was Identified , sometimes even longer, Normandy was like 5 days - a week. The Command and control issues that slowed up the response at Normandy was NOT an unusual occurance.
US Forces were structured differently all the Units were Mechanized , at least in trucks , we had about 3 times the number of Halftracks in the ETO than the germans ever even made of all kinds ( Germans made only 16,000 251's of all types , US fielded about 40,000 halftracks to the ETO) , even US Airborne had trucks sufficent to transport troops and supplies. A US Foot Infantry Division not only had trucks but attached Armor , Tank Destroyer, and Mobile AAA Bn's organically attached in Direct support under local command.
Hence , Historically in game terms wether in defense or on the Attack US forces would have Armor present in direct organic support of Infantry directly under command of the Inf div commander and in Mutiple Bn strength and still have a stragetic reserve at Corp level of unengaged Armor ( In Armored divisions) to respond to a breakthru .. Germans would not have any or only a few stugs and marders avalible to assists the Infantry in either attack or defense without commiting Army level assets .
This is not even counting Arty , the US had more Arty Bn's in the ETO tha they had tank Bn's .. US Infantry Divisions had an Organic regiment of Arty plus usually 1 or 2 additional Arty regiments attached if they were going to be in contact.
In Game terms , about 1 in 5 scenarios in the ETO would have German Armor, while 9 out of 10 would have US Armor. Artillery wise Every scenario would have US Arty typically inculding 155mm hows ( the US had more 155 Bn's than any other kind ) but as a minimum organing to the Infantry regiment 105mm Arty. Germans would be using Mortars pretty much until corp level assets were commited. Rommel and Guderian fought differently , putting the Armor and the Arty up closer and with a quicker response , but they were both fired for that( basically speaking ) before Normandy. The US and Russian Both made thier gains and breakthru's against essntially unsupported german foot Infantry. The US usually destroyed German Attacks with Air and Arty in direct support of Infantry. The Major resupply drops into Bastogne was arty ammo. Bastogne happened about 30 miles to the rear and 5 days after the intial German attack. the German breakthru had already failed , Pieper was using the Explotation forces( and thier ammo and fuel) trying to make the breakthru.
The firepower differential was emormous between the US and the Germans. The Germans lost 4.5 million troops combat killed. The Russians get credit for 80% of those kills , That means the Germans lost over a million men killed on the western front , The US lost about 282,000 killed and 626,000 wounded from all causes on all fronts in all theaters in WW2. About 70,000 Killed ground forces in the ETO about 80,000 Killed in the Air. The US knocked out about twice as many German tanks as they lost. I agree that it takes 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger .. so most german tanks got killed by air and arty and Bazookas , just like most US Tanks got knocked out by AT guns 88mm and Pak's . All this is "Historical " . To me this means , by defintion , US or Brit tanks v German Tanks was a relative rare thing.
To describe an actual US v German tank battle that took place in WW2, and I can't think of the name of it right now , an Entire US CCB of Shermans assaulted a mixed Company of german Armor holed up in a Village , they had to cross a rather open muddy field and weather did not permit air support and the US did not want to level the French village with Arty . The Shermans Charged using their Superior mobility across the muddy fields the Germans opened up knocking out about a dozen Shermans revealing thier positions , another complete Combat Command ( CCR or Combat Command Reserve , about 162 TD's ) Armed with M36's and M18's were in defilade along the road overlooking the Village about a kilometer away bumper to bumper they pulled up to the bank along the road and knocked out every German Tank in about 10 minutes , then the Infantry assaulted and mopped up. The simple Historical fact is that the US did not lose a single Ground Battle to the Germans after Kasserine. The Reason that this is true is because the US didn't do tank v tank very often. If a battle did start to get down to Tank V Tank , then the US brought in Air and Arty and ended it , the Conact forces pulled back a little regrouped and then went in again and mopped up.
It all depends on what you want to call historical, like that post a few weeks back about the StrumTiger , the poster wanted to know if a Strumtiger in the Game could really knock out 3 Shermans with one shot. Yes They can , but more to the point SturmTigers had to run round vunerable and unable to shoot for 8-12 minutes between shots hoping there was sufficent German forces locally to stop the other 12 Shermans in the Company they just ****** off. And if the weather even half way decent 4 P-47's that now knew the SturmTiger was around.
Fundamentally to play Historical in PBEM as things now stand you would need a 200 x100 map max 4000 points . Meeting engagement would be mostly scout cars jeeps and some Mech Infantry ( maybe retstricted to 20% of points ) with unlimited Arty and Air for whoever happened to have airsuperiority ( air superiority means arty can fire without getting bombed) ( side without air superiority is docked 20% points for what they would have spent on arty) , and regardless of the year or theater in a meeting engagement only the US gets on call arty before turn 20 in Meeting engagements . Offensive /defensive means defensively no German Armor 8 times out of 10 only light armor marders / stugs 1 time out of 10 and then limited to 20 % of points. Attacker gets a 3 to one point advantage , Russian get Armor 5 Times out of 10, US gets Armor 9 times out of 10 , Only German Arty Gets limited to 10% and the Russians only get Arty in the first 10 turns , but unlimited . Everybody gets organic mortars but only as organicly assigned. No More sholder to sholder , No More Arty is not effected by the other guys air superiority. No more instant German Arty ( German Average response time with land line is 5 Turns Historically , Radio is worse German Arty is on another radio net .. US Arty has response time of 1 turn so long as a Platoon level (or higher) "O" unit is alive and can see the target, Russians can't adjust or call any Arty after turn 10 assuming all Russian except Mortars is preplaned. Russian mortars are a response of 5 Turns. Brits follow US Arty model but must have a Company "O" to call , All nations can use FO's but only 1 per battery may be bought. FO's cut response times in half for everybody. All nations must have special FAO ( Forward Air Controlers ) US FO's are considered default FAO's as well . On The Attack Germany gets Tank Armor 3 times out of 5 and Stugs SP Arty anytime they want( within rairity rules) Germany looses half of their Victory Points if Breakthru Armor ( the Tanks) have to engage the Defensive line ( non-reinforment Units) , but gets double VP's if they all exit far side of the map undamaged. No reinforcements can be bought before turn 20. No German Airborne droped after 1941( sorry but thats the Furher's personal rule). Sound Silly ? maybe but thats a heck of a lot closer to "Historical" than the average PBEM game.
IMHO critical to any kind of Historical play is some modeling of troops on the ground in relationship to the amount of ground in play .. and 80 hex front would be about a Bn of Infantry but that Bn of Infantry would be deployed about 200 hexes deep, about 6 miles deep. The Attacker would be using about 3 Bn's with 1 Bn being in the front rank and that Bn would NOT be Armor. It would be recon and mounted Infantry .
In the German Army , under the doctrine that we call blitzkrieg, The Armor was an exploitation force , if the Armor became the force doing the immediate breakthru , the the defenders had already won, Because there wasn't any mobile force left to expolit the breakthru .. in the German Army, the Armor engaged the responding hole pluging/ counterattacking reserves , or even better and more according to plan disrupted the rear echelons 15-20 miles deep . This is my point WW2 was seldom a head to head slugfest with even forces. Look at the Battle for the Bulge or Kursk, look at what the Objectives for the Breakthru forces were , look at how deep they wanted to go , and look at what happened when the Armor got tangled up at the main line of resistance. On Cobra look at which American troops got blasted by thier own B-17's , it wasn't armor , it was infantry , the armor was in the rear waiting for the Infantry to make the Breakthru.
The Germans had some 100-150 Infantry Divisions holding the line or making the advance moving basically at foot speed using basically horse drawn transport and supply, they backed them up with some 20 divisions of armor and Panzer Grenaders, almost all the German Armor was in these 20 divisions , and they came into play and were positioned to respond on the Defense about a day or so after a breakthru or main axis of attack was Identified , sometimes even longer, Normandy was like 5 days - a week. The Command and control issues that slowed up the response at Normandy was NOT an unusual occurance.
US Forces were structured differently all the Units were Mechanized , at least in trucks , we had about 3 times the number of Halftracks in the ETO than the germans ever even made of all kinds ( Germans made only 16,000 251's of all types , US fielded about 40,000 halftracks to the ETO) , even US Airborne had trucks sufficent to transport troops and supplies. A US Foot Infantry Division not only had trucks but attached Armor , Tank Destroyer, and Mobile AAA Bn's organically attached in Direct support under local command.
Hence , Historically in game terms wether in defense or on the Attack US forces would have Armor present in direct organic support of Infantry directly under command of the Inf div commander and in Mutiple Bn strength and still have a stragetic reserve at Corp level of unengaged Armor ( In Armored divisions) to respond to a breakthru .. Germans would not have any or only a few stugs and marders avalible to assists the Infantry in either attack or defense without commiting Army level assets .
This is not even counting Arty , the US had more Arty Bn's in the ETO tha they had tank Bn's .. US Infantry Divisions had an Organic regiment of Arty plus usually 1 or 2 additional Arty regiments attached if they were going to be in contact.
In Game terms , about 1 in 5 scenarios in the ETO would have German Armor, while 9 out of 10 would have US Armor. Artillery wise Every scenario would have US Arty typically inculding 155mm hows ( the US had more 155 Bn's than any other kind ) but as a minimum organing to the Infantry regiment 105mm Arty. Germans would be using Mortars pretty much until corp level assets were commited. Rommel and Guderian fought differently , putting the Armor and the Arty up closer and with a quicker response , but they were both fired for that( basically speaking ) before Normandy. The US and Russian Both made thier gains and breakthru's against essntially unsupported german foot Infantry. The US usually destroyed German Attacks with Air and Arty in direct support of Infantry. The Major resupply drops into Bastogne was arty ammo. Bastogne happened about 30 miles to the rear and 5 days after the intial German attack. the German breakthru had already failed , Pieper was using the Explotation forces( and thier ammo and fuel) trying to make the breakthru.
The firepower differential was emormous between the US and the Germans. The Germans lost 4.5 million troops combat killed. The Russians get credit for 80% of those kills , That means the Germans lost over a million men killed on the western front , The US lost about 282,000 killed and 626,000 wounded from all causes on all fronts in all theaters in WW2. About 70,000 Killed ground forces in the ETO about 80,000 Killed in the Air. The US knocked out about twice as many German tanks as they lost. I agree that it takes 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger .. so most german tanks got killed by air and arty and Bazookas , just like most US Tanks got knocked out by AT guns 88mm and Pak's . All this is "Historical " . To me this means , by defintion , US or Brit tanks v German Tanks was a relative rare thing.
To describe an actual US v German tank battle that took place in WW2, and I can't think of the name of it right now , an Entire US CCB of Shermans assaulted a mixed Company of german Armor holed up in a Village , they had to cross a rather open muddy field and weather did not permit air support and the US did not want to level the French village with Arty . The Shermans Charged using their Superior mobility across the muddy fields the Germans opened up knocking out about a dozen Shermans revealing thier positions , another complete Combat Command ( CCR or Combat Command Reserve , about 162 TD's ) Armed with M36's and M18's were in defilade along the road overlooking the Village about a kilometer away bumper to bumper they pulled up to the bank along the road and knocked out every German Tank in about 10 minutes , then the Infantry assaulted and mopped up. The simple Historical fact is that the US did not lose a single Ground Battle to the Germans after Kasserine. The Reason that this is true is because the US didn't do tank v tank very often. If a battle did start to get down to Tank V Tank , then the US brought in Air and Arty and ended it , the Conact forces pulled back a little regrouped and then went in again and mopped up.
It all depends on what you want to call historical, like that post a few weeks back about the StrumTiger , the poster wanted to know if a Strumtiger in the Game could really knock out 3 Shermans with one shot. Yes They can , but more to the point SturmTigers had to run round vunerable and unable to shoot for 8-12 minutes between shots hoping there was sufficent German forces locally to stop the other 12 Shermans in the Company they just ****** off. And if the weather even half way decent 4 P-47's that now knew the SturmTiger was around.
Fundamentally to play Historical in PBEM as things now stand you would need a 200 x100 map max 4000 points . Meeting engagement would be mostly scout cars jeeps and some Mech Infantry ( maybe retstricted to 20% of points ) with unlimited Arty and Air for whoever happened to have airsuperiority ( air superiority means arty can fire without getting bombed) ( side without air superiority is docked 20% points for what they would have spent on arty) , and regardless of the year or theater in a meeting engagement only the US gets on call arty before turn 20 in Meeting engagements . Offensive /defensive means defensively no German Armor 8 times out of 10 only light armor marders / stugs 1 time out of 10 and then limited to 20 % of points. Attacker gets a 3 to one point advantage , Russian get Armor 5 Times out of 10, US gets Armor 9 times out of 10 , Only German Arty Gets limited to 10% and the Russians only get Arty in the first 10 turns , but unlimited . Everybody gets organic mortars but only as organicly assigned. No More sholder to sholder , No More Arty is not effected by the other guys air superiority. No more instant German Arty ( German Average response time with land line is 5 Turns Historically , Radio is worse German Arty is on another radio net .. US Arty has response time of 1 turn so long as a Platoon level (or higher) "O" unit is alive and can see the target, Russians can't adjust or call any Arty after turn 10 assuming all Russian except Mortars is preplaned. Russian mortars are a response of 5 Turns. Brits follow US Arty model but must have a Company "O" to call , All nations can use FO's but only 1 per battery may be bought. FO's cut response times in half for everybody. All nations must have special FAO ( Forward Air Controlers ) US FO's are considered default FAO's as well . On The Attack Germany gets Tank Armor 3 times out of 5 and Stugs SP Arty anytime they want( within rairity rules) Germany looses half of their Victory Points if Breakthru Armor ( the Tanks) have to engage the Defensive line ( non-reinforment Units) , but gets double VP's if they all exit far side of the map undamaged. No reinforcements can be bought before turn 20. No German Airborne droped after 1941( sorry but thats the Furher's personal rule). Sound Silly ? maybe but thats a heck of a lot closer to "Historical" than the average PBEM game.
"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
No, I don't think I missed your point. I see what you were saying. You're saying in essence that map size and troop distribution, and other factors like radio communication and artillery availability aren't historically accurate.
What I said in response to all that was this:
If you model the individual units (OOBs) correctly, and the physics of movement and combat correctly, and the end user has access to map/scenario editors, can't you correct 90% of what you see as historically innacurate? If you want to play a "by-the-rules" game, with your units/location/assets as close to historically accurate as possible, given the aforementioned corrections (to OOB and physics), could you (or another scenario designer) recreate the rest?
My contention is that you could. If all we ask for from Matrix is accurate OOBs and physics, and they've given us a great and flexible engine already, the rest is out of their hands. The remaining inaccuracies would be of the type you reference, that could be corrected by scenario builders with longer maps, less forces, more artillery for one side, etc.
You're pointing out the many existing inaccuracies troop concentration, assets, and geographics. I'm not disagreeing with that. But again, if they provide the above improvements to content and game mechanics, isn't the rest "fixable" by the end user? Me? You? Another scenario designer whose a stickler for historical accuracy? It seems to me that the majority of inconsistencies you point out could be remedied by an improvement/tweaking of the OOB and changing the physics a bit (movement, penetration, etc.)
Fantasy SturmTiger reload rates aside, if that unit were modeled correctly as were all the others, could you not make a map (giving each side their appropriate units) that was accurate?
For folks who sometimes want a historically innacurate "what if" type of battle, they could create that too, or the campaign generator would for them. For those who want nothing but history, they could design their own (and some MCs may already have done that).
I'm of the opinion that we have a 90% solution already, they may make it a 95% one with 8.0. The things you rail against are all variations in map/equipment that I see as scenario constraints.
If the editor will not enable you to make the changes to maps, units, etc. that you deem necessary, then perhaps you should petetion Matrix for a better editor.
I see the building blocks (again OOBs and engine) as almost perfect.
What I said in response to all that was this:
If you model the individual units (OOBs) correctly, and the physics of movement and combat correctly, and the end user has access to map/scenario editors, can't you correct 90% of what you see as historically innacurate? If you want to play a "by-the-rules" game, with your units/location/assets as close to historically accurate as possible, given the aforementioned corrections (to OOB and physics), could you (or another scenario designer) recreate the rest?
My contention is that you could. If all we ask for from Matrix is accurate OOBs and physics, and they've given us a great and flexible engine already, the rest is out of their hands. The remaining inaccuracies would be of the type you reference, that could be corrected by scenario builders with longer maps, less forces, more artillery for one side, etc.
You're pointing out the many existing inaccuracies troop concentration, assets, and geographics. I'm not disagreeing with that. But again, if they provide the above improvements to content and game mechanics, isn't the rest "fixable" by the end user? Me? You? Another scenario designer whose a stickler for historical accuracy? It seems to me that the majority of inconsistencies you point out could be remedied by an improvement/tweaking of the OOB and changing the physics a bit (movement, penetration, etc.)
Fantasy SturmTiger reload rates aside, if that unit were modeled correctly as were all the others, could you not make a map (giving each side their appropriate units) that was accurate?
For folks who sometimes want a historically innacurate "what if" type of battle, they could create that too, or the campaign generator would for them. For those who want nothing but history, they could design their own (and some MCs may already have done that).
I'm of the opinion that we have a 90% solution already, they may make it a 95% one with 8.0. The things you rail against are all variations in map/equipment that I see as scenario constraints.
If the editor will not enable you to make the changes to maps, units, etc. that you deem necessary, then perhaps you should petetion Matrix for a better editor.
I see the building blocks (again OOBs and engine) as almost perfect.
Ammo,
There are two important aspects to each engagement:
1. The forces present
2. What each side does with them
The National Doctrines that you mention seem to deal with part 1. However, this is really easy to implement: just design a scenario. You can put in the entire CCB of Shermans and a single company of Nazi armor. You can have a batallion deployed 200 hexes in depth. You can easily implement most, if not all of your grievances this way.
I think that, with your encyclopedic knowledge, you would do a big favor to us all in the SPWaW community if you would indeed care to design a couple of these 'typical' combat scenarios that you mention. There are already a few of them (Red Army crossing a river is what jumps into my mind now) and they are, IMHO, a great way for us all to learn more about the 'real' WW2 - even much better than reading a book or looking at maps and pictures.
There's no problem in playing historical scenarios multiplayer and many people do - I remember seeing AARs about Market Garden and even Gettysburg, for instance. There are also many people who prefer to choose a force composition, i.e. set some points limits and buy stuff themselves.
I grant this is a rather unlikely feat in the real war. The player is practically in the shoes of two people: the superior commander who chooses what he'll send in to Objective X and the task force commander who will actually lead these forces in battle.
But I also think it allows you an important insight into why National Doctrines were that way. That kind of decision was taken for a reason. It wasn't like some general dreamt one night that a battalion should be rather deep than wide in its disposition or that National Socialism held it sacred not to use motorized infantry in recon role.
It happened that way because some knowledgeable and experienced people thought it was most efficient to do things like that. To understand their reasoning you have to be able to explore the same kind of alternatives they did and to be able to test them like they most certainly did.
SPWaW is not the real war, it is Kriegspiel, and the purpose of Kriegspiel is to test doctrine. This means it should give you much more flexibility than commanders would actually have in the field; but, in doing that, it should remain in the realm of the possible - i.e., the historical.
There are two important aspects to each engagement:
1. The forces present
2. What each side does with them
The National Doctrines that you mention seem to deal with part 1. However, this is really easy to implement: just design a scenario. You can put in the entire CCB of Shermans and a single company of Nazi armor. You can have a batallion deployed 200 hexes in depth. You can easily implement most, if not all of your grievances this way.
I think that, with your encyclopedic knowledge, you would do a big favor to us all in the SPWaW community if you would indeed care to design a couple of these 'typical' combat scenarios that you mention. There are already a few of them (Red Army crossing a river is what jumps into my mind now) and they are, IMHO, a great way for us all to learn more about the 'real' WW2 - even much better than reading a book or looking at maps and pictures.
There's no problem in playing historical scenarios multiplayer and many people do - I remember seeing AARs about Market Garden and even Gettysburg, for instance. There are also many people who prefer to choose a force composition, i.e. set some points limits and buy stuff themselves.
I grant this is a rather unlikely feat in the real war. The player is practically in the shoes of two people: the superior commander who chooses what he'll send in to Objective X and the task force commander who will actually lead these forces in battle.
But I also think it allows you an important insight into why National Doctrines were that way. That kind of decision was taken for a reason. It wasn't like some general dreamt one night that a battalion should be rather deep than wide in its disposition or that National Socialism held it sacred not to use motorized infantry in recon role.
It happened that way because some knowledgeable and experienced people thought it was most efficient to do things like that. To understand their reasoning you have to be able to explore the same kind of alternatives they did and to be able to test them like they most certainly did.
SPWaW is not the real war, it is Kriegspiel, and the purpose of Kriegspiel is to test doctrine. This means it should give you much more flexibility than commanders would actually have in the field; but, in doing that, it should remain in the realm of the possible - i.e., the historical.
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
I hate to be repetitive, but ...
Great posts ... that's why I like to check in on this forum so often! Very thoughtful and interesting stuff. I've had a keen interest in WWII history since I was a kid, but I still learn something new here every time I visit ... keep it up guys! ...
...Val .. Ok before this goes to far off track
1 Yes accurate OOB's are essential .... But as things now stand The Game engine and OOB slots available are limited .. More care in selection of what should be inculded in the OOB based on National tactics and doctrine needs to be the the "base" National OOB ( you know how some stuff is stuck in other OOB's when the national OOB is full ) .
2 Almost every Nation needs the ultra rare stuff stuck over in a second OOB ( the way the Germans have stuff in the Polish OOB ) it needs to be outside the generated game AI buy list , this would also make life easier for PBEM'ers . Simple rule, Nothing from the "Optional ultra rare list " for Pbem. ( also the AI buy routine should not be able to buy 8 strumtigers on the western front like recently happened to me )
3 for those that don't know my longstanding position I do not advocate long lists of rules about what the other guy buys in PBEM games .. I think that PBEM buy rules should be agreed on Points and map size , and no mines in meeting engagements period. But see point 2 , having the really rare stuff off in a second mini OOB for secnario types and what if's would make the "no Rules" PBEM more practical.
4 , And maybe the biggest 'Historical" Inaccuracy is that in WW2 the fundamental Element of Maneuver was the Battalion , Not the Company. Accurate TO&E's are out there, Armies are structured very differently .. half the firepower of a US Infantry Bn is in the HQ and Weapons Company . I know the name of the Game is Steel Panthers , but the Fact remains the WW2 was an Infantry war and the fundamental basic organization in almost all armies was the Infantry Bn. You get the OOB of the Infantry Bn's correct , and half of all problems are fixed. Arty and Armor can function at the Company/ battery level . Infantry really needs the Bn level . HQ's/ Hq companies are more than 6 guys with a radio in some armies.
5 The Current point system is based totally on the concept of a balanced game , it has nothing to do with "historical" I am all in Favor of Balanced games 1 on 1 . But the Balanced game is the Greatest enemy of the Historical game.
6. Not all trucks are Created equal , again here national Doctrinal and philosophical differences .. Opel blitzes were for the most part 2 x4 and used to transport stuff and generally unarmed. US deuce and a halfs , while many were unarmed cargo carriers , many were Armed Infantry Carriers and weapons Platforms. Generally speaking 2 1/2 assigned to Infantry Bn's had weapons maybe half were armed .. typically a ring mount 50 cal or a pintle Mount 1917A1 on the Co drivers side sometimes even a Quad or dual 50 Cal powered turret. They were also 6x6 so they could traverse much rougher terrain than 2x4 type trucks. They aren't Halftracks , but they were a part of a US Infantry Bn's fire support. Brit and Russian trucks tended to be unarmed and used much like German trucks , But the US did this a little differently . I would point out for the most part Historically halftracks unloaded troops and hung back as a base of fire vehicle , and did not charge mad dash thru fire full of troops , Armed US CCKW's were used in much the same way only more so, as well as the obvious AAA asset during route march. but I digress.
7 The game could do many things to facilitate a more historical play. But the Basic thing is to realize that infantry is the basic element in WW2. One radical idea that would just turn the whole thing on it's ear , ( this is NOT a serious suggestion , but concider the Implications to your favorite national OOB) would be to eliminate the purchase of seperate Halftracks, trucks, and Horse drawn wagons , Inculde Halftracks, Trucks and wagons as organic to the Infantry Unit in appropiate quanity. Foot Infantry would become Foot Infantry with just enough wagons for heavy weapons transport. On the Large map low point values I advocate , an Armies Mobility would begin to matter significantly. Mobility would become a significant issue and advantage/ disadvantage and a factor , just like it really was in WW2. German trucks are very poorly represented , a total side issue , but the kind of thing that just makes me crazy is the Krupp L2H143 , it is a dang 7 man artillery tow tractor for 37mm Pak's and 20mm AA guns NOT an Infantry vechicle ARRRGGHH and it cannot carry a squad ARRRGGHH . germans had a variety of trucks for general transport to the battlefield , but were actually quite poor in "On the battlefield" transport , Russian the same way> i freely admit logistics is outside the scope of SPWAW , but some recognition of the fact that some countries had limited logistical capacity and tended not to risk it on the battlefield when they could avoid it should factor in, and not just disregard national policies not to risk transport on the battlefield so the player can have the convienece of more mobile infantry than was historically the norm. It may seem a little nit picky thing , and with 10,000 points on a 80 hex map it is , but try 4000 points on a 200 hex map .
I advocate total freedom in player purchases in PBEM and generated games , But I also advocate a basic structure that supports historical play by making it possible to execute national Doctrines if that be the players desire. The Player has to do thier homework to know and understand the Doctrine of the Nations involved and accept the advantages and limitations that come with it.
The main roadblock to Historical play is getting the national philosphies all tangled together .. Germany uses tanks differently than anybody else , so all players regardless of nation tries to use german tank tactics , US Arty is has a faster response time than anybody else so all nations arty gets a faster response time to balance the game , US has all mechanized forces and no horses so everybody rides , German Got 88's US and Brits start Using 90mm and 3.7 inch AA guns against tanks . Brits got Infantry tanks , everybody starts using Tanks in direct support of infantry . Game allows 25,000 points on the map , folks cram 25,000 points on the map and then complain Arty is to powerful .
Yes lets get the OOB;s and TO&E's right and let the player play , but according to this poll folks want a more historical than playable/balanced game , lot can be done with the game to help that along .. just changing the arty response times so US is 1 turn Brits 1.5 turns, and everybody else is a 4 or 5 turn response time would be a Big start. No More .1 for the US and no more .4 for the Germans , can you guys live with that , or should we all re-vote on the poll ?
1 Yes accurate OOB's are essential .... But as things now stand The Game engine and OOB slots available are limited .. More care in selection of what should be inculded in the OOB based on National tactics and doctrine needs to be the the "base" National OOB ( you know how some stuff is stuck in other OOB's when the national OOB is full ) .
2 Almost every Nation needs the ultra rare stuff stuck over in a second OOB ( the way the Germans have stuff in the Polish OOB ) it needs to be outside the generated game AI buy list , this would also make life easier for PBEM'ers . Simple rule, Nothing from the "Optional ultra rare list " for Pbem. ( also the AI buy routine should not be able to buy 8 strumtigers on the western front like recently happened to me
)3 for those that don't know my longstanding position I do not advocate long lists of rules about what the other guy buys in PBEM games .. I think that PBEM buy rules should be agreed on Points and map size , and no mines in meeting engagements period. But see point 2 , having the really rare stuff off in a second mini OOB for secnario types and what if's would make the "no Rules" PBEM more practical.
4 , And maybe the biggest 'Historical" Inaccuracy is that in WW2 the fundamental Element of Maneuver was the Battalion , Not the Company. Accurate TO&E's are out there, Armies are structured very differently .. half the firepower of a US Infantry Bn is in the HQ and Weapons Company . I know the name of the Game is Steel Panthers , but the Fact remains the WW2 was an Infantry war and the fundamental basic organization in almost all armies was the Infantry Bn. You get the OOB of the Infantry Bn's correct , and half of all problems are fixed. Arty and Armor can function at the Company/ battery level . Infantry really needs the Bn level . HQ's/ Hq companies are more than 6 guys with a radio in some armies.
5 The Current point system is based totally on the concept of a balanced game , it has nothing to do with "historical" I am all in Favor of Balanced games 1 on 1 . But the Balanced game is the Greatest enemy of the Historical game.
6. Not all trucks are Created equal , again here national Doctrinal and philosophical differences .. Opel blitzes were for the most part 2 x4 and used to transport stuff and generally unarmed. US deuce and a halfs , while many were unarmed cargo carriers , many were Armed Infantry Carriers and weapons Platforms. Generally speaking 2 1/2 assigned to Infantry Bn's had weapons maybe half were armed .. typically a ring mount 50 cal or a pintle Mount 1917A1 on the Co drivers side sometimes even a Quad or dual 50 Cal powered turret. They were also 6x6 so they could traverse much rougher terrain than 2x4 type trucks. They aren't Halftracks , but they were a part of a US Infantry Bn's fire support. Brit and Russian trucks tended to be unarmed and used much like German trucks , But the US did this a little differently . I would point out for the most part Historically halftracks unloaded troops and hung back as a base of fire vehicle , and did not charge mad dash thru fire full of troops , Armed US CCKW's were used in much the same way only more so, as well as the obvious AAA asset during route march. but I digress.
7 The game could do many things to facilitate a more historical play. But the Basic thing is to realize that infantry is the basic element in WW2. One radical idea that would just turn the whole thing on it's ear , ( this is NOT a serious suggestion , but concider the Implications to your favorite national OOB) would be to eliminate the purchase of seperate Halftracks, trucks, and Horse drawn wagons , Inculde Halftracks, Trucks and wagons as organic to the Infantry Unit in appropiate quanity. Foot Infantry would become Foot Infantry with just enough wagons for heavy weapons transport. On the Large map low point values I advocate , an Armies Mobility would begin to matter significantly. Mobility would become a significant issue and advantage/ disadvantage and a factor , just like it really was in WW2. German trucks are very poorly represented , a total side issue , but the kind of thing that just makes me crazy is the Krupp L2H143 , it is a dang 7 man artillery tow tractor for 37mm Pak's and 20mm AA guns NOT an Infantry vechicle ARRRGGHH and it cannot carry a squad ARRRGGHH . germans had a variety of trucks for general transport to the battlefield , but were actually quite poor in "On the battlefield" transport , Russian the same way> i freely admit logistics is outside the scope of SPWAW , but some recognition of the fact that some countries had limited logistical capacity and tended not to risk it on the battlefield when they could avoid it should factor in, and not just disregard national policies not to risk transport on the battlefield so the player can have the convienece of more mobile infantry than was historically the norm. It may seem a little nit picky thing , and with 10,000 points on a 80 hex map it is , but try 4000 points on a 200 hex map .
I advocate total freedom in player purchases in PBEM and generated games , But I also advocate a basic structure that supports historical play by making it possible to execute national Doctrines if that be the players desire. The Player has to do thier homework to know and understand the Doctrine of the Nations involved and accept the advantages and limitations that come with it.
The main roadblock to Historical play is getting the national philosphies all tangled together .. Germany uses tanks differently than anybody else , so all players regardless of nation tries to use german tank tactics , US Arty is has a faster response time than anybody else so all nations arty gets a faster response time to balance the game , US has all mechanized forces and no horses so everybody rides , German Got 88's US and Brits start Using 90mm and 3.7 inch AA guns against tanks . Brits got Infantry tanks , everybody starts using Tanks in direct support of infantry . Game allows 25,000 points on the map , folks cram 25,000 points on the map and then complain Arty is to powerful .
Yes lets get the OOB;s and TO&E's right and let the player play , but according to this poll folks want a more historical than playable/balanced game , lot can be done with the game to help that along .. just changing the arty response times so US is 1 turn Brits 1.5 turns, and everybody else is a 4 or 5 turn response time would be a Big start. No More .1 for the US and no more .4 for the Germans , can you guys live with that , or should we all re-vote on the poll ?
"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