With version 6.1 we have come to the end of the line for a while in SP:WaW development. In other venues, folks have impied that we "duck" discussion about the relative pros and cons of SP:waW and SP:ww2. Well here is a thread to talk about what you like about either game and where you think hex based gaming should go in the future.
We WELCOME fans of SPWW2 to this discussion and insist that they be treated with respect. I was one who worked on the original SP2WW2 and have a lot of respect for what SP Camo Group has done with it.
My personal view is the route we went with SP:WaW was a better way to go, but the more conservative route has its benefits.
That leads to where folks think hex based gaming should go in the future. We are shifting attention to Combat Leader and want to hear how you think that game can improve on what is currently available.
We have deleted posts concerning SPWW2 that we considered "ads" or not constructive. We have done the same with Combat Mission posts and a couple others. We feel its our right to keep our board on topic to our games and our company, but cogent dicussion comparing our games with other similar ones is healthy discussion that will make our future games better and result in better informed customers.
So fire away - what you like - what you don't like, who does what better, etc....
[ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]
SPWaW, SPww2...pros, cons and beyond
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
I like the added countries available for a WW2 campaign in SPWW2....that's one small thing anyway....as for future hex based games how about leaving the architecture open enough for people to add "working" terrain hexes and structures as well as troop and vehicle "icons"...oobs etc....the ability to select user made maps into a long computer generated campaign would be cool..
-
dbt1949_slith
- Posts: 193
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: hogeye,ar
When I fist heard of SPWAW and SPWW2 I got the two confused.After I downloaded both I wasn't confused anymore.I've played a few games on SPWW2 but the graphics are so washed out I can't enjoy it much no matter what the gameplay difference is.I guess I'm just a 'shallow gamer' and prefer a 'pretty face' but I really enjoy SPWAW and see no reason to go back.
Ye Olde Farte
-
BruceAZ_MatrixForum
- Posts: 613
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: California
Hello Paul:
I guess I must be one of the minorities but I will stay with SPWAW as the graphics are much better, great realism and I enjoy the ability to create historical battles or campaigns with SPWAW.
I just could not get into SPWW2. I like the other Matrix products and wish the graphics could be improved especially the Pacific game. Sorry if this is the end of the line.
You folks have done a great job and I wish you the best in your new adventures. In the meantime, I will keep buying MC's as long as you make them. 
Bruce
Semper Fi
I guess I must be one of the minorities but I will stay with SPWAW as the graphics are much better, great realism and I enjoy the ability to create historical battles or campaigns with SPWAW.
I just could not get into SPWW2. I like the other Matrix products and wish the graphics could be improved especially the Pacific game. Sorry if this is the end of the line.
You folks have done a great job and I wish you the best in your new adventures. In the meantime, I will keep buying MC's as long as you make them. Bruce
Semper Fi
-
Gordon_freeman
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Deutschland
First of all,
as i learned from ypu that the difference is not only in the grafiks, I checked out and here is what I like to see SP:WAW with, I also don't really understand the background of both teams working "against" each other, but, from the outside it's easy to point at things.
So, even if I repeat myself, the unit roster in SP:WW2 is bigger and offers gamers more "space" to create their own units for campaign's. I know (so I have been told) that that would require new programming, but that is a reason, not an obstacle. I allways liked the aproach of SP:WW2 in giving gamers the chance of using really rare or "test" equipment like the German Neubaufahrzeug (the compaditive model to the Panzer IV).
I don't mention the helicopters or spotting planes, mineclearing tanks here...but if they are available, why not try to use them, it's at the end still a game!
I also see the advantage in having this huge maps! This give's a gamer a better idea of using terraine (but this also only applies to gamers who, like me, are using large forces, otherwise u play hide and seek on these maps) in terms of using different attack or defend positions.
The discussion about the teraine and the features I can't really understand, I allways liked both approaches but at the end the more "playable" version was SP:WAW.
Another critic towards SP:WW2 is their way of how infantry fights work: it is nearly impossible to "block" infantry from retreating i.e. you as the player enter a hex containg routed infantry. As soon as someone was killed they moved a hex further.
To come to an conclusion is as follows:
I really like SP:WAW, as a game it is close to perfect (even so I already hear all the people complaining over and over) and the Matrix people are pretty quick with updates.
But I really miss the large maps and the huge number of units SP:WW2 is able to handle. If at least the map feature (in terms of size) could be adoppted in SP:WAW I would really enjoy that.
Thanks again to both teams of enable us to make such discussions.
as i learned from ypu that the difference is not only in the grafiks, I checked out and here is what I like to see SP:WAW with, I also don't really understand the background of both teams working "against" each other, but, from the outside it's easy to point at things.
So, even if I repeat myself, the unit roster in SP:WW2 is bigger and offers gamers more "space" to create their own units for campaign's. I know (so I have been told) that that would require new programming, but that is a reason, not an obstacle. I allways liked the aproach of SP:WW2 in giving gamers the chance of using really rare or "test" equipment like the German Neubaufahrzeug (the compaditive model to the Panzer IV).
I don't mention the helicopters or spotting planes, mineclearing tanks here...but if they are available, why not try to use them, it's at the end still a game!
I also see the advantage in having this huge maps! This give's a gamer a better idea of using terraine (but this also only applies to gamers who, like me, are using large forces, otherwise u play hide and seek on these maps) in terms of using different attack or defend positions.
The discussion about the teraine and the features I can't really understand, I allways liked both approaches but at the end the more "playable" version was SP:WAW.
Another critic towards SP:WW2 is their way of how infantry fights work: it is nearly impossible to "block" infantry from retreating i.e. you as the player enter a hex containg routed infantry. As soon as someone was killed they moved a hex further.
To come to an conclusion is as follows:
I really like SP:WAW, as a game it is close to perfect (even so I already hear all the people complaining over and over) and the Matrix people are pretty quick with updates.
But I really miss the large maps and the huge number of units SP:WW2 is able to handle. If at least the map feature (in terms of size) could be adoppted in SP:WAW I would really enjoy that.
Thanks again to both teams of enable us to make such discussions.
Hello guys...i prefer Spww2 but i'm regulary here to see what's up with WaW etc. The biggest amount of controversy between WaW and ww2 was the "tech" side of the game - some folks don't like ww2 for being a DOS game, some don't like WaW for size and multitude of patches. But I think that "tech" is secondary here, since the topic is gameplay differences. Here we go:
Spww2 > SpWaW
- OOBs. They are bigger, and more consitent since apparently all were done from the same "matrix"
ie all countries Sherman III is the same. More infantry types.
- OOB editor. Esp the ability to display icon/lbm within the editor is nice.
- some countries done better, esp. Hungary, Italy, Sweden and Germany.
- more varied random maps.
- more varied long camp.
- better Infantry combat. Inf is tougher, combat is more based on suppresion of enemy than actual kills.
- Paras/Gliders are done veery good
- small things (Snorkel tanks, beach switch, AI uses s/d etc.)
SpWaW > Spww2
- pretty, better sound
- buildings
- some countries done better (Poland, USMC)
- more terrain types
- more detailed armor combat
- special Victory Hexes
- reduced squads/ammo (neat)
- weapon/vehicle breakdowns
I'm not that much playing WaW and i'm still catching up with new patches so i may have forgotten about any important feature, correct me then...
As for future of hex games, well CM came, and SP is still alive, CL/CA will come, and SP will go on, with new mods coming(Moderna, SpCW, MBT) the show will continue for next few years...
Spww2 > SpWaW
- OOBs. They are bigger, and more consitent since apparently all were done from the same "matrix"
ie all countries Sherman III is the same. More infantry types.- OOB editor. Esp the ability to display icon/lbm within the editor is nice.
- some countries done better, esp. Hungary, Italy, Sweden and Germany.
- more varied random maps.
- more varied long camp.
- better Infantry combat. Inf is tougher, combat is more based on suppresion of enemy than actual kills.
- Paras/Gliders are done veery good
- small things (Snorkel tanks, beach switch, AI uses s/d etc.)
SpWaW > Spww2
- pretty, better sound
- buildings
- some countries done better (Poland, USMC)
- more terrain types
- more detailed armor combat
- special Victory Hexes
- reduced squads/ammo (neat)
- weapon/vehicle breakdowns
I'm not that much playing WaW and i'm still catching up with new patches so i may have forgotten about any important feature, correct me then...
As for future of hex games, well CM came, and SP is still alive, CL/CA will come, and SP will go on, with new mods coming(Moderna, SpCW, MBT) the show will continue for next few years...
I partially agree with Guderian about the pros and cons between Spwaw ans Spww2, but running Spww2 on modern computers is sometimes a pain in twicking through settings to find the right one.
The big point in spww2 is the great amount of units and countries you can choose from and from the Spwaw side is the more accurate OOB and, of course, the MC cd's.
In conclusion if we can have a Spwaw with the bigger Spww2 OOB it would be the best game i have ever seen.
bye
The big point in spww2 is the great amount of units and countries you can choose from and from the Spwaw side is the more accurate OOB and, of course, the MC cd's.
In conclusion if we can have a Spwaw with the bigger Spww2 OOB it would be the best game i have ever seen.
bye
--
occupy it, administer it, exploit it
occupy it, administer it, exploit it
I'll try to not quote anyone so i won't tell again about graphics and sounds/oob, but there is still another difference between WaW and WW2.
That's the way they are meant to be played. WaW seems great for scenario design, especially now mega campaigns are included, whereas it seems some work was put into WW2 for random map generator and AI play.
In other words imho WW2 might handle better creating a random map, and fighting against the AI. But clearly there are much more fun options to play pre-made scenario with WaW.
Just my 2 cents
That's the way they are meant to be played. WaW seems great for scenario design, especially now mega campaigns are included, whereas it seems some work was put into WW2 for random map generator and AI play.
In other words imho WW2 might handle better creating a random map, and fighting against the AI. But clearly there are much more fun options to play pre-made scenario with WaW.
Just my 2 cents
If I had a choice between owning a horse-drawn wagon and a new Chevy Camaro for normal every-day transportation, I would choose the new car. It's the same with SPWW2 and SPWaW. I have no fascination with obsolete technology, which is why I will embrace the new Matrix games when they are released, despite the hours of pleasure SPWaW has given me.
Retreat is NOT an option.
When the first version of SPWAW was released I initially didn't like it. I was used to SPWW2's combat resolution: fire on a unit a couple times, they go to 'suppressed', 1 or 2 more times, 'retreating, then to 'routed'. This predictable behavior didn't happen in SPWAW; I'd be thinking "hey, they're not supposed to do that!"...then I realized the unpredictability made it more lifelike. When I try to play SPWW2 now (as recent as 3 weeks ago) I feel like I'm just 'going thru the motions'. I also feel SPWW2 has some features that are better, but for me it all comes down to the actual gameplay.
Jim NSB 
-
Panzer Leo
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:00 pm
- Location: Braunschweig/Germany
The last time I played SPWW2 is quite some time ago, but I'll never forget the great battles I fought with it. I stopped playing it the very first time WAW was there for download and got addicted to this most advanced version of SP. The one thing I really appreciated about SPWW2 were these little ideas, giving the game a great flavour like historical ranks of the nations. It was great to have Japaneese officers not displaying "Captain" as the rank. The big OOBs are of course a nice playground for all fans of rare or obscure units, but do also lead to sometimes pretty weird lineups in battle.
Overall, there's nothing I really miss in SPWAW now, but I surely will miss a lot of features when playing SPWW2.
BTW, does anyone know how to work in these real ranks - is it a big deal ?
I think camo made some seperate folders, where they put them in ?
Overall, there's nothing I really miss in SPWAW now, but I surely will miss a lot of features when playing SPWW2.
BTW, does anyone know how to work in these real ranks - is it a big deal ?
I think camo made some seperate folders, where they put them in ?
Mir nach, ich folge euch !
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
I haven't played very much of SPWW2, but the larger generated maps missing off of SPWAW is a major shortfall as I see it. OTOH it really hurts to play tanks that have no slope inclusion and whose armor is simplified for every ten milimeters. What little I've tampered with SPWW2, it's also annoying to see the German OOBs in very difficult to understand naming conventions. Most of the time I don't understand what the unit is until I select it. In the long run that might make it more intriguing, but it sure is annoying at the start.
As far as I'm concerned SPWAW has a very good OOB, so that doesn't concern me that the other has more. Is SPWW2's AI better? I don't know. Considering I'm a campaigner I would really like to see large maps 'generated' by SPWAW, while the AI is good enough.
The SPWW2 graphics are a very slight drawback, but the sounds have a greater distance between them.
All I can say is that SPWAW would be nigh perfect in my book if it had large 'generated' maps for campaigns, but as it stands it's always a temptation to start making a serious attempt to play SPWW2 because of this loss in SPWAW. Just yesterday I was screwing around with SPWAW with stuff I hadn't screwed around with before. I generated a random map with 240 hex width. I was in awe! It was so breathtaking to imagine that I'd have a map wider in hexes than the number of units I would have. Generally I have in core between 85-105 units. I think with a map of that width I could see the game working well with 150 core units (sighs in wonderment).
Another thing I noticed different about SPWW2, is that they have objectives, scattered, instead of in bunches. I'm not sure how it affects gameplay but it does look intriguing to a degree. It looks like that approach would be better for those who have a vastly inferior army, whose victory could only come about as a result of trying to cling to the last 4 or 5 of them and hoping to whittle the opponent down enroute (with maybe even a slight counterattack afterwards).
As far as hex gaming goes, I don't think it's threatened by too badly by what's currently out there. I think most gamers would actually prefer AOE type RTS (but with REAL stats that we currently enjoy) to this Firefight system, because you can micromanage as much or as little as you want. I'm not too terribly interested in turn-based extended to 1 minute turns, attempts such as in CM, and calling that real-time. I suppose a lot of us want to be both commander and participant, and with true RTS any of either is possible.
If what we're debating here is strictly "hex-based" and not "turn-based" I don't think there's much of a threat to hex-based at all, it's just the timing of the turns where the real battle for wargaming future is being fought at. To me, it's either a turn base such as SPWAW with opfire sort of thing to convey a mesh of each player doing something semi-simultaneous, or all-out RTS (with pauses); I don't think the pacing of CM satisifes either camp too terribly well.
It's too bad that CL dropped the RTS aspect, as it certainly would've been the first to have had a major amount of the key ingredients to make RTS realistic. Power bars have yet to be overcome.
Perhaps, for now, dropping pure RTS is a good thing for Matrix, but if there's ever a shot at making major sales in stores, it would have to be this idea of putting realictic stats of real-time units, which could be paused. I think a lot of RTS people have had their fill of 'subjective' fantasy units (such as Sudden Strike). There just isn't, nor has there been anything close to SP put into RTS terms, and he who makes it will likely make a killing.
As far as I'm concerned SPWAW has a very good OOB, so that doesn't concern me that the other has more. Is SPWW2's AI better? I don't know. Considering I'm a campaigner I would really like to see large maps 'generated' by SPWAW, while the AI is good enough.
The SPWW2 graphics are a very slight drawback, but the sounds have a greater distance between them.
All I can say is that SPWAW would be nigh perfect in my book if it had large 'generated' maps for campaigns, but as it stands it's always a temptation to start making a serious attempt to play SPWW2 because of this loss in SPWAW. Just yesterday I was screwing around with SPWAW with stuff I hadn't screwed around with before. I generated a random map with 240 hex width. I was in awe! It was so breathtaking to imagine that I'd have a map wider in hexes than the number of units I would have. Generally I have in core between 85-105 units. I think with a map of that width I could see the game working well with 150 core units (sighs in wonderment).
Another thing I noticed different about SPWW2, is that they have objectives, scattered, instead of in bunches. I'm not sure how it affects gameplay but it does look intriguing to a degree. It looks like that approach would be better for those who have a vastly inferior army, whose victory could only come about as a result of trying to cling to the last 4 or 5 of them and hoping to whittle the opponent down enroute (with maybe even a slight counterattack afterwards).
As far as hex gaming goes, I don't think it's threatened by too badly by what's currently out there. I think most gamers would actually prefer AOE type RTS (but with REAL stats that we currently enjoy) to this Firefight system, because you can micromanage as much or as little as you want. I'm not too terribly interested in turn-based extended to 1 minute turns, attempts such as in CM, and calling that real-time. I suppose a lot of us want to be both commander and participant, and with true RTS any of either is possible.
If what we're debating here is strictly "hex-based" and not "turn-based" I don't think there's much of a threat to hex-based at all, it's just the timing of the turns where the real battle for wargaming future is being fought at. To me, it's either a turn base such as SPWAW with opfire sort of thing to convey a mesh of each player doing something semi-simultaneous, or all-out RTS (with pauses); I don't think the pacing of CM satisifes either camp too terribly well.
It's too bad that CL dropped the RTS aspect, as it certainly would've been the first to have had a major amount of the key ingredients to make RTS realistic. Power bars have yet to be overcome.
Perhaps, for now, dropping pure RTS is a good thing for Matrix, but if there's ever a shot at making major sales in stores, it would have to be this idea of putting realictic stats of real-time units, which could be paused. I think a lot of RTS people have had their fill of 'subjective' fantasy units (such as Sudden Strike). There just isn't, nor has there been anything close to SP put into RTS terms, and he who makes it will likely make a killing.
I've never played SPWW2, but the better generated campaigns in it sound good. On the other hand, having someone set up opfor for you on a long campaign works better than any AI will be able to do for a long time.
I'd like to see better weather in future games. As far as i can tell, weather is not modeling in SPWaW at all, except to reduce movement or max visability. It is not harder to see and spot troops at 500m. at night or in a blizzard, than say, on a nice summer day. I think the tension of a night battle should come from the fact that you can't see very well, but if you start shooting, you can be spotted (by muzzle flash) and enganged from a reasonable distance, and if you stop shooting, you'll go back to being unspoted. It doesn't happen like this now. I started a post on this topic, it you want to read the test restults.
I'd like to see better weather in future games. As far as i can tell, weather is not modeling in SPWaW at all, except to reduce movement or max visability. It is not harder to see and spot troops at 500m. at night or in a blizzard, than say, on a nice summer day. I think the tension of a night battle should come from the fact that you can't see very well, but if you start shooting, you can be spotted (by muzzle flash) and enganged from a reasonable distance, and if you stop shooting, you'll go back to being unspoted. It doesn't happen like this now. I started a post on this topic, it you want to read the test restults.
Unconventional war requires unconventional thought
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
Paul Vebber: Forgive me, but I just don't look on it as such, but it's obvious that y'all did have RTS all along on the table, it's just not the sort of RTS I imagine where you can control as much as you want, as frequently as you want, which is so popular now. It's a misunderstanding on my part, as I've seen so many RTS's where you can pause the action anytime you want or none at all, and command virtually all details available, and given that CA gives so much away to the AI to run your battles, and that it has set times for each turn, that it becomes something like fluid turn-based with little direct participation. In case you don't understand where I'm coming from, I'm talking basically about an AOE with SPWAW units. IOW it would have 'real' data, so that power bars would be eliminated, and it would still allow the sort of real-time that AOE allows. Such a thing, depending on how much detailed modeling you got into could get very fascinating, particularly if it got down into how quickly one turret traversed as opposed to another, or maybe the PZIIC running away and the T34 coming right up on it's backside with superior speed. One could almost devise tank races like that, as silly as that would sound, but it would really make a difference with slower tanks trying fire brigade style to deal with T34s.
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
-
Charles2222
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am
Paul Vebber: Yes, I have, and I couldn't stand it. A number of reasons really. Most importantly I had to go up againist indequate graphics, new system, and some things I didn't understand all at the same time, so I didn't put more than 5 or 6 turns into it and gave up. On a similar note I did play several turns of CM, and the better graphics certainly had me interested for longer, but I still missed all the control.
It seems like I read the readme, manual, or whatever it's called, for Firefight, and I still couldn't make out what the squad bar was supposed to do, but of course that was probably complicated by my soldiers deciding they had better things to do. I also suffered from not seeing any displayable LOS indicator for the units; sighting seemed all guesswork, but I am operating off impressions that were made approximately 5 monthes ago. It also seemed with the infantry battle that came with the demo, that I couldn't tell when the enemies unit had been kocked out. Maybe that's realistic to a degree but I sure didn't like it. I couldn't tell if the units could tell the enemy unit was knocked out, and I couldn't, or what. I'll probably buy CL, but CA maybe not. If CA were sort of a combination between AOE style RTS, and SPWAW accuracy, it would be a no-brainer I'd buy it (but without silly things like AOE resource gathering, though being dependant on supply would be nice - but then most wargames depend on supply). If that were the case I don't know if I would buy CL then, but I'd likely buy both.
It seems like I read the readme, manual, or whatever it's called, for Firefight, and I still couldn't make out what the squad bar was supposed to do, but of course that was probably complicated by my soldiers deciding they had better things to do. I also suffered from not seeing any displayable LOS indicator for the units; sighting seemed all guesswork, but I am operating off impressions that were made approximately 5 monthes ago. It also seemed with the infantry battle that came with the demo, that I couldn't tell when the enemies unit had been kocked out. Maybe that's realistic to a degree but I sure didn't like it. I couldn't tell if the units could tell the enemy unit was knocked out, and I couldn't, or what. I'll probably buy CL, but CA maybe not. If CA were sort of a combination between AOE style RTS, and SPWAW accuracy, it would be a no-brainer I'd buy it (but without silly things like AOE resource gathering, though being dependant on supply would be nice - but then most wargames depend on supply). If that were the case I don't know if I would buy CL then, but I'd likely buy both.