Well, what's the go on 6.1 (cross post)

Reg · Post by **Reg** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 2:43 pm

What does everyone think of V6.1??

Does anyone think it has swung too far the other way and made it too hard for the attacker?? (Units seem to evaporate at a rapid rate now).

Combat Command Forum link

Reg.

Greg McCarty · Post by **Greg McCarty** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 5:53 pm

Originally posted by Reg:
What does everyone think of V6.1??

Does anyone think it has swung too far the other way and made it too hard for the attacker?? (Units seem to evaporate at a rapid rate now).

Combat Command Forum link

Reg.

I'm liking it a lot. I'm currently revamping
a scenario with it. It adds a new dynamic to be sure, but I think the effect is that it
forces the player to micromanage tactics for
best results. It probably frustrates some
who like to leap before they look. I'm one. You will pay a heavier price for that luxury
now. My instincts tell me that up until 6.1, we've been "getting away with murder," in some cases. I haven't tried it against serious fortifications yet. I imagine that will be the greatest challenge.

Del · Post by **Del** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 6:10 pm

Except for a couple of basic flaws it works ok for a turn based game. It makes you use recon units to advance and forces you to advance slowly, not at a run. The opfire thing still annoys since a static defender fires way more than a static attacker. Can't figure out the physics of that one. If you like short games it's going to be a blood bath since you have to run to get anything done.

One thing I really like about the latest SPWaW games are the very small maps...30x30, etc. Makes for some great small unit battles. Also I'm currently playing German vs Soviet on a huge map. The vastness of the stepps and all that. It's very cool.

There is one thing about the generated maps I would like to see. Some way to increase or decrease the amount of terrain on the map. Maybe a slider like in the SimCity games. One way for more trees, another for less. Or one way for more terrain, another for less.

Overall the game is at it's best with the latest iteration.

ZinZan · Post by **ZinZan** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 6:29 pm

I'm playing 5 Advance/delay or a Assault/Defend battles at the moment using 6.1. So far I think the major differences are that you need much more time and points ratio to acheive a fair result. Most of my games are 20-25 turns long and we are using 2:1 for Delay and 3:1 for defend scenarios. looks good so far.

I must add 1 caution to my comments I am only about 1/4 to 1/3 of the way through my games so these are just preliminary feelings.

Mark Ezra · Post by **Mark Ezra** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 6:56 pm

Thanks for your post. I replied on the Combat Command forum. I didn't know there was another forum discussing SPWAW so I appreciate the cross forum post you made.
To answer here: Yes V6.1 got it about right.

Bing · Post by **Bing** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 8:21 pm

Preliminary on 6.1 and in no way conclusive, merely observations at this point:

No question a more cautious advance is required, IF you want your troops to survive. With my guys at 200% sighting ability, the enemy still does not show up the way he used to, not even on the open desert!

Entrenched enemy seems more difficult to rout or destroy, I've pumped 15, 20 and more HE rounds into an AT pit and they still fire back. For me, that means greater reliance upon indirect fire for purposes of suppression.

We'll see. Thus far 6.1 plays smoothly, some of the new city graphics are superb, though my wish - probably won't ever happen - would be for higher screen resolution, at least 1024 x 768, higher if possible.

Also I feel the need for one more level of magnification zoom, not everyone will agree I am sure.

Bing

Paulus Pak · Post by **Paulus Pak** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 9:50 pm

Yesterday I've returned from holidays and in the late hours I've downloaded 6.1 ver. patch and immediately started to play. I LIKE IT! I LIKE IT VERY MUCH! Now we can see full potential of MMG's, HMG's, LMG's and artillery. AT last MG34 and MG42 became most deadly infantry weaponry. After several scenarios I think that balance between attacker and defender is OK. When you attack defense line through the open field you MUST suffer casualities. And when you are cought in the open by artillery barrage you are doomed. Now SPWAW offers this. From what I know that was II World War. Currently I'm reading Alexander McKee's "Caen. Anvil of Victory" Impressions of bloodbath from book are recreated in SPWAW scenarios, eg.: Operation Goodwood. GOOD WORK! And by the way: my congratulations to Matrix Staff for that award. You deserved it!

m10bob · Post by **m10bob** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 9:55 pm

I feel it's the best version yet.....I do want historical accuracy and i believe it (correctly) forces commanders to seek cover with infantry and not use them for "cannon-fodder"..Everybody has a role here and it truly makes combined arms pay off.....

Monte · Post by **Monte** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 10:07 pm

It is very realistic. Except it has that WWI appeal. Infantry and artillery rule the field. Whoever moves gets slaughtered. And you don't need tanks, at least you don't need them against AI.

When playing against AI, specially if you are early German, just buy artillery and FO, some SPAA and LOTS of mechanized infantry. Upgrade all support guns that you find in mechanized company to 88's and you are more than capable to deal with any enemy tank. As for the early German tank models, all of them are overrated, expensive toys.

It is VERY interesting and challenging this way, though.

Bonzo · Post by **Bonzo** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 10:28 pm

by Del
There is one thing about the generated maps I would like to see. Some way to increase or decrease the amount of terrain on the map. Maybe a slider like in the SimCity games. One way for more trees, another for less. Or one way for more terrain, another for less.

This is something planned for Combat Leader, to madify both generated and prebuilt maps. check it out on my web page

rcread · Post by **rcread** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 10:52 pm

1 Canadain Mechanized Brigade conducted an urban warfare exercise recently in the city of Edmonton, on a base which is being closed and has lots of abandoned buildings scheduled for demolition. The exercise was run at platoon level, and one of the tasks was for a platoon to take a series of small buildings. Laser tag systems were used, to add realism.
The officers were surprised to discover that their "rush-em" tactics failed miserably. Use of supporting artillery was nonexisant, and no effort was made to supress other buildings while the first one was approached.
The reults was that the platoon took two-thirds casualties before taking the first building, and couldn't continue. So no, I don't think its unrealistic that troops take big casualties when moving in the open.
And yes, I do think army officers need to play more war game simulations.

Del · Post by **Del** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 11:09 pm

Thanks Bonzo, sounds very promising. Makes me want to put away SPW@W until the other two games come out.

Banjo · Post by **Banjo** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:04 am

I too think that from what little I have played so far, that the balance is the best yet. The rush tactic has to be curtailed to survive. This brings up my greatest concern for C.L. On such large maps that are capable of being played on, it will bring the need for longer games on the large maps. I feel much more time will need to be spent on recon and patrol, before committing the troops. The length of the games in my opinion are too short. I know that a soldiers life is boredom with brief moments of terror, but we are dealing with greater formations and distances.

This is the best system available so far, and perhaps scenarios designed taking into account the changes 6.1 has brought will reflect this. But the larger maps could use a bit more time to really make this stand out, and become a real factor. Just my opinion. I still say that the Matrix guys have gone beyond the call in the betterment of this game!!!!

When can I pre order C.L.?!!!!

Kluckenbill · Post by **Kluckenbill** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 1:22 am

I've not played too much yet, just 3 battles in a campaign, but I really like what I've seen so far.

The infantry toughness seems about right, they're still tough, but not invincible like 5.1.

The spotting is difficult but it seems fairly realistic, at least it makes the AT guns worth while.

Great job guys!

WeyBug · Post by **WeyBug** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 5:01 am

I just downloaded and installed the upgrade to v6.1(from 5.3). The start screen still shows 5.3. Anyone else see this? Did the upgrade "take"?

Thanks,
WeyBug

parusski · Post by **parusski** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 6:03 am

Del, I agree with you about the real need for recon units more than in any of the past game versions. I have learned many bloody lessons with my headlong, pedal to the medal, tank attacks. I am much more deliberate now. Great new tweak
Paulus has a good point about artillery. I love the way it is simulated now. Artillery was the most deadly weapon in WWII and the game now reflects that(except I cannot get my artillery to work proplerly!!).

Reg · Post by **Reg** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 11:59 am

Originally posted by WeyBug:
I just downloaded and installed the upgrade to v6.1(from 5.3). The start screen still shows 5.3. Anyone else see this? Did the upgrade "take"?

A trap for young players but did you install the update into C:\SPWAW\SPWAW instead of C:\SPWAW??

Don't be embarrassed, we've all done it at least once (I know I have!!

)

Reg.

Slind · Post by **Slind** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 2:55 pm

IMHO this is the most realistic SP so far, but it has something I'm not fully satisfied with. I can't specify what it is, but I really liked SP I, it was "simple" enough... Too many bugs though.
Or maybe I'm just imagining things...

Mai Thai · Post by **Mai Thai** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 3:14 pm

Imho i like vers. 6.1. If you are the one thast must assault you have to carefully plan a path to keep your troops covered or at least take advantage of terrain features. You can now really need some smoke covering your advancing troops and use arty, tanks and troops in good coordination.
I played some scenarios and few turn in a long campaign and if you advance in open ground your men will be wiped out at a high rate, but if you could manage to suppress the enemy, even if entrenced, and make a wise use of smoke and close tank/inf. gun support you have a key to win.
As for bunkers i found that is a waste of men to let inf. to take them out, it is better to avoid them and let your CS tanks or flamethrowers to do the job from the rear. In fact flamethrowers are the best inf. weapon you can use against fortified/entrenced units and bunkers and even better if tank mounted for mobility and greater range.
Bye

JNL · Post by **JNL** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 3:32 pm

Just finished the upgrade to 6.1 on July 14. Ran thru the first half of the “Long, Long Road” Campaign this weekend.

I enjoyed it very much. The tweaks to infantry fire seem to function normally. I like the increase in lethality of crew served machine guns. This “feels” more correct. I’ve read countless books that have always gone to great lengths discussing how dangerous these types of weapons are. Up until 6.1 you could pretty much ignore most crew served MGs (with the exception of the .50 cal or any double/quad AAA mounting).

That’s the biggest change I’ve noticed so far. I understand the art was reworked as well – I’m a big fan of on board arty (my current core has 12 75mm light howitzers). I haven’t seen any real change there yet - of course that could be because I’m constantly blowing stuff up with my arty.

All in all – a worthy upgrade.

No MC feedback yet – my wife will get my copy for my birthday in Aug – so like hurry up with the 2nd one! She could get me both!