3 years and nothing changed

[KG Erwin]

Andrew, you should really consider turning historic ratings "off". All forces will now have a base exp/morale/leader rating of 70. This may be preferable to starting from scratch.

[soldier]

Unfortunatly the ratings for the minors are so low in 8.4 that the historical ratings feature is best turned off when playing them. My Italian tanks in 43 would only get one shot a turn and then they always missed (from close range while stationary & entrenched) [8|]. I know the Italian combat record in WW2 was lousy but I expect to inflict a few casualties....

[Puukkoo]

Just a personal opinion:

I like it that way. You can find out totally new tactics while playing with an inferior force. I Just finished at the AAR section a match between Rumanians and the Soviets. I made biggest mistakes in purchasing those forces, but Soviet ineffectiveness caused the battle end in a draw.

[soldier]

I couldn't finnish my battle and would have been soundly beaten if i did, not that i have a problem with that (been there before). I was the Italian defence vs a UK assault with the AI getting 1000 more points than my force with true troop off. I was pretty quickly overun and thats rare defending against the AI. The problem for me was the performance of the Italian tanks in 43. Averaging 35 experience they could only load up one shot per turn ! Not to mention the virtual impossibilty of rallying anyone who had been fired at [&:].
I understand how some may like the ratings and they may have historical merits but i think actual battle play is compromised. Out of a potential 120 points experience most nations don't even reach 40 and even major players like the US only reach 60. I actually like slightly lower experience for majors but the disparity between big and small nations is too high IMHO.
I don't see how man for man the Average British or German troop was 2 or 3 times a more effective soldier than his Italian counterpart. I feel those differences should be reflected more in leadership, morale and equipment not a wholesale dumbing down of everyman in the force. I also think the Italians had seen a lot of combat by 43 and should only be slightly less experienced (maybe 10 or 15 points) but thats a subjective assessment and I'm sure others may disagree. In H2H the lesser allies are weaker but still combat effective (and very challenging to win with). I think Andrew has made some valid points here (despite his poor language) that shouldn't be dissmissed. I'll be playing H2H unless theres some major improvements coming for 8.4, too many oddities as it currently stands especially in infantry combat.

[Puukkoo]

Always when you purchase a force you get just average-joes. It is true that all armies should have toughies among the masses, but what is the fascination of it all if Germans and Italians were both equally tough?

Although my battle as Rumanian ended as de-facto Soviet victory, I had some tough warriors in my team too. One Engineer Squad toasted six kills and that was more than many average-joes can do. This shows that even less-trained troops can do damage if a chance arises. And if you played a campaign with Italians or other minors you'll see how they get better when their experience rises.

It is just a historical fact that some nations had more better soldiers than the others. Just look at the fighter aces and see who had the highest number of aerial victories. Best German ace had 352, best Italian 29.

As regards for the tank combat I did not waste my points to junk. A horde of infantry in covered terrain is better than a undergunned and slow tank.

[VikingNo2]

I hope they revisit the experience, they are just too low at the moment IMO. I could see the leadership varying widely but not the plain exp/moral. I can't even play the Italian at the moment[:(]

[Puukkoo]

Well, they are lower ratings than they were before. In SP1 Rumanians and Italians had ratings of 40-50. Currently German ratings are about 60-70, they should be also revised. In SP3 Germans had 80-90.

In H2H those values are somewhat balanced. I don't see why they should go any further.

[Goblin]

Poll started at The Depot.


http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6993


Goblin

[KG Erwin]

Do you want historical results, or a balanced game? To keep in mind the original intent of SPWaW, it was to present a realistic and historical view of how tactical combat in WWII was conducted, NOT to guarantee a "fun" game with everything being more or less equal.

I have heard many guys sing the praises of H2H, but this very title "Head-to-Head" is exactly what it's designed for. The design of the OOBs/ratings for SPWaW was/is geared towards the solo player, as this is the mode in which the majority of players use. I posted a poll on this very subject a few years ago, and solo play was by far the most popular method of play.

With this in mind, and given the limitations of the AI, a challenge must be presented. In this, I think that 8.4 succeeds. Do you guys want "easy", or do you want "tough"? You gotta rally your troops? Yes-- this is why we encourage the purchase of companies, with the company commanders offering their extra rallying points.

Sorry, guys -- I believe that SPWaW should be held to the same criteria for historical accuracy as any other WWII game, as can best be achieved in an ancient game engine.

I refer back to Michael-- he wrote the original code for the Windows version of SPWaW, but later alterations were done by Tom Proudfoot. Michael saw that some flaws were left unaddressed, so he has graciously taken it upon himself (with Matrix' blessing), to address these remaining issues.

At this point, I will say that we have a game that pays attention to history and offers a challenging game experience.

Perhaps some of you have gotten used to the easy way out for this game. This is not what it was meant to be. I include myself in this category-- as it now stands, the AI can kick my butt sometimes. You really need to study your troops' capabilities, and make the right decisions. This is a wake-up call. It wasn't MEANT to be easy.

[Goblin]

Again, there is tough and challenging, and then there is absolutely totally a waste of time to try and play. Since the values are completely arbitrary, who is to say that a closer spread is not more accurate?

I have not played H2H PBEM. I play it exclusively against the AI, especially since the new ratings came out and turned the minor countries into something that is no fun at all to play. Sorry, but I believe that they did something on the battlefield besides sit there or run when they got shot at.

I recommend you stop playing the Corp or the Germans and try a campaign or two as a 'minor' nation (say, Rumania or Italy or something) before you chastise people about 'easy'. Try to rally them after they are shot at, since you brought it up. The game could be adjusted infinately until everyone always lost against the AI. Again, no fun.


Goblin

[KG Erwin]

Ok, here's my suggestion, which I passed to Michael. The problem with the "minors" isn't so much the individual bravery of their soldiers, but the poor quality of their leadership.

Maybe bumping up the exp/morale is the solution, but as the Polish General Sosabowski so pointedly asked in "A Bridge Too Far" : 'In case of a massacre, what difference would it make"?

[Goblin]

I actually agree with you. Morale and experience should be higher, not necessarily leadership. Troops out of basic should have similar morale worldwide. Granted, some were higher than others, but there should not be that horrible of a difference. Same for experience, though training differences by nation would vary this more than morale would. Leadership is another story.



Goblin

[soldier]

German victories were won with better leadership, equipment and tactics. You the player reflects much of this with the kind of weapons you purchase, your deployment and the strategies you use not because your Germans are considered to be twice good as some lesser nation. Sure Experience and morale played their part but they shouldnt be the deciding factor. Use your head, thats what war gaming is about

[KG Erwin]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I can only hope that Michael is taking these suggestions seriously.

The only downside I can see is that potentially, your best troops may tend to stand and get destroyed rather than retreat, MAYBE rally, and live to fight again later. Have you guys considered this possibility?

THIS was the situation facing the Italians and Rumanians defending the flanks of the Sixth Army at the time of the Russian counterattack in November 1942.

In actual fact, the flanks simply melted.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

"Again, there is tough and challenging, and then there is absolutely totally a waste of time to try and play. Since the values are completely arbitrary, who is to say that a closer spread is not more accurate?"

Gary. The values in the new version are those Gary used in SPI and SPIII (copied and pasted tables from SPIII code).

"I have not played H2H PBEM. I play it exclusively against the AI, especially since the new ratings came out and turned the minor countries into something that is no fun at all to play. Sorry, but I believe that they did something on the battlefield besides sit there or run when they got shot at."

Yes. Yes, many did something other than sit or run, when shot at. Surrender en mass or run before shot at.

"I recommend you stop playing the Corp or the Germans and try a campaign or two as a 'minor' nation (say, Rumania or Italy or something) before you chastise people about 'easy'. Try to rally them after they are shot at, since you brought it up. The game could be adjusted infinitely until everyone always lost against the AI. Again, no fun."

Usually play Soviets. In early war, assume when shot at, will route. Account for by holding reserves. Fun is somewhat subjective. Game could be "adjusted infinitely" and still not please all.

Not given greatly to debate, will post on topic this once. Historic values were evaluated and included in game. If disagree with values or feel no fun, fine. Do not use them. Set experience manually. That is purpose of option.

Thanks for Your input...

Michael Wood

[soldier]

Surrender en mass or run before shot at.

Now thats a wargame [8|]

[Goblin]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

OK, now we're getting somewhere. I can only hope that Michael is taking these suggestions seriously.

Question answered.



Goblin

[Alby]

Thanks for your Input Mike..
It is appreciated, as well as all the work you are doing and have done.

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: soldier

Surrender en mass or run before shot at.

Now thats a wargame [8|]

Yes, a historical wargame. I get the impression that you younger guys never played a board game. The concepts of national characteristics show the unfortunate reality of WWII combat. Does the war end differently in your reading of it?

[Goblin]

I think this is where we are supposed to waste time posting all the times theses nations fought and did not run or sit there (probably the majority), and have nothing changed. I'm not going to bother.

KG, its a wargame, not a war documentary.



Goblin