SPWaW, SPww2...pros, cons and beyond

Jeff Norton · Post by **Jeff Norton** » Mon Jul 09, 2001 10:14 pm

David, et al.

Uh, where do you and Matrix go from here???

Inquiring minds would like to know...

-Jeff

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 12:09 am

Close Assult for continuos time fans and COmbat Leader for hex/turn-based fans.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 2:50 am

one thing to clarify Charles, is that Close Assault will be a continuous time game first with the turn based aspect added later, so the comments about turn length are an option we want to add, but the engine, like Firefight, will not be turn based...

but this diverges from the thread...some think that the combat in SPWW2 is way ahead of SP:WaW, particularly on the infantry side. I was hoping some SPWW2 fans who had tried SP:WaW 6.1 would comment on that?

Or that the armor combat mods really are no different than SPWW2? That they add nothing to the game except added complexity and bugs?

Nobody wants to discuss the pros and conns of the respective combat models? At least more than just listing things? Why is one better than the other?

[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 4:09 am

Originally posted by dbt1949:
When I fist heard of SPWAW and SPWW2 I got the two confused.After I downloaded both I wasn't confused anymore.I've played a few games on SPWW2 but the graphics are so washed out I can't enjoy it much no matter what the gameplay difference is.I guess I'm just a 'shallow gamer' and prefer a 'pretty face' but I really enjoy SPWAW and see no reason to go back.

This was my main problem with spww2, terrible graphics,Altho i do like some of the terrain, just the actual combat, destroyed vehicles ect ect, just terrible) the sounds also leave a little too be desired(except sound 212 I use this one in spwaw

, great tank gun sound)Also when you did a meeting in spww2, it seemed like it took 10 turns to finally meet the enemy.
I guess the bottom line, spww2 is kinda like a generic SPwaw..make sense?
Oh almost forgot, The people here!!
how responsive this company is to suggestions, bugs ect ect.
if anyone is interested

http://www.wargamer.com/spcammo/
They do even give SPWAW some pop

12 May 2001

"Matrix Games released Steel Panthers World At War v5.01 - bigger then ever - full game has 418+ MB or you can save your modems and order Mega Campaign: The Desert Fox for $25 and get SPWAW free."

[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: Alby ]

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:29 am

Over the last six years, I have been officially involved in the beta testing and/or playing of every SP game to come out, SP1, SP2, SP3, SP2WW2, SPWW2, The Scott Grasse version, and SPWAW, working with SSI, TGN, SP Camo, and Matrix, I have not been involved in the latest versions of SPWW2.

Having said that, let me now say that in my opinion overall SPWAW is the best version of Steel Panthers for the Second World War that I have seen to date.

SPWW2 is a fine game. I worked on it from it's early beginning for nearly two years. I was involved in many aspects of that game.

I have had some nice things and even suggestions that I had wanted to share but it appears I am a "persona non grata" on most SPWW2 and a few other SP forums.

In fact, anytime I try to join one of the forums run by Leondus, my application is rejected. I have no idea why that is.

A couple of weeks ago I tried to join the SPNam forum and was sent an e-mail stating that the administrator of the forum had refused my application. I should have known better.

I could probably sneak on one with an alias, but it really isn't that important.

Back to the subject. The "why" of two games has been beaten to death, and there is no need to rehash it.

I've found that the folks that seem to "know" the "why" are always on the outside looking in.

I don't consider them qualified to offer an opinion based on heresay.

The bottom line is two versions of the game are out there and being played by gamers.

Everyone is entitled to his own particular preference.

I honestly think we can respect the opinion of other gamers without being demeaning or taking an attack stance. This is supposed to be a fun hobby.

Just enjoy the games and don't worry about the politics.

Wild Bill

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 5:41 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
one thing to clarify Charles, is that Close Assault will be a continuous time game first with the turn based aspect added later, so the comments about turn length are an option we want to add, but the engine, like Firefight, will not be turn based...

but this diverges from the thread...some think that the combat in SPWW2 is way ahead of SP:WaW, particularly on the infantry side. I was hoping some SPWW2 fans who had tried SP:WaW 6.1 would comment on that?

Or that the armor combat mods really are no different than SPWW2? That they add nothing to the game except added complexity and bugs?

Nobody wants to discuss the pros and conns of the respective combat models? At least more than just listing things? Why is one better than the other?

[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

Well Paul, first let me clarify that i hav'nt played SP:WWII recently however from what i've read here so far it does'nt sound like the game plays all that differently with whatever is the most current version vs when i played it fore scores and a whole computer system ago. So i'll give it a whirl

My thoughts on the Infantry modeling system of SP:WWII was that they went a little too far toughening up the infantry. Toughened it up to the point where a player pretty much can ignore or at least bend common sense rules (i.e. advance infantry in clear/mixed terrain and not pay the consequences etc)

Never forget the very last battle i played (before WAW debuted) I was playing an Italian campaign and had (by accident) chosen a platoon of elite (90's experience) Italian engineers armed with flamethrowers.

Well needless to say i was expecting great things from these guys. What i got instead was ridiculously feeble results against exposed soft targets. My flamethowers did little but cause suppression and maybe one of the attacks actually caused 1 casualty.

Results vs rifle and MG fire were depressingly similar. You could fire for turns and turns and turns, even using WB's method of giving MG teams 100+ exp to better simulate their leathality and be lucky to score a casualty or two. Firing against soft targets in clear terrain might 'occaisionally' score more than 1 casualty but it was a rare thing and if fighting infantry either entrenched or sitting in rough terrain be prepared to spend alot of ammo for little gain.

I've played alot of SP:II and i've seen the opposite extreme of the problem (infantry drying up faster than a snowball in hell) but this was going too far the other way.

Add to that problem now, is the boringly predictible way one can feret out infantry in the game. You can pretty much calculate how many 'firing rounds' it will take to put a soft target unit from 'ready' status, to pinned, from pinned to retreating and from retreating to routed. SP:WAW is superior in that respect by throwing in a much greater random element into the mix. It discourages pattern dependance and makes the player cautious.

I do still think that infantry in WAW tend to rally at the end of the turn a little too much. Even against lower quality troops its rare to cause a real 'rout' in WAW.

Overall though 6.0 is WAY superior now in terms of infantry. MG fire feels right in a SP game for perhaps the first time in it's long history, finally superseeding the dreaded slot one rifle, and in the right circumstances causing more than the classic "1 casualty'd to death" syndrome.

Naturally these improvements cause AI play to suffer a bit as the computer cant compensate for the dread mistake now of exposing infantry in the open but thats a small price to pay for realism.

Of course there is no comparison between the old armor system and WAW's armor system.

I think SP:WWII's only remaining advantages are multiple terrain height and a bit more consistancy in the OOB's. I'm still finding small but frustrating inconsistancies in AFV units that transend national OOB's (i.e. Sherman is the best example)

I personally dont like the "historical" rankings and titles in SP:WWII. It may be authentic, but it only causes confusion to a non-national of that country or someone who does'nt have a reference book handy to translate them!

so thats my thoughts. I have no bias or grudge against SP:WWII. Hell i'll admit that initially i did'nt like SP:WAW version 1.0 All i saw was the SP-III engine with a tune up and the same '1 casualty to death' syndrome that so made me not like SP-III.
That and the early quirks with the armor system, (small caliber weapons were a pain!!!!)

that was then, and this is now. Hands down SP:WAW would win my vote for most tweaked and improved game in computer wargaming history. Its a completely different animal now. The current version practically has only its parent company and 'title' in common with ver 1.0

WAW wins the contest hands down in my book. (though i'm curious to try SP:WWII again just for kicks)

[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Nikademus ]

Mike Mnich · Post by **Mike Mnich** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 6:58 am

Dear Guys,
As far as Combat Leader is concerned,
I vote for bigger icons. This is why I like SPWW2 over WAW. The new CL screenshots are still too small to me.
Also, I'd like to see a couple more degrees of magnification possible.
It seems one can do little more than WAW and
WW2 have done to the land battles. Perhaps
improvement in the Air and Naval components
would improve the new game (e.g.-better air targeting, air-to-air encounters, small naval
battles, air-to-naval battles, etc.

MIke

Mai Thai · Post by **Mai Thai** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 12:58 pm

To: Panzer Leo

I don't know if this could help you but i have found a modified german OOB at thankhead site that has changed units name and ranks and can be used in spwaw, you can also download the original spwaw OOB so you can restore it or you can install spwaw in more than one directory (as me) to keep one version full "original" and modify others as you like (i.e. graphics, oob's, sounds,...).
If you are interesetd I can send you a copy when i'm back home (write me in pvt).

To: PV

>Nobody wants to discuss the pros and conns >of the respective combat models? At least >more than just listing things? Why is one >better than the other?

Imho it is not only a matter of combat models, what is unbeatable and unreachable in spwaw is the matrix crew support, the Mega Campaigns CD ad all the people supporting the gamers and last but not least all the poeple involved in producing scenario's and campaign's for players. This makes the difference between a good game and a masterpiece.
bye

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 9:58 pm

Hmmm....thanks, Mai Thai, but actually I'm the one who made the German OOB on Tankheads site

(maybe I should have given "Panzer Leo" to Tankhead, not my real name)

...and as far as I can remember, I was not able to change the ranks inot the accurate German ones (they will be in german, when installing the german language file from Matrix, but then even a GI is called "Gefreiter")

What I thought of is, to have the correct national rank designation for all the countries you can play in SPWAW - think it gives it a realistic flavour to have a Rumanian Lecontenente instead of a Rumanian 2nd Lt.
I just don't have the slightest idea how to do it...maybe someone else has ???

BlitzSS · Post by **BlitzSS** » Tue Jul 10, 2001 11:55 pm

Being removed from my old war gaming clan by thousands of miles, I’ve search high and low for good war gaming software as a substitute for my war gaming hobby. SP1 was probably the 1st one that satisfied the WW2 ground arena, and believe me I’ve tried them all. Over the years this SP concept has only gotten better, with exception of an occasional set back, to the current version of SPWAW 6.1. Thus far (in this category of war games) nothing has converted me away from the hex and turn base system. Not to say that it could never happen, but that so far platoon or plotted turns games just sit on my shelf. The only thing that would really make SPWAW even better would be if two or more players could campaign against each other, and maybe even carry over elements of their core units into different campaigns. MC seems to be another great addition, but I won’t know that until it arrives!!!

Guderian · Post by **Guderian** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 2:38 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:

but this diverges from the thread...some think that the combat in SPWW2 is way ahead of SP:WaW, particularly on the infantry side. I was hoping some SPWW2 fans who had tried SP:WaW 6.1 would comment on that?

Or that the armor combat mods really are no different than SPWW2? That they add nothing to the game except added complexity and bugs?

Nobody wants to discuss the pros and conns of the respective combat models? At least more than just listing things? Why is one better than the other?

[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

OK i'll take a shot.

Infantry: In SpWaW, your best bet is to a) shoot apart from MGs b) get to their hex and assault. In versions 5.0 and before infantry died like flies, i recall eliminating a 14-man Jap squad using 1 Stuart and 1 USMC Squad. IMO it's better now with tougher infantry, still i prefer the predictability of Spww2 - firepower is effective from around 500m (save MGs), you get less kills but far more suppresion. The best way is to get close to 1 hex and get that nasty acc. bonus, then shoot the suckers out of their position. In Spww2 infantry retreats after 1-2 cas, in WaW sometimes they stand and take it all on. In general, Inf combat in Spww2 is more about suppresing things than killing them. I think SPww2 is heavily influenced here by Andy - he's a scottish infantryman and British ww2 infantry doctrine says "the purpose of firepower is to allow you to get close to enemy and assault", unlike "let's rip from MG42" (nazis) and "let's sit back and wait for arty/tanks" (US) or "Charge !" (Soviets)

AFVs

Right, Spww2 abstracts armour and slope. But the Game Guide says that according to SPC, tanks are big mobile guns/mgs, their role is to support infantry. That's why IMO there is no such detail with armor like in WaW. The designers concentrated on infantry and arty, leaving tanks more-or-less as they were in Sp1. In WaW, the detailed system is gret in small fights where every damage can turn the tide, but less so in mass battles where the question is: can it drive and/or shoot ? Besides, a huge differencew is made by WaW vehicles being very fast - you can blitz and waltz across the battlefield with ease. That changes much in mobile tank battles, since Spww2 panzers are less likley to jump from one place to another.

Arty: Hmmm. WaW arty used to be a killer, now a bit less so. Still it's fast responding (but sometimes loses contact) - in ww2 arty is slower to respond but is always there and now. Spww2 arty covers more terrain, and Rocket Arty is spread wide, covering much area. I can't really say which game is better here. A note: Why the mortars in WaW loose ammo so quickly ? In ww2 you can shoot for 15+ turns, in WaW they go empty after 6-8 turns.

Comments welcome (esp. from Paul...)

Mark Ezra · Post by **Mark Ezra** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 3:07 am

Wild Bill refused access to an SP forum?...LOL...Bared for life because you have an opinion, I expect....Bruised egos and sour grapes...'tis a shame says I.

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 3:21 am

Somehow I've managed to survive, Warlord. It's okay, I bear them no ill will. I'm into this for the fun of it...still!

Wild Bill

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:04 am

Like SPWW2 kept tanks pretty much as they werein SP1, SP:WaW kept infantry pretty much as they were. You raise some interesting philospical points about infantry combat. Should it be based on pure firepower? ie X amoutn bullets always casue Y amount of suppression? We took a more random tack where sometimes it takes a few shots to suppress an enemy, other times it takes a lot. And even when you think he's suppresed, he may still surprise you. Some gamers do like a "sure thing" to plan on, others like a more "chaotic" battlefield.

In Combat Leader it will be tied more to morale, as state changes like ready - pinned - retreated will be more morale and leader ship dependant and less suppression dependant.

If in poor cover SP:WaW troops typically retreat after taking a couple of casualties, but if "in cover" or entrenched, they will stick it out longer. I think each country had its doctrine, but forcing one countries on everybody detracts form the others strengths. German firepower was build around the MG34/42 and they were feared weapons beyond strictly a suppression instrument. Similar the others, but it does give SPWW2 a distinctive feel.

I have been playing it a little lately and am frankly surprised by how bloody it can be! You seem to be "one casultied to death" as you were in pre-5.3 SP:WaW were you seem to often lose 1 dead regardless of what terrain you are in, particularly if moving. Again philosphical difference, some see movement as the critical factor in exposure regardless of terain, others that in good cover you move in small bounds and quickly get out of site making it difficult to direct effective fire.

Interesting to put armor in a support role. Indeed that is true in many occasions, but not always the case. THe big reason I fought so hard to get the "detail" in teh armor system was becasue there were situations that the "old way" just didn;t handle well.

Take a long barel PzIIIj against a t-34 - if given a shot 30 degrees to the flank say, in SP:ww2 you only get a penetration about 20% of teh time - in 115 shots I only got one kill. The "detail" allows the geometry to be better represened in SP:WaW such a shot results in a kill over 90% of the time, a proportion backed up by Lorrin Bird and Robert Livingston's new WW2 Ballistics book. So its not just a matter of "averaging out" results over large battles, but things having appropriate vulnerabilities. Using teh original system and data, many things are substanially under or over vulnerable, like that T-34. Matildas vs IIIh APCR is another strange situation with 40 hits in SPWW2 not doing any damage at 500m while about 3/4 of front hull hits are kills in SPWaW, born out by 90+mm pen for 50L42 APCR at 500m and only 70-80mm armor (though sloped well in places).

These are not the sort of discrepencies that simply resolve themselves over teh cours of a big battle, but are fundamental problems in teh simpler sytem. THat is not to say SP:WaW is perfect! We doing a substantial overhaul of teh whole system to add more armor locations, differenctiate between more types of rounds and armor (AP vs Face hardened armor is a totally different animal than Capped AP vs Cast armor...) We currently deal with none of that either, but I think to dismissing it to "evens out in the wash" is poor comfort to those PZIIH drivers who should shred Matildas inside 600m or so...especially with the ample APCR they are given in SPWW2.

Mobility is only good if you can use it! Hit chances and special opfire make such "end runs" very iffy if you defend your flanks. DOn;t defend your flanks well, or lose a key position and you can be a long way quick. I think an SP:WaW turn typically represents a little more time that is wher you tend to get more movement and fire in a turn - 2-4 minutes or so wil isn't SP:WW2 more like 1-2?

Artillery is the part of SP:WaW i'm least happy with, the whole SP methodology is really in need of overhaul. The whole issue of "call for fire" supprt as opposed to pre-planned fire really needs to be protrayed better in both games. THe restricitons on who could direct what guns and the need for spotting is really glossed over. We hope to beeter in Combat Leader. The rare of fire is high and ammo loads for mortas tend to be less becasue humping even the rounds we give a mortar would be dificult. 7 guys carrying 2 mortars and 120 rounds? I even blush at our 10 guys with 2 mortars and 80 rounds...but with the longer time frame and higher rate of fire they do go dry fast!

I think both games have their strengths and limitations, and there is plenty of room for improvement!

Slayer · Post by **Slayer** » Fri Jul 13, 2001 9:39 am

I downloaded SPWW2 just to take a quick look, and found something I've been thinking about a lot lately: It shows a unit's ammo loadout in the encyclopedia. It may be a small point, but sometimes I like to just go in the encyclopedia and look around, 'window shop', I guess, and knowing a unit's ammo loadout it quite handy for making comparisons. In SPWAW I may perhaps look at the KV-2 and say it has great armour penetration for the time, but not know that it hardly carries any AP ammo, if any, unless I am actually choosing my forces for an actual mission. With SPWW2, I at least know exactly how much of what type of ammo it carries.

Like I said, it is not a major point, but it's something that I really would like to see in SPWAW.

Andy Brown · Post by **Andy Brown** » Sat Jul 14, 2001 10:21 am

Paul,

Perhaps the first question you need to ask if you are trying to get a steer for future game development is: "Given Combat Mission, why is anybody still playing SPanything?"

I believe CM is the most realistic commercial tactical wargame I've ever come across. Without staring at my navel too deeply, however, I have stuck with SP because:
It offers vastly more comprehensive coverage of WW2.
SP was REALISTIC ENOUGH. I could recreate the battles I wanted to recreate in an acceptable manner. CM wasn't MORE realistic enough to make it worth while learning a completely new gaming system.

I personally prefer SPWW2, probably because it plays more like the original SP than WaW. IMO, Camo concentrated on the things that needed to be concentrated on: terrain, orbat and AI improvements. I appreciate the work that went into your armour model but it always struck me as a waste of development time when the user could edit or mobhack any vehicle's characteristics if they didn't conform to his own particular idea of reality. Additionally, WW2 battlefield decision making stopped at a "Tigers good, Shermans bad, flank shots are better than frontal shots" level of detail. WaW's more complex armour/anti-armour model makes no additional input to a player's decision making. "Perfect is the enemy of good enough."

Regards,

Andy Brown

Wild Bill · Post by **Wild Bill** » Sat Jul 14, 2001 10:21 pm

Hi Andy Brown!

It is good to see you here. I love CM too, as you know, I'm sure, but my affinity and love for things SP is as strong as ever.

It just widens my choices for play.

WB

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 1:08 am

Andy,

Which was the last version of SPWaW you played? Infantry combat in SP:WaW was kept very close to original SP while SP:WW2 was readically changed, so its interesting you felt SPWW2 closer to the original? Didn't thinkthe drastic reduciton in casualty rates make it considerably different?

I urge you to give the newest version a try as now the effect of terrain and cover are much more eviden. Moving quickly in teh open inforn to a machine gun will remind you why an MG was so feared. Moving cautiously in cover can offer considerable protection.

Both games offer significantly enhanced terrain types. One can question the need for a half dozen variation s in teh OOB on what is in game terms an identical unit with different names? Different strokes for different folks.

As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the "standard SP" armor "factos" do not allow the slope of the armor to be properly accounted for. The ratings given in teh cases of well sloped armor are wrong, using the simple LOS thickness of teh armor when in fact the effect of sloping is considerably more than that.

The result is the the original SP armor ratings produce a great many cases of situations where vehicles ineffective when they should be and require tactics that expose you to effective counterfire, when you should not. In fact in many cases teh SP:Ww2 methodolgy results in cases where flank aspects that should expse a considerable vulnerability, are almost invulnerable instead. (see the T-34 discussion above).

The esence of WW2 armored warfare decision making revolved around "what range can I kill him where he can't kill me". The "old" SP methodology misrepresented this in significant ways. Combat Leader will add the effects of a wider variety of ammo types and types of armor.

I suggest you buy and read Lorrin Bird and Robert Livingston's WW2 Ballistics book, as you will see what is behind a number of these issues and why it is important! If understanding the battlefield relationship of "who can kill who at what range" is the basis for tactical decision making (and you casre about when flank shots ARE good and when bad...) then you will see how even teh SP:WaW methodology can be improved upon giving the player greater insight into the tactics of the day.

If you are Sherman and you have to face a Tiger, don't you want at least to know how close you have to approach to have a chance for a penetrating flank shot, and if that is not represented properly in a game, don't you think that is significant? Similarly if you have a few rounds of APCR in your PzIIIh and see a Matilda, do you think it irrelevant that you have to close to 200 yards or closer in te "old sysstem" to have a chance for a kill, when you should be able to achieve success form 500 yards or more?

Andy Brown · Post by **Andy Brown** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 3:02 am

Wild Bill:

Good to see you still going strong, mate!

Paul:

I'm an old grunt and freely admit to not understanding the finer points of ballistics modelling. Neither, however, did most tankers in WW2. If you are telling me that simply changing the armour/penetration/ accuracy/warhead size/etc variables in the original SP data base could not achieve reasonably "realistic" results in any combination, then clearly, Matrix' good work was justified. Hundreds of wargamers obviously think so. However, that particular aspect of the system was "rough enough" to satisfy me. Matildas were hard work for PzIIIhs whatever the finer points of the appropriate ballistics. "If you can hit it, it's dead"/"Sometimes"/"Up close and dirty"/"Never" is all I need to know.

I don't claim to speak for everyone. You asked for points-of-view and that's mine.

Cheers,

Andy

Guderian · Post by **Guderian** » Sun Jul 15, 2001 4:33 am

It's me again...

Thanks for big juicy nice reply, Paul.

Frankly, IMO it depends just what one considers to be important for ww2 wargame. I always thought of SP as a bit of "paper rock, scissors" when it comes to armour. A detailed system like in WaW is nice when "close call" situations arise - like the Pz IIIh vs Matilda.

Seems that some consider WaW's AP system to be over the top while the others shake their heads at Spww2s multitude of infantry types.

The situation reminds me a bit of Quake 1 vs. Q2 and Q3. Q 1 is a bit behnd with tech and support, but with it's own distinct engine, indistinguishable (damn i HATE that word !) from the others for an "everyman", but with subtle nuances quickly caught by veteran gamers. The community keeps arguing which one is better, but in fact, both a good, but it's just the small differences that make some swear by one. Just like with WaW and ww2 it depends who feels "right" with the game.

If we are to discuss engine finer points, i suggest to wait for v5 of ww2 and see then. SPC is tight-lipped on changes so i don't know what new things will be in really. We shall see.