SPWaW, SPww2...pros, cons and beyond (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns


Paul Vebber -> SPWaW, SPww2...pros, cons and beyond (7/9/2001 9:23:00 AM)

With version 6.1 we have come to the end of the line for a while in SP:WaW development. In other venues, folks have impied that we "duck" discussion about the relative pros and cons of SP:waW and SP:ww2. Well here is a thread to talk about what you like about either game and where you think hex based gaming should go in the future. We WELCOME fans of SPWW2 to this discussion and insist that they be treated with respect. I was one who worked on the original SP2WW2 and have a lot of respect for what SP Camo Group has done with it. My personal view is the route we went with SP:WaW was a better way to go, but the more conservative route has its benefits. That leads to where folks think hex based gaming should go in the future. We are shifting attention to Combat Leader and want to hear how you think that game can improve on what is currently available. We have deleted posts concerning SPWW2 that we considered "ads" or not constructive. We have done the same with Combat Mission posts and a couple others. We feel its our right to keep our board on topic to our games and our company, but cogent dicussion comparing our games with other similar ones is healthy discussion that will make our future games better and result in better informed customers. So fire away - what you like - what you don't like, who does what better, etc.... [ July 08, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

pops -> (7/9/2001 10:00:00 AM)

I like the added countries available for a WW2 campaign in SPWW2....that's one small thing anyway....as for future hex based games how about leaving the architecture open enough for people to add "working" terrain hexes and structures as well as troop and vehicle "icons"...oobs etc....the ability to select user made maps into a long computer generated campaign would be cool..

dbt1949 -> (7/9/2001 10:49:00 AM)

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.

BruceAZ -> (7/9/2001 11:25:00 AM)

Hello Paul: I guess I must be one of the minorities but I will stay with SPWAW as the graphics are much better, great realism and I enjoy the ability to create historical battles or campaigns with SPWAW. I just could not get into SPWW2. I like the other Matrix products and wish the graphics could be improved especially the Pacific game. Sorry if this is the end of the line. :( You folks have done a great job and I wish you the best in your new adventures. In the meantime, I will keep buying MC's as long as you make them. :D Bruce Semper Fi

Gordon_freeman -> (7/9/2001 2:53:00 PM)

First of all, as i learned from ypu that the difference is not only in the grafiks, I checked out and here is what I like to see SP:WAW with, I also don't really understand the background of both teams working "against" each other, but, from the outside it's easy to point at things. So, even if I repeat myself, the unit roster in SP:WW2 is bigger and offers gamers more "space" to create their own units for campaign's. I know (so I have been told) that that would require new programming, but that is a reason, not an obstacle. I allways liked the aproach of SP:WW2 in giving gamers the chance of using really rare or "test" equipment like the German Neubaufahrzeug (the compaditive model to the Panzer IV). I don't mention the helicopters or spotting planes, mineclearing tanks here...but if they are available, why not try to use them, it's at the end still a game! I also see the advantage in having this huge maps! This give's a gamer a better idea of using terraine (but this also only applies to gamers who, like me, are using large forces, otherwise u play hide and seek on these maps) in terms of using different attack or defend positions. The discussion about the teraine and the features I can't really understand, I allways liked both approaches but at the end the more "playable" version was SP:WAW. Another critic towards SP:WW2 is their way of how infantry fights work: it is nearly impossible to "block" infantry from retreating i.e. you as the player enter a hex containg routed infantry. As soon as someone was killed they moved a hex further. To come to an conclusion is as follows: I really like SP:WAW, as a game it is close to perfect (even so I already hear all the people complaining over and over) and the Matrix people are pretty quick with updates. But I really miss the large maps and the huge number of units SP:WW2 is able to handle. If at least the map feature (in terms of size) could be adoppted in SP:WAW I would really enjoy that. Thanks again to both teams of enable us to make such discussions.

Guderian -> (7/9/2001 4:08:00 PM)

Hello guys...i prefer Spww2 but i'm regulary here to see what's up with WaW etc. The biggest amount of controversy between WaW and ww2 was the "tech" side of the game - some folks don't like ww2 for being a DOS game, some don't like WaW for size and multitude of patches. But I think that "tech" is secondary here, since the topic is gameplay differences. Here we go: Spww2 > SpWaW - OOBs. They are bigger, and more consitent since apparently all were done from the same "matrix" :-) ie all countries Sherman III is the same. More infantry types. - OOB editor. Esp the ability to display icon/lbm within the editor is nice. - some countries done better, esp. Hungary, Italy, Sweden and Germany. - more varied random maps. - more varied long camp. - better Infantry combat. Inf is tougher, combat is more based on suppresion of enemy than actual kills. - Paras/Gliders are done veery good - small things (Snorkel tanks, beach switch, AI uses s/d etc.) SpWaW > Spww2 - pretty, better sound - buildings - some countries done better (Poland, USMC) - more terrain types - more detailed armor combat - special Victory Hexes - reduced squads/ammo (neat) - weapon/vehicle breakdowns I'm not that much playing WaW and i'm still catching up with new patches so i may have forgotten about any important feature, correct me then... As for future of hex games, well CM came, and SP is still alive, CL/CA will come, and SP will go on, with new mods coming(Moderna, SpCW, MBT) the show will continue for next few years...

Mai Thai -> (7/9/2001 4:34:00 PM)

I partially agree with Guderian about the pros and cons between Spwaw ans Spww2, but running Spww2 on modern computers is sometimes a pain in twicking through settings to find the right one. The big point in spww2 is the great amount of units and countries you can choose from and from the Spwaw side is the more accurate OOB and, of course, the MC cd's. In conclusion if we can have a Spwaw with the bigger Spww2 OOB it would be the best game i have ever seen. bye

Jester -> (7/9/2001 4:42:00 PM)

Paul, i've sent your comments to yhe spww2 ml. i there will be something, i'll let you know thanks jester

O de B -> (7/9/2001 6:17:00 PM)

I'll try to not quote anyone so i won't tell again about graphics and sounds/oob, but there is still another difference between WaW and WW2. That's the way they are meant to be played. WaW seems great for scenario design, especially now mega campaigns are included, whereas it seems some work was put into WW2 for random map generator and AI play. In other words imho WW2 might handle better creating a random map, and fighting against the AI. But clearly there are much more fun options to play pre-made scenario with WaW. Just my 2 cents ;)

Warrior -> (7/9/2001 6:48:00 PM)

If I had a choice between owning a horse-drawn wagon and a new Chevy Camaro for normal every-day transportation, I would choose the new car. It's the same with SPWW2 and SPWaW. I have no fascination with obsolete technology, which is why I will embrace the new Matrix games when they are released, despite the hours of pleasure SPWaW has given me.

tracer -> (7/9/2001 8:27:00 PM)

When the first version of SPWAW was released I initially didn't like it. I was used to SPWW2's combat resolution: fire on a unit a couple times, they go to 'suppressed', 1 or 2 more times, 'retreating, then to 'routed'. This predictable behavior didn't happen in SPWAW; I'd be thinking "hey, they're not supposed to do that!"...then I realized the unpredictability made it more lifelike. When I try to play SPWW2 now (as recent as 3 weeks ago) I feel like I'm just 'going thru the motions'. I also feel SPWW2 has some features that are better, but for me it all comes down to the actual gameplay.

Panzer Leo -> (7/9/2001 8:58:00 PM)

The last time I played SPWW2 is quite some time ago, but I'll never forget the great battles I fought with it. I stopped playing it the very first time WAW was there for download and got addicted to this most advanced version of SP. The one thing I really appreciated about SPWW2 were these little ideas, giving the game a great flavour like historical ranks of the nations. It was great to have Japaneese officers not displaying "Captain" as the rank. The big OOBs are of course a nice playground for all fans of rare or obscure units, but do also lead to sometimes pretty weird lineups in battle. Overall, there's nothing I really miss in SPWAW now, but I surely will miss a lot of features when playing SPWW2. BTW, does anyone know how to work in these real ranks - is it a big deal ? I think camo made some seperate folders, where they put them in ?

Charles_22 -> (7/9/2001 9:26:00 PM)

I haven't played very much of SPWW2, but the larger generated maps missing off of SPWAW is a major shortfall as I see it. OTOH it really hurts to play tanks that have no slope inclusion and whose armor is simplified for every ten milimeters. What little I've tampered with SPWW2, it's also annoying to see the German OOBs in very difficult to understand naming conventions. Most of the time I don't understand what the unit is until I select it. In the long run that might make it more intriguing, but it sure is annoying at the start. As far as I'm concerned SPWAW has a very good OOB, so that doesn't concern me that the other has more. Is SPWW2's AI better? I don't know. Considering I'm a campaigner I would really like to see large maps 'generated' by SPWAW, while the AI is good enough. The SPWW2 graphics are a very slight drawback, but the sounds have a greater distance between them. All I can say is that SPWAW would be nigh perfect in my book if it had large 'generated' maps for campaigns, but as it stands it's always a temptation to start making a serious attempt to play SPWW2 because of this loss in SPWAW. Just yesterday I was screwing around with SPWAW with stuff I hadn't screwed around with before. I generated a random map with 240 hex width. I was in awe! It was so breathtaking to imagine that I'd have a map wider in hexes than the number of units I would have. Generally I have in core between 85-105 units. I think with a map of that width I could see the game working well with 150 core units (sighs in wonderment). Another thing I noticed different about SPWW2, is that they have objectives, scattered, instead of in bunches. I'm not sure how it affects gameplay but it does look intriguing to a degree. It looks like that approach would be better for those who have a vastly inferior army, whose victory could only come about as a result of trying to cling to the last 4 or 5 of them and hoping to whittle the opponent down enroute (with maybe even a slight counterattack afterwards). As far as hex gaming goes, I don't think it's threatened by too badly by what's currently out there. I think most gamers would actually prefer AOE type RTS (but with REAL stats that we currently enjoy) to this Firefight system, because you can micromanage as much or as little as you want. I'm not too terribly interested in turn-based extended to 1 minute turns, attempts such as in CM, and calling that real-time. I suppose a lot of us want to be both commander and participant, and with true RTS any of either is possible. If what we're debating here is strictly "hex-based" and not "turn-based" I don't think there's much of a threat to hex-based at all, it's just the timing of the turns where the real battle for wargaming future is being fought at. To me, it's either a turn base such as SPWAW with opfire sort of thing to convey a mesh of each player doing something semi-simultaneous, or all-out RTS (with pauses); I don't think the pacing of CM satisifes either camp too terribly well. It's too bad that CL dropped the RTS aspect, as it certainly would've been the first to have had a major amount of the key ingredients to make RTS realistic. Power bars have yet to be overcome. Perhaps, for now, dropping pure RTS is a good thing for Matrix, but if there's ever a shot at making major sales in stores, it would have to be this idea of putting realictic stats of real-time units, which could be paused. I think a lot of RTS people have had their fill of 'subjective' fantasy units (such as Sudden Strike). There just isn't, nor has there been anything close to SP put into RTS terms, and he who makes it will likely make a killing.

Mark Ezra -> (7/9/2001 9:49:00 PM)

SPWW2...DOS. SPWAW...Windows. Case closed. Now on to Combat Leader.

A_B -> (7/9/2001 10:02:00 PM)

I've never played SPWW2, but the better generated campaigns in it sound good. On the other hand, having someone set up opfor for you on a long campaign works better than any AI will be able to do for a long time. I'd like to see better weather in future games. As far as i can tell, weather is not modeling in SPWaW at all, except to reduce movement or max visability. It is not harder to see and spot troops at 500m. at night or in a blizzard, than say, on a nice summer day. I think the tension of a night battle should come from the fact that you can't see very well, but if you start shooting, you can be spotted (by muzzle flash) and enganged from a reasonable distance, and if you stop shooting, you'll go back to being unspoted. It doesn't happen like this now. I started a post on this topic, it you want to read the test restults.

BomBeer -> (7/9/2001 10:03:00 PM)


SPWW2...DOS. SPWAW...Windows. Case closed. Now on to Combat Leader.
So true. SPWW2 doesn't like Win2K, atleast I have never got it to work on it. SPWAW runs fine. As a matter of fact SPWAW runs fine on WinXP beta.

Paul Vebber -> (7/9/2001 10:42:00 PM)

We have not given up on RTS Chalres, just split the development into two similar games - CLose Assault will be the contiunous time version now...

Charles_22 -> (7/10/2001 12:00:00 AM)

Paul Vebber: Forgive me, but I just don't look on it as such, but it's obvious that y'all did have RTS all along on the table, it's just not the sort of RTS I imagine where you can control as much as you want, as frequently as you want, which is so popular now. It's a misunderstanding on my part, as I've seen so many RTS's where you can pause the action anytime you want or none at all, and command virtually all details available, and given that CA gives so much away to the AI to run your battles, and that it has set times for each turn, that it becomes something like fluid turn-based with little direct participation. In case you don't understand where I'm coming from, I'm talking basically about an AOE with SPWAW units. IOW it would have 'real' data, so that power bars would be eliminated, and it would still allow the sort of real-time that AOE allows. Such a thing, depending on how much detailed modeling you got into could get very fascinating, particularly if it got down into how quickly one turret traversed as opposed to another, or maybe the PZIIC running away and the T34 coming right up on it's backside with superior speed. One could almost devise tank races like that, as silly as that would sound, but it would really make a difference with slower tanks trying fire brigade style to deal with T34s.

Paul Vebber -> (7/10/2001 12:11:00 AM)

We intend to give players a considerable amount of control over their units. You're right, we are not talking about AOE, but something a bit different from Close Combat. Have you played the Firefight demo?

Charles_22 -> (7/10/2001 1:02:00 AM)

Paul Vebber: Yes, I have, and I couldn't stand it. A number of reasons really. Most importantly I had to go up againist indequate graphics, new system, and some things I didn't understand all at the same time, so I didn't put more than 5 or 6 turns into it and gave up. On a similar note I did play several turns of CM, and the better graphics certainly had me interested for longer, but I still missed all the control. It seems like I read the readme, manual, or whatever it's called, for Firefight, and I still couldn't make out what the squad bar was supposed to do, but of course that was probably complicated by my soldiers deciding they had better things to do. I also suffered from not seeing any displayable LOS indicator for the units; sighting seemed all guesswork, but I am operating off impressions that were made approximately 5 monthes ago. It also seemed with the infantry battle that came with the demo, that I couldn't tell when the enemies unit had been kocked out. Maybe that's realistic to a degree but I sure didn't like it. I couldn't tell if the units could tell the enemy unit was knocked out, and I couldn't, or what. I'll probably buy CL, but CA maybe not. If CA were sort of a combination between AOE style RTS, and SPWAW accuracy, it would be a no-brainer I'd buy it (but without silly things like AOE resource gathering, though being dependant on supply would be nice - but then most wargames depend on supply). If that were the case I don't know if I would buy CL then, but I'd likely buy both.

Jeff Norton -> (7/10/2001 1:14:00 AM)

David, et al. Uh, where do you and Matrix go from here??? Inquiring minds would like to know... -Jeff

Paul Vebber -> (7/10/2001 3:09:00 AM)

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

Paul Vebber -> (7/10/2001 5:50:00 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 -> (7/10/2001 7:09:00 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." :D [ 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 -> (7/10/2001 8:29:00 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 -> (7/10/2001 8:41:00 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 -> (7/10/2001 9:58:00 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 -> (7/10/2001 3:58:00 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 -> (7/11/2001 12:58:00 AM)

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) :D ...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") :D 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 -> (7/11/2001 2:55:00 AM)

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!!!

Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI