Base of fire, and time scales...

[FlashfyreSP]

ORIGINAL: RERomine

Is it possible to design a scenario, with a lengthy time frame (30+ turns) where the "penalty" for failing to achieve objectives by a certain turn is the AI gets reinforcements that can turn the battle into a long, but winable blood bath? The situation might be an attack to capture a town, bridge, or whatever. If the objectives are secured by turn 10 or so, game over. Otherwise, the AI gets an influx of reinforcements and it turns into a slugfest. This would allow for both the planned attacked, expecting the battle to go on for a while or a hasty attack where someone tries to put it away quickly.

This might be beyond the capabilities of the SPWaW engine, because it would have to recognized game over if the objectives are secured by turn 10. Does anyone know if this is possible? Also, does the game use any sort of "triggering", i.e. units from side A capture hex X,Y and side B gets reinforcements, withdraws, counter-attacks, etc? It's along the same lines as recognizing certain game conditions.

Not really...there aren't any "triggers" in the game that could be used to define the achieving of certain conditions. It is possible to build a scenario that has a long time frame and give the AI reinforcements at different intervals that would extend the fighting, but the only way to end the game is either to run out the turns or fulfill the Force Morale Broken conditions, i.e. destroy a majority of the AI's forces AND cause the A0 HQ to fail it's Force Morale check. And this would have to occur before any reinforcements arrived to bolster the Force Morale and the force composition.

So while the conditions you describe might be met accidentally during gameplay, the scenario can't be designed specifically to meet them.

[Nikademus]

Hello Azraelck.

For what it's worth as a long time Steel Panthers player (all the way back to the beginning in 95!) I've had a similar feeling in regards to the designed scenarios. The strategy guides in general and sometimes even the scenarios in the specific stress using the proper tactics yet often such tactics are impossible to employ because of the time limit set by the scenario, resulting in the player having to "rush" to reach the objectives leading to losses that might have been avoided (due to using the proper or recommended tactics!)

Issue isn't specific to any one version of the game. Have run into it in all flavors of SP, the original, SP-II, III, WAW, WW2 and MBT. A long time ago before MBT came around and dramatically improved that version i had created my own mod version of SP-II and i actually went through alot of the scenarios and increased the turn length which led to a much more playable (IMHO) and enjoyable scenario.

Maybe i just suck as a player, but its nice to see that i'm not alone in the head scratching dept when one is presented with a situation which all but demands good and careful tactics, but often has to somehow acomplish it in under 20 -25 turns. No diss on any designer. In the above of course i exclude scenarios where time is specifically mentioned as being critical. In fact i just recently played on in WAW where a group of Tiger's had to reach the map edge "quickly" but not rashly due to pursuing forces being behind them, but at the same time there were delaying forces in front of them. In those scenarios i can understand a short time limit, but for the majority of the "battle" scenarios, it often seems that there's not enough time to safely acomplish one's objectives...at least for the average SP player like myself. (Won't be graduating Patton school with honors anytime soon....but i still manage to have fun most of the time...[:)] )

[vahauser]

Nikademus,

I think you have discovered the core issue behind this entire thread.

In your post you mention “proper tactics” and “not enough time to safely accomplish one’s objectives”.

You also mention that you believe that you could not graduate the “Patton school with honors”.

And within those statements of yours lie the core issue of this thread.

A. I believe that there are several definitions of “proper tactics”.

I derive my personal definition of “proper tactics” from Clint Eastwood in the movie Heartbreak Ridge: “you improvise, you adapt, you overcome.” I have a personal toolkit of tactics and methods that work for me most of the time. But I am willing to throw out whatever I’ve done in the past to succeed in the present. So I personally define “proper tactics” as: whatever works best to succeed at the mission at hand, regardless of what might have worked in the past.

However, it seems that some people are not naturally inclined to do this. It seems to me that some people have a mental “handbook of Proper Tactics” and are loathe to deviate from that mental handbook. One of my close friends is exactly this kind of gamer. He will not deviate from his mental handbook of “proper tactics” no matter what. And he also believes that his version of “proper tactics” is the best (and only) way to play the game. Needless to say, he rages in frustration when his version of “proper tactics” does not produce victory in a manner suitable to his mental handbook.

B. I believe that there are several definitions of “not enough time to safely accomplish one’s objectives”.

To me, I separate “time”, “safety”, and “objectives”. To me, these aspects of a battle must be balanced and prioritized on a case-by-case basis. I do not always put objectives ahead of time ahead of safety. When I survey a battle for the first time, I decide how I am going to prioritize time and objectives and safety. As a player, I have a luxury that real-life commanders do not: I can refuse to put my troops in peril and take a draw or even a defeat. Real-life commanders are not afforded that luxury. In real life, the priority is often: objectives is more important than time is more important than safety.

C. Graduating from the Patton School. At last, here is what I believe to be the true core of this thread.

Some players like to play like Montgomery. They are staunch supporters of the infinitely-planned, infinitely-prepared, infinitely-methodical set-piece battle. To the Montys of the gaming world, there is a proper thing for every place and a proper place for every thing.

Other players like to play like Patton. They are staunch supporters of “I don’t give a hoot in Hell for what worked in yesterday’s battle. I only care about what will work in today’s battle, right here right now. So get your asses moving!”

[Twotribes]

Belittleing others play style or opinions is the mark of a true CHAMPION.

[vahauser]

Twotribes,

I'm not certain if your comment was in response to my post or not. 

If your post was in fact in response to my post, are you implying that I am belittling one of my closest friends whom I've known for over 25 years?

Regardless of your answer to that question, I think the answer is off topic and cannot take this thread in a positive direction.

Nikademus stated his position and I examined his words and their meaning.

My conclusion is that some people play like Montgomery and others like Patton. Some people would take it as a compliment being compared to Montgomery and others would take it as a compliment being compared to Patton. But that doesn't matter and is off topic, too.

What is ON-TOPIC is that when somebody posts that games are too short or that games are too long, all it means is that they are simply stating their subjective opinion and not a fact. For every person who says a battle is too short, there is likely to be somebody else who says it is too long.

This whole thread is about subjective opinion. And we all know what is said about opinions...

[azraelck]

Twotribes, your post actually made me un-ignore Va just to see what he said. Aside from basically renaming his "categories", he didn't seem to insult anyone.

Except that VA has a skewed idea of what in the world the thread's about. [8|]

"Proper tactics" is not a mental handbook; congradulations on making things up. "Proper tactics" is the strategy that achieves the objectives with the least amount of casualties. While in SPWaW each squad has a DnD cleric, who can cast "True Ressurection" at will enough times to keep his squad at full strength battle to battle so long as it's not completely destroyed; that is not the case in real life. I model my thoughts on real life. Thus, these aren't an infinite supply of souless little pixels; they are fathers, brothers, sons. Just like real life. This may be hard to do for a "category 1" (or was it 2? I couldn't be bothered enough to remember [:D]) player. I don't know. I couldn't even bring myself to care enough to remember what the "C1s" are stereotyped to be. Though my fiance is pestering me to explain the whole deal. [:@]

The thing is, what works works. When you can defeat a numerically and technically superior force with a minimal of casualties, that's "proper tactics". When you can assault that defensive firezone, taking out those caves and bunkers despite being outnumbered and facing a fanatical and insane enemy; that's "proper tactics". As shown by Major Winters, advancing while under covering fire works. You get your men in close, while the enemy is under cover. By the time they raise up, your men can take them unprepared, and thus result in few casualties, and the objectives achieved. Sure, it's nice to try to think up a new way to do the same thing, but when something will work time and time and time again, it's best to use that as a base for your strategy, not toss it out derisively and snort "I can do better..." I did do better somewhat, pounding enemy positions with mortars as well as MG fire, and using smoke to screen my flanks. It's a bit different than setting the visibility to 1, and using masses of flame tanks and flamethrowers to win.

"Proper Tactics" is taking what you have, and achieving the objective, without exposing your force to unneccesary risks. The whole point of the thread was that some scenario designers leave too little time to achieve those results, without using the "secret super soldier core" specifically made for that map. Trying to go historical in these instances is a killer, as is trying to go with a slower, infantry based force. When I picked that Balkans campaign, I was in the mood to use an infantry-based force. care should be made that those players who prefer infantry, or simply prefer a more careful approach, are not penalized. While SPWaW lacks triggers, that doesn't mean you have to rely on very low time limits to make a challenging map. It only means the player has to abandon good horse sense, or use a core that they may or may not want to. And it also means that the designer is limiting himself, relying on a crutch instead of working to create a great design.

I guess it doesn't matter. After all, I'm just a "kibitzing Category 2" or whatever, and my opinions, experience, and playstyle is irrelevant. ALL HAIL LORD AND MASTER VAUHAUSER! [&o][&o][&o]

[vahauser]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

. . . To me, I separate “time”, “safety”, and “objectives”. To me, these aspects of a battle must be balanced and prioritized on a case-by-case basis. I do not always put objectives ahead of time ahead of safety. When I survey a battle for the first time, I decide how I am going to prioritize time and objectives and safety. As a player, I have a luxury that real-life commanders do not: I can refuse to put my troops in peril and take a draw or even a defeat. Real-life commanders are not afforded that luxury. In real life, the priority is often: objectives is more important than time is more important than safety. . .

Here is the historical reality. Players are lowly colonels. They are being ordered by their commanding officers to do such and such in a certain amount of time. That is the historical reality being translated into the game for the players.

A player might not like the idea of sending his battalion into a potentially catastrophic battle. But the player has his orders. If he chooses to disobey those orders and keep his battalion alive, then not only will he be relieved of his command (or shot if he is in the Soviet Army, or told to commit ritual suicide if he is in the Japanese Army), he will also not have achieved his objective. He might not realize that by keeping his battalion alive, he just cost the lives of an entire brigade somewhere else.

General Pickett sure didn't want to send his division up Cemetary Ridge at Gettysburg. He thought it was suicidal. But he had his orders and he did his very best to carry them out. And in 30 minutes he got his entire division shot to pieces. That is the historical reality.

So if players are going to play their battles based on historical reality, then players had better suck it up and follow orders. Because that is what each scenario represents--orders from higher headquarters to achieve an objective within a limited amount of time. That is the historical reality.

Either play with the historical reality of being a lowly colonel ordered to accomplish a mission regardless of whether he wants to . . .
. . . or simply admit that this is a game and that the player is going to ignore certain historical realities (like following orders from higher headquarters).

But if players are truly going to "play historically", then they had better get used to following some very unpleasant orders in some very unpleasant situations and under some very unpleasant time constraints. That is the historical reality.

[KG Erwin]

Azraelck, I'm starting to find out what assaulting an enemy that outnumbers you is all about.  
 
Subtlety is tossed aside:  I'm just bludgeoning the enemy with firepower, and hopefully suppressing him enough that I can close in with infantry/tank teams and kill him. 
 
It isn't pretty.   

[RERomine]

It seems to me that much of what is behind a scenario design depends on what the designer is intending to accomplish and the limitations placed on them by the SPWaW program. Constraints can vary a number of different ways. If the designer is intending to recreate a historical battle, the unit composition is likely to be fixed by history. Therefore, the only ways to make a scenario challenging is to alter the time frame or step up the experience level of the AI forces. Dialing up the experience level, however, doesn't mean the AI is going to use them in any rational manner. Is there anyone who feels they can't defeat the AI in an even fight? That being the case, limiting the time frame forces the human player down to the more reckless manner of the AI. Such an approach might be acceptable to some folks and not others. It is ultimately up to the designer to decide what kind of scenario they want to design.

At the same time, it seems like it would be possible to design scenarios where time isn't the constraint, but the available force is. It seems what I'm hearing is possibly a request where the AI gets a larger force and the human player gets more time to balance things out. This will allow, or more accurately require, the human player to employ more sound tactics rather than the reckless approach when time is limited.

One thing that has been mentioned earlier in this thread is generally the map and forces are laid out and then the scenario is play tested. If it is found to be too easy, the first reaction is to cut the amount of time to make it more challenging. Instead of that, maybe the first option should be to add more AI units. Set out to design a scenario with a 25 turn time frame and if it's too easy, juice up the enemy. It's just a different way of making a scenario more challenging.

The bottom line is it's the designer's call. I am sure there are designers that would be willing to indulge requests for scenarios of a certain nature. In the end, much of this delves into personal scenario tastes, which is essentially opinion. [:)]

[azraelck]

True RE. Though I would also try repositioning a few key heavy weapons, such as HMGs or ATGs or whathaveyou, before adding more units. Or change the visibility slightly. Most everything I've said mainly applied to an assault or advance. Defends are entirely different, and a delay, at least going by the manual, has to have enough time to draw it out, then withdrawl. For defense, I've rarely said "that needed fewer turns!" Usually, it ends too soon as it is. Unless all defends are suppossed to be marked by winning in under 8 turns. More turns wouldn't make a difference in that regard. Unless it was one of those 3 turn things to start with.

BTW, I feel I can't beat the AI in a sound, even fight. They usually need a little (lot) help to make it worth my while. Maybe it's just me, but I enjoy kicking the snot out of a far larger force. [:D]

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

General Pickett sure didn't want to send his division up Cemetary Ridge at Gettysburg. He thought it was suicidal. But he had his orders and he did his very best to carry them out. And in 30 minutes he got his entire division shot to pieces. That is the historical reality.

Yes he did
Pickett at this time was "cheerful and sanguine," according to artilleryman Col. Porter Alexander, and in fact "thought himself in luck to have the chance." Another colonel remembered Pickett "in excellent spirits," expressing great confidence in the Confederates ability to "drive" the Yankees after the artillery had demoralized them.
[;)]

[vahauser]

George Pickett to his betrothed, LaSalle Corbett:
3 July 1863 (written just prior to Pickett’s Charge)
"My brave Virginians are to attack in front. Oh God in mercy help me as He never helped before! Now I go; but remember always that I love you with all my heart and soul, with every fiber of my being."

George Pickett to his betrothed, LaSalle Corbett:
4 July 1863 (written the day after the battle)
“Even now I can hear them cheering as I gave the order, ‘Forward!’ I can feel the thrill of their joyous voices as they called out all along the line, ‘We'll follow you, Marse George. We'll follow you—we'll follow you.’ Oh, how faithfully they kept their word—following me on—on—to their death, and I, believing in the promised support, led them on—on—on—Oh, God!"

From the Wikipedia:
As soldiers straggled back to the Confederate lines along Seminary Ridge, Lee feared a Union counteroffensive and tried to rally his center, telling returning soldiers that the failure was "all my fault." Pickett was inconsolable for the rest of the day and never forgave Lee for ordering the charge [vahauser’s italics]. When Lee told Pickett to rally his division for the defense, Pickett allegedly replied, "General Lee, I have no division now." Pickett's official report for the battle has never been found. It is rumored that Gen. Lee rejected it for its bitter negativity [vahauser’s italics] and demanded that it be rewritten, never filing an updated version.

Alby,
It is well known that Pickett was a man highly motivated to achieve military glory. Also, as a commander, he would HAVE TO show his men how confident he seemed prior to the attack. We will never know for sure exactly what Pickett was feeling or thinking. His letters to his fiance are an indication, but not definitive.

However, you are correct in one respect for “calling me out” regarding Pickett at Gettysburg. I should not have chosen such a controversial event as an example. There are other, far less controversial events in history where a subordinate has been given orders that he strenuously disagreed with. I suspect that everybody reading this thread can think of some.

So, while I acknowledge your good intentions in bringing the controversy surrounding Pickett to our attention, those intentions now threaten to stray OFF-TOPIC and far afield in a debate about Pickett’s state of mind at Gettysburg. I’m willing to concede to you that I chose my example poorly, so please let’s let this matter rest. Because any further discussion in this area misses the point.

What IS the point is the historical reality that subordinates have historically been given orders that they did not agree with, but were required to carry out those orders anyway. That is ON TOPIC. And that is the historical reality. And players who want to call themselves “historical gamers”, must accept that historical reality and follow orders (i.e., the scenario objectives and conditions as given to them by “higher headquarters” (that is, the scenario designer)).

[Riun T]

Not meaning to throu another topic change into this but,I think its about time someone pointed out that ANYTHING we are discussing in this thread on"Base of fire",,, which has nothing to do with "time scales " for this game ARE all subjective,,,HOW come no one has asked WHY??? the AI can give a completely differant final score calculation for any # of duplicated battles? no matter what "Base of fire" u build your core throu upgrading to maximize, or your support throu wise and usually well planned purchaseing with the between battle support points,,, I have been finding with my posts of "THE FLASHFYRE EFFORT", that eventhou I'm consistantly getting fewer casualties and loseing fewer heavy units,,, almost always finding and killing their HQ,,,,, and occupying the majority of the VH's,,,, that the AI HAS NO CONSISTANCY OF SHOWING WHAT IT IS DEEMING AS VICTORY CONDITIONS.????? I don't care what kind of player type u think u are and really really am unconserned with how long{many/few turns} the process takes,,, but when severe consiquences of a battle like LOSEING YOUR HQ don't seem to matter in the battles final discission?????
ALSO DIDN"T I see some "activate at ? turn type flag icons in the Norway encyclopedia??? for designing perposes??? and can't u place a reinforcement flag to activate on any turn u program???
I'm just P!ssed that we've all had our battles in this game that leave us scratching our heads as to WHY??? it was a DRAW,, or a MV when the human played side is usually always suffering fewer casualties,has better situational presents on the field, and In my case has wiped out their BOSS.
WHAT does it matter if your a monty, a patton, or a zulu bush baby if u've accomplished unhorseing their King{killing their HQ} or making at least a 1/3 killing ratio to a enemy force thats usually around twothirds to double your forces size WHY SHOULD THE AI BELIEVE THAT YOU"VE LOST???
I always have a more fightable force remaining on the field when its over than the AI, with more cohesion and above all MORE MEN LEFT ALIVE WITH AMUNITION AT THE FINISH. How many battles have we all had that we had enough stuff to keep rolling threw the enemies complete backfield,,, but as soon as the "FORCE MORALE BROKEN" snaps up the battle is over.
What if after their broken, the AI could calculate by any remaining forces How badly the casualties would be if the closing order WE gave as the enemy broke was as it was historically," to continue to push forward and eliminate any stragglers, and DO a COMPLETE MOP UP.!
I would act like one of the russian generals when they had the german sixth army surrounded,,
Close to the centre of ANY german resistance,RUB THEM FROM THE EARTH,,, ALL OF THEM,, no matter how long it took, For me as the victorious side get to decide when the fight is over!! I killed your leader, and I'll decide when my force will stop killing and halt!!

[KG Erwin]

Zulu Bush Babies?  That's pretty good, Riun.  If I ever get into another band, that's what we should call ourselves. First album -- "Tip of the Spear".  Believe it or not, I am completely sober right now.   [:D] 
 
As for the subject of this thread -- what was it? Time constraints?  OK -- just remember this: in most parts of the USA, we switch to Daylight Savings Time at 2 am Sunday,  which means an extra hour of gaming time, or partying time, or both.
 
Yes, I've fallen off the wagon big time -- I thought something was amiss when I started loading my ammo carriers with cases of beer and cartons of cigarettes. [8|]     
 
 

[Riun T]

"Fallen off the wagon? you've slipped out of the ditch on the road the wagon was on bud!![:'(] But seriously don't u find the scoring, and the fact of the AI getting to control the finish time unnerving ??
How many battles on any front would have just stopped???? just because of what the AI deems as unmoraled?{ Look ivan all the germans are running away,,,their morale must be lost,so even thou our general says chase them down,and maybe take prisoners of the ones that don't put up much of a fight, or route them back over their boarder and make them worry about us pushing into their home, lets watch them moving all their equipment back to safety so they can regroup and boot our @sses with it another day!!}or that it decides that a 5 man vetran crewed tank is no more valuable than a 16 manned knee mortar crew of recruits??
Does anybody definitively know how the AI scores???

[Alby]

The scoring has been a sore spot since SPWAW came out...[:(]

[Orzel Bialy]

Time-lines and speed were and still are major factors in battle. A lot of set-piece battle plans have been unintentionally altered, frustrated or defeated by the need to keep the pressure on the enemy. Commanders in the field rarely have their superiors give them the luxury of "taking all the time you need" to conduct an operation. It's usually "get it done and get it done ASAP!"

So just as Flash and Fradar posted earlier in this thread...time constraints have their place in scenarios depending on the tempo of battle the designer wishes to convey. Since most scenarios are designed to put the player in a historical role these time constraints are just another historical reality for the commander to deal with.

Now there are some older "monster" scenarios out there but I found out long ago that monsterously long scenarios with 400 units (be they evenly split between foes or lop-sided) and 30+ turns length just don't tend to garner a whole lot of game play from the community at large. These types of battles become either tedious or even boring because of AI limitations in proper or novel use of its forces.

As such I have found that quicker paced (15-20 turn) scenarios seem to be far more popular with people in general since they play out quickly and have a far greater sense of urgency to them that the monster scenarios just plain and simple tend to lack.

So if you are looking for bloody engagements on a grand scale then maybe generated battles would be the ticket for those moments of sheer bloodlust instead of historical based sceanrios. [;)]

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: azraelck

True RE. Though I would also try repositioning a few key heavy weapons, such as HMGs or ATGs or whathaveyou, before adding more units. Or change the visibility slightly. Most everything I've said mainly applied to an assault or advance. Defends are entirely different, and a delay, at least going by the manual, has to have enough time to draw it out, then withdrawl. For defense, I've rarely said "that needed fewer turns!" Usually, it ends too soon as it is. Unless all defends are suppossed to be marked by winning in under 8 turns. More turns wouldn't make a difference in that regard. Unless it was one of those 3 turn things to start with.

True, there are different ways to increase the complexity of a scenario without changing the time frame available. With defends and delays, often your positions are already chosen for you if it's a canned scenario. In campaign scenarios, the player has the option as to where they place their units. Either situation allows the player to determine at the beginning where they want to place their units at the outset and time becomes less of a factor.

Advances and assaults, positions have to be determined on the move as AI units are encountered. This is were time becomes the factor you initially brought up in this thread. If time is tight, the only option is to strike with what is at hand. Given more time, it is possible to maneuver on the strong point or bring in appropriate resources to deal with it. This has to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

BTW, I feel I can't beat the AI in a sound, even fight. They usually need a little (lot) help to make it worth my while. Maybe it's just me, but I enjoy kicking the snot out of a far larger force. [:D]

But when does the AI ever do anything sound? In scenarios, the only thing that tends to be sound is the positioning and then, it was the designer and not the AI that chose the position.

[KG Erwin]

Ken, the bloodlust factor, at least to me, is epitomized in the Iwo Jima (large) scenario by Wild Bill that's included with the basic download.   That experience changed my view towards gaming in several ways.  That was when I became a Marine fan. 
 
However, the scenario itself is exhausting.   I never actually finished the thing.  The point was driven into me after only 5 or 6 turns. 
 
For me, good design means that the assigned objectives CAN be achieved within the time limits IF proper tactics are applied.  To my mind, scenarios should be lessons as well as entertainment.
 
Of course, that is a tall order, and the game's limitations don't readily lend themselves to real-world applications for training purposes. 
 
BTW, thanks for making an appearance, Orzel.   We miss you around here.  Don't be a stranger.  [;)]
 
Glenn  

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: Orzel Bialy

Time-lines and speed were and still are major factors in battle. A lot of set-piece battle plans have been unintentionally altered, frustrated or defeated by the need to keep the pressure on the enemy. Commanders in the field rarely have their superiors give them the luxury of "taking all the time you need" to conduct an operation. It's usually "get it done and get it done ASAP!"

There are also many instances where the objective was more important than the time frame. Again, it has to be a case by case basis. The time attacking unit hits the line of departure is the only thing that really can be set. Once the bullets start to fly, nothing is guarantied. Phase lines can be set to try to keep an advancing unit in sync with other advancing units, but also are used to determine general progress of an advancing unit. If an advancing unit encounted resistence, they are suppose to report it is as a contact report. Unit commanders can call in for reinforcements if circumstances call for it. Given that a turn works out to be about 2-3 minutes each, most scenarios are an hour or less in length. It seems highly unlikely that success or failure of an ordered assault is going hinge on whether or not it is completed in a one hour time frame. More likely is the commander who pulls it off that quickly would get promoted, assuming he doesn't get his command slaughtered in the process. Time frames as tight as they are are predominately a game thing. There are real world exceptions, but they are exceptions and not the rule.