Review

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Thu May 25, 2000 2:29 am

The ability to see is a variable, Charles so that would be difficult. Different units see differently Recon always sees more. So do snipers.

Units with some suppression will see less, so will units with lower experience ratings. Realistic, they are not proficient in finding the hidden enemy.

You'll have to put a unit in the hex and see what it sees, which may not be all you want it to see. Such is the life of a commander, Charles.

WB

------------------
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

Jon Grasham · Post by **Jon Grasham** » Thu May 25, 2000 2:39 am

IMO, the reviewer did leave several important factors out... First, he stated that PBEM/Hot seat was the *only* way to play against a human... no mention of the live connection play coming soon. He said all these bad things, and no mention that patches, improvements, and all else that is good and tasty in the SPWAW world is coming soon. He also had a few things "off" IMO... the graphics look very nice at the higher res setting. Also, he says that the turns require watching..... that was the one that threw me off. Maybee he should go play Red Alert 2 instead, as in *ANY* turn based game, you must watch the AI/opponent play his turn, and the larger the scenario, the longer the wait. Also, maybee I am nuts, but many people prefer PBEM since they rarely have a several hours to play out a scn, and PBEM is easier to schedule, since both people must not be free.

For the armor values, I think that he either did not bother to read/learn just how important shot angles are to armor engagements, or is so used to RTS games, or the orignal SPs, where a 45 degree shot was just as good as a perfect perpendicular shot. Also, the armor is almost always listed differently than the encyclopedia, as a result. Guess since I beefed up on all this stuff long ago, it came much easier to me than some, but it is invaluable knowledge for games that take it into account. (Panzer Elite is another fine example where it is crucial).

Oh well, a review is an opinion, and we all got one, etc.... <G>

[This message has been edited by Jon Grasham (edited 05-24-2000).]

kartono · Post by **kartono** » Thu May 25, 2000 4:38 am

gee... guys,
the reviewer may have his own opinion, but , I also have my own opinion, bugs or no bugs,I still love SPWAW... and this one will sits for a along time in my hard drive....

so... the heck with the reviewer... I'm going back to my kampfgruppe...

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Thu May 25, 2000 4:42 am

Wild Bill: What I'm talking about, is the sort of function for visibility you can use in deployment, in other words, it's the full visibility applied to the hex in all directions. As far as functionality is concerned, perhaps it's better you don't know in advance, the full visibility applied, because it might be quite disappointing to find the unit moved in there, didn't meet that visibility standard.

Another thing, the advertisements have one banner for "Wild Bill and the Raiders". Does the picture of the man there look anything like yourself? Are you as "Wild Bill" as that?

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Thu May 25, 2000 5:13 am

The reviewer, b*gg*r him, we've got a war to win.

troopie

Von Rom · Post by **Von Rom** » Thu May 25, 2000 7:35 pm

I read the review, and although I have not played SPWAW yet, I have played many an hour with the whole SP series.

First, the reviewer states that he was never a fan of the SP series to begin with - should he have been the person to have done the review? An obvious bias here - don't you think?

Second, while many of his comments regarding bugs etc may have been valid - I felt he was going out of his way to pick, pick, pick EVERY little "bug" he could find - and to concentrate ONLY on the negative. The editor should have balanced the review a bit more. To me this is sloppy editing.

Third, very little credit was given for the fact that this game was the result of the efforts of a group of volunteers that worked an untold number of hours, and that it was provided free - and who have a wonderful record of patching and improving their products (unlike many "established" game companies that leave gamers twisting in the wind once a game has been released).

Fourth, IMHO could this VERY negative review also have been a deliberate attempt to knock Matrix and its unique approach to gaming? Matrix's approach is quite revolutionary. After all Matrix is offering this game free; it's going to be added to computer game magazines coming out this summer; there are ads in the games; Matrix's employees "listen" to gamers; etc, etc, etc, I could go on... (and I will

)

In addition, Matrix is seeking to revive many of the older classic games - heaven forbid - does that mean we won't have to stay on the up-grade treadmill? Boy I'll bet that sends a shudder through the corridors of computer and video card makers

Finally, my over-all impression to the review was that it was overly negative - sure no game is perfect - but I don't like Command and Conquer - should I then be the person to be selected to do a review of that game? Ridiculous. SPWAW should be reviewed by a knowledgeable wargamer - this game is for wargamers - it is NOT a game for the "twitch" crowd. Also praise should have lavished on Matrix for their extreme support and help that they are giving to this game and to gamers.

Believe me - this type of support shows - Matrix and company will be around a long time - and they will proudly be able to show the "big" companies how gaming should be done.

Way to go guys - we are behind you all the way

------------------
A King Tiger can give you a definite edge...

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Thu May 25, 2000 7:47 pm

After playing the 'Betio' scenario as japanese I actually begun to understand some points of that review. This relates to the long time it takes for the computer to finish it's turn. Now in this scenario there are several HMG nests that are armoured all around. There was a phase when one such nest was visible to 30+ US units. And of course when computer had it's turn, most of those units unloaded their _useless_ rifle, mg and lmg fire at this nest, achieving absolutely nothing else than lots of wasted time even with message delays at fastest. I actually read a book during this time as I knew AI cannot achieve anything

Now as it is near impossible to cause any suppression to tanks/bunkers with rifle fire, could it be possible to implement an AI check to see if any damage can be caused? If not, then that unit would move until new target appears instead of wasting rifle fire to immune targets. I think such method would benefit the AI play as it would not mill in front of bunkers until some tank or engineer finally destroys it.

Voriax

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Thu May 25, 2000 8:56 pm

Why does the computer fire on units it either doesn't destroy or can't? Very simple, because I do the same thing. Why? It's a matter of doing everything you can. If you play Gerry, and all the 88's are knocked out, what do you do with T34 hordes coming at you? You're dead meat. You run them into infantry or else. Naturally the computer doesn't send the T34's in alone, so how do you defeat them? You try to chip away at the other portions of the Ruskie force, while you try to lay so much suppressive fire at the T34's that they retreat. Hopefully they might retreat enough to go off the board. In any case, a unit retreated, if that's all you can manage, is a unit moved, a unit unable to fight for a while. No T34 can withstand several squads of infantry after it, with suppressing fire from tanks, if the rest of the opposition is so crippled that it cannot hamper the infantry.

Besides, just how accurately does a T34 with 10 suppression or more, fire, even if it doesn't retreat? Just how many orders can it execute with huge suppression? If you've ever had a lone King Tiger on the front line, you learn what suppression does real easily. It all but makes the unit useless. You see, the battle isn't always who kills the most, but also who has the least suppression, besides, any tank can suffer a top or track hit, thereby rendering that unit, sooner or later, as mere infantry target practice. Even if your troops have super morale, every turn that your having to rally off suppression accumulated from non-lethal fire, you are losing another part of the battle, and that is the battle to store up orders so that more can be done in movement and changing stances. Don't let your eyes deceive you, there's more to the battles than the AIP just being stupid because there's no casualties coming. I've saved my forces, in past SP games, many times, by fighting the battle of suppressing the living daylights out of the opponents most invincible units. The AIP may not often pick the best target in the world to suppress, but if the unit is very costly, you can depend on suppression, as many a 88 flak user knows all too well.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Thu May 25, 2000 10:07 pm

Originally posted by Charles22:
Why does the computer fire on units it either doesn't destroy or can't? Very simple, because I do the same thing.

Then we have a slightly different style of playing. Yes, in the other versions of SP I also spent a lot of rifle fire at tanks to suppress them. Not any more as it isn't very useful. Unless I'm able to suck out the opportunity fire and then move to assault I move my troops into hiding and hope that those T-34's run blindly into them.

Also if you think my bunker example, the AI's problem is that it only sees that bunker as something that has to be killed before troops can move, thus it fires everything. If the situation is reversed, you'd use near-dead units to draw fire and then encircle and assault from sides/rear, you don't shoot tens and tens of rifle shots at that bunker. At least I don't.

Test sometimes how many rifle/mg shots is now needed to cause tank to retreat, heck, even multiple penetrating AT-gun hits aren't usually enough to make them retreat.

Voriax

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Thu May 25, 2000 11:48 pm

Voriax: Good points, only the concept is still valid. Yes, the tanks aren't so prone to suppression fire from infantry in SPWAW, but the way I play my games, I generally, not now or before, relied on infantry for that (only if they've been spotted by the tank and have nothing better to do). Generally, I'm talking about suppressing T34's when they're considerably further off than are a threat to my infantry anyway.

The way I've tried to deal with T34's in the past, was to keep the infantry down to range 1, and to concentrate anti-tank fire on the T34's. True, it does seem as though this game is much more apt for units to recover from retreat quicker, but as I said, a heavily suppressed unit fires far less anyway. What's the advantage to a tank that can only fire once? Also, when a few of the enemy units are set into retreat, other than the T34, that also suppresses the T34. If nothing else, in such a situation, fire should be kept up, if only for the hope of blowing the tank's track.

As far as infantry firing on infantry, with no kills to show for the shooting, the suppression may get them out of the hex, and even if it doesn't, it causes them to shoot less accurately, less often, and given computer tendency to attack en masse (or at least from what I've seen to date here), suppressive fire can keep your infantry unit, so allegedly safe, from countering that unit coming up behind the enemy suppressive fire, who will assault because the non-lethal fire has kept your unit from firing back any more.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Fri May 26, 2000 12:18 am

A couple other quickies:

Getting shot at slows you down "friction" so shoot SOMETHING at everything.

Getting shot at costs you a shot (friciton again) so again the advantage will tend to be with he who gets teh first shots off, even if they "don't do anything" they have slowed teh enemy down and made him contemplate his mortality at least for a bit:-)

A lot of comments about things being effective or not are often biased by your point of view - try "playing yourself" and you may get some different insight into what is going on. Tanks and bunkers for instance do get suppressed, but if the tank has an exceptional leader with 90% rally , it will seem "unaffected" becasue it keeps rallying back, unti the tme it doesn't an it becomes a sitting duck...

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Fri May 26, 2000 1:14 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Tanks and bunkers for instance do get suppressed, but if the tank has an exceptional leader with 90% rally , it will seem "unaffected" becasue it keeps rallying back, unti the tme it doesn't an it becomes a sitting duck...

Hmm...does this mean that during computers turn, when it fires at my bunker it causes some disruption but there is an automatic and unseen rally immediately?

If this is the case then I raise my hat to that Japanese bunker commander that shrug off 100+ shots from small arms

Voriax

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Fri May 26, 2000 1:23 am

Don't raise it too high, VOriax, or he'll part your hair! Banzai!

The kunel

------------------
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Fri May 26, 2000 7:17 pm

There is no secret rally, but the AI does rally in its turn. IF you get a hit on a fort, it will take a couple suppression points, but would rifle fire on teh outsde of heavy concrete walls, distrub you that much?

It took 100's of turns and whole gun lines of battleships to root out many of those caves and bunkers, that it can't easily be done in 10 or 15 minutes by infantry doesn't seem too outlandish to me

The cure for bunkers is smoke in front of then and skirt around to the flanks and either ignore them from that point on or blow them up with demo charges. Often it takes couple trys! Blind and bypass then let teh engineers follow up and take then out...that my tactic for forts!

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Fri May 26, 2000 8:14 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
There is no secret rally, but the AI does rally in its turn. IF you get a hit on a fort, it will take a couple suppression points, but would rifle fire on teh outsde of heavy concrete walls, distrub you that much?

Not at all, remember I was playing the Japanese

With the rally i meant besides the normal rally phase where you see who rallies and whether he succeedes or not.

It took 100's of turns and whole gun lines of battleships to root out many of those caves and bunkers, that it can't easily be done in 10 or 15 minutes by infantry doesn't seem too outlandish to me

I think I posted some strength ratings of finnish bunkers to some other thread...if you ever visit Finland I'll show you them in rl. We actually have one bunker as clubhouse. Good soundproofing, don't disturb neighbours

The cure for bunkers is smoke in front of then and skirt around to the flanks and either ignore them from that point on or blow them up with demo charges. Often it takes couple trys! Blind and bypass then let teh engineers follow up and take then out...that my tactic for forts!

Yes, same here. I was just hoping that you could teach AI doing same instead of firing every available rifle shot at the bunker. Sometimes even from behind where the chances are that the bunker crew doesn't even notice it.

Btw, in winter war many Finnish bunkers were destroyed by driving a tank in front of the mg's and then using flamethrowers. Lack of AT-weapons made this possible.

Voriax

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Fri May 26, 2000 9:46 pm

Your basic point that the AI is sort of dimwitted attacking is very fair!

Most times the AI is best on defense against a human attacker where a crafty scenario designer can in part way make up for the AI's limitations in that regard!

It has surprised me a couple times and made me scramble:-)

Colonel Klink · Post by **Colonel Klink** » Fri May 26, 2000 10:33 pm

you can't please everyone all the time. You guys at matrix are a dream come true for true steel panthers fans. Great job and THANKS for all of your efforts. You are appreciated!

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Fri May 26, 2000 10:54 pm

Hey CK, you forgot to say, "Diiiiiismissed".