Riun T wrote on Monday, 11 Aug 2006:
ADDENDM: upon doing the math for your engagement rules A: not being allowed to move or return fire from your initial point of deploy till until the enemy gains your paralell vic hexes, or B: 50% of the total turns for the battle are exhausted??? IF ITS A DELAY AND YOU HAVE NOTHING AROUND THE FRONT VH'S and flags are on a points per turn basis, theres really no way to win!!! who actually completed a full long campaign playing like this???? You really must post screen shots for this whopper of a brag vhauser cause I just can't believe it
[font="Times New Roman"]That is what got this demonstration game started. He said there was no way to win a game of the kind I described in my German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge thread and said I must post screen shots for my whopper of a brag. So I set up a game to demonstrate how a person could win a game like this.[/font]
Riun T wrote on Tuesday, 12 Aug 2006:
I'm also kinda scratching my head as to what u think turning off historical charicteristics for two battles would be doing for him Alby?? and agree that 69 is kinda high for the first battle but lets give him the credit that maybe his core got some extra from being part of the CONDORE BATTALION forces that where training the spainish nationalists around 37-39??
[font="Times New Roman"]And I responded why the historical ratings were turned OFF to start the campaign:[/font] vahauser wrote on Tuesday, 12 Aug 2006:
This is standard SPWAW 8.4 here, not Enhanced FV. In standard 8.4, the German base troop quality in 1939 is 65 and the base Polish troop quality is 55.
Also, historically there have always been formations that have troop qualities that are better (and worse) than the "national average" (whatever the hell that means).
Further, just because Matrix Games and The Depot have subjectively decreed that the "national averages" are such and such and so and so, I happen to disagree with those subjective decrees in many (most) cases. And the fact that The Depot and Matrix cannot even agree between themselves on what those "national averages" are is proof enough that these are subjective decisions and are not dictated by any measureable historical data.
Further, the group of players that I play with in the Austin/Dallas areas also disagree with the subjective decrees of Matrix and The Depot regarding "national averages".
Further, if the points system works, and if the game system works, and if the other conditions of the campaign have been set up correctly, then any troop quality a player chooses should not noticeably affect the overall outcome. A player still only gets 2750 initial points and he still must have at least 110 units in his core. If you choose a high troop quality (I've sometimes chosen as high as 110) then your force will be much lighter (lots of recon patrols and ATR sections and Stoewer 40s). If you choose a low troop quality (I've sometimes chosen as low as 50), then your force will be much heavier (lots of battle tanks and battle infantry).
Further, allowing players to choose their own troop quality at the start of the campaign gives players the ability to experiment and allows for more interesting core variations. In fact, my local friends would not have agreed to continue with my idea in the first place if I hadn't agreed to let them choose their own troop quality.
Further, this challenge has been developed and refined and playtested over the course of many months, and I promise you that the challenge is difficult enough no matter what troop quality you choose for your initial core (see the above sentence highlighted in bold print). If you don't believe me, then try it and see for yourself.
[font="Times New Roman"]Alby read this reply and realized that he thought I was playing Enhanced FV. He admitted missing that and no harm was done. But I went on to further elaborate why my reply was somewhat terse:[/font] On Tuesday, 12 Aug 2006 vahauser wrote:
Alby,
I let my frustration show a little bit. It seems nobody here has yet grasped the main foundation behind this campaign format, and instead are focusing on relatively minor details. Turning Historical Ratings OFF for the first two battles is a relatively minor detail (evidently, the only way to see just how minor this is, is to try this campaign format and see for yourself I suppose). The important foundation, and what makes this campaign format so interesting, is that it makes build points between battles the driving generator of your total campaign score. That is the major foundation and that is what makes this campaign so fun and interesting to play. ALL of the other conditions and protocols are there just to make that major foundation work. And yet nobody seems to see this. Hence my frustration.
And again on Wednesday, 13 Aug 2006 vahauser continued:
Alby,
To follow up on why Historical Ratings OFF for the first two battles is a minor detail in this campaign format...
Let's say you pick a troop quality of 110 for your initial core. Now, you have to buy 110 units in your core and you only have 2750 points. You will have a very weak core consisting of light troops (mostly recon patrols and ATRs and light transport units because that is all you can afford). And heaven help you if you pull an Assault as your first mission...
Also, your support troops for that first battle are going to be very expensive meaning that you won't have very many support troops (for instance, just buying an ammo dump will use up a substantial portion of your support points).
Also, and here is the really important thing, after that first battle (assuming your light force isn't overrun and wiped out), you will have to upgrade a lot of those units using your precious build points. And THAT will lower your total campaign score. See?
So, just because you have an initial troop quality of 110 does NOT necessarily help you get a better campaign score in this campaign format because of the way build points are made the driving generator of total campaign score. In fact, I can say with some experience here that choosing a high initial troop quality for your initial core will probably LOWER your total campaign score in the end.
You have to balance everything you do with an eye towards build points during the campaign. Troop quality is only one small component of that balancing act. Managing build points is the key to a high total campaign score, not initial troop quality.
[font="Times New Roman"]But evidently Riun T did not read these posts and explanations (as will soon be seen). And here is where things start to turn sour.[/font] On Wednesday, 13 Aug 2006 Riun T wrote:
…Face it buddy when it comes to infantry in this game a force with 69 QUALITY will shoot more accurately, run farther and faster with less fatue and suppresion and except losses better than one at 55. and the historical aspect will amplify this.
I still wanna see this threw and see how u do thou, MOST DEFINATELY. RT P.S. just noticed that troop QUALITY is an all units inclusive function SO all the vehicles and tanks and guncrews including those three sections of ATR's and 3 PLATOONS of special ops troops as regular infantry with a 69 score in the first year, in the first battle will be unstoppable…
I replied promptly on 13 Aug 2006, vahauser wrote:
If you really believe that troop quality 69 units are unstoppable against troop quality 55 Poles, then I think you should set up and play my German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge with your initial core troop quality set to 69 just like I set up this game.
Are you willing to accept the challenge? I want reports and end-of-battle screenshots too.
[font="Times New Roman"]I then completed the demonstration game and posted a post-game comment.[/font] On 13 Aug 2006 vahauser wrote:
The core I chose was not particularly good. I deliberately chose a rather ordinary core for demonstration purposes. But if you believe that my choice of troop quality 69 gave me an overwhelming advantage (although I assure you that it did not), then I have a suggestion.
Pick any troop quality you want (the game allows you to pick from 30 to 120), set up a battle according to the German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge rules, and see if you can do better.
[font="Times New Roman"]At this point I had explained at least twice (see above) why Historical Ratings were OFF and why a troop quality of 69 was not a big deal. And I had stated that anybody should feel free to try any troop quality they wanted to see for themselves. But I guess Riun T wasn’t willing to let it go…[/font]
On 13 Aug 2006 Riun T wrote:
Correction,not unstopable but definately capable of dominating the poles for firepower,weight utilization of heavy tanks that the poles didn't have in 39,and speed,, your cavalry will run circles around theirs and the spec squads will fight like elite sharpshooting steamrollers,,,, reread the manual bud?
And I responded on 13 Aug 2006 vahauser wrote:
You said I could not win. You said I was making a whopper of a brag. You said you could not believe it.
Then, when I change my core from troop quality 65 to troop quality 69, you said that I gave myself an overwhelming advantage and that I couldn't lose. First you say that I cannot win and that I am bragging, and then you basically call me a cheater and gave myself an overwhelming advantage by changing from 65 to 69.
Look at my final score. I lost 1 tank and 46 men at troop quality 69.
How many tanks and men would I lose at troop quality 65?
Would I lose 20 tanks and 690 men at troop quality 65? Is that what you think?
Would it be impossible for me to win at all using troop quality 65?
That seems to be what you are saying.
Then you also say my core was unfair because I had 3 platoons (9 units) of special operations, even though I didn't use them to infiltrate, and because I had five platoons (20 units) of light cavalry (even though light cavalry is only armed with a rifle and a few grenades). 29 units out of 110 units.
If you looked at the screen shots of the game, you will see that I only used the light cavalry for recon and screening my advance and guarding the perimeter around victory hexes. Look at the north sector of that map. It is all forest! What did you want me to use to advance into that heavily wooded terrain?!
If you looked at the screen shots of the game you will see that I only used the special ops units defensively to hold a line. They were not used to infiltrate or overrun or overwhelm anybody. The units that did most all the killing were the Pz 38t and Pz IVc and the Pz Ib and the armored cars.
The 29 units of special operations and light cavalry maybe killed 50 Polish units (out of more than 300 total killed). Hell, even my 10 halftracks killed more units than the special operations and light cavalry.
I'll say it again. If you think I played unfairly, then give yourself whatever advantages you want (give yourself whatever troop quality you want and buy whatever unfair units you want) and set up a battle just like the one I fought and show me for yourself instead of calling me an unfair player without backing up your words on the battlefield.
I don't like being called an unfair player by somebody who isn't willing to back up his words on the battlefield. If you think what I did is so easy, then prove it to me. Show me how easy it is.
[font="Times New Roman"]And evidently Riun T still hadn’t read the several explanations I had made regarding troop quality, but then he started in on my mortars…[/font] On 13 Aug 2006 Riun T wrote:
whether its the national charicteristics,troop quality,superior marksmanship,or the vastly infearior armour that the poles had,or the rarity turned off, and the fact that u use smoke like the shield we all know it is because the AI won't shoot threw it,or that the AI isn't smart enough to put a support ammo dump right in the midst of its ARRTY,,,I'm not saying at all that your cheating,, maybe just stacking a little more than the AI can handle in the dark,with heavy Mk.IVc's behind an undepleatable 81mm mortar provided smoke blanket that I'm posting the manual referance for DELAY with my core and enemy assets for u to look at, AGAIN I'M not calling u unfair or anything I'd just be lacking if I didn't point out these observations while your on forum and don't intend to get u all defensive or bent outta shape I'm just asking AGAIN,,, what is the ratings turned off for two battles beginnings and that # for troop quality doin for you for all your efforts to tell us its irrelivant????
[font="Times New Roman"]At this point I lost patience. I had already explained several times about the troop quality issue, but Riun T kept at me about it. Further, he nitpicked my OOB and basically told me that my choices were unfair. So, first he says I cannot win and that I’m bragging. Then, when I show him how to win, he attacks my methods for achieving victory in a battle that he said could not be won. That made me pretty upset.[/font]
[font="Times New Roman"]And then, lo and behold, Riun T posts a roster and battle summary of one of his games. I found this summary amazing…[/font] On Thursday 14 Aug 2006 vahauser wrote:
Yes, let's compare your battle result with mine.
Yes let's do that.
Point #1. Your core units all have a troop quality of 90 or 100+ (one of your units has a troop quality of 137!). My core units have a troop quality of 69 (which you said gave me an overwhelming advantage). So answer this question. Why is your troop quality of 90 to 100+ fair, but my troop quality of 69 not fair?
I want an answer to that question.
Point #2. You had 5 ammo carriers and 2 ammo dumps in your battle. I had 1 ammo dump in my battle. You complained that my 1 ammo dump gave me an unfair advantage. Why is your 5 ammo carriers and 2 ammo dumps fair, but my 1 ammo dump not fair?
I want an answer to that question.
Point #3. In 1939 (when my battle was fought), the Polish forces have a troop quality of 55. In 1945 (when your battle was fought), the German forces have a troop quality of 55. My core troop quality in 1939 was 69 against troop quality 55 Polish units. Your core troop quality in 1945 was 90 to 100+ against troop quality 55 German units. Why is my troop quality 69 not fair? Why is your troop quality of 90 to 100+ fair?
I want an answer to that question.
Point #4. The only artillery support I used were some 81mm mortars. I did not use any heavy artillery and I did not use any airstrikes. You said my use of 81mm mortars was unfair against the Poles. You used heavy artillery and Katyusha rockets and airstrikes against the Germans. Why is my use of small 81mm mortars not fair, and why is your use of heavy artillery and rockets and airstrikes fair?
I want an answer to that question.
I want answers to those questions.
[font="Times New Roman"]Which is where we stand now.
I am starting to believe that most of the problems between Riun T and myself are because of problems with the English language. I think that English is not Riun T’s native language and perhaps that is causing a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. However, at this point I don’t know how to explain myself any better than I have already. I think those of you who are native English speakers might have to step in and mediate. I did not set up this demonstration game to cause problems. But problems did result and I don’t know how to fix that since Riun T and I don’t seem to be able to understand each other.[/font]
Let's see, since I've posted in this thread twice now, I'm now "kibitzing" and just here to stir up trouble... I'm just going by the example you've set with Gunny.
Since I've all the sublety of a Panzerkampfwagen VI ausf. B; this is my view:
The core of the argument seems to be that Riun T does not think your "German XXXtreme Orgy Challenge" actually restricts you very much in terms of troop capabilities. You do not like anyone daring to second guess your perfection, thus he is "kibitzing". Even though I'm not disagreeing with or against the relative challenge of your house rules, I am sitting not on your side of the argument, so I am too. I can't say how challenging it really is, since I'm busy with another campaign, and already put together my historically accurate (or as close as I can come to it using multiple disagreeing sources) US Airbourne Inf. Battalion when that one's finished.
Riun's core was so obviously a late campaign force, that your complaints against it automatically put you grasping for straws. At the same time, they were a bit pointless here; if y'all want to compare notes, Riun should post a first battle result and core, and show that off. Of course the relative qualities being so high were fair; they had fought long and hard through several years of war; people tend to get better with practice, and that is true in war as well, so long as they aren't killed or maimed in the process.
He noted that you had a first battle core that has a significant quality advantage over the Poles. Saying that it is inconsequential just shows you've never played this game; The Poles in 8.x fall like wheat before a scyth against the Germans. I carried a troop of 3 calvary squadrons, and 3 light tank companies through the poles, and never lost a squad or tank. Each turn resulted in entire platoons being wiped out by a single squad or tank. I out ran their artillery support, and my own as well; mine was forced to do nothing due to the sheer speed of my advances. 3 straight battles against the Poles cost me only 3 tanks destroyed (due to a lack of real AT capablity; remedied by the PanzerIII suppossedly, which failed to even match the effectiveness vs tanks of the PanzerIIs), and under 100 men killed or wounded. Begium showed little improvement, and it wasn't until France, who had heavy tanks, did I start to have difficulties due to my lacking of real heavy weapons. One company of light tanks was given PanzerIVs, and that was solved somewhat. At the end of the european campaign, I had troop qualities ranging into the 90's on some units. the 15 point difference is a big enough difference; when the enemy force isn't even trying to fight, and a single 20mm autocannon volley sends an entire squad straight to hell. A MG routed a unit in a volley, and rifles could rout tanks in two or three shots. Troop quality is important.
Second, you fought in a Delaying action. You failed in a delaying action. You job is not to give up strogpoints and locations, then counterattack while the enemy has dispersed somewhat and retake them. Your orders, "oberst", are to hold the enemy advance up until a specified time, then withdrawl. Your refusal to fight the battle as a delaying action means that your supply lines were cut, and you were suroounded and overwhelmed, while the forces behind you were unable to retreat, or regroup and prepare for the counterattack. Congradulations; you dereliction of duty just cost your division's existance in combat.
Finally, you took advantage of the AI's lack of coordination among it's ground units, and waited until the entire force was dispersed through the advance. Furthermore, you concentrated your forces, thus ignoring a large portion, and finally you simply parked on the VH's, knowing full well that the AI wouldn't turn around, and mount a coordinated counter attack. Thus, the remaining AI forces were dealt with piece-meal as well.
If you want to consider that a real challenge, go ahead. I'd say if you actually fought the delay, trying to hold the AI until 21 turns had passed, and then withdrawling, and since you seem to think it doesn't have any consequences, give the AI the quality advantage of 15. Your force with 40 average, Poles with 55.
"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."
I'll give you MY core force start from 39 for the russian campaign that you soo gratiously mistook my end of campaign core posting of (9/13/2006 10:41 pm) for while budding into mine and GUNNies talk from another forum anyhow????, and just forget my being sooo frustrated with u to realize that I posted a marine core shot......by mistake..... and why do u only quote whats making u cry and NOT the full post as its written?????I also said that I'd like to see examples of the saved testing ????? U can't think that if I did all that testing and rehashing that I wouldn't keep a referance save to hold as record ????? I havn't even gottin to How silly your making yourself look by not refering to ALL the posts between us cause I've been more than courtious,,,, I didn't threaten to stop any of my posting for any reason and haven't stooped to degrading or insulting I just wanted you to show ALL of US your final battle outcomes for the WHOLE campaign played as u suggested???? And as mad as u seem to be getting with my kibitzing!!!??? YOU'vee only shown one battle and I could easily see how u won that but were u considering it an EXIT delay??? or did u just beat the SHEAT out of the AI from little inconsistancies like AMMO dump positioning,? heavyarmour in tight formation with limiting their advance so as to cover eachothers flanks, or was it the SPEC ops squads and massed ATR's with their 13 points of extra QUALITYs marksmanship, coheasion,or that u can have any of your units pop smoke whereever u like but the stupid AI will only smoke in retreating???? ALL that I've pointed out is just regular troubles that we've all seen the AI have trouble with, I'm sorry my pointing these things out for all the beginners that might be reading these posts is soo upsetting to u but look on the bright side by argueing and besmerching me, your hands will be considered FULL by the other more oppinionated forumers and they wouldn't gang up on YA HA HA [;)]
All right all right, I told my buddies I wouldn't say anything else, but I can't resist.
To Vahauser :
I wasn't denigrating your playing style (well, maybe I WAS), but it's all in good fun.
Look, there is no "right" or "wrong" way to play SPWaW. Everybody has their favorite nations/theaters/playing style.
The Gunny likes historical formations -- most of my WWII study revolves around OOBs.
You have decided to take the POV of simply offering a challenge against the AI -- there's nothing wrong with that, BUT, your way isn't the ONLY way. To be honest, that German core force has no resemblance to anything historical, but I realize that wasn't your intention.
Man, you gotta realize that while some of us take our gaming VERY seriously, you gotta keep a sense of humor about it all, and don't be so quick to take offense.
I apologize if you took my "kibitzing" the wrong way, but if you're gonna survive on this forum, you must learn to take some comments as they were intended, which is often with a wink and a smile.
In MY case, I'm sometimes guilty of not making the difference explicit. For the sake of my fellow gamers, I'll try to be more explanatory on my meaning.
Regards,
Glenn
This campaign format is about build points between battles.
This campaign format is about build points between battles.
This campaign format is about build points between battles.
EVERYTHING else is secondary. You are all focusing on secondary details.
IMPORTANT QUESTION #1. How do you design a campaign format that makes build points between battles the primary means of achieving a high score?
IMPORTANT QUESTION #2. How do you design a campaign format that any two people in the world can play and then compare scores at the end of the campaign in a meaningful way?
Those are the REAL questions that this campaign format addresses and SOLVES. Everything else is just there to answer those two important questions.
ANY battle or campaign challenge you give me will not result in a satisfactory resolution?
WHY NOT?
Because I don't play the game the same way you do. And you won't be happy with the way I do things.
I've already proved that with this demonstration battle. Riun T said I couldn't win this battle under the conditions defined in the German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge. But when I did win the battle, NOBODY was satisfied or happy because I did it in a way that didn't meet your preconceived notions about the way the game SHOULD be played.
But the German Long Campaign Extreme Challenge is specifically designed to let you play any way you want to.
It doesn't HAVE any preconceived notions.
It doesn't try to tell you that you have to play a certain way.
It doesn't care what tactics you use or what play style you use.
If you want to buy all troop quality 100 units, this campaign format doesn't care.
If you want to use what you think are supertroops and extreme tactics, this campaign format doesn't care.
In fact, this campaign format encourages you to do absolutely anything you want to and however you want to do it.
If Alby wants to do it his way, this campaign format says fine.
If Erwin wants to do it his way, this campaign format says fine.
If Riun T wants to do it his way, this campaign format says fine.
If azraelck wants to do it his way, this campaign format says fine.
Because the build points between battles will be the ultimate test and challenge.
I am just here to stir the pot, because the forums are really slow these days...and this is most interesting thread going
LOL
[8D]
besides I suck at playing the game anyway...
[:(]
with no oobs to work on I am bored, guess i can work on my 'personal' set...
[:)]
I'm chucking the german core end screen for my russian camp to compare for GUNNY,,, and vahauser if he's interested, and think I'll just stick with the discussion this ALL started from in "Here's the thing about long campaigns" which was do I think that Gunny's MARINE wonder core has been played enough to spout a "down to a science" critique. and I wasn't expecting Va's interjecting to have gotten so much attention,or getting such bad press for either of us and will try with u like I did with TBT to curb any cinicism or disrespect you seem to think I'm brandishing toward you or your methods. AND I unlike u have a vast saved games file for using as evidance of my exployts and claims and freely discussed many of them with members before your presents was even noted here so be patient and learn little upset grasshopper I'm compiling a whopper myself, and you'll all see it soon[:D]
You are a musician, not a fighter. The world needs more musicians. It doesn't need more fighters.
I can remember many years ago on this forum, I think it was the summer of 2001 (my username was victorhauser back then), and there was a huge debate about the armor of the Tiger tank (Paul Vebber and Charles_22 and Fazio(sp?) and you and me and several others) and you were working on a points cost spread sheet at the time and you sent me an email and asked me to look it over.
Anyway, my point is that this isn't the first heated debate I've been involved in on this forum. Probably won't be the last either.
P.S. I just did a search on my old username and was surprised to see my old posts (heh, even has my old profile). How far back do they go?
Serious post : RE build points -- for a 1942-45 USMC long campaign, version 8.403, I can count on maybe 100-200 points (after casualties are replaced) per battle, between August-December 1942. NO upgrades for me, as I know that I'll be upgrading virtually my entire force in 1943.
AFTER the first battle of 1943 (a long campaign glitch that I hate), I convert all 1942 9-man "D" squads into 12 -man "E" squads. I convert the BAR squads into 1943 Assault Squads (available after June 43). Same goes for each Co HQ, Plt HQ and all crew-served weapons. We have new stuff arriving, and everyone's gotta be trained in using the M1 Garands and Carbines. ALL must undergo conversion. My whole force takes experience hits, as replacements are coming in to flesh out the squads.
More than that, we have new tanks available -- those old Stuarts can start to be replaced by Shermans -- more experience hits. I focus on the infantry first, so the armor is upgraded as we can afford them.
OK, we get through 1943, and in 1944 the whole process with infantry squads starts over again -- the "E" squads are replaced by 13-man "F" squads. More replacements, more experience hits. At this point, things start to stabilize. We can now focus on upgrading support weapons.
In using historical formations, at least as the USMC, you get a grasp of how the process worked.
Just when you think your core force is becoming unbeatable, here come a series of changes that set you back a ways.
That's the way it SHOULD be, and it makes for a rewarding campaign in of itself.
The one point that must NOT be forgotten is that the AI bases its purchases on the value of YOUR force. For a USMC campaign, this means that the Japanese can buy more fortifications and arty emplacements as your core improves.
The slugging matches become more and more intense, reaching their apogee by the time of Okinawa.
THIS is my way -- if you simply go historical, the AI will adjust its forces vis a vis your own. To my mind, this creates its own challenge.
I'm simply offering my method, with isn't better or worse than anyone else's. It's just an alternative.
You are a musician, not a fighter. The world needs more musicians. It doesn't need more fighters.
I can remember many years ago on this forum, I think it was the summer of 2001 (my username was victorhauser back then), and there was a huge debate about the armor of the Tiger tank (Paul Vebber and Charles_22 and Fazio(sp?) and you and me and several others) and you were working on a points cost spread sheet at the time and you sent me an email and asked me to look it over.
Anyway, my point is that this isn't the first heated debate I've been involved in on this forum. Probably won't be the last either.
P.S. I just did a search on my old username and was surprised to see my old posts (heh, even has my old profile). How far back do they go?
Don't think it was me that sent you the spread sheet,
I did work on ver 5 oobs I think, but had nothing to do with the spread sheet from hell.
posts go back as far as when the big hack happened I imagine.
I have been around for a long time though it seems
Ok finally got the starting battle of my long russian camp j-peged and eventhou I got a draw, notice the fact that i was a little outnumbered with those darn fast skiers with molitovs and all my units were trying to exit. the battle lasted 25 of 39 turns and I'm giving the final maps to see what my #'s where giving me for fighting the fins,,, ITS not pretty
As you can see, even an early war Russian mechanised regiment had some tanks attached to it (in theory).
What won the Russo-Finnish War I was the massed Russian artillery. As was proven so many times in WWII , firepower rules, especially if delivered en masse on an OPEN target.
