What Would You Like?

[Paul Vebber]

For the most part "elite", "heavy", "light" infantry are categorizations so the AI know what units types to pick from.

The unit characteristics give them their character. "elite" units typically have a higher fire control rating and are given teh 10 special flag in teh formation ofr a 10 point exp bonus, but that doesn't come form the class name. We may add more "coded" capabilities later, but right now they are just labels in most cases.

An exception is special forces and guerrila infantry which can use the infiltration mode of entry.

[victorhauser]

Originally posted by Desert Fox:
Hmm, I think maybe you are making a big deal of nothing here. The first Waffen SS units were in fact, elite. Now, it is true that there were many elite units in the Heer, but lets remember that they are not depicted in the game, so to pass on calling the Waffen SS elite really does not grant other units that status, gamewise. Also, the Waffen SS were not heavy infantry either. For the most accurate oob, there would have to be several different types of German infantry, with both regular Heer and Waffen units, as well as elite Heer and Waffen units. This is obviously pretty close to impossible due to the limited space in the oobs.
I don't know if there are bonuses associated with being classed as elite infantry instead of something else, and I guess Paul would have to tell us that. However, if you don't like calling the Waffen SS elite (which btw is just as great an injustice to them as it is not calling certain Heer units elite) then you can go in and change it yourself with the oob editor.
Now I also think that you are not very educated on the subject of the Waffen SS. The Waffen SS was plain and simple a battlefield unit. They had nothing to do with the concentration camps, nor were they full of evil people. Don't ever confuse the Waffen SS with the Allgemeine SS. On paper, the Waffen SS was created under the Allgemeine SS, but in reality the Waffen SS answered to the OKW in battle. Waffen SS was a group of soldiers, Allgemeine SS was the political force responsible for the Holocaust.
This is a common and pretty bad misconception to make. I hate to think of the trouble Waffen SS vets have been given just because most people don't understand the difference. Sure there were bad folks mixed into the Waffen, but there were most surely bad folks mixed into every other German unit, and every other nation's armies as well.
And one last thing, if you still don't feel right using Waffen SS units in the game, then don't use them. Rename them or just don't buy them.

I am indeed talking about the Waffen SS being dregs of human society. Even lower down in the gutter are the einsatzgruppen, concentration-camp guards, etc. By the way, the book "Soldiers of Destruction" points out clearly that 3rd SS Totenkopf (a unit commonly considered one of the "big three" elite SS units) was composed of exactly the kinds of criminals you state weren't in the Waffen SS. They were recruited by Theodore Eike (a criminal himself) from "racially pure" convicts and concentration-camp guards. It has been stated (usually by SS revisionists and apologists) that Waffen SS troops had little to do with atrocities and other malignant behavior which should be more properly attributed to the einsatzgruppen, etc. That's a load of horse dung, to paraphrase Patton.

But regardless of that, the question is, "should Waffen SS troops be considered elite?" Besides the graduates of the Bad Tolz school in the early-war years (most of whom were already dead by the end of Operation Barbarossa in 1941), the Waffen SS recruit received no better training than his Wehrmacht counterpart, and frequently worse training since much of his time was taken up with political matters. Indeed, most SS commanders were chosen precisely due to political reasons and not for military competence. But since the SS was given preferential treatment regarding replacements along with extra helpings of new equipment (due to political reasons again), the SS usually had more bodies and more firepower to throw at the enemy (on a per-formation basis). And yet, even without all that extra stuff, the Regular Wehrmacht units routinely outperformed the SS in combat. As one example among many, during the Battle of the Bulge, 6th SS Panzer Army was outperformed by 5th Panzer Army. Now, I'm not saying that some SS units didn't perform well. Sure they did. They just didn't perform better (man for man and bullet for bullet) than the Regular Wehrmacht. And they certainly didn't perform better than the best of the Regular Wehrmacht. I claim that if the Regular Wehrmacht had been given those high-quality replacements and all that new equipment, they would've gotten far more effective use out of them than the SS did.

But all that is besides the point. Why are Waffen SS units being singled out for preferential treatment by SPWAW?

I agree that the simple solution would be for me to go into my OOB editor and change the designations myself. But I posted my message to plant seeds of awareness in the minds of readers and the Matrix staff.

In the Spirit of Knowledge and Harmony,
Victor Hauser

[Nikademus]

Your both right (Vic and D.Fox)

It largely depended on the specific unit *and* the time period involved.

away from sources so apologies in advance for any little inacuracies. The debate sparked a memory from Alan Clark's excellent book on the war in the East, in it he specifically mentioned 'Totenkampf's debut combat preformance during the opening stages of Barbarossa. Apparantly their efforts were nothing to write home about and they were quickly pulled out of the front lines where they could , quote "Vent their spleens on the civilian population" unquote. [vs taking on regular army units who tended to shoot back].

Certainly the Russians did'nt nitpick such nicetys between Waffen and regular SS, and routinely put to the sword anyone caught wearing the Deathshead symbol

Other units though were proffessionals of the highest caliber...particularily around the time of Kursk. After that debacle Waffen SS recruiters had to open their ranks to just about anybody willing to fight and the quality level started sliding again.

Given the hot and emotional potential of this argument i would point out the most logical argument has been given, that there are limited OOB slots avail and since there 'were' elite Waffen SS units and since most people 'do' equate Waffen SS as "elite" units (Elite not just being used to describe actual skill but also more intangible moral and fanatical factors) its understandable why a game like SPWAW which is maketed to a wide range of enthusiasts would go with that decision.

Personally, i have to say i dont have a problem with Waffen SS being termed as 'elite' I also have to admit that playing the Germans during their general 'elite' years (tactical wise) is awful fun.(TOO much fun, i had to try commanding a polar opposite Italian Kampfgruppe for my current campaign to REALLY get a challenge!) being a longtime wargamer i've long since resolved any internal conflicts regarding the horrors of actual war vs. wargaming. Its a dicy subject in general it must be admitted.
If it really bothers you that much i'd just take DFox's suggestion and edit the name titles.

[schmoe]

A suggestion for implimenting backing up with armor: If the attempted move is directly behind it's current hex, it is ASSSUMED to be backing up. The facing doesn't change and the movement cost is twice normal.

[Kluckenbill]

I just got my password, so here are my rather belated requests.

An elegant way to improve the opportunity fire problem would be to use % to hit rather than range, and have a hard target and soft target %. Thus you could set your 88s at say, 50% hard and 90% soft and vice versa for your MGs.

Tanks should throw tracks more realistically. Generally (although not always) the heavier the vehicle the more prone it was to throwing a track. Instead of happening only in streams it should happen occasionaly on slopes with rough terrain, especially with a green crew.

I had a lot more nits to pick but they were all covered elsewhere on this post. FYI I've been playing wargames since the '70s (or was it the '60s) and SP since it first came out and SPWAW is just fantastic.

[Wild Bill]

So have I, Kluckenbill! My first real wargames were Afrika Korps and Midway, 1967, Dallas Texas in a hobby store buying plastic models.

I had dreamed of such a thing all my life. Old Avalon Hill opened the door for me.

33 years later, and I'm still at it. Too late to change now, and I don't want to change anyway. I'm having too much fun.

I know, I know, way off topic. Old folks reminisce a lot. Now its time for my nap

Blame it all on Kluckenbill (Gotta love that name!). He started it!

The aging Kunel

------------------
In Arduis Fidelis
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[Grisha]

I'm not sure if the crews of immobilized vehicles can voluntarily exit their vehicles in SP:WAW. If they cannot, then I'd like to see that in v2.0.

[Moonwolf]

I'd really like to see expanded databases for the OOBs . . . so when a much more complete OOB is done for a country (ala SP: The Russo-German Edition) all the additions can fit in a single OOB. You guys don't have to expand the OOBs, just provide us with enough empty slots so that we can put -everything- into there ourselves.

------------------
| Moonwolf |
----------------

[troopie]

We have units that don't surrender. Add units that don't take prisoners. I'm told that frequently during island fighting the Japanese and Americans didn't take prisoners. Also many Russian partisan units killed Germans who tried to surrender. Available as a toggle option?

troopie

[schmoe]

Gotcha Beat, WB! Gettysburg, probably around '64. In '60 I was out in the back yard with model ships and 50' measuring tapes, and that was at age 12. There's no cure.

Africa Korps was a great game though, and I played Midway a lot too. Just couldn't wait for the next game in those days. Bulge was my favorite, and I think I still have it. Lots of arguing over rules though, and we needed needlenose pliers to move the stacks around.

[Tombstone]

Here's a thought about the omni-vision of the units in the SP games: What if when you selected a unit it would darken hexes that the unit/formation could not see (units that are out of command would be discluded from what the formation could see.) AND it would keep track of what units it had LOS on. Then if another unit/formation wanted to attack a unit that another unit/formation had LOS on it would have to make a communication check (and spend an order) between their two units/formations. If the check is successful then the other formation acquires that target. And so on, and so on. Then maybe artillery could be reworked so that it's an issue of a communications check between the spotter and that particular artillery unit. Or something...

And as far as game ideas... I think that a game that was similar to Steel Panthers in it's tactical combat resolution could be put to use in a slightly larger scale game. If you had a map that was much larger than a large sp3 map (100 hexes x 200m = 20km) like a couple hundred km across or so. That makes 10 some odd map lengths across the whole map... Now if you abstract movement into units representing battalions or regiments or something and move them around in something like 2 to 4 hour turns. Where you maybe plan out a bunch of various orders like, advancing to here, setting up defenses here, plotting artillery zones, planning out parachute drops, determining supply lines and volume (this could be abstracted into some kind of transport flow value or something and could be interdicted or something), setting air mission preferences, where supply dumps are placed, placing units into reserve or rest, commando missions, whatever. And at the end of each turn the game generates like 3 or 4 maps where the most significant action is taking place or one or two places that each side chooses to play out... And from there it goes into a session of Steel Panthers-like gameplay that lasts anywhere from a few turns to who knows... like 50 turns (depending on how early or late in the larger turn units meet), but at the beginning of the battle a bunch of options are given to each side depending on the overall situation of the 'big battle' like wether or not reinforcements can get into the battle (based on distance from the engagement and they'll appear roughly along the mapside their approaching), air support(as above, maybe this can be some global pool that has to be allocated to various tasks - air superiority, cas, etc), maybe some kind of command structure options that lean various artillery batteries that are in range to one battle or the other, and a host of other things that could be thought up.

I know it sounds crazy, but the main tricky part would be creating a really powerful random battle condition generator that made maps (or not depending on scenario) and created proper conditions. After that it would just be an issue of taking some kind of hex type TOAW game (not that I think it should be based on hexes) and making it spew out a bunch of data that the battle generator knows how to read... Oh wait, there would also be the whole force pool(replacements, repair rate, damaged or malfunctioning equipment), air system(air superiority, which planes go where, and why), and a supply system(how much where, how fast it gets there what impact that has on units in combat)... It would be a TON of work... but if someday someone does it I'd be sick with happiness.

Tomo

[Fabs]

In my first reply to this thread I concentrated on aspects of a hypothetical game similar to SPWAW and still covering warfare in this century, mostly 1930-1945, WWII being my personal favourite period.

Here is a completely crazy suggestion. What about the Wild West? When I was a kid we spent lots of time watching westerns and playing Cowboys and Indians. ( 40 years or so ago, in Southern Switzerland).

I loved John Ford's movies, in particular those about the US Cavalry. I also read books about Buffalo Bill ( I forget the author, but I remember various books). I found them impossible to put down, and they inspired many week-end afternoon games in the woods around where I grew up.

Now I know that since then a lot of political work has gone into correcting the wrong perceptions created by Hollywood about Native Americans, and perhaps to Americans this may not be a welcome subject, in which case I apologize, but would it not make an interesting and different subject for a wargame?

If done properly, it may even serve to impart knowledge about the true virtues of the Native American warriors, and I am sure that many people may whish to play the game from that perspective.

Any old Cowboys and Indians fans out there?

------------------
Fabs

[This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 06-10-2000).]

[Seth]

I'd really like to see a campaign where you determine your progress.
Imagine that the campaign presents you with a map, divided into fairly small but logical areas. For example, you could choose to attack the USSR from Finland, along the Baltic, into the Ukraine, on the Crimea, etc. Each zone would have random maps with realistic terrain, and possibly could include accurate maps of important geographical features and cities. If you won, you would then be presented with a choice of the zones that lay beyond the one you captured. The map would show each zone's status, which could progress historically or semi-randomly. You could do all sorts of stuff with this. Say you were doing really well and captured Leningrad, but the Soviets actually advanced in the south, invading Romania. Your units could be transferred south to assist. This would also allow ahistorical results, such as victory for the Germans in the east, or a French invasion to relieve Poland.
Also, even though it's a little hokey, it would be fun to have the ability to win medals. I mean historical ones, and perhaps a few fictional ones, like unit honors for the capture of Moscow.

[Kluckenbill]

I like Seth's idea of a campaign that is a series of linked battles based on prior outcomes. I would really like a 2 player PBEM Campaign. We all know that the computer AI is nothing like a human player. The best thing about a 2 person campaign is that you would have to accept less than total victory and husband your forces for the future, but you couldn't be too cautious or you wouldn't get the victory points to upgrade your force. I don't know how hard this would be to program but it would allow for fascinating multi game battles between two players.

[Spunkgibbon]

Originally posted by Kluckenbill:
I would really like a 2 player PBEM Campaign. We all know that the computer AI is nothing like a human player. The best thing about a 2 person campaign is that you would have to accept less than total victory and husband your forces for the future, but you couldn't be too cautious or you wouldn't get the victory points to upgrade your force.

Yeah, I reckon a PBEM Campaign mode would be great too. There'd be a real sense of continuity through your battles and as Kluckenbill says you'd have to nurture your core units. You'd get attached to your more heroic units while your opponent tries to exact revenge against them.
The dynamics of a PBEM Campaign would be pretty complex. In some battles you might need to concentrate mainly on the destruction of enemy materiel to tie up his rebuild points. In other battles you'd have to take a stealthy approach until you recoup your own losses.

I know you're limiting the number of patches for W@W and you've already got your work cut out with the millions of other suggestions we've laid on you but if this wouldn't be too massive a thing to code it could add a whole new dimension to PBEM play.

[Alastair at Work]

seconded big time on pbem campaigns. It would ass a whole new dimension and possibly help create the feeling that, against a mighty opponent, losing one battle might not necessarily mean losing the war. Adapt, readapt and plan using the situation in the campaign at any given moment. Sounds bloody good to me.

Cheers
Al

[Billy Yank]

Originally posted by Alastair at Work:
seconded big time on pbem campaigns. It would ass a whole new dimension and possibly help create the feeling that, against a mighty opponent, losing one battle might not necessarily mean losing the war. Adapt, readapt and plan using the situation in the campaign at any given moment. Sounds bloody good to me.

You'd have to be careful about balancing the campaign. I can see where this could lead to a "rich get richer, poor get poorer" situation. IOW, if one side wins a couple of battles in a row, he could end up with all state of the art equipment while his opponent can't even afford to fix his existing units.


------------------
Billy Yank
I don't define "my own" the way you want me to.

[Voriax]

I'd like to see a total force size for both sides in the battle report screen. The losses could be displayed in a 'xx tanks out of yy' way.

Also it would be nice to be able to go back to map from Battle Result screen, with all units from both sides visible and examinable

Voriax

[Spunkgibbon]

Originally posted by Billy Yank:
You'd have to be careful about balancing the campaign. I can see where this could lead to a "rich get richer, poor get poorer" situation. IOW, if one side wins a couple of battles in a row, he could end up with all state of the art equipment while his opponent can't even afford to fix his existing units.

Good point. A two player campaign could be balanced by basing battles on the previous outcome.
Eg. If Player1 beats Player2 in a meeting engagement then the next battle would be Player1 advancing against Player2's delay. If Player 1 wins this one then the campaign would go on to Player1 assaulting Player2's defence.
If Player2 wins a battle then it sets the next one back a step. I guess the campaign would end when one player ends up winning their final assault and their forces successfully break through the enemy's front line.

Doing a PBEM campaign like this, on a single section of a front would keep the game balanced and also give a perfectly good reason why both sides always face the same core units.

I reckon it could work and would be very cool.

[Stug]

I would like to see more carnage graphically. More detail. Although SPWAW is good. But you never see blood or cries of death when killing infantry. If you've seen "The Thin Red Line" then you know what I mean.