Page 1 of 2
The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:55 am
by KG Erwin
In representing the gamut of WWII combat, there's still nothing that surpasses SPWaW. It is really sad that Matrix has been unable to come up with "Steel Panthers on steroids". Revisiting Close Combat is close, but not on the battalion level, with nearly every possible type of combat scenario imaginable, from open tank battles in the deserts of North Africa to amphibious assaults on the islands of the Pacific.
I really can't think of any game engine that can approximate combined-arms warfare any better than this one. It's all there-- tactical air support, artillery, naval gunnery, infantry, tanks, asssorted heavy weapons etc.
The sad part is that Matrix has halted any more official updates, but the good part is that unofficial fan updates continue to be made.
The game refuses to die, and the reasons are its elegance and modibility, and the dedication of its fan base.
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 8:09 am
by JudgeDredd
Yes, but graphically, it made my eyes bleed!
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 3:18 pm
by ravinhood
I admit the infantry in SP's is a bit hard to see at times. Especially in jungle terrain or deep woods and then all that smoke that pops up all over the screen. I think the AI loves to use smoke more than I do. lol It's why I've always wanted an isomectric Steel Panthers. Sort of a 3/4 view instead of totally over the top. And colors that blend into the terrain need to be changed, like a lighter green for American forces or adjustments to the hue of colors as they enter different terrain that makes them hard to see.
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:27 pm
by Rune Iversen
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
In representing the gamut of WWII combat, there's still nothing that surpasses SPWaW. It is really sad that Matrix has been unable to come up with "Steel Panthers on steroids". Revisiting Close Combat is close, but not on the battalion level, with nearly every possible type of combat scenario imaginable, from open tank battles in the deserts of North Africa to amphibious assaults on the islands of the Pacific.
I really can't think of any game engine that can approximate combined-arms warfare any better than this one. It's all there-- tactical air support, artillery, naval gunnery, infantry, tanks, asssorted heavy weapons etc.
Combat Mission series? SPWW2?
The sad part is that Matrix has halted any more official updates, but the good part is that unofficial fan updates continue to be made.
The game refuses to die, and the reasons are its elegance and modibility, and the dedication of its fan base.
Heh, well *imagine* that.
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:23 pm
by Titanwarrior89
I would have to agree with you on this one KG. I have found none better. No wonder its a classic.[:)]
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
In representing the gamut of WWII combat, there's still nothing that surpasses SPWaW. It is really sad that Matrix has been unable to come up with "Steel Panthers on steroids". Revisiting Close Combat is close, but not on the battalion level, with nearly every possible type of combat scenario imaginable, from open tank battles in the deserts of North Africa to amphibious assaults on the islands of the Pacific.
I really can't think of any game engine that can approximate combined-arms warfare any better than this one. It's all there-- tactical air support, artillery, naval gunnery, infantry, tanks, asssorted heavy weapons etc.
The sad part is that Matrix has halted any more official updates, but the good part is that unofficial fan updates continue to be made.
The game refuses to die, and the reasons are its elegance and modibility, and the dedication of its fan base.
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:30 pm
by Zap
I have found it to be the game I pick up first (limited time to play games). Once in a while Close Combat. But the rest of my games on Hard Disk I don't get into at all. FoF, Korsun, Normady, Battles of Italy, WiTP, Httr.
I guess SP:WaW just fits the bill perfectly for me.
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:50 am
by Kuokkanen
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
I really can't think of any game engine that can approximate combined-arms warfare any better than this one. It's all there-- tactical air support, artillery, naval gunnery, infantry, tanks, asssorted heavy weapons etc.
Except naval and air elements are very abstract in SPWAW. Sure there are barges and even small warships on the board, but it would be nice to have cruisers and battleships to move around on the board: naval battles anyone? What comes to air element, they do just ground assaults and drop paratroopers.
There aren't many turnbased tactical level games which have EVERYTHING on the board at player's disposal. From computer games M.A.X. comes to mind. From other games Classic BattleTech is probably most shining example there is to offer truly tactical level combined arms warfare.
Of course I'm not wargamer geek as many of you (I'm 25 years old, spoiled by RTS and FPS), so there might be plenty of other tactical combined arms games I don't know about...
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:17 pm
by simovitch
I've been playing wargames for 30 years, and Computer strategy games for the past 10 and I havn't found any that surpass the Airborne Assault series for realistic combined arms play....
Detach a motorized AAA platoon to guard a crossroads, position an AT Company on a ridge for overwatch, deploy Tanks, mechanized infantry, armored recon, self propelled artillery, etc. at Company level, not to mention large scale airborne operations. It's all there man.
The fact that it's pausable continuous time gameplay on vectored (no hexes) maps makes it all the better (for me).
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 11:37 pm
by JudgeDredd
ORIGINAL: simovitch
I've been playing wargames for 30 years, and Computer strategy games for the past 10 and I havn't found any that surpass the Airborne Assault series for realistic combined arms play....
Detach a motorized AAA platoon to guard a crossroads, position an AT Company on a ridge for overwatch, deploy Tanks, mechanized infantry, armored recon, self propelled artillery, etc. at Company level, not to mention large scale airborne operations. It's all there man.
The fact that it's pausable continuous time gameplay on vectored (no hexes) maps makes it all the better (for me).
aight...I here ya...seconded.
Or, just give an order to your battalion HQ to probe a target area and watch it unfold...whatever takes your fancy....as complicated or as easy as you like!
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 3:07 pm
by Kuokkanen
ORIGINAL: simovitch
I havn't found any that surpass the Airborne Assault series for realistic combined arms play....
I believe COTA and HTTR belong to that serie. But isn't that one closer to operational scale than tactical scale...
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 4:40 pm
by sterckxe
ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
ORIGINAL: simovitch
I havn't found any that surpass the Airborne Assault series for realistic combined arms play....
I believe COTA and HTTR belong to that serie. But isn't that one closer to operational scale than tactical scale...
Sure, but combined arms warfare isn't just a tactical level thing. There's a demo coming up for Conquest of the Aegean so everyone can have a look at what operational level combined arms warfare is all about.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 6:32 pm
by ravinhood
{Of course I'm not wargamer geek as many of you (I'm 25 years old, spoiled by RTS and FPS),}
See you guys I told you this mess was going to happen because of rts and fps games. Look at this guy he's spoiled by them.[:D] Gawd to think the future of wargaming is going to be rts and fps. I wonder if those minature players of the early 20th century said the same thing when hex based/turn based board wargames came out? [:D]
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 6:59 pm
by sterckxe
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
{Of course I'm not wargamer geek as many of you (I'm 25 years old, spoiled by RTS and FPS),}
I thought you were retired ? Of course, if you can retire when you're 25 you've got it made [:D]
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
See you guys I told you this mess was going to happen because of rts and fps games.
You sure *sound* like my grandpa [:D] - you sure you're only 25 ?
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Gawd to think the future of wargaming is going to be rts and fps.
I heard that was because certain tighwads refused to buy wargames full price [:'(]
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I wonder if those minature players of the early 20th century said the same thing when hex based/turn based board wargames came out? [:D]
Probably - I've read my first "Wargaming is dying" article about 30 years ago - it'll easily outlive me. Aprè moi le déluge.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 8:11 pm
by ravinhood
lol Eddy I was quoting Matti up there (scroll up and read Matti's post) I just used {} instead of the web quote feature. I'm lazy like that.
like this {I heard that was because certain tighwads refused to buy wargames full price}
Just because I'm smarter and more intelligent in my old age and saving a buck doesn't make me a tightwad.
When I was 20-35 yeah I threw money away like the wind like the rest of you or hehe most of you and my dad was always telling me to save for a rainy day. When my mom passed away and I went thru that ordeal and it cost us $56,000 out of pocket expenses, yep, I got the idea real quick you better save for a rainy day else you'll end up in some hole in the street or some low level old folks home that lets you sleep in your refuse or worse.
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 8:15 pm
by sterckxe
ORIGINAL: ravinhood
lol Eddy I was quoting Matti up there (scroll up and read Matti's post) I just used {} instead of the web quote feature. I'm lazy like that.
Ah, ok - just a streak of jealousy directed at a 25 year old who can afford to retire and play wargames all day [:D]. I've got 25 years to go before I get there ... if I get there [8|]
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 8:29 pm
by KG Erwin
I did try to emphasize the particular scale of SPWaW, which is (at the most) on a battalion level, and it IS turn-based.
I agree that real-time games (of which Close Combat is one) have their place, but I don't think it would be possible to control a battalion which each of the subunits being squads and individual vehicles. Talk about a click-fest. [X(]
My point is simply that using the complex mix of weapons in WWII-era warfare is handled very well by that old warhorse, which accounts for its continued popularity. To control 200 subunits lends itself to a turn-based game.
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:14 pm
by sterckxe
ORIGINAL: KG Erwin
I agree that real-time games (of which Close Combat is one) have their place, but I don't think it would be possible to control a battalion which each of the subunits being squads and individual vehicles. Talk about a click-fest. [X(]
You *really* need to take a look at the demo for Conquest of the Aegean when it's finished.
The Malta scenarios have you basically commanding 2 divisions, units down to company/platoon level. Yet it's not a clickfest as you give orders to the battalion or regiment HQ units which then "translate" those orders for their subordinate units. Of course you can micro-manage every single unit on your screen, but the point of the game is that you don't have to most of the time because the own-unit AI is so good. So you concentrate on the strategy, not the minute implementation of it. Be the general, not the secretary.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:21 pm
by JudgeDredd
ORIGINAL: sterckxe
...HQ units which then "translate" those orders for their subordinate units
...and mighty good at it they are, too.
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 9:46 pm
by JJKettunen
ORIGINAL: sterckxe
Be the general, not the secretary.
Well said!
RE: The Best Representation of Combined Arms Warfare?
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 7:25 am
by sterckxe
ORIGINAL: Keke
ORIGINAL: sterckxe
Be the general, not the secretary.
Well said!
Well, my secretary typed that as I'm busy sorting out the Quartermaster for forgetting a Tiger needs twice the fuel of a PzKw IV. A general's job is never done [;)]
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx