Historical Accuracy vs Playability

[AmmoSgt]

Just another thought Lets look at historical V current set up and a offensive/ defensive battle .
Lets pretend I have convinced you that 4000 points on a 200 hex map is a good Idea , that means 12000 point for the attacker , Just for giggles lets make the Vhexs 15 points per turn . Nobody can buy reinforcements before turn 15. Weather is Dawn partly cloudy Visability is 22 I don't care what nations you chose. Defender can have mines

current set up means the attacker must capture all 5 Vhex blocks and kill as many of the Defenders as possible.

historical set up means that the attacker MUST buy 4000 points of tanks( out of the 12000 attacker buy points) and must exit all 4000 points of tanks off the far edge of the map without any of them suffering any damage ( not knocked out just damaged any damaged and you lose the double V points and get half instead , you may have tanks break down , no excuse, 4000 points of undamged tanks must exit so maybe you should buy extra ) for double victory points , otherwise victory points are halved, and must capture and hold all 5 Vhex blocks ( to represent secured flanks ) .

your Homework just do the buy and the setup , which seems more historical to you given the limitations of the Game and the map size?
How does this change the forces you buy , how does this change tactics you would use? on defense ? on offense? You have 35 turns to do this btw.

[Vathailos]

Good post. I'll respond to the second one after I've had time to ask what I want to ask on your first.

1) As far as accurate OOBs goes, I love to hear what you and others say needs to be "tweaked".

First off, I do understand the software limitations, limited slots, etc. I think it's a great idea to move things like the SturmTiger, Uhu, and other rarities to another country's OOB with more room (using the German example). Makes complete sense provided their "new" location is known. I'd like to know where they are in the instance I'd like to buy a SturmTiger for a late-war scenario (however rare).

Secondly, changing the OOBs and units within them is difficult, but not impossible (reference all the work Pz Leo's crew has done). I'm not sure if this would solve the problem of trucks you referenced, but hear me out, tell me what you think. And yes, pack a lunch, I want to address each of the OOB problems you've addressed because I think they're valid concerns. Is there a separate movement class for "multi-wheel-drive" (for example, Armored Cars, thinking specifically of the 8-wheeled GE ones) vehicles and standard wheeled vehicles?

If so, add mobility to the multi-wheeled if need be, tweak the "standard" so that roads and open fields are easy, woods are a challenge, and simply re-class the "high-performance" and "lower-performance" trucks into the two categories. Perhaps you could even use the category for wagons or horse gun teams in terms of mobility. I don't know the mechanics as well as I'd like, but there has to be a workaround for your truck mobility issue you raise.

Thirdly, as far as the Krupp, that's just a simple change, isn't it? Tweak the (towable gun and passenger) carrying numbers to make it suit. Out of curiosity though, if it was made to tow artillery, where did the artillery crews ride? Did they run beside? I don't think that a lack of plush seating would deter them. Look at Tankodesantniki, just a handhold and it's "all aboard!" I think if it could carry 7 crewmen for it's 7-man artillery (as you cite), it could carry a squad of 7 infantry all the same, albeit historically inaccurate. Hell, I would rather use an Opel anyway, larger capacity, cheaper, and IIRC faster. On that note though, is the Krupp icon/gif wrong? Could the above changes make trucks more realistic across the board in the OOBs? Are they technically possible? If so, we've waited until the 11th hour to discuss this, but perhaps we could see those changes in 8.1 .

3) With regard to overall accurate OOBs that serve as an accurate purchase pool for the AI as well, what do you think about using a combination of "Rarity" and the shifting of special and unique equipment to other Nation's OOBs as a means to remedy this problem? Although I dislike the function personally (only because it doesn't reset if you delete an item off), I think it makes things much more realistic.

My problem with "Rarity" is that when I'm making my buys, I'll look at the map, and try and figure out what units specifically I'll need for that battle. I may change tactics as I plan in my head, deleting some units, adding others before I'm finally satisfied. The problem comes when I purchase a more rare unit, it disappears from the Purchase menu because of its rarity (as do other "rare" units simultaneously IIRC). What if I decide I don't want it though? I sell it back, but the "Rarity" counter doesn't reset, so now I can't get that unit should I change my mind again, or another rare unit. If that were fixed, I think "Rarity ON" would be one great way to prevent nothing but Panther Gs and Konstigers in your next AI battle, and moving the more rare units would cancel out the 5 SturmTigers. Again, what do you think of this? Would it alleviate the current problem as you see it? Is it technically possible?

In addition, if the Germans/US had less Halftracks than we currently see purchased, couldn't "Rarity" also be used to mitigate both infantry and artillery transport vehicles? Imagine "oops! Can't buy any more SkdFz 7's, gotta get horses now ". Ideal? No. But realistic and more challenging? Yes, as long as it's not unilateral, but that's a balance issue.

4) Artillery. I didn't know that it's currently still that off. I must admit I have done zero historical research. Is a 1 turn delay compared to a 4 turn delay genuinely realistic? A 4-turn delay IMO would make artillery almost useless unless in the defense, where the enemy was tied up in a minefield, or for on-board counterbattery with a lazy opponent. How about a 0.5 for the US (which could be lowered further by experienced FO/Arty crews) 1.0 for the UK, and 1.5 for GE/SO? Harsh enough? And would small mortars be an exception? (11B not 11C here :p). I do like the concept of a somewhat extended delay. That would honestly be really neat/challenging. But one thing that'd have to remain is the short time for pre-plots (gold stars). All countries could do that and fire rapidly. They'd become KEY for artillery usage then.

5) Now, what I think is your last point of contention in the first of the two posts, that of maneuver. I like the idea you bring up of BN-size elements as the primary C&C/execution organization. However, I don't see it as difficult to recreate using current OOBs and the purchase options therein. I do think a few changes could be made to even enhance it though.

Currently, you have the option of purchasing Companies of infantry of differing types (again, using GE as an example, sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, just the OOB I'm most familiar with because of all those WWII campaigns long ago). You could pick a Pz Pioneer Kp, Grenadier Kp, etc. The only piece of the infantry pie that's missing is telling the player how many companies were included in the BN's typical MTO&E, that and enough space to deploy all of them . You could then purchase the artillery typically included (again you could tweak each Country's OOB a little so that the Artillery included "Company-size" distributions specific to that Nation). If that were done, would we not have the tools at hand to create the type of historical engagement that you say (and I'm not arguing) is most historically accurate?

Personally, I'd still prefer to have smaller (platoon/squad-size, even individual in the case of snipers) purchase units kept around to enable some customization in picking your BN's attachments/assets.

Your thoughts?

[Vathailos]

Now, for scenario talk.

I honestly can't remember the attack/delay vs. the assault/defend ratios. Is it really 3X the points for the assault? Thought the computer gave you 150% of the defender's. You may be saying that you prefer what "we" prefer, when attacking, which is a 3:1 ratio. I'm not clear on the message.

But let's look at it as it's written.

I hate per-turn VHs in a "defend" type scenario, why? Because you're giving the defender a ton of points seeing as he'll start with all the VHs under his control. I think that'll skew the end score, not sure though.

As for exiting all tanks AND holding all VHs, that doesn't seem to register with me. Why would one send their tanks forward devoid of infantry/artillery support? Unless of course you hold the VHs in the rear with trucks and such, and your "displaced" crews.

Is what you're trying to do to set up an assault with haste encouraged? End result total elimination of enemy forces and exiting the map both objectives? Achieve one, normal points, achieve both, double? Not sure.

I think I understand the current setup.

As for historical, I think I also understand that in the particular battle you're using as an example, the force composition of the attacker was 1/3 MBTs.

Historically, why say you can't have a damaged tank and still get an "Overwhelming Victory"? I really like the idea of having to exit your forces off the enemy's side of the map, is that possible with current scenario editing? Can you make that a pre-condition and award it accordingly? Neat!

As for securing "side" VHs to secure your flanks, I don't think that's terribly realistic. In large operations, you'll be briefed on the units to your left/right/front/rear, and it'll be your responsibility as a commander to coordinate your flanks with the other units in your AO/sector. You may well find one of your flanks "unguarded/unsecured". But how often historically were BN-size elements fighting solo with no sister BN's to their flanks? Not sure on that, I'd have to research.

The scenario you describe sounds challenging, and possibly fun. Is your point that it couldn't be created with the current editor/version of SP?

Please elaborate.

[K62_]

Have you played the Peiper campaign in H2H? Try the first scenario.

[Charles2222]

AmmoSgt: Hey why don't you favor mines to be used in meeting engagements? Think about it. If you had a force that was starting to lay mines, only to hear the enemy was approaching with a concentrated advance, and that instead of staying behind the mines you decided to surprise/meet them, it's in that situation you'd have mines. The meeting engagement needn't mean that the two forces have been both advancing for miles beyond their established frontline. Besides, part of the whole strategy of one side may at one time or another be to feign a general withdrawal in order to sucker one into the mines.

I'm also puzzled how you would be upset at the prospect of facing 5 Sturmtigers, afterall, isn't a platoon the smallest measure (other than the AI often not used sections)?

[AmmoSgt]

Val basically there are 3 levels of rarity, so Yes , the whole idea behind moving the less than 100 made , even the less than 500 made out, of the base OOB would help the whole rairity scheme .
The Krupp thing was just an example .. it seats 7..3 in the cab and one guy on seats set on the corners of the rear box .. in the game it seats 10 so it can carry infantry .. not a real problem , plenty of actual trucks in the war that are not in the game that carried 10 or more , somebody just needs to look up a real truck that really carried 10 and change the name .. and it happens I think the Krupp is kinda cute and I hate to see cute trucks misrepresented .. it's a personal thing not a biggie
Yes to changing Vehicle categories in many cases to better fit the vehicle modeled so it better reflects it mobility or whatever
The whole thing about the Batallion is not so much C&C as it is access to support weapons .. AT guns, Bazookas, Mortars , HMG. Most Nations Infantry companies are 10 Squads of Riflemen with a LMG/BAR or the like and 3 squads with light mortars and tripod MMG's , All the AT guns medium mortars and other stuff are Bn assets parciled out to the Companies by the Bn Comander .. look in the SPWAW folder there is an OOB for SPWAW in adobe accrobat format to see what i mean.
Yeah Val I got not problem with folks who want a Cafeteria buy a little from here a little from there , but that is rarely "Historical" althought if it would fit any Country, the German Kampfguppe concept would be the closest.

Ok Val the whole reason you attack something is to gain ground , The whole Reason BlitzKrieg and US Combined Arms ( the actual doctrine of Combined Arms not the common usage of Combined Arms) is to Breakthru to an Objective many miles behind the front line cutting off huge junks of the defenders .. that means a breakthru many miles deep 30 miles 50 miles deep .. the rear Vhexes are about 1 mile deep . In real Life defensive belts and 10 miles or more deep in the game the Max depth is 1 1/2 miles ( 50 hexes) . In Real life attacks are done in echelons by waves of troops so folks don't bunch up and become sitting ducks for artillery . You first break the defensive belt and secure the flanks and then you send in the breakthru forces deep to knock out HQ's supply dumps , arty , POL depots and to cut off a huge chunk of the defenders . To make a More Historical" secnario that represents Offense/Defense , you first have to make the Breakthru then send forces thru the break , typically Infantry and assult armor does the intial attack and makes the hole the Tanks go thru the hole and hit the rear. The Clock is ticking absoultly .. the defenders have reserves that are about 1 to two hours behind the line, if you are still dealing with the main defensive line after 30 turns then you are a sitting duck for the reserves. If you get thru before the reserves get to the battle you engage them while still moving up not as well deployed for battle ect . That was my only point. going 1 mile deep to capture random Vhexes defended by wall to wall dug in infantry is WW1 not WW2 WW2 is maneuver breakthru envelopment .
Also if you actually try and set it up you will find you can't defend or attack the way you normally do in SPWAW to much ground not enough troops in the defense so you have to defend only what needs defending , having a mobile reserve is critical Arty in the defense can damage a tank .. so the Offense has to clear a wide enough gap and get any spotters so thery can SNEAK the tanks back there, 4000 points of tanks is hard to hide , but you have to or the enemy knows your plans and you lose the bonus . You can buy all 12,000 points in tanks , but you must get 4000 off the back of the map for the bonus and you must have the supply lines open ( flanks secured Vhexes captured) and you must do it before the Reserves can move up into position.
Just try it , make the buy and deploy the troops see if it makes the game radically different .
As far as the Transport added in to the units it is goingto make the units more expensive among other things Loosing transport means important units may not be able to keep up , play with the idea , like I said not a serious suggestion , but if you are into historical , then thats what is called a Bn Motor pool, and if trucks are missing of broke down or damaged how ya gonna move the Bn ? Sure we will get ya some new trucks/ halftrack/ wagons , but it is gonna take atleast a week . Imagine doing a generated campaign where you can't replace just the trucks except maybe once every 4 battles. Would it change how you play ?

[Vathailos]

Quite familiar with the principles of land warfare, concentration in Infantry (airborne/mech), I slept with a 7-8 for a few years . And one BN's attack could well be a feint for a BDE's main effort, rather than an attempt to seize and hold terrain.

However, I am familar with defense in depth, as was imployed in many WWII theaters. Would it be possible then, if we're looking to make a more historical scenario, to conclude that a Meeting Engagement could be a meeting of recon screens? Or an Attack/Delay could be the initial contact between two much larger forces, with the Assault/Defend being a full-fledged attempt to break the first of their established lines? I think if you approach the much larger battles in this fashion, it makes it possible to do the defend-in-depth type scenarios you're referencing, one battle at a time. Make sense?

And on that note, another interesting way to make a PBEM game more like a "deeper" battle, would be to allow the players to only spend 4000 of their initial 6000 (for example) then agree that both sides will call for reinforcements at turn 10, to simulate a longer battlefield (reserves coming up to support the defense, or additional forces detached from neighboring units to aid in the assault). Whadda ya think?

But the above topic falls into the category of "What can players do themselves, using the game and it's tools, to make it more realistic?"

I really like the idea of WP rounds that you came up with for the US forces (as an addition to their OOB). What other things (I'd even like to play-test the artillery delay you suggested) do you see as necessary/nice-to-have modifications in the game or engine itself that the Matrix team could do as in improvement? I guess I'm asking for more OOB corrections, or more "physics" fixes. Movement, terrain effects, weather effects, etc. Ideas?

Once we get the game elements (OOB etc.) tweaked to as accurate as they can be, the rest seems to be up to the Scenario Builder and us.

Looking forward to your response.

[Paul Vebber]

SOme of this almost makes me want to move it to the Combat Leader forum...

[AmmoSgt]

Paul unless you plan on making The Individual modules for CL stand alone playable it is going to be two years and 180 dollars before I can play WW2 west front , 60 bucks a pop for modules that all have to be bought in order to play is just to rich for my blood.

[Belisarius]

AmmoSgt: Hey why don't you favor mines to be used in meeting engagements? Think about it. If you had a force that was starting to lay mines, only to hear the enemy was approaching with a concentrated advance, and that instead of staying behind the mines you decided to surprise/meet them, it's in that situation you'd have mines.

Not only that, the Russians (hey, it's another national characteristic) became pretty good at using mobile minelayers/obstacle deployers - and they were used in settings well within the scope of SPWaW. The Germans could have a minefield cleared only to find a new one in place by the time the Panzers had moved up to the Engineers' line.

[Vathailos]

Tough call on the mines. In meeting engagements, both sides are typically moving forward, trying to "find and fix" the enemy, you ascertain their size/composition as best you can, call that in, and decide what to do (engage, retreat, etc.).

If you were realistically moving forward, facing an enemy of unknown size, where a hasty withdrawal may well be necessary, would you want to have just laid mines to your rear? Remember, the engineers should map their minefields, but then those documents have to be copied and disseminated to all the units in the sector and those following on. Mines are dumb weapons. If you don’t know where they are (imagine a company stumbling on an advancing brigade), they could be your downfall. Mines are typically laid in the areas most likely desired by the enemy, or along their most likely avenue of approach. These are often high-speed avenues of approach, which you’d want to use to withdraw in the imaginary example. Once more, the engineers may know where they are, but do your lead platoons/squads know yet?

Just wasn’t common I don’t think, unless (as the Russians did at Kursk) you know what’s coming, and are “improving” your defensive positions as you retreat. IMO unless you limit them to your own VHs with regard to pre-placement, I think it hinges on gamesmanship.

In a no-holds-barred battle, sure. Any mines you want, any infiltrators, artillery, whatever. But I typically prefer to see them only under such mutually agreed conditions, or in an assault/defend scenario (I could also see them in an attack/delay scenario on occasion).

And if Combat Leader (which I just did look up based on Paul’s reference, and BOY does it look tasty!) is as good as SP, it’s worth the $60 IMO. I’ve paid more for less, and $59.99’s becoming average these days, even for MMPORGS, which then require an ongoing fee.

Anyway, Ammo, stop bitching about the price and get on with your response-book already .

Looking forward to it.

~Vath

[AmmoSgt]

Mines hey I don't care if folks use them .. I just don't play PBEM with mines in meeting engagements .. what other folks do is thier business not mine.
I have my reasons that work for me , I don't think it is very realistic in meeting engagements , alegedly nethier side knows where the other side is and are both moving to contact , I have no problem with engineers doing their thing , I am talking about prelaid mines . Everybody gets to play the game however they want .. This thread and the poll results speak to a majority wanting more historical ( althought few have bothered to define what they mean by "Historical" ) SPWAW .. If ya tried hard enough You could even make a agruement for the use of Indian Elephants in meeting engagements .

Price is not a bitch .. statement of fact .. won't pay 180 bucks to get to the third module .. not interested in East Front or Modern .. if CL West Front is stand alone I will buy it .. If I have to buy games I won't play just to play the ones i am interested in .. I'll pass

[K62_]

Simple fact is the US ( for example) lost less troops in ground Combat from Normandy to the Elbe in 1944-45 than the Germans ( for example) Lost in May and June 1940 from the Rhine to Paris.
...
Just as a "For Example" In Sept 39 the Germans invaded Poland , the Germans lost 14,000 dead taking Poland in that one Month , The US only Lost 80,000 dead in Ground Combat in the Whole ETO inculding North Africa and Italy as well as Germany, US Lost More in the Air from Aircraft Losses over Germany than they did on the Ground.
...
So long as the game does not allow for the possibility of the ordinary results in the ETO that were obtained by the US tactics it is moot to even discuss "Historical" gaming.

I see now... :rolleyes: This is actually about The Might That Was The (M4 and) The US Army In World War 2 And How It Whipped Those Sorry Nazi B*stards. It is about How M4s Should Beat Tigers On A Regular Basis (Especially While Staying Out Of Sight)

Well now... :rolleyes: It might be true that 90% of the US battles on the West Front were nothing but masses of American armor supported by huge amounts of arty, air and infantry on HTs facing leg infantry with horse transport and poor arty support. (And if it were true then it was only because 80% of the German troops were fighting the Soviets and 10% more against the Commonwealth forces).

But as somebody else said earlier, such battles are bo-ring :sleep: The only reason one could go through them is to become Indoctrinated on How Strong And Invincible And Technologically Advanced The US Army Was In WW2 And How It Was A Walthrough To Win It. Bo-ring :sleep:

There were interesting battles though, even between the US and Germany (which actually makes a tiny amount of WW2). There were Kasserine, Anzio, Schmidt, the Bulge. These are the kinds of battles people want to play - because they were not Walkthroughs.

Oh yeah, and all else equal - an M4 does not beat a Tiger

[AmmoSgt]

I see now... :rolleyes: This is actually about The Might That Was The (M4 and) The US Army In World War 2 And How It Whipped Those Sorry Nazi B*stards. It is about How M4s Should Beat Tigers On A Regular Basis (Especially While Staying Out Of Sight)

Well now... :rolleyes: It might be true that 90% of the US battles on the West Front were nothing but masses of American armor supported by huge amounts of arty, air and infantry on HTs facing leg infantry with horse transport and poor arty support. (And if it were true then it was only because 80% of the German troops were fighting the Soviets and 10% more against the Commonwealth forces).

But as somebody else said earlier, such battles are bo-ring :sleep: The only reason one could go through them is to become Indoctrinated on How Strong And Invincible And Technologically Advanced The US Army Was In WW2 And How It Was A Walthrough To Win It. Bo-ring :sleep:

There were interesting battles though, even between the US and Germany (which actually makes a tiny amount of WW2). There were Kasserine, Anzio, Schmidt, the Bulge. These are the kinds of battles people want to play - because they were not Walkthroughs.

Oh yeah, and all else equal - an M4 does not beat a Tiger

Boring to some perhaps , but not to everybody. The question in this thread is wether folks want more or less "historical" you say they don't .. the poll says they do . To be "historical" Historical tactics giving Historical results must a possibility . Walkovers are interesting to some , I don't recall anybody calling German walkovers of Poland or France or the first few months of the Russian campaign boring. The same test apples there as well , Can the game engine give the same kind of results as were Historically achieved if the proper tactics are used in 1940 and 1944. The key thing is proper ratings for the units used with proper tactics, doesn't really matter what country is involved. As was pointed out in an earlier thread the French units have been dumbed down some what to achieve what folks percieve as "Historical" results. Helps if you understand what the actual Historical results were, and what the actual tactics were and have some skill in applying them. Doesn't matter that a Tiger is better than a M4 any more than it matters that a Char1bis is better than a PZIIIe. Germans won quickly in France in 1940 but used tactics that cost them very high casulities in a short period of time , so much so that they had to settle for a negotated surrender with half of France under Vichy and placed thier Hopes on the Luffwaffe finishing off the British at Dunkirk, because thier ground Forces were pretty much tapped out.
Yes the Russians did most of the Heavy lifting in WW2 and inflicted about 80% of the military casulities that the Germans suffered. Russian also played a big part in Poland in 1939, Had the Russian not invaded Poland , I think it safe to say germany would have had even higher casulities .
I notice in you list of "interesting " battles you didn't mention Normandy, Normandy is concidered a very interesting battle by many gamers , and yet that was pretty much a walkover with an excellent display of Allied technical , logistical, firepower , and air superiority in stark contrast to german comand and control disasters and poor leadership.
Whatever the Comparitive merits of the Tiger and M4 may be .. the Historical record shows that the German Army in WW2 pretty much stopped gaining ground and winning battles by the time they finally fielded the Tiger tank.
This Game is fundamentally ahistorical to the degree that the point system creates equal point hypothetical balanced and fair battles , and yet to even make that "interesting" to some players the game has to dumb down Allied Artillery and gives short shrift to the "Minor" countries OOB's so folks who usually do not understand the classical national doctrines and tactics can achieve Victories based more on popular myth than history.

[VikingNo2]

The poll is not a good indicator of what people want, very good discussion, and good points, but it would be borning to play strictly historical, I played several games( about 15 ) with the AmmoSgt sugestion of buy what you want. I played as the germans and sure enough in about 60% of the games the US player bought 8 to 10 batteries of 155mm and slowly tried to pound the whole map. Yes I was able to overcome the arty. But it ended up a very boring game, and about half the people I played quit. ( Vath and RobW I will get the turns to you soon, and I apoligize ) The games where boring. Craming 10k into a large map doesn't really do anything but give you a very cool viedo game. But everyonce in awhile viedo games are fun. I like to believe I'm a fairly good tacticion, and its fun to try and overcome a force that has better but less equipment. It ticks me off that I aways feal that there is this undertone that people who like to play with equal points and limits to arty are poor at tactics.

Do you see millions of people around the would playing chess were one side gets 5 pawns and a knight and the other the full set, no. A equal match using tactics is chess. From all accounts not to shabby a game.

Equal points trying to balance the force you have against, the pluses and minuses of the other players force ( where all you know really is the size )
is a very good game, and does build tacics and challange you. If I wanted to play The Art of War, I would go buy it. That game most resembles what I have read in this post so far. The 8.0 will be a better version, it will not please everyone but the Matrix Guys will try to please most and will. A game has to be playable if not it will not attract players, there are limits to the platform of the game. To me Matrix has done a very good job. I can't count the number of players who I have played and as they played their tactics improve vastly, then they start beating me at my own game and I have to figure out something new, durning that time the wargaming comunity grows and friends are made and ideas are exchanged, I think that's a good thing but if it wasn't playable and historical the comunity whould not be. We wouldn't have this forum we would be a bunch of historians in a chat room.

[AmmoSgt]

Viking I'm not clear about what you were playing ?
My suggestion was 4000 points on a 200 hex map , You say 10,000 points ?
With my suggestion of 4000 points 8 to 10 155 batteries would only leave you enough points for a tank company on map more or less . I saw some of the posts after I made my suggestion with folks starting to shrink the map and up the points . Just for my info, exactly how big a map and how many points were you using ?

[Charles2222]

Quite familiar with the principles of land warfare, concentration in Infantry (airborne/mech), I slept with a 7-8 for a few years . And one BN's attack could well be a feint for a BDE's main effort, rather than an attempt to seize and hold terrain.

However, I am familar with defense in depth, as was imployed in many WWII theaters. Would it be possible then, if we're looking to make a more historical scenario, to conclude that a Meeting Engagement could be a meeting of recon screens? Or an Attack/Delay could be the initial contact between two much larger forces, with the Assault/Defend being a full-fledged attempt to break the first of their established lines? I think if you approach the much larger battles in this fashion, it makes it possible to do the defend-in-depth type scenarios you're referencing, one battle at a time. Make sense?

And on that note, another interesting way to make a PBEM game more like a "deeper" battle, would be to allow the players to only spend 4000 of their initial 6000 (for example) then agree that both sides will call for reinforcements at turn 10, to simulate a longer battlefield (reserves coming up to support the defense, or additional forces detached from neighboring units to aid in the assault). Whadda ya think?

But the above topic falls into the category of "What can players do themselves, using the game and it's tools, to make it more realistic?"

I really like the idea of WP rounds that you came up with for the US forces (as an addition to their OOB). What other things (I'd even like to play-test the artillery delay you suggested) do you see as necessary/nice-to-have modifications in the game or engine itself that the Matrix team could do as in improvement? I guess I'm asking for more OOB corrections, or more "physics" fixes. Movement, terrain effects, weather effects, etc. Ideas?

Once we get the game elements (OOB etc.) tweaked to as accurate as they can be, the rest seems to be up to the Scenario Builder and us.

Looking forward to your response.

I'm not sure anyone has an idea of anything that's being thought out in regards to operational overlay, but I was thinking initially that perhaps something along the lines of you being given maybe 2-5 divisions to place operationally. This of course would likely mean that there would be places where you'd stage nothing, or maybe just what we normally think of a s offboard artillery.

But IF any such operational ideas will be shelved permanently, there is perhaps a way to do it just within the same relative confines that we know in SPWAW. For example: While campaigning, should I take the field, the enemy in the next battle never has forces from the prior one. If those that survived could be included in any of the following battles, and the distinct force size of each battle (like 3X attacker to defender in assaults) made indistinct, you may be able to achieve something of the unpredictability of fighting over an operational area without having that layer. It would at least put more purpose in a campaign of the enemy having a reason to retire with a considerable force. It would also make all attacks after the first one as a great adventure. What if the enemy has been saving the prior battles forces survived for battle 10? It would be great to go into that finding that your assualt mission is facing a force twice it's size!!! Imagine, then, how that would set the stage for the next battles! The main thing that needs correction in the SP campaign makeup is that there are no consequences beyond points, and experience rise/decline. Having survivors in some of the following battles for the AI, would also assure that he would have units that actually gained experience/morale from the prior battle.

Just a thought anyway, which of course woulf be so much easier with an operational overlay.

[Charles2222]

Not only that, the Russians (hey, it's another national characteristic) became pretty good at using mobile minelayers/obstacle deployers - and they were used in settings well within the scope of SPWaW. The Germans could have a minefield cleared only to find a new one in place by the time the Panzers had moved up to the Engineers' line.

There you go.

[Charles2222]

Mines hey I don't care if folks use them .. I just don't play PBEM with mines in meeting engagements .. what other folks do is thier business not mine.
I have my reasons that work for me , I don't think it is very realistic in meeting engagements , alegedly nethier side knows where the other side is and are both moving to contact , I have no problem with engineers doing their thing , I am talking about prelaid mines . Everybody gets to play the game however they want .. This thread and the poll results speak to a majority wanting more historical ( althought few have bothered to define what they mean by "Historical" ) SPWAW .. If ya tried hard enough You could even make a agruement for the use of Indian Elephants in meeting engagements .

Price is not a bitch .. statement of fact .. won't pay 180 bucks to get to the third module .. not interested in East Front or Modern .. if CL West Front is stand alone I will buy it .. If I have to buy games I won't play just to play the ones i am interested in .. I'll pass

I'm sorry my getting into the slightest detail disses you, as you're more than wont to the same on many an occasion. The fact of the matter is that two forces are meeting each other, but where they meet is another guess. If they truly are meeting on something of unknown terms, then surely both sides in any sense of static lines, where they originated, would have mines along it in some fashion. So the only key factor is where they met, when they did. One force could've just started on their journey, just as likely as the other could've been at the end of a much longer journey. Indeed, meeting engagements within the design of SP is 'limited' in the sense of not having mines in meeting engagements, but I've pointed out how that isn't entirely realistic, IOW, there's probably no such thing as a force venturing out to contact and every single time neither side having to worry about mines. I enjoy not worrying about mines as much as the next guy, but is that very realistic because you know it's 'one of those types of battles'?

[Vathailos]

Good line of thought Charles.

Which brings up an idea I wish I'd had a couple of months ago.

The "wish list" idea would be to be able to play another human opponent (on-line, PBEM, whatever) throughout a scenario or campaign. Both sides buy core forces (with purchase points being either equal or custom-set), choose the number of battles in the scenario (or dates in the campaign), and choose the level of reinforcement each side would receive in the future (for example, the US would receive 2-3X the purchase points each new battle for refit/upgrade/replacement/new support units as the scenario progressed in Western Europe). Each side would have core forces, and could carry them from battle to battle. We could play a "best 3 out of 5 Desert Battle" against each other.

One other pie-in-the-sky idea would be, in a continuing scenario, to be able to choose adjoining maps. Perhaps a large 5X5 "map pool", wherein the conditions of the battle (which VHs were held, which RT/exit hexes were used) determined which map the next battle occurred on. In an "Assault/Defend" scenario, the defender could place mines in maps not yet used, blow bridges, etc. The assaulting player could plan para-drops in the enemy's rear in an attempt to attack artillery, reinforcements heading toward the front, larger command elements.

However, my thrill at the idea is tempered by the realization that this all may be way beyond the capabilities of the current engine.

That'd give Ammo the opportunity to actually set up his defense-in-depth, and hopefully provide a series of battles that were both exciting and somewhat historically accurate.

Were I only king for a day...