SPWaW vs winSPWW2

[Gerry4321]

Hello All:

Can someone please explain the difference between SPWaW and winSPWW2?

Thanks,

Gerry

[greg_slith]

One diff is in winSP the computer does all the defensive shooting. You have no control other than limiting the engagement range. So if a unit of yours sees a target it will shoot regardless of whether you'd want it to or not. That's my only "beef".

[mkr8683]

The difference is that they're totally separate games. Try them both and draw your own conclusions.

[rwenstrup]

Winspww2 was made for current computers...so it looks better. SPWAW needs updating but has a great series of campaigns available. Both are good...I have both and like them both. They're the same game...just a different version...

[Nikademus]

from a wargaming perspective the biggest difference you will notice is how Inf and soft targets interact with weapons fire.

SP:WAW tends to be very hard on soft targets meaning they are pretty easy to rout and destroy using default preferences (even in cover terrain) This is mainly because WAW based itself off the SP:III engine which tried to simulate "Brigade level/Operational level" combat.

WW2 uses the DOS based SP:II engine, hugely improved. The effect, even at default preferences is much tougher infantry, esp in cover terrain. WW2 also expanded on the types and height levels of terrain as unlike WAW, development of the game has continued over the years.

The other wargaming aspect you will notice most immediately is WW2 retains the old armor value/pen value system of the older Steel Panthers. (aka 2 points of armor roughly equates to 20mm armor.....pen of 18 roughly means 180mm penetrated.) WAW made this far more granular, representing armor in actual mm's and same with Pen and focused on improving armor calculations to include slope calculations. Slope for armor surfaces is directly represented for AFV's as well.

Lastly WW2's OOB's have been more tinkered with and can be arguably considered more historical. Game also has a ton of scenarios.

I own both products and use them both. I tend to prefer WAW despite WW2's better representation of INF because i love the enhanced way WAW showcases armored vehicles. Bottom line though is both are worth owning and playing. I have registered copies WinSPWW2 and WinSPMBT.


As mentioned.....WW2 benefits from the technical side from being Windows 7 compatible and has enhanced/modern screen resolution options. While its very crisp....admitedly i've found that at the high end of the resolution spectrum, it makes the vehicles and units look so small i invariably turn it down to more closer to what WAW's max is. The high resolutions do make the terrain look GORGEOUS however.

[JEB Davis]

In reference to Nikademus' comments on infantry, in SP:WaW you can try the Low Carnage settings in my signature line.

[BigDuke66]

You might want to take a look at this comparison between them:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost ... stcount=16

[Zovs]

To me the biggest and most important difference is this:

WinSPWW2 is currently supported, updated and actively working on Windows 7 and 8.

SPWaW is currently not supported and does not work on Windows 7 (there are some hacks but they are hacks and it sucks and I could never get it to work on Windows 7).

So to me the much better choice and option is to go with WinSPWW2, it's just a better WW2 game all around anyway.

[Zap]

I have SpWaW working just fine with windows 8.1.

[Zovs]

That is fine but its still not actively developed nor supported like the WinSPWW2 and WinSPMBT series of games.

[Zap]

Yes, a wish yet, that may never materialize.

[Zovs]

I would think that they would have to rebuild it from scratch, much the same way that the Camo guys did when they switched from DOS to Windows and added in full monitor support (wide screen), newer sound card support, and improving not only the games engine, adding new scenarios, CG, and updating the AI, but improving and fixing the OOBs. The OOBs are the finest in the SP series in the WinSPWW2 game. They really did a smashing job. It is a shame that Matrix has no love for SPWaW for over ten years or so.

[JEB Davis]

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

To me the biggest and most important difference is this:

WinSPWW2 is currently supported, updated and actively working on Windows 7 and 8.

SPWaW is currently not supported and does not work on Windows 7 (there are some hacks but they are hacks and it sucks and I could never get it to work on Windows 7).

So to me the much better choice and option is to go with WinSPWW2, it's just a better WW2 game all around anyway.

Even without support by the developer, to many of us SP:WaW is still far superior to the others. So of course, it's a matter of opinion either way. I just wanted to make it clear that SP:WaW has a large following that has continued "development" via the MOD method. You can check out the mods available at the Enhanced and Depot forums.

[KG Erwin]

Yes, it's strictly a matter of personal choice, but SPWaW is my favorite game, and I will continue to play it.

[toundra]

I have tried both and i am only playing with WW2.
Now the 2 games are old, dusty and outdated, a new engine would be nice..

[The Almighty Turtle]

To be honest, even though I recognize that SPWW2 has been given a far better support structure, far more justice from its' leadership (selling megacampaigns that can no longer be compatible? Really now?), and that on a lot of the functions SPWW2 does have the mechanical advantage...

On the whole I still believe that SPWAW is the better game. Based on the engine alone, nevermind the sound and the rest. To be honest, Shrapnel's games have always felt unimaginably clunky and slow to me. Like there will be a noticeable (painfully noticeable) gap in between when you click on a unit to do something and when it moves. No SP game should be arcadey or as fast paced as-say- Panzer Corps/Panzer General is. This is a very methodical game. But I am a pretty methodical player, and when I order something I want it to *happen* in a time shorter than "a sizable portion of a minute."

I'm a busy person, and even if I wasn't that alone would be crippling.

Secondly, I flatout disagree with many of the "advantages" pointed out by the Nikademus and the linked post.

It's hard for me to call "making infantry harder to kill" a plus if I can have an elite HMG and rifle squad stand practically on top of an exposed enemy unit (or vice versa) and have them take aeons to kill. Believe me, I even tried maxing out one side's values and minimizing the other's as an experiment and it still takes an ungodly amount of time to actually destroy any infantry unit.

Knock Knock?

Who's there?

Some?

Some who?

Somme's a lot different if walking your infantry into a hail of MG fire doesn't get them killed as easily.

This isn't to say that it can't take an ungodly amount of firepower and time to wipe out infantry units in SPWAW, but there are usually reasons for that. They're large, they're in heavily defensible positions like mountains, trenches, or the like. Or God help you- if you're facing the Japanese, Chinese, North Koreans, or the like- some combo of the above. That I like, and I think it's good both for realism and for game balance.

In contrast, SPWW2 and its' cousin seems to be amazingly hard on vehicles in comparison to its' infantry. I've had infantry knock out Autoblindas just by firing rifles (or on a couple memorable occasions, *pistols*) at them. Amongst other things. I think armor really is underplayed in there, and a few mms of armor in SPWAW go a lot further (for better and worse) than Shrapnel's games. While I can understand there might be some value in making small arms capable of doing that, how it works has always come across as excessive. In contrast, SPWAW hits a good mixture. You can expect to blow up a truck, motorcyle, or the like with small arms. Doing so to an armored car is less so. And so on.

But as a lot of people have said, a lot of combat happens pretty fast. You can go from full strength unit to wiped out very quickly, and I think SPWAW does that well. The Shrapnel games I do not think handle the same issue.

As for the "gamey" adjustment of artillery for fast vehicles or Op Fire, I'd like to point you to the Western Allied artillery ranging in on the Italian Medium (read: light) tanks trying to break out of Beda Fomm. Or the Germans doing the same against De Gaulle's attempt to toss them back over the river in 1940. I do think the way artillery is set up gives Player One (not necessarily the human, but whoever is in it) a somewhat unfair advantage, but I do think it makes sense to be able to adjust for it on both sides.

As for Op Fire, it seems like this is based more on the idea of making it fair for the AI than realism. The ability to determine when and when not to put out fire has been a battle deciding issue for something like four centuries now (at least), and I think it is only fair to let the player decide that.

The fact that SPWW2 lets you do that too (but of course only if you pay...) and it's listed as a feature tells me this shouldn't be an argument about whether or not return fire filtering should be available. It should be. It's just that one has it available for free (as an integral part of the system) and the other demands cash for it. The AI should be able to handle it. If it can't, that's a problem with the AI that should optimally be fixed. Not an argument against it altogether.

Coupled that with the fact that SPWAW actually covers far more ground than SPWW2 (its' equivalent). While it defacto goes from 1930 to 1949 (as compared to SPWW2's 1930 to 1946..... I note they left *that* out of their comparison....), I've seen SPWAW effectively model battles from WWI to the Korean War, First Indochinese War, and so on. If someone had the mind and inclination it could easily model such battles as the Suez War, Hungarian and Polish uprisings in 1956, the Arab Israeli wars up to 1956 if not 1973, and things like the Lebanese intervention in 1958 *at Least.* I've even seen Steampunk battles in an alternate 1870's or Civil War, and I imagine it could do late 19th century/early 20th century combat fairly well (though it would need some major adjustments, and the "inertia" of Shrapnel games' infantry units might help do it better).

So putting it generously, that's at least forty years of military development and fighting (1914-1954) that SPWAW's designers already have fought. And the potential of increasing that even further with effectively no change to the OOB as it stands.

That is in comparison to SPMBT's 70 years of OOB (though with potential for stretching; I've seen an MBT scenario on a WWII one, though it was a different variant of one also available on WAW). While SPWW2 is pretty much limited to 1930-1946, or at most stretching a few years before that and a few years after, to maybe twentysome years.

SPWW2 doesn't have the legs for that. Korean War battles (even those involving almost exactly the same technology, troops, and doctrine) get parceled into SPMBT, and generally are undervalued. And to this day I have seen pretty much no attempts at a WWI battle in SPWW2. I can imagine why.

And I could go on, but those I think are the most important points. I fully concede that in things like treatment of terrain, unit selection, varying experience/morale benefits, and the like Shrapnel games have an indisputable edge. But the fact still remains that I play SPWAW regularly and bought the Megacampaigns long after most didn't (and even was interested in pondering what new Megas might be made).

I only play Shrapnel's games if I have an urgent hankering to play something that I absolutely cannot do on SPWAW, like a 1940's/50's Falklands War, the Austrian guerrilla actions after WWII against the Yugoslavs, the Thai expeditionary force to help the Nationalists in the Chinese Civil War, the Medak Pocket, and so on. Because while I believe they have a lot going for them and I can't fault anybody for liking them I feel like they're crippled in many, many important ways. Far more than just listing unit and formation numbers.

But again, that is my opinion. I just felt I had to mention it. Ideally I think WAW *badly* needs adoption and upgrading, if not a resurrection. I also believe that in the best of all worlds, we would be able to merge the best parts of SPWAW and the Shrapnel Games to good effect. But that hasn't happened yet, and considering how many people prefer "bulletproof infantry" I am not sure the result would satisfy me.

But there you go, here I stand. Take it as you will.

[Major_Mess]

ORIGINAL: The Almighty Turtle

To be honest, even though I recognize that SPWW2 has been given a far better support structure, far more justice from its' leadership (selling megacampaigns that can no longer be compatible? Really now?), and that on a lot of the functions SPWW2 does have the mechanical advantage...

On the whole I still believe that SPWAW is the better game. Based on the engine alone, nevermind the sound and the rest. To be honest, Shrapnel's games have always felt unimaginably clunky and slow to me. Like there will be a noticeable (painfully noticeable) gap in between when you click on a unit to do something and when it moves. No SP game should be arcadey or as fast paced as-say- Panzer Corps/Panzer General is. This is a very methodical game. But I am a pretty methodical player, and when I order something I want it to *happen* in a time shorter than "a sizable portion of a minute."

I'm a busy person, and even if I wasn't that alone would be crippling.

Secondly, I flatout disagree with many of the "advantages" pointed out by the Nikademus and the linked post.

It's hard for me to call "making infantry harder to kill" a plus if I can have an elite HMG and rifle squad stand practically on top of an exposed enemy unit (or vice versa) and have them take aeons to kill. Believe me, I even tried maxing out one side's values and minimizing the other's as an experiment and it still takes an ungodly amount of time to actually destroy any infantry unit.

Knock Knock?

Who's there?

Some?

Some who?

Somme's a lot different if walking your infantry into a hail of MG fire doesn't get them killed as easily.

This isn't to say that it can't take an ungodly amount of firepower and time to wipe out infantry units in SPWAW, but there are usually reasons for that. They're large, they're in heavily defensible positions like mountains, trenches, or the like. Or God help you- if you're facing the Japanese, Chinese, North Koreans, or the like- some combo of the above. That I like, and I think it's good both for realism and for game balance.

In contrast, SPWW2 and its' cousin seems to be amazingly hard on vehicles in comparison to its' infantry. I've had infantry knock out Autoblindas just by firing rifles (or on a couple memorable occasions, *pistols*) at them. Amongst other things. I think armor really is underplayed in there, and a few mms of armor in SPWAW go a lot further (for better and worse) than Shrapnel's games. While I can understand there might be some value in making small arms capable of doing that, how it works has always come across as excessive. In contrast, SPWAW hits a good mixture. You can expect to blow up a truck, motorcyle, or the like with small arms. Doing so to an armored car is less so. And so on.

But as a lot of people have said, a lot of combat happens pretty fast. You can go from full strength unit to wiped out very quickly, and I think SPWAW does that well. The Shrapnel games I do not think handle the same issue.

As for the "gamey" adjustment of artillery for fast vehicles or Op Fire, I'd like to point you to the Western Allied artillery ranging in on the Italian Medium (read: light) tanks trying to break out of Beda Fomm. Or the Germans doing the same against De Gaulle's attempt to toss them back over the river in 1940. I do think the way artillery is set up gives Player One (not necessarily the human, but whoever is in it) a somewhat unfair advantage, but I do think it makes sense to be able to adjust for it on both sides.

As for Op Fire, it seems like this is based more on the idea of making it fair for the AI than realism. The ability to determine when and when not to put out fire has been a battle deciding issue for something like four centuries now (at least), and I think it is only fair to let the player decide that.

The fact that SPWW2 lets you do that too (but of course only if you pay...) and it's listed as a feature tells me this shouldn't be an argument about whether or not return fire filtering should be available. It should be. It's just that one has it available for free (as an integral part of the system) and the other demands cash for it. The AI should be able to handle it. If it can't, that's a problem with the AI that should optimally be fixed. Not an argument against it altogether.

Coupled that with the fact that SPWAW actually covers far more ground than SPWW2 (its' equivalent). While it defacto goes from 1930 to 1949 (as compared to SPWW2's 1930 to 1946..... I note they left *that* out of their comparison....), I've seen SPWAW effectively model battles from WWI to the Korean War, First Indochinese War, and so on. If someone had the mind and inclination it could easily model such battles as the Suez War, Hungarian and Polish uprisings in 1956, the Arab Israeli wars up to 1956 if not 1973, and things like the Lebanese intervention in 1958 *at Least.* I've even seen Steampunk battles in an alternate 1870's or Civil War, and I imagine it could do late 19th century/early 20th century combat fairly well (though it would need some major adjustments, and the "inertia" of Shrapnel games' infantry units might help do it better).

So putting it generously, that's at least forty years of military development and fighting (1914-1954) that SPWAW's designers already have fought. And the potential of increasing that even further with effectively no change to the OOB as it stands.

That is in comparison to SPMBT's 70 years of OOB (though with potential for stretching; I've seen an MBT scenario on a WWII one, though it was a different variant of one also available on WAW). While SPWW2 is pretty much limited to 1930-1946, or at most stretching a few years before that and a few years after, to maybe twentysome years.

SPWW2 doesn't have the legs for that. Korean War battles (even those involving almost exactly the same technology, troops, and doctrine) get parceled into SPMBT, and generally are undervalued. And to this day I have seen pretty much no attempts at a WWI battle in SPWW2. I can imagine why.

And I could go on, but those I think are the most important points. I fully concede that in things like treatment of terrain, unit selection, varying experience/morale benefits, and the like Shrapnel games have an indisputable edge. But the fact still remains that I play SPWAW regularly and bought the Megacampaigns long after most didn't (and even was interested in pondering what new Megas might be made).

I only play Shrapnel's games if I have an urgent hankering to play something that I absolutely cannot do on SPWAW, like a 1940's/50's Falklands War, the Austrian guerrilla actions after WWII against the Yugoslavs, the Thai expeditionary force to help the Nationalists in the Chinese Civil War, the Medak Pocket, and so on. Because while I believe they have a lot going for them and I can't fault anybody for liking them I feel like they're crippled in many, many important ways. Far more than just listing unit and formation numbers.

But again, that is my opinion. I just felt I had to mention it. Ideally I think WAW *badly* needs adoption and upgrading, if not a resurrection. I also believe that in the best of all worlds, we would be able to merge the best parts of SPWAW and the Shrapnel Games to good effect. But that hasn't happened yet, and considering how many people prefer "bulletproof infantry" I am not sure the result would satisfy me.

But there you go, here I stand. Take it as you will.

This.


The Brother Speaks the Truth.











TAT, you're waaaaay more diplomatic than I could ever be.
But ... SPWaW still lives, and who knows what new developments might occur.

Hey, maybe Matrix/Slitherene are actively working on hahahahahahahaha ..... I can't finish that sentence.




cheers


MM

[Falcon1]

Every once in a while I give those other games a try but I always come back to SPWAW.

The main reason is the vast amount of scenarios and campaigns available. And better scenarios too, in my opinion. By the time SPWW2 (and SPWAW Enhanced) came along, the "golden age" of Steel Panthers scenario development had long past. Almost all the old time well known builders had stopped. Wild Bill, Redleg, Fradar, M4Jess, Warrior to name a few.

[BigDuke66]

A lot points are just the view of a specific user and not a real obviously advantage, Infantry to hard to kill in WW2 well others thing infantry is too easy to kill in WaW, so even when finding some thing that is obviously better in WaW(and you have to search hard for that, "far superior"=), being unable to run on a modern environment is a simple game killer.
What is the use of all the stuff a lady carries around if you can't unpack here, there is simply no use.

[The Almighty Turtle]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

A lot points are just the view of a specific user and not a real obviously advantage, Infantry to hard to kill in WW2 well others thing infantry is too easy to kill in WaW, so even when finding some thing that is obviously better in WaW(and you have to search hard for that, "far superior"=), being unable to run on a modern environment is a simple game killer.
What is the use of all the stuff a lady carries around if you can't unpack here, there is simply no use.

Firstoff, SPWAW can be run in a modern environment. One of the big fixes is up at the top. tm.asp?m=2452605

Believe me, I was one of the people who used to have an elaborate goaround for a few months (which was fairly easy but still inconvenient). But this works like a charm. Check it out.

Secondly, I can't really say that infantry feel too easy to kill in SPWAW. At the very least I can't really point to one particular case where it is. And if anything, I'd say for some of the extremely poor militia-centric factions (like the Spanish Republicans) infantry still have massive A-Team Firing Syndrome.

Contrast to the Shrapnel Games, where I can just *see* how amazingly durable they are beyond all reason every single time I try and shoot one of them.