Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

SPWaW vs winSPWW2

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SPWaW vs winSPWW2 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 7/4/2014 5:00:50 PM   
Gerry4321

 

Posts: 868
Joined: 3/24/2003
Status: offline
Hello All:

Can someone please explain the difference between SPWaW and winSPWW2?

Thanks,

Gerry
Post #: 1
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 7/5/2014 10:26:32 AM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline
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".

(in reply to Gerry4321)
Post #: 2
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 7/6/2014 12:42:41 AM   
mkr8683


Posts: 65
Joined: 2/8/2008
Status: offline
The difference is that they're totally separate games. Try them both and draw your own conclusions.

(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 3
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 7/6/2014 1:12:25 AM   
rwenstrup

 

Posts: 176
Joined: 1/9/2002
From: Cleveland, OH
Status: offline
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...

_____________________________

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

(in reply to mkr8683)
Post #: 4
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 7/8/2014 5:46:27 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25318
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
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.

:)



_____________________________


(in reply to Gerry4321)
Post #: 5
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 7/13/2014 2:08:14 AM   
JEB Davis


Posts: 444
Joined: 12/27/2005
From: Michigan, U.T.B.
Status: offline
In reference to Nikademus' comments on infantry, in SP:WaW you can try the Low Carnage settings in my signature line.

_____________________________

Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 6
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 7/14/2014 5:53:49 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1986
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
You might want to take a look at this comparison between them:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=821929&postcount=16

_____________________________


(in reply to JEB Davis)
Post #: 7
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 9/4/2014 1:23:30 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 5071
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario & campaign creator

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 8
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 9/4/2014 6:43:21 PM   
Zap


Posts: 3684
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline
I have SpWaW working just fine with windows 8.1.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 9
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 9/4/2014 7:01:13 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 5071
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
That is fine but its still not actively developed nor supported like the WinSPWW2 and WinSPMBT series of games.

_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario & campaign creator

(in reply to Zap)
Post #: 10
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 9/4/2014 10:17:52 PM   
Zap


Posts: 3684
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline
Yes, a wish yet, that may never materialize.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 11
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 9/4/2014 11:22:03 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 5071
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario & campaign creator

(in reply to Zap)
Post #: 12
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 9/10/2014 12:45:12 AM   
JEB Davis


Posts: 444
Joined: 12/27/2005
From: Michigan, U.T.B.
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Reduce SP:WaW slaughter, "Low Carnage":
Settings: 80Spot,80Hit,100R/R,XXXTQ,110TkT,150InfT,180AvSoft,130AvArm,150SOFire / Command & Ctrl ON / AutoRally OFF
Enhanced http://enhanced.freeforums.org
Depot https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/spwawdepot/

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 13
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 9/13/2014 2:39:48 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Yes, it's strictly a matter of personal choice, but SPWaW is my favorite game, and I will continue to play it.

(in reply to Gerry4321)
Post #: 14
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 9/29/2014 2:33:25 PM   
toundra

 

Posts: 160
Joined: 4/10/2001
From: France
Status: offline
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..

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 15
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/6/2014 6:48:59 AM   
The Almighty Turtle

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by The Almighty Turtle -- 11/6/2014 8:06:14 AM >

(in reply to toundra)
Post #: 16
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/6/2014 4:45:43 PM   
Major_Mess


Posts: 434
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: The True North. Strong and Free
Status: online

quote:

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

_____________________________

Click below. You know you want to!!






(in reply to The Almighty Turtle)
Post #: 17
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/9/2014 2:30:26 PM   
Falcon1


Posts: 170
Joined: 4/30/2012
From: United States
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by Falcon1 -- 11/9/2014 3:30:38 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Major_Mess)
Post #: 18
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/9/2014 3:26:05 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1986
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Falcon1)
Post #: 19
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/11/2014 8:52:28 AM   
The Almighty Turtle

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

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. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/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.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 20
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/11/2014 10:57:37 AM   
Zovs


Posts: 5071
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
Sorry but I have tried all the incarnations to get SPWAW to work on Windows 7 or Windows 8 and all have failed miserably on my end, second of all the closest I got it to work it was running in the horrible graphics mode of 640 x 400, totally sucked on a modern computer screen.

The deal killer is the SPWAW is outdated and not maintained nor updated. Whereas Shrapnel Games SPWW2 is updated yearly, and works with modern computers. PERIOD.

Sorry fellows but SPWAW is dead and does not work on Windows 7 or 8 or in Linux running Wine, I have tried all three and its just a waste of time, the code base has not been updated in 14 some years. And even if you get it to work your stuck in 640 x 400 mode, which is very lame when most monitors can render much higher resolutions.



_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario & campaign creator

(in reply to The Almighty Turtle)
Post #: 21
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/11/2014 5:12:49 PM   
The Almighty Turtle

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

Sorry but I have tried all the incarnations to get SPWAW to work on Windows 7 or Windows 8 and all have failed miserably on my end, second of all the closest I got it to work it was running in the horrible graphics mode of 640 x 400, totally sucked on a modern computer screen.


Sorry to hear mate. Bad luck fo ryou. WHendid you give up?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66 The deal killer is the SPWAW is outdated and not maintained nor updated. Whereas Shrapnel Games SPWW2 is updated yearly, and works with modern computers. PERIOD.


This.

This I think sums up the greatest advantage Shrapnel has over Matrix, and WW2/MBT have over WAW. When history comes knocking the first question it has is "who's there?" And in this case, Shrapnel undoubtedly is while Matrix is Not. And in the end I believe that is decisive.

In the end, I do believe Shrapnel can continue improving the games and can and will even fix the clunky interface/game, the invincible infantry, the frequent AFV kills with small arms, and the like. So Long As They KEEP At IT. They have been tending to this while Matrix has fallen away, and as a SPWAW fanboy who is not fond of the Shrapnel engines I believe they deserve all the praise they can get for it.

And I do believe that if they do and Matrix continues to do nothing, Shrapnel will indisputably earn every right and justification to be the inheritors of the SP legacy.

But that in no way changes the fact that as things stand, I find their products to be Not Right For Me, and far more crippled in comparison to SPWAW even with all this than many people think.

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 22
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/11/2014 6:40:08 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 5071
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
I gave up right after I finally go it to work but it was suck (permanently) in the dreaded 640x480 mode. That video mode is completely useless.

To me each interface has its pros and cons, but the Matrix version is clunky to me, the scrolling is horrible, the video limitations the only two pluses I could find were a lot of scenarios (which I don't play) and the sound effects. With Shrapnel I find the opposite; the scrolling works fine, the video is great the sound effects or meh and the scenarios are now up to a little over 300.

I mostly play CG.

The infantry or armor can be tweaked up or down in Shrapnel pretty easily via the settings. My laptop runs in 1600x900 and I can put Shrapnels in full screen mode no problem and have no vid issues what-so-ever.

_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario & campaign creator

(in reply to The Almighty Turtle)
Post #: 23
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/11/2014 7:11:22 PM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1986
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
I have yet to see what "frequent AFV kills with small arms" is. If the weapon can penetrate the armour the unit can be killed so I wonder what is so strange about it.

Same goes for infantry, in an environment that depicts such a short timeframe(1 turn = roughly 3 minutes of real time) I don't expect to easily movement my squad around an be than able to wipe an enemy squad out.
Infantry takes a lot casualties if the situation is static defender vs moving attacker but if both squads are "manoeuvring" the fire is simply too imprecise to get anything beyond a lucky kill.

_____________________________


(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 24
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/11/2014 10:19:29 PM   
The Almighty Turtle

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

I gave up right after I finally go it to work but it was suck (permanently) in the dreaded 640x480 mode. That video mode is completely useless.

To me each interface has its pros and cons, but the Matrix version is clunky to me, the scrolling is horrible, the video limitations the only two pluses I could find were a lot of scenarios (which I don't play) and the sound effects. With Shrapnel I find the opposite; the scrolling works fine, the video is great the sound effects or meh hand the scenarios are now up to a little over 300.


If anything I found the opposite. SPWAW scrolling feels pretty smooth, while the Shrapnel versions feel like they have the same lag when moving the screen around that I feel when doing almost anything. My main issue with SPWAW besides the relatively-recently fixed incompatibility issue is the fact that once in a blue moon it will CTD (for instance, if you click something a bit too early or soon).

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

The infantry or armor can be tweaked up or down in Shrapnel pretty easily via the settings.


I already mentioned this, and it's Still A Major Problem. I've actually run plenty of games (more than I ever should have to do) with one side's values tweaked all the way up and the other side's tweaked all the way down. And on Shrapnel even when that is there and you have an elite rifle squad and/or MG unit right on top of an enemy infantry unit *with those max/mined settings*, casualties are still pretty low.

Hence the Somme Joke. It's pretty hard to imagine exposed infantry being subjected to that amount of MG fire at close range with far less of an effect than it should be. It practically makes the Japanese/Chinese/Jihadis look visionary with their human wave charges, because it's far more difficult than it should be to actually punish infantry with direct fire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

I have yet to see what "frequent AFV kills with small arms" is. If the weapon can penetrate the armour the unit can be killed so I wonder what is so strange about it.


Wiping out a full section of light armor (in this case Italian Autoblindas and tankettes) with rifle fire comes to mind. And yes, that is something I accomplished on SPWW2.

In contrast to jeeps or other relatively light vehicles, where it isn't counted as destroyed until you plink away at one man after another. Whereas it's very reasonable and common in SPWAW for a vehicle to be destroyed or terminally effed up from a single shot without all the crew or passengers being killed, in the Shrapnel games I've occasionally seen Jeeps as more durable than light armor because of the "men as hitpoints" of the former while the latter deal with what I personally think is a too generous allowance for small arms armor penetration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Same goes for infantry, in an environment that depicts such a short timeframe(1 turn = roughly 3 minutes of real time) I don't expect to easily movement my squad around an be than able to wipe an enemy squad out.


You might be surprised. I certainly don't expect it to happen every battle (that would be just complaining because the soldiers act like human beings and don't get killed easily), but the average firefight can be very fast moving and deadly. The German 94th division was devastated to the point of dissolution in a few hours of urban fighting by attacking Soviet troops, and its' picket units in particular all but disintegrated entirely from the initial weight of the attack. Often times in just a minutes, as a turn represents. Likewise, the entrenched defenses at Sword Beach were decisively overrun (and their units destroyed) in maybe 45 minutes (the length of the average scenario), most of which in the span of a few minutes after the Commonwealth managed to ascend and flank the entrenched defenses.

Much of the problem with destroying a modern infantry squad (which is broadly what we're talking about) comes from actually getting a bead on its' people. If the enemy has brains, is using the cover appropriately, and is aware it's under threat that can and should take a while (and often does, I feel, even in SPWAW), though it can still be decided in a matter of minutes.

On the other hand if the enemy is exposed or otherwise unawares, if they've been suppressed and flanked in a battle of maneuver, that unit might be going from full to zero in seconds. And Which is something I'd be hard pressed to find in any Shrapnel game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
Infantry takes a lot casualties if the situation is static defender vs moving attacker


I want to take this aside and underline it, because this is still far rarer than it almost certainly should be in a Shrapnel game. I can have a full squad of infantry exposed on a trail walk right up to a machine gun and/or entrenched rifle support and frequently take nil or minimal casualties. even after full turns of having them just sit there and get shot at.

This isn't explainable by "the first guys got picked off but the others pulled back and took cover really well" like the war movies (and reality) have had. It is mind bogglingly dominant in my experiences.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66
but if both squads are "manoeuvring" the fire is simply too imprecise to get anything beyond a lucky kill.


Again, I think this can be true but isn't always. In particular, if a unit has been pinned and flanked that entire unit could be destroyed. Which is why fire and maneuver is such an important precept, and why maneuvering in and of itself was not a panacea. In Shrapnel it's of jarringly less use. It still gets you significantly more casualties on infantry than almost anything else, but it is almost not worth the risk of approaching a suppressed infantry unit with one of your own.

When you really get down to it, infantry is squishy. Very squishy. They are the backbone of battle and have been forever, but in the end cover, maneuver, entrenchment, and other protection are rather weak safeguards between yours squishy body and a bullet or shrapnel shell that can kill you without even recognizing you.

I would argue that leaning towards that squishiness is almost certainly more realistic than going the other way. Because then you have simulations of the First Day of the Somme or the average Japanese banzai attack that can survive withering fire on open ground well beyond what can be justified by the records. Infantry are not stupid and are not lemmings, but assuming they will be Super Cover Men is not a good balance decision unless you're pivoting your entire engine towards it.

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 25
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/27/2014 2:32:46 AM   
The Almighty Turtle

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline
I know this is long delayed, but something else i felt like mentioning that I forgot.

SPWAW actually allows you to set artillery values differently for both sides. The Shrapnel games require one uniform value for both. I can understand the merits of this, but I feel it is still a misstep.

It makes it all but impossible to try and simulate different quality of artillery fire for both sides. Let's say I want to play a game of China v. Japan, and I want to simulate how Chinese artillery left much to be desired (shoddy gear, concrete filled shells, etc) while I want to simulate the quality of Japanese artillery (from the superior equipment, training, quality ammo, etc).

Well, on a Shrapnel game I can't. Or at least not really. With one uniform value and simultaneous fire, it's either that everybody has concrete in their ammo or everybody has high quality gear, no ability to differentiate. SPWAW does.

I realize that it's vaguely possible to simply wait until one side's artillery has fired, set the values to the desired effect for the other, wait till they fire, and then set them back.

But in addition to be tedious and repetitive, this is no guarantee at best.

To give you an example of what this would mean, let me use the Battle of Tsushima as an example. I realize that SP is not a naval war game by any means, but I believe the principle works as well.

Both sides received very rigorous artillery training, but the the Russian shells were infamously bad with obsolete black powder of dubious quality (though not quite as bad as Chinese ones). In contrast, the Japanese had been trained even further than their Russian adversaries, had supplies in even better quality, and were using the terror of Shimose shells. Which were even more devastating than the mainstream shells.

It was a smashing Japanese victory, with the Japanese putting the Russians out of commission in very brutal and short order while the Russians were largely hapless to prevent it. Even when Russian gunnery told, it was nowhere near effective enough. The Japanese flagship was hit savagely at the start of battle, including right in the Command Bridge where Japanese CO Togo and the future-famous Yamamoto were.

But because of the poor quality of the shells, they failed to detonate or did not do much if they did at a time when if they did, they would have almost certainly killed Togo, Yamamoto, the command staff, and countless others while destroying the Japanese flagship.

If I wanted to replicate something like this in SPWAW, it's fairly simple. Determining a fair value for the Japanese and Russian shells, plugging them in for both sides, and doing it.

With Shrapnel Games, it's nowhere near the same. You'd have to determine a good value for the Russian and Japanese shells, and then figure out *how you are going to manage plugging them in and firing.* Because with only one value, everybody is using either Soggy and Decayed Black Powder or everybody is using Shimose shells. Meaning that if you put it for the former, it becomes a gum fight unlike history (or what would be productive to the average player on a schedule), while if you're using the latter the Russians would be able to get a lot of kills far easier than intended. And unlike SPWAW where you can time for the different sides' artillery landing at different times, the simultaneous resolution means you can't.

Again, the essentials cam be applied to plenty of other cases that SPWAW would actually cover on land. And this does nothing but limit what the player can do. And I think it is a weakness.

It is arguably fairer and more solid against cheating, especially in multiplayer. Especially when combined with the Shrapnel system of having the artillery of both sides slam in at the same time rather than separately for SPWAW.

But I think in the end of the day, looking for a solution to cheating in gameplay mechanics is problematic because Cheating Is A Human Defect. No amount of coding will prevent the basic problem of your opponent trying to take advantage of you, the game, and/or the AI. So you should look to Humans to resolve it, such as moderation. Because you will Never Be Able To Stop It Otherwise.

As a solitaire player, I can safely say that it does nothing but cause problems.

(in reply to The Almighty Turtle)
Post #: 26
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/27/2014 3:28:39 AM   
BigDuke66


Posts: 1986
Joined: 2/1/2001
From: Terra
Status: offline
Not sure what you exactly mean but in the Mobhack Editor I could simply raise or lower values for warhead size, HE Pentration, HE Kill etc. if I don't like the results.
Each country has it's OOB with units and in it slots with the weapons used, and these weapons of there own entry were I can set a lot things.
So if I what artillery from 2 different countries to have a very different effect I don't see a problem.

_____________________________


(in reply to The Almighty Turtle)
Post #: 27
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/27/2014 7:31:32 AM   
The Almighty Turtle

 

Posts: 64
Joined: 11/15/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

Not sure what you exactly mean but in the Mobhack Editor I could simply raise or lower values for warhead size, HE Pentration, HE Kill etc. if I don't like the results.


Saying it's not a problem because you can use Modhack Editor to fix it is a nonstarter. You can use the Modhack Editor to turn a 20th century combined arms SP into a game about rifled musket warfare in the 19th century. That doesn't matter when it comes to evaluating the base mechanics in the base game.

If you know how to use Modhack and what you want you can do almost everything, but most players are almost certainly Not going to have a mastery of Modhack that deep, are unlikely to want to bother with it even if it did.

And even if they did it would probably be A Lot Less Hassle to have faction-specific setting for those than to muck around in your weapon directory permanently. And thus affect the rest of your gameplay.


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66Each country has it's OOB with units and in it slots with the weapons used, and these weapons of there own entry were I can set a lot things.
So if I what artillery from 2 different countries to have a very different effect I don't see a problem.


I'm aware, but that is the problem. In addition to having unforseen problems on balance in the rest of the game.

A weapon in a given OOB fires one kind of ammunition in the same way. A Soviet 76mm Artillery gun is going to fire HE shot with the same effects whether it is watered down black powder or even concrete or it's a Shimose, it will come out of the same gun the same way.

Adjusting that value to accommodate for one or the other is going to adjust every other unit that uses that weapon in the slot (mostly of the same faction, but not always in custom scenarios).

Which means if a player suddenly wants to play with onetime house rules for a scenario, it's overkill and unhelpful. Compared to flipping the two side's artillery stats, playing, and flipping them back.

It's convenience, and frankly is probably a superior way to replicate such equipment/ammo differences. There's nothing innately less powerful in a Japanese artillery piece just because it was captured by Chinese troops and turned against its' users. It could still logically fire the same devastating (higher stated) ammo it would have under Japanese control.

It's just that it often didn't, or even if it did the crew *might* not have been trained to handle it.

Editing the weapon itself makes it hard and concrete one way or the other without altering the innate stats of the weapon. Having values that you can edit *or not* allows you more control over whether or not This Crew or This Artillery is poor, average, or even great. And it lets it be accessible in a way people who are not seasoned with Modhack can still work with.

(in reply to BigDuke66)
Post #: 28
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/27/2014 12:14:40 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 5071
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

SPWAW actually allows you to set artillery values differently for both sides.


What exactly does this mean?

In Shrapnel's you can for OBA set specific gun tubes on/off. So for example if you have a OBA of 4x 105s you can turn tubes 1 and 3 off or on and same with 2 or 4 or all on or off. Or are you talking about the specific ammunition?

I don't quite understand what your meaning with artillery values for both sides.

_____________________________


War in the East/War in the East II - Alpha Test Teams
WarPlan Beta Tester
DG CWIE2 tester/SPWW2 and SPMBT playtester/scenario & campaign creator

(in reply to The Almighty Turtle)
Post #: 29
RE: SPWaW vs winSPWW2 - 11/27/2014 3:53:12 PM   
Major_Mess


Posts: 434
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: The True North. Strong and Free
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

quote:

SPWAW actually allows you to set artillery values differently for both sides.


What exactly does this mean?

In Shrapnel's you can for OBA set specific gun tubes on/off. So for example if you have a OBA of 4x 105s you can turn tubes 1 and 3 off or on and same with 2 or 4 or all on or off. Or are you talking about the specific ammunition?

I don't quite understand what your meaning with artillery values for both sides.



I think that TAT is referring to the Artillery vs Soft Targets / Artillery vs Armor on the Preferences Screen.


HTH



MM

_____________________________

Click below. You know you want to!!






(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SPWaW vs winSPWW2 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.188