Super Americans in SPWAW 4.5

[Charles22]

Speaking about the Israelis, last week I watched what I would term as 'one of those spook shows', you know the ones that dwell on the unexplained.

They were talking about the 6 day war. They said that there were very large formations of the enemies of Israel that abandoned all their equipment completely intact. There was one portion that told of a soldier who was on the ground injured. He said that two of the enemy came right up to him and pointed their guns at him, one of them obviously fixing to fire. He said that it all of the sudden got very bright (I think it was daytime - at least the reenactment portrayed it that way) and that the two of them dropped their weapons and ran. He said he then heard a voice tell him that he would be okay. He believed it was an angel.

Later in the show they said they had interviewed some of the soldiers that had ran from their equipment and they all said they had seen thousands of angels. In one instance they had swords, and in another they had rifles, and they ran because they didn't want to fight them (smart move). So my point is that there may had been quite a bit of Divine Intercession on Israel's behalf.

I recall that there was a similar story relating to one of the barbarian hordes fixing to overrun Rome and the Pope at the time stood before this barbarian (perhaps it was Attila the Hun) and his army, and that the barbarian turned his army away and did not proceed westward any further. Somehow or another it was learned that he had seen an army of angels behind the Pope, who had drawn swords. I don't think that Pope saw them though.

[chanman]

Overwhelming air superiority doesn't hurt either. Complete dominance of the logistics picture, time to evaluate the enemy forces while they are pinned down, and immensely superior intelligence both real time and "classic" (ok, I can't explain how they could pinpoint and nail units on the move but not the scud launchers) really played in Desert Storm. We haven't even gotten to the superiority of the weapons systems on the ground and the issue still isn't in too much doubt. Our ground forces could probably have won with yesteryear's equipment (M60's, M113's), but we probably would have had more losses. The combination of superior equipment (ask any M1 commander who was their), a clear mission, good tactics and all of the above and you got Desert Storm.

WW2 was a bit different. We didn't have the edge in equipment, but the air dominance, overwhelming logistics, superior intelligence and artillery definitely made up for the weaknesses of some of the equipment in the field. IMO, if you wanted to clearly show how some of this equipment performed in "real" conditions, you would take the reliability factor into account before deployment and remove or damage units. Add in some additional factors to reflect air power/supply (not always tied together) removal/damaging of units prior to deployment. The superior reliability of the Sherman, coupled by the allied air dominance, would really start to shine. One of my biggest beefs with SP is that as the Allies, I am always facing Axis units with full TO&Es, fully supplied and with the latest equipment. Reducing the forces by the reliability factors, supply factors, and air factors would provide a more "realistic" experience.

Which isn't to mean that I think that is what must be done, all the time, every time. That would remove some of the "what if" joy that we are all pursuing.

Good gaming to y'all.

Chanman

[Larry Holt]

If I may summarize; AmmoSgt has been arguing against the removal of large caliber guns, especially for the americans. Paul v. has pointed out that these were corps assets used for operational fires and not in support of tactical commanders. I hope that this is correct.

I agree with Paul as far as this goes but American doctrine has always been not to leave artillery in reserve. When the 8" et.al were not firing for corps missions, they were in the pool and just as likely to be available as any other non-organic asset. A little off the time frame but in Vietnam a ground unit called for fire support in the delta to pound a hill. They were told to get down real low and the hill exploded into flame and was removed as a terrain feature. The fire support that they had been allocated was a battleship main battery. I can see a similar thing happening in WWII as the doctrine is the same.

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Paul Vebber]

That is a good point, but I know artillery ammo for the 8in+ guns was alwas in short supply between "main efforts" and its kinda stretching things to have your battalion always be the point fo teh Corps effort

Playability is a big reason too. There are good arguments that artillery is too powerful as it is in the game, becasue the player is bale to control it with far more precision and knowledge than a battlefield commander, as the German POWs "complained" during the race across France that the US just blew the stuffing out of every village that seemd to be defended and the poor German defenders had no chance... That sort of tactic may be "realistic" but not much of a game.

As always we have balance reality with playability. Exactly acurate artillery shell effects would greatly nbalance teh game becasue of the players ability to place thm on enemy soldiers far more efficiently than their real life counterpart, so teh net efffect of "added realism" can be a gross distrotion in effect.

[murx]

Uhm, loooong thread on long toms.

I agree that *all* weapons should be in WaW, be it Wurfrahmen or 8" naval guns.
I agree that national specialities should be implemented, be it training, morale or ammonitions or the lack of it.
*But* some things should not be possible most of the time. Like Wurfrahmen as frontline units - they were rare & expensive as was the ammo. And no Com would send them to the HKL (Hauptkampflinie - line of engagement) in range of direct fire weapons. I can accept them in a scenario (probably without ammo) were one player has to defend them and the other needs to destroy them. Like a special squad thingy.

But there is one problem with using all these historical realistic settings in WaW. You aren't playing the way the commanders at that time were commanding their troops.

So if you aren't acting *historical* correct you are outbalancing the game

I think most play H vs H because they feel the AI is too weak. But then against a human player we want a *fair* game - maybe like in chess same rules, same units - just the contest of wits.
Sure playing a NO-WIN scenario can be fun - if you are a good looser and just want to see can you get better results then your historic counterpart. But I think that is not the average game.

So to get a good competition players should agree to rules - like US max 9 arty pieces, German max 3 arty, whatsoever. But to make these rules proprietary by limiting the OOB isn't good for WaW I think.

murx

For historical correctness US players should for example send *black* companies in first in assault missions which should in turn have less morale and rally chance for example (because they know why they are sended in first...).
Or most commanders who get a Tiger in sight should immediately withdraw to cover and call in air/artillery/infantry support
Or wait six turns artillery before entering the little village...
They should next to never get fortifications and never get concrete fortificatons (at least in Europe).
On the other hand tanks from the German player should get abandoned later in the war - or just wont make it to the front due to lack of fuel or replacement parts. Or they got shot by airstrafes...

Ah, forgot one - each tank who shot at a tank and which gets destroyed should get a kill why ? Because US tankers reported to have more then 1700 Tigers destroyed, only problem was Germany produced only some 800 of them - harrharrharr.

[Larry Holt]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
and its kinda stretching things to have your battalion always be the point fo teh Corps effort

But I have Tigers and they were only for Army level battalions and Jagdpanthers were only to be used in battalion formations according to German doctrine, etc. Yes it may be stretching things to let players choose heavy guns but if that makes the game fun and keeps it a game, versus a simulation. Then perhaps so be it.

Playability is a big reason too. There are good arguments that artillery is too powerful as it is in the game, becasue the player is bale to control it with far more precision and knowledge than a battlefield commander, as the German POWs "complained" during the race across France that the US just blew the stuffing out of every village that seemd to be defended and the poor German defenders had no chance... That sort of tactic may be "realistic" but not much of a game.As always we have balance reality with playability. Exactly acurate artillery shell effects would greatly nbalance teh game becasue of the players ability to place thm on enemy soldiers far more efficiently than their real life counterpart, so teh net efffect of "added realism" can be a gross distrotion in effect.

I agree that your code should limit unrealistic effects, such as the ESP effect. However, if players want to have fun with (or model what if scenarios) I don't think you should limit their ability to do so because it was not common or not always fun. If artillery is too effective, then make the delays longer (& probably more historically accurate), make the guns not always in contact so a player can not lean on them instead of on-board tactics (as you have done), etc. But don't take them out. If its not much fun for the Germans to be blasted by US artillery then leave it up to players on to agree not to play such a scenario but don't remove their ability to play it if they want to. Perhaps a stern lecture in the manual about the realities of WWII arty could educate players that you are giving them tools to have fun with that their grandfathers did not always have in real life.

Thanks



------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Yogi Yohan]

AmmoSgt, I think I agree with you regarding US artilery. But I'm not sure, since my head's spinning from the effort of reading your posts. Will you please, please, pretty please learn to put in at least points in your posts?

[CaptainBrian]

Ah, forgot one - each tank who shot at a tank and which gets destroyed should get a kill why ? Because US tankers reported to have more then 1700 Tigers destroyed, only problem was Germany produced only some 800 of them - harrharrharr.

I think those "Tigers" were assigned to the many "Armies" on the OKH's war maps that were really regiments at best :0)

What can I say, one of my bosses was sent to NATO to augment an HQ Staff during our recent escapades in the Balkans. According to him, the ongoing joke was how we killed all 500 of Yugoslavia's 300 tanks.

[Paul Vebber]

I tend to agree with you for the most part Larry, but we can't make everyone happy, and two much artillery to my mind detracts form the games intent as basically a tank game. with supporting arms. THere are counters in teh game to players who buy 'tiger heavy" but if you play a sort of "Sea dragon" force of lots of cheap units all over each able to bring down lots of 8 in or 240mm or bigger artillery, then the Marine Corps might feel good , but its ain't much fun as a game.

Whne we put "unbalancing" things in then folks complain because folks use them to excess, leave them out and we are being arbitrary in what we include, and there is the unit limit we have to work within too, so we simply can't just add everything one might want.

We have tried to make the "official" OOBs a compromise, and allow folks the tools to change it. Since we are damned if we do, damned if we don't, that is the best we can do. There are plenty of outlets for those who disagree and want to do their own OOB...and we encourage folks to do so!

[AmmoSgt]

Paul don't get me wrong. ( see i used punctuation)!!!!! I love this game!!!! but i play PBEM.....! so the "Offical OOB's" are all i got....!! Trust us to negotiate a reasonable game ... "and give us the tools" ...I think thats close to what Churchill said ..... ,,,, and to be inculded in previous posts as needed ..........................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,::::::: ;;;;;; please insert where they might help ....

[AmmoSgt]

Maybe thats where i am so out of tune with things ..I don't think of this as a "tank" game ..I thought of SP1 as a "tank" game, SPWAW I think of as somewhat more comprehensive than that.. anyway bear in mind that i am not asking that anything be added to the OOB's so slots shouldn't be a problem....,,,,, I am saying units that are in the game are either dated to put them out of reach of PBEM players or not inculded in formations so the can't be bought for PBEM play ....&& <---new punctuation anyway i think lotta folks have a lotta ideas as to what makes or breaks a good game .....choice has always been an SP series strongpoint... but with the strictures of PBEM ... making stuff already in the OOB available for use in other than scenario/campaign mode where you can upgrade to neat stuff you can't buy , like the 4.5" MRL's I don't see the problem.....folks can negotiate amounts of arty if they want ...

[Pack Rat]

Yeah, I think there was a time when I too thought of SP as a tank game. I've a pbem game going where I have 4 Tigers sitting all with in 10 hexes of the last victory hexes. I've bombarded the hexes for at least two turns, but no way am I going in there until the slow ass infantry gets there. I've learned the hard way.

------------------
PR
http://electricwar.tripod.com/

Now of course I've said I won't take them (the Tigers) in alone, but I would also like fellow readers to recall a thread call "Newbie mistakes I still make" by yours truly. Wonder if I'll actually wait for the infantry to get there?

[This message has been edited by Pack Rat (edited March 07, 2001).]

[Colonel von Blitz]

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
There are plenty of outlets for those who disagree and want to do their own OOB...and we encourage folks to do so!

Yes there are possibilities to do your own OOBs but like AmmoSgt, I too tend to play ONLY PBEM games so modified OOBs are out of question. I don't think I'm asking moon and stars from the sky, just the tools to make the battle I wish to do. There are limits in amount of units, I know that, but sounds like that some units are being removed because they tend to 'unbalance' the game. Well, maybe WWII as a whole wasn't that 'balanced'...I think there was quite a lot of japanese soldiers who thought that americans use way too much naval guns, or maybe there was a lot of russian tankers who thought that finnish infantry is too effective against their tanks

If people can't agree themselves the rules of their battles and decide which piece of equipment is valid for battle in question. Then it's them to blame, not the OOBs.

And finally, don't get me wrong: I do love this game and I really thank you guys for it!!

Colonel von Blitz

[frank1970]

Captain Brian:
I have heard that about 10 Serbian tanks were destroyed while the whole bombing-campagne .

[Paul Vebber]

By "tank game" I meant the origianl SP roots of the game and its inherant design. Artillery, Air and to a lessor extent infantry are "added in" so short of designing a whole new system (which really needs a whole new game). We are stuck working in the architecture of what is basically a tank game, despite teh fact that we have gone to extensive lengths to epand it beyond that, we are still stuck with some oversimplifications where the game gets beyond tanks shooting at each other.

That was all I meant

As to "turst us, we'll do right" just look at all the threads complaining abou this unit or that unit...THere is a line we have to walk, and since we can't put everything anyway, we tend to be conservative about what gets put in. If its a strange varient tank, then odds are it will find away in becasue teh guys who do the OOBs tend to be more vehicle -centric, and within the limits of the game, there frnakly isn;t that much difference between "big boom things" a Level bomber attack and a rail gun bombardment are not going to be that much different to the guys on the reciving end, its just a matter of how many and for how long..

[CaptainBrian]

Originally posted by Frank:
Captain Brian:
I have heard that about 10 Serbian tanks were destroyed while the whole bombing-campagne .

That sounds about right, also I heard where post strike photos showed track trails where many of the "destroyed" tanks were actually dragged off by tank retrievers.

[AmmoSgt]

Most of the threads i see complain about either German heavy Tanks... Tigers and such or wulfraums .. or american arty/air ..well theres the rifle gernade thingy .. ok lets take out all the stuff that folks complain about then ... the Tigers and King Tigers and wulfraums too... not just the american arty .. ... and Panzerfausts those too ... Oh wait ..i think i see a pattern
Would it be possible to have an offical list of what "adjustments" in the game have been made to avoid complaints and imbalance ?... just so we all know..
Paul if i am reading you right..you are offically saying that the Allied OOB's are Offically dumbed down and Offically handicapped by denying the Allies equipment explictedly so that the Axis player has a better chance of winning ?? tell me it ain't so ...
I'm not asking that you increase arty leathality ..I'm not asking that you add a single unit to the OOB.. and i really don't care if you make the Allied Units in the OOB accessible to Allied PBEM players ...but the next German player that whines and complains about the Allies is sure as heck going to get refered to this thread ..unless the previous posts get edited ....And for the record ..German Players.. you are getting your butt kicked by a Handicapped Allied Units so I'm not even sure you should be all that proud of what wins you do get ....ROFL

[This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited March 07, 2001).]

[Paul Vebber]

If someone wants to search the forum, all the "adjustments" have been discussed around about till folks are blue in the face.

We emphasize ground combat, so ground units get priority, Heavy artillery (over 155) has been left out, not becasue of "dumbing down the Allies" ... but because the game portrays only "direct support" artillery called in by a spotter (in a process that leaves much to be desired, but is what the game architecture allows).

Read up on how heavy artillery was predominantly used (even by the US). It was used en masse, not portioned out in penny packets to Company Commanders to use like mortars. If you want "saturation fires by heavy guns" then use Level Bombers as a surrogate in v5 - the mechanics and effects are essentially the same.

IF you consider not including weapons in the game that the game was not designed to portray, so they do not cause unplayable situations, "dumbing the game down" .. then guilty as charged.

Part of the responsibility of a game developer (me) is to match what a game does well and doesn't do well, with what the game allows you do. Putting things in the game "just to have them" without considering the context in which players use them, is very dangerous and leads to exacerbating problems between "game player" and "history recreaters".



[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited March 07, 2001).]

[AmmoSgt]

Paul yes these adjustments have been talk about till we are blue in the face. Thats the point... German players say Shermans are invincible ya'll say it needs to be looked at .. Folks thing Germans should do as well against the Americans in 43 and 44 as they did aginst the Russians in 41 and 42 thats credibile needs to be looked at .. American Players say hey wait a minute ..we ain't even getting stuff thats already in the OOB's and we get told it a slot problem ( that didn't work ) then a reality problem ( that didn't work ) ..the one i like best was the shortage of American 8" ammo ..i would love to see the reference on that one LOL ..so it comes down to play balance ..i got nothing against play balance ..all for it ... but when these German players come whining with complaints like the one that started this thread ..why even act like it is credibile when you have already made the decsion that anything like a fair representation of the Americans would render the game so one sided it wouldn't be worth playing...just say that the Germans have been given every advantage that ya'll can think of , and tell the whiners to learn some tactics ...ya'll sure aren't shy about blowin off the American players when they come to ya with facts ..Just admit the game is tweaked for play balance , that the German master race has enough afirmative action, and it's time for folks to learn tactics, and be done with it ..i certainly don't have any trouble winning ..even with the advantages you have allowed the germans ..and with the reliance on complaining and excuse that many german players have ..they have all the excuses they need when they lose . already ..
But i fear folks are still going to complain instead of learning to win with what they have, and the Allied OOB's will be further cut in future versions , until all it takes to win is a Tiger and a swastiza
I'm still paying taxes to defend Germany because they still can't fend for themselves

[AmmoSgt]

I hope ya'll noticed that now they are talking about pumping up Stug's on this thread ...I don't see anybody getting told that will "unbalance the game" Shortage of Stug ammo or it might be abused ..nope ...sounds like a right good idea to the OOB folks ... yep yep can do easy

[This message has been edited by AmmoSgt (edited March 07, 2001).]