Base of fire, and time scales...

[azraelck]

One of the very few complaints I have with SPWaW is the lack of turns avaliable in most scenarios.

An example is found in my "Balkan Crisis" AAR. During the advance into Zenica, I was unable to secure the eastern VHes due to the lack of time in the scenario. It took much of the turns avaliable just to reach the town!

I prefer a much more thoughful, cautious approach to my assaults. I'm of the school of thought that a dead soldier can't fight anymore, and to minimize casualties as much as possible.

In that assault, I carefully set up MG positions for covering fire, as well as the Platoon HQ of my light mortars to provide observation and additional covering fire. In my southern most assault's case, I also set a smoke screen to protect my flank, and in both cases I waited with my troops until a preliminary barrage from my mortars had suppressed the enemy. I then, after using my MGs and Plt HQs to suppress every noticed enemy unit, charged full speed with the rest of my troops. Once in close quarters (within 50m), they opened fire on the pinned squads with deadly effectiveness.

As a result, I suffered far less casualties of my men than a simple "Haig's Folly" direct charge, as I timed my charges to coincide the same turn as the last mortar shells exploded. That coupled with the covering fire from my HQs and MGs kept all the enemy pinned; and meant only rare Op fires caused any casualties, with the sole exception of a far-flung Maxim HMG positioned well behind my bombardment in the cemetary.

Unfortunately, that tactic may have saved the lives of my men, but cost me a DV; as there was simply no way a non-mechanized or motorized force could advance fast enough, set up those same tactics, then continue to advance.

In every scenario I've played, the same situation occurs. Scenario designers don't seem to take into account a player wanting to optimize his men's chances to return home to their little pixellated families. I'm much more apathic about those other bastards, since I'm fighting them, and they're trying to reduce my men's chances to get home alive.

That's one reason I dislike scenarios in a way, they're always far far too short for any complicated tactics, other than "Hulk SMASH!" This is contrasting sharply with the fact that many, particularly Wild bill's have such intelligent thought placed into troop placement and composition that it absolutely requires competent tactics to succeed.

[Gloo]

Hi azraelck.

You have some options here: you can give up completely and only play with the battle generator; you can give a try to another approach of ths game and download WinSPWW2, which will allow you to fully customize your games (choose map, time frame and vision threshold); or you can open the scens you'd like to play, adjust the number of turns, then save and play. Frankly, if you haven't tried it already, I really think you should give WinSPWW2 a closer look, you could be happily surprised by the different approach of gameplay this version provides.
My two cents.

[vahauser]

Gloo,

SPWAW is fine. I prefer it over SPWW2 in almost every respect. There are reasons for a limited number of turns. There is SUPPOSED to be time pressure. Consider when the VHexes are points-per-turn for example.

My belief is that the standard 30-39 turns that each SPWAW Long Campaign battle gives you is actually too long and favors the human player too much. Giving yourself more time by manually going into the editor and changing the game length is very cheesy in my opinion.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: vahauser

SPWAW is fine. I prefer it over SPWW2 in almost every respect. There are reasons for a limited number of turns. There is SUPPOSED to be time pressure. Consider when the VHexes are points-per-turn for example.

My belief is that the standard 30-39 turns that each SPWAW Long Campaign battle gives you is actually too long and favors the human player too much. Giving yourself more time by manually going into the editor and changing the game length is very cheesy in my opinion.

I don't find time to be that much of a factor, except in assaults with PPT victory hexes. In those scenarios, time can become a ridiculous factor. Trying to break through 2-3 hex belt of mines and capture all of the PPT victory hexes quickly enough to get something better than a draw is extremely difficult at best and most often impossible. I've had some scenarios where it is impossible because snow gets tossed in, slowing everything down and strangely, engineers aren't available. In general, I keep engineers in my core now because I have learned the hard way the buy-list engineers tend to be on leave when I need them. And then, just for S&Gs, toss in 2-3 battalions of enemy infantry in defensive positions with supporting armor, field fortifications and all the artillery ever made, makes getting more than a draw very difficult in game lengths less than 30 turns.

The biggest problem is the definition of a draw in SPWaW. I believe you generally need a 3:1 point ratio to get better than a draw. That means to achieve that ratio in the PPT hexes for a 30 turn scenario; you need to get them all 8 turns or less. The only way that's going to happen is if the mine field is penetrated in multiple locations at the same time. Really difficult if you don't have many engineers. It takes a platoon of engineers (3 squads) 1-2 turns to clear one hex, so it can take anywhere from 2-6 turns to clear a single hex path through the minefield. A good portion of those 8 turns can be consumed just getting through the minefield. The only thing that makes life easier is the AI doesn't lob artillery into the smoke covering my engineers while they work. Sometimes I luck out and the PPT hexes end up only being worth 5pts. Then, it's possible to pound enough enemy units that the PPT hexes don't matter that much. As I said, it is luck, however because you don't know if they are even PPT hexes, much less how much they are worth until you get to the deploy screen.

[vahauser]

RERomine,

Nothing wrong with a Draw under the conditions you described (PPT vhexes and snow).

Just ask Patton during his assaults around Metz in late 1944.

As long as I can keep my core from suffering horribly, then sometimes Draws are okay.

In a long campaign of 40-50 battles, it's not unrealistic to get a draw or two. Most of my long campaigns have around 25 decisive and 15 marginal and a couple draws. I can live with that.

[RERomine]

Nothing to do but accept the draw, but the overall point was to show there are instances where there isn't enough time to get a victory.

[azraelck]

My point is that there is rarely, if ever, enough time to use suitable tactics to keep casualties to a minimum. This goes mostly for user-made campaigns and Scenarios. During a long campaign, the ever increasing strength of the core, coupled with the AI's lack of intelligent deployment, means that there isn't as much a problem. The size of the core also helps to alleviate some of the issues. Victory is secondary, I'll settle for a draw, so long as I still have a combat-effective force, and the enemy does not. Holding a lone position or two doesn't mean a thing if your still forced to pull out due to a lack of troops, and are facing nearly the same force that you started the battle with.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: azraelck

My point is that there is rarely, if ever, enough time to use suitable tactics to keep casualties to a minimum. This goes mostly for user-made campaigns and Scenarios. During a long campaign, the ever increasing strength of the core, coupled with the AI's lack of intelligent deployment, means that there isn't as much a problem. The size of the core also helps to alleviate some of the issues. Victory is secondary, I'll settle for a draw, so long as I still have a combat-effective force, and the enemy does not. Holding a lone position or two doesn't mean a thing if your still forced to pull out due to a lack of troops, and are facing nearly the same force that you started the battle with.

In that I agree. Losing some units is a fact of life during a battle, but that doesn't bother me as much as losing the surviving crews. I go out of my way to move my core survivors out of harms way because I don't want to lose their experience. Heavy core casualties don't bother me as much as long as I can save the crews. I have enough replacement/refit points to replace the hardware, but crew experience is obtained the hard way. Generally, I consider a 10 to 1 kill ratio to be a good game, no matter what the overall outcome is.

Be glad the AI doesn't use intelligent deployment because with the numbers it fields, a sound defense or offense would make it next to impossible to deal with. I've had some battles where the AI has lost 100 tanks and over 1,500 men. Only in my dreams would my core be that size. But the predictability of the AI means I can usually use the same general tactics every single time. In an assault and advance, it's punch a hole through the enemy line near a map edge, push to the enemy rear and take the objectives from behind. That keeps me from having to deal with the massed humanity in more than one location that the AI always puts on the front line. In a defense, I try to use a mobile approach with my armor because the AI will use it's artillery to blasted my fortifications into dust if I set in one spot. I use the same general concept with a delay, but AI artillery is less of a concern. The most entertaining scenarios are the meeting engagements because it's a blend of everything. I'll usually perform a holding action in the middle while some armor units maneuver around a flank into the AI rear with the initial objective of taking out the artillery. Then I just tighten the loop and meet in the middle. Unfortunately, it's the same thing over and over again. The same tactics work every time. Things only get dicey when the AI gets a temporary technilogical advantage.

[azraelck]

True. Though I've found that superior tactics can make up for a numerical disadvantage, or a technological disadvantage. Have to deal with both, and even excellent tactics is hard pressed to make a dent.

It's just me, but I prefer to keep my core intact. I find it hard to disassociate myself from my little pixellated men; and think of them like they are real. Sherman tank drivers become my cousin, who drove a M1A2 Abrams until being discharged to become an Officer. Infantry include my grandfather, who fought in both Vietnam and Korea, my uncle, who fought in Vietnam as well. Naval crew in amphibious operations include my dad, and other uncle.  One of those little pixel marines is my great uncle, who was lost and presumned dead in the Phillipines when they fell, only to resurface when the island he was on was retaken. When taken in that light, my primary goal beyond the achievement of the objectives is taking the minimum of casualties.

[Riun T]

I have much the same attitude that AZ has,and believe that there are enough undeterminables in this game to threaten your core,without exposing them to poor tactics and utilization. And" figure in" the fact that their is almost always partisans and allied factions that would be opperating in the enemies occupied "backyard" that would hold a negitive attitude toward their conquerers views and intents that I could easily convince to fight for me to oust their oppressers. I sortta consider ALL the diversity of the support I choose as to ressembling that areas "home guard" or covert resistance movement to sequester assistance from in the combat that seems to have moved into their local opperating municipalities.

[KG Erwin]

Guys, the basics of SPWaW play are based on sound tactics and understanding the capabilities of your forces. 

Playing against the AI is a training exercise.  While I love the long campaigns, the script only varies slightly. 

I worked with some of the previous OOB Teams to maximize the play potential vs the Japanese.  They are tough SOBs, and we worked on their AI force selections to maximize their capabilities.

With the enhanced version, this was expanded to give every nation a reasonable choice of AI selections. 

The basic idea, IMHO, was to give historical players (vahauser's category 1s), a base point for constructing reasonably accurate historical forces.   I think the guys did a pretty good job of this.

So, a solo player can have a good time with the game and be assured that the OOB teams did a hell of a lot of research.

The "historical, or standardized" national ratings are abstracted, yes, but the numbers are based on historical results and expected outcomes, NOT on whether one nation's troops were necessarily better than another's. This point is  misunderstood. 

Thus, all things being equal, the Allies will perform better than the Axis, pure and simple, in order to achieve an expected  historical result. 

I can't explain it any simpler than that.     

For PBEM, it's a completely different story.   The game settings allow for equal experience/morale levels , so you guys have absolutely nothing to complain about.    The "fair and balanced" playing field is right there for you. 

[KG Erwin]

As for azraelck's orginal post, the time limits on the scenarios were set by the designers.    If you wanna criticize Bill Wilder for one of his designs, go right ahead.  The man is a gentleman, and constructive criticism is good. 
 
Most timed scenarios are not meant to be easy.   As a matter of fact, in a few scenarios, you aren't MEANT to win.  Your best hope is to minimize the level of your defeat. 

[junk2drive]

Read it again
 

  This is contrasting sharply with the fact that many, particularly Wild bill's have such intelligent thought placed into troop placement and composition that it absolutely requires competent tactics to succeed.

 
 

[RERomine]

My comments certainly weren't oriented towards anything other than system generated scenarios. In fact, I think the general thread shifted to discussion of such system generated scenarios.

[RERomine]

ORIGINAL: azraelck

It's just me, but I prefer to keep my core intact. I find it hard to disassociate myself from my little pixellated men; and think of them like they are real. Sherman tank drivers become my cousin, who drove a M1A2 Abrams until being discharged to become an Officer. Infantry include my grandfather, who fought in both Vietnam and Korea, my uncle, who fought in Vietnam as well. Naval crew in amphibious operations include my dad, and other uncle.  One of those little pixel marines is my great uncle, who was lost and presumned dead in the Phillipines when they fell, only to resurface when the island he was on was retaken. When taken in that light, my primary goal beyond the achievement of the objectives is taking the minimum of casualties.

I don't think I go that far. My perspective is more mercenary in the fact that losing an entire unit loses the experience of the unit. In my last scenario, I lost three tanks but was able to save two of the crews. The lost crew was too suppressed by the artillery that killed their tank to board anything. They were subsequently killed the next turn by same artillery.

I do take a more personal view of the head quarters unit. They stay out of harms way the whole time, but that doesn't help during defend missions. Since I've been keeping track, they have been hit by prep artillery 75% of the time even through they are always located nowhere special. I keep them away from objectives, off of hills and out of sight, but the AI obviously manages to find them. At least it never hits them again after the prep fire. I use to put HQ in a tank, but decided 10 men are more difficult to kill than 4 in a tank.

[Twotribes]

Notice how certain posters take the tact that any discussion that brings up precieved deficiences or flaws or are disliked for some reason are a "personal" attack on the designer of the game? Followed by the admonishment not to be so rude and evil as to complain about said designer.

These people always turn a discussion from mechanics into a personal attack, when in fact no such thing occurred or was meant or infered. Maybe these people would like to give us a list of sancrosant things to note percieved problems in.

[azraelck]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
Guys, the basics of SPWaW play are based on sound tactics and understanding the capabilities of your forces.

Playing against the AI is a training exercise. While I love the long campaigns, the script only varies slightly.

I worked with some of the previous OOB Teams to maximize the play potential vs the Japanese. They are tough SOBs, and we worked on their AI force selections to maximize their capabilities.

With the enhanced version, this was expanded to give every nation a reasonable choice of AI selections.

The basic idea, IMHO, was to give historical players (vahauser's category 1s), a base point for constructing reasonably accurate historical forces. I think the guys did a pretty good job of this.

So, a solo player can have a good time with the game and be assured that the OOB teams did a hell of a lot of research.

The "historical, or standardized" national ratings are abstracted, yes, but the numbers are based on historical results and expected outcomes, NOT on whether one nation's troops were necessarily better than another's. This point is misunderstood.

Thus, all things being equal, the Allies will perform better than the Axis, pure and simple, in order to achieve an expected historical result.

I can't explain it any simpler than that.

For PBEM, it's a completely different story. The game settings allow for equal experience/morale levels , so you guys have absolutely nothing to complain about. The "fair and balanced" playing field is right there for you.

This post has a good argument, Gunny, if it was on something that was being argued. I'm not arguing the balance of PBEM (which I don't engage in at any rate, as you well know). I am also not even concerned about the Enhanced mod. This applies to any scenario or campaign designed. Regardless if it's Enh, vanilla, HtH, or whathaveyou. It is also not about troop quality, or the historical accuracy of the historical settings. It's simply about insufficient time to conduct operations using decent tactics in relation to the engine's limitations.

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
As for azraelck's orginal post, the time limits on the scenarios were set by the designers. If you wanna criticize Bill Wilder for one of his designs, go right ahead. The man is a gentleman, and constructive criticism is good.

Most timed scenarios are not meant to be easy. As a matter of fact, in a few scenarios, you aren't MEANT to win. Your best hope is to minimize the level of your defeat.

No where in any of my posts have I insulted one of the designers. Reread my posts, if you would, and see what I said. The scenarios themselves are (at least all the ones I've played) of very high quality, well detailed and with well thought out positions. I noted that. It's the utter lack of time to complete the objectives as was the original post. Realistically, very few missions, none of which are portrayed in SPWaW well (or at all) would require such limited time frames. 10 turns is anywhere from 20mins to 50mins in length, from what I can ascertain. If it was a rescue mission, into a POW camp, or a strike and withdrawl, I can see it. Both instances have the commander extracating his troops as soon as the main objectives are completed. A straight out assault on a town, held by an unknown enemy force, and with only a limited number of troops to make the assault, would be carefully planned, with contengincies, and they would be expected to both take and hold that town. The battle over Zenica could have been drawn out, involving an almost immediate Yugoslavian counter attack after say 15 turns. This would give you just enough time to secure the town if your good, and maybe set up a defensive perimeter and begin preparing to defend against the counter attack. I would have been hard pressed to not only take the town, but defend it almost immediately in my campaign. IIRC, the turn length was only 15 turns. Moving my infantry full speed as much as possible, only waiting to make sure they wouldn't get utterly destroyed when they charged the VH's and to let my mortars supress enemy positions. 20 turns would have netted me the whole town. It took 7 to reach the town, with my troops as far forward as I couple place them in deployment.

There is no reason that insufficient time has to be used to create difficult scenarios for the players. Many scenarios are quite hard as it is. And in a couple campaigns, I can point out scenarios where a longer time limit would have made for an even greater challenge. This is regardless of design intent.

[azraelck]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Notice how certain posters take the tact that any discussion that brings up precieved deficiences or flaws or are disliked for some reason are a "personal" attack on the designer of the game? Followed by the admonishment not to be so rude and evil as to complain about said designer.

These people always turn a discussion from mechanics into a personal attack, when in fact no such thing occurred or was meant or infered. Maybe these people would like to give us a list of sancrosant things to note percieved problems in.

I don't think Gunny meant anything ill, Twotribes. Rather, trying to forestall another "Haig Incident". He should know by my posts, I have little tact and a short temper, but I'm not going to go out of my way to stary something. There are no TBTs floating around here right now. No need to get on his case.

[azraelck]

ORIGINAL: RERomine
I don't think I go that far. My perspective is more mercenary in the fact that losing an entire unit loses the experience of the unit. In my last scenario, I lost three tanks but was able to save two of the crews. The lost crew was too suppressed by the artillery that killed their tank to board anything. They were subsequently killed the next turn by same artillery.

I do take a more personal view of the head quarters unit. They stay out of harms way the whole time, but that doesn't help during defend missions. Since I've been keeping track, they have been hit by prep artillery 75% of the time even through they are always located nowhere special. I keep them away from objectives, off of hills and out of sight, but the AI obviously manages to find them. At least it never hits them again after the prep fire. I use to put HQ in a tank, but decided 10 men are more difficult to kill than 4 in a tank.

IMO, the only advantage to having an HQ in a tank is the added mobility, moving to give morale support to whatever troops are most heaviliy suppressed. Prior to 8.043, I just loaded them on the heaviest tank I had, and held them in reserve. Now I usually keep them with my field artillery. It depends though, I've sent them straight into the front lines, fighting right along side the men.

I quit playing defends on a Long/Generated campaign, due to the lack of challenge. So I have no idea of the effectiveness of prep barrages in those instances. In Scenarios, it's usually plotted quit effectively. Too effective for comfort!

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Notice how certain posters take the tact that any discussion that brings up precieved deficiences or flaws or are disliked for some reason are a "personal" attack on the designer of the game? Followed by the admonishment not to be so rude and evil as to complain about said designer.

These people always turn a discussion from mechanics into a personal attack, when in fact no such thing occurred or was meant or infered. Maybe these people would like to give us a list of sancrosant things to note percieved problems in.

Huh? What did you add to the discussion of game mechanics or scenario design with that response? [8|]