===Steel Panthers=== Good/BadComparisons to CM

[Spii]

Just started building my WW2 collection of games and was wondering the good/bad aspects of Steel Panthers worlds at war? How does it compare to the excellent Combat mIssion that i have? ANy info much appreciated.

[Major Tom]

It is incomparable. It is like comparing two games of a similar genre but spanning over 5 years difference. Steel Panthers was great when it came out, and the new revision is also great, but, you cannot compare it to a game made in 1999-2000.

They are both good, but, realistically incomparable. I would suggest in getting it, as, it is a good game. Not quite up to CM's modern standards (a lot more can be done in those 5+ years) plus differences (usually increasing!) in detail.

CM is undoubtedly better, but, this is primarily due to the capability of modern computers than that of quality of gameplay and ingeniousness (they are both great).

[Lepton]

Steel Panthers WAW has the advantage and disadvantage of being simpler than Combat Mission (CM). The simplicity allows much larger battles to be handled, and it has a neat campaign feature that allows you to fight through long periods of time while upgrading and replacing your losses over time. It also covers more nations and the entire WW2 period.

The view of the action, however, is strictly top-down, and the simple combat model makes for much less dynamic games.

Overall, I'd recommend it (especially at the price point), but don't expect the detail of CM.

[Paul Lakowski]

Theres a side to this thats never discussed...when your playing CM scenarios , how realistic do you think they are??

Have you read the historical record lately...the number of detailed accounts from both sides of a particular battle are few and far between. So you can never be sure about the scenarios authentisity.The problem is the scale its far to small to be useful.This may not be as big a problem with normandy and the battle of the bulge but when you move east the battle accounts lack the detail needed to get a good snap shot of the battle.

In SPW@W your looking at Bn/Rgt actions that span hours and as pointed out above, can be strung into campaigns covering days.

There are a gazzilion bits and pieces of battle records from rgt reports of both sides .It doesn't take much to nail down a map and find the piece of turf the battle was fought on , who participated and roughly what where the forces on each side and what were the losses etc ....With a bit of work you can get a scenario to get pretty close to the battle reports and over all out come.

I regularly can find three four even five books that cover a particular action from both sides of the fight [ east front] plus a map thats usable given the 50m hex scale and get a good idea of what went on that lead to this out come or that out come.You don't have to tweak the game too much to do this.

So for my money SPW@W is better way to study WW-II historical battles.

[Randy Mauldin]

Everyone has their ideas about what makes a game great or not so great. For me it all comes down to excitement level. IMHO this is where Combat Mission really shines. Being on the edge of your seat as the movie plays out is a level of excitement unmatched in any other game. For some reason, for me, SPWAW just didn't have that.

------------------

Randy aka Prairiedog

[T34Rules]

Steel Panthers World at War is an awesome game in it's own right, and i would highly recommend it. In my opinion, however, it cannot be compared to CM because they are a completely different format.

CM, unlike the many others i have played, leaves you with the feeling of "having been there"....the most appealing aspect to me. Steel Panthers, much like the CampaignSeries (Talonsoft), Tigers on the Prowl 2, Panthers in the Shadows, Dragons in the Mist(HPS), leaves you more with the feeling of having pushed all the buttons in the war room and not on the battlefield itself.

[Guest MantaRay]

Paul,CM is not designed to simulate the historical battles per se. WWII battles were fought with far more than a battalion. I like to think CM models parts of those battles really well though.

The SP series was tons of fun though. The sad part is W@W was 5 years or so too late. And since timing is everything, the CM demo and game really mad me "anti-topdown" 2D from this point on. Not that it is a bad game, but it would be like going back and playing Doom after you played Quake 3 for example.

I cant help but wonder in 10 years if a Matrix type mod group doesnt go back and mod CM. I think that would be kindof cool, even though Charles would never release the code =}.

Ray

[Vanir]

Right off hand, the only thing I can think of that SP has that I miss in CM is the randomly variable number of turns for scenarios. That would be a nice addition to CM (or CM2). CM is far supperior is every other aspect.

------------------

You mean my Java coded Real Time Bar Fight Simulator Madmatt Mission: Beyond BiteMe ISN'T going to be published?!?

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 12-06-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Warning Ranting follows...

Paul wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Theres a side to this thats never discussed...when your playing CM scenarios , how realistic do you think they are??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depends on what you mean by "realism". If you mean having a battle with each rifle and man accounted for correctly like the real battle, I'd say CM is no more or less realistic than SP. However, just because the lower scale battles weren't documented very well doesn't mean that they didn't happen. So... do we just skip this level of simulation because there are so few detailed accounts?

However, if you define "realism" as the game model... I've got problems with SP being "realistic" unless having a T34/85 bounce a round off the back of a Panther turret at 2 hexes distance is realistic. If in real life one side could move a truck to draw fire so he can then move up his tanks unmolested, then I guess CM is misses the mark. CM also misses the mark if tanks with no turret rotation speed, vehicle speed (rate of advance is not equal to speed), no ballistics treatment, armor ratings that mean nothing in real world terms, etc. are thought of as more "realistic".

Sorry for the rant, but defining "realism" in terms of historical TO&E is a pretty narrow viewpoint to take. It also totally misses the mark. I mean, what is the point of having a game with a scenario containing the exact Order of Battle and TO&E (which is assuming something BTW) if all the units are highly abstracted and are played out with a combat system that is inherently "gamey"? If the tactics and results of the battle aren't "realistic", then what does it matter if the scenario designer figured out an EXACT Order of Battle with the exact TO&E? Kinda like saying a book is more "realistic"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I regularly can find three four even five books that cover a particular action from both sides of the fight [ east front] plus a map thats usable given the 50m hex scale and get a good idea of what went on that lead to this out come or that out come.You don't have to tweak the game too much to do this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Orders of Battle and TO&Es do not make a game realistic if the core simulation can't turn this information into a "realistic" battlefield environment. That is why SP fails my definition of "realism".

I guess I shouldn't knock SP, but I was one of the few people that bought a copy and stopped playing it fairly quickly because it was so utterly frustrating trying to recreate "realistic" battles. Real world tactics? They only penalize you. If you want to win, you have to be "gamey". Even though I had never lost a battle in the campaign I was playing (made it to 1943), I put it down forever.

Does this make SP a bad game? Hell no! Was it better than games of that scale that came before it? In terms of ease of use, graphics, and even "realism" in relative terms. But I was looking for "realism" first, and since for me SP didn't provide it, I had to move on.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-07-2000).]

[HawkerT]

Hi guys,

For me something Steve said hits the nail right on. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"if you define "realism" as the game model"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is exactly why we all love CM - the game model is realistic. It is however the very same reason that makes me fail to understand why a SP-like campaign for CM is out of the question. If realism is defined in the model, then why not ?

For me a campaign would definitely give CM some longevity. I know that no units ever fought throughout the entire war, but frankly that abstraction would not hurt as long as the game model is kept real.

What it would give the game is a purpose for fighting the different scenarios, and the ability for us trainspotters to 'earn' the right to have new hardware in our outfit as the campaign unfolds. It worked well for SP then why not for CM ? Well I think it would, albeit with a much more realistic game model.

Well anyway just 2 cents worth from a very dedicated fan that will happily preorder CM2-9 even without the campaign possibility.

I am very sorry to bring up a issue that have been debated time and time again, but you just hit the nail with your words Steve.

Frans, ducking and diving running for cover.

[This message has been edited by HawkerT (edited 12-07-2000).]

[Triggerhappy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Theres a side to this thats never discussed...when your playing CM scenarios , how realistic do you think they are??

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally I don't care how realistic a scenario is as long as it's fun to play. That is, by the way, the main reason why i would like to see campaigns in CM2. Taking care of "my" boys in a campaign was what made SP, CC3 or JA2 so fun to me. I like the role playing aspect in those games, seeing my units gain experience. That's why I prefer small engagements with only a handful of units (about platoon level) to the huge battles that SPWW2 modeled.

------------------

laid to rest alive

waiting in a shallow grave

mines have learned patience

- Kurtz

Rührt euch!

[tss]

Paul Lakowski wrote:

Have you read the historical record lately...the number of detailed accounts from both sides of a particular battle are few and far between.

And in many cases the accounts are so different the true course of events is practically impossible to find out. A good rule of thumb is that both sides overestimate the enemy numbers and losses in the accounts. However, even that is not universal (at Kuuterselkä Finnish Stug gunners reported _less_ kills than they actually got).

One nice example of this is a battle that was fought on an unnamed hill in July 1943 several dozens of kilometers North of Porajärvi village, East Karelia. I have found two Finnish and one Soviet account of the battle. The Finnish accounts are based on war diaries and to some extent interviews of the participants. The first was written between 1948-50 and the second in early 1970's. The Soviet account was almost completely based on interviews and it was written in mid-70's (the author used also the second Finnish source in few places).

The situation of the battle was that colonel Grigorejev's Partisan Brigade (in Karelia partisans were mostly special units of the regular army) had been behind Finnish lines for about a month and was running very low on supplies (first starvation deaths had just happened). It had lost its radio connection to Byelomorsk a week earlier and had only just regained it when the radists were on the high hill. Grigorjev didn't want to risk losing the contact again and stayed on the hill few days waiting for air-transported supplies. Too bad to him, Finns had also intercepted the messages and had sent an infantry batallion to destroy the partisans.

All sources agree that the battle was fought in night with Finns attacking from three directions and all sources agree that the main body of the unit broke free through the fourth direction but otherwise the descriptions are very different.

According to Soviets, their skilled counter attacks threw Finnish attackers into disarray and that bought them enough time to crush a strong encircling ring. I can't remember the casualty figures but they were something like 200 Soviets (KIA + MIA) and several hundreds of Finns.

According to the second Finnish source two of the three Finnish companies (coming from North and East) pretty much crushed their opposition while the third one (from South) was delayed by Soviet fighting withdrawal so that they didn't have time to attack the actual hill at all. There were only one Finnish platoon on the West side that had to withdraw pretty quickly when the started their escape. This source put Soviet losses to 300 KIA, while Finnish losses were about a dozen KIA, several dozens WIA, and one MIA. Furthermore, the book claimed that 300 was the exact body count.

The first Finnish source is the only to include a diagram of the battle area. According to it Soviets did mount a few quite succesfull counter attacks on the South. The text doesn't have as much details as the other accounts but it takes a middle ground between the two other accounts. IIRC, it didn't have figures for Finnish casualties but it put Soviet losses to 154 KIA.

Now, try to find the truth of that battle.

Note that the particular Soviet operation had one of the most hare-brained supply plans that I've ever read off. The commanders supposed that the 700-man unit could forage most of their food from forest. While a man or two with a gun and ammo will not starve in Karelia during Summer, 700 definitely will. In the end only ~70 partisans returned to their base, one in ten.

- Tommi

[Major Tom]

I do remember playing SP, where the only tactic really was, line up your tanks, and destroy all the enemy tanks. Then kill the Infantry stragglers. It did lack in strategy, but, was ahead of its time. And if I can ever get time enough to download the Matrix patch, I am sure that it will stay on my computer for a while.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hawker:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is exactly why we all love CM - the game model is realistic. It is however the very same reason that makes me fail to understand why a SP-like campaign for CM is out of the question. If realism is defined in the model, then why not ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While a SP campaign might be fun, it is also highly unrealistic, that's "why not" Think about it. How many commanders do you know took their same troops, excepting casualties, from Poland to the fall of Berlin and every major battle on all fronts inbetween? It simply did not happen. And how likely would it be that your force would not see ANY combat inbetween these major conflicts? SP treats your force as if it goes back to the barracks after each engagement, so as to preserve your forces, intact, for the next great battle. Commanders were also not able to "upgrade" units nor decide which units to bring to a specific battle (at least not to the extent of SP). There are more oddities than this, but I think these are enough to show that SP's campaigns are not realistic.

So the question should be... "I had a lot of FUN with SP's highly abstracted campaign system. It would be cool if it were included in CM. Any possibility of doing that?"

Our answer is, and has always been, "while it might be fun, it is also highly unrealistic. CM is designed to be realistic first, all other things second. One problem with SP's system is that it has made some people think that this is the way wars were fought. They were not. If Combat Mission, which says quite loudly that it is "realistic" were to adopt such a system, there would be confusion. Because "linked" battles over a very short period of time (day or so) are realistic, and offer additional challenges (and fun!), we included Operations. These are REALISTIC "campaigns" for CM's scale of simulation. At the present time we have no plans to include SP style campaigns."

Thanks

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-07-2000).]

[Fuerte]

CM is better in many respects. Here is a quick replay of what I wrote in the SPWAW forum months ago:

1) CM is much more realistic. True 3D is very cool.

2) Modern user interface.

3) Better graphics, CM is beautiful.

4) I like the campaign (operation) system better.

But SPWAW has its good points:

a) Has much more features, paratroops, airplanes, mine fields, different nationalities, bigger time span, etc.

Is faster to play. Makes bigger battles possible.

c) The user interface has unit list.

When the SPWAW 4.5 comes out (within a week), and has the PBEM replay bug finally fixed, I am again going to play SPWAW quite a bit.

[Fuerte]

I forgot one very important thing: CM has no real bugs. SPWAW has lots of them.

[Windopaene]

Vanir-

Actually the variable end turn feature has been removed from SPWAW.

But here's some perspective. I never played Steel Panthers. Then I heard about SPWAW, and downloaded it, and have been patching and playing since the first release. As far as hex-based style wargames, it's as good as they come. I have not been playing CM during this period. Having only a pentium 150 with no 3d capability, CM was not an option.

Then last week my PC died. Now I have a new one. P3 850 with some kind of on-board Intel 3d jazz. What's the first thing I do? Download the CM demo of course.

I'm still learning the ropes, but from what I can see the're not even similar, except for the subject matter. SPWAW has more scope, (larger battles, more countries, more terrain). CM seems much harder for me to grasp. Playing Chance Encounter and getting my butt handed to me by those damn Stugs. Seems that tanks are much more lethal in CM than SPWAW, (more first shot one shot kills in CM). Restarted that one and have now gotten all three Stugs losing only 3 of my Shermans, (prepare to die Nazi pigs), but I digress.

Have I played SPWAW since I downloaded the demo? - No.

Will I again - Yes.

Will I buy CM? - Certainly appears so

Is SPWAW free? - Yes

Once I buy CM will I not look back at SPWAW? - Hard to say, but I think I will play both.

Have I become assimilated? - Looks like it.

Does SPWAW still have some bugs? - Yes.

Is SPWAW still a great game? - Yes.

My two cents anyway...

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Warning Ranting follows...

Orders of Battle and TO&Es do not make a game realistic if the core simulation can't turn this information into a "realistic" battlefield environment. That is why SP fails my definition of "realism".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not going to dwell on this too much [cause its a matter of opinion] just to point out that most peoples idea of what's realistic and what's not realistic about WW-II tactical battles is driven by hollywood with a small bit of historical reading [and no I don't mean BTS specifically].

This is a common problem with flight sims -if they look good and seem to fly right, people think there real. Its not until you actually see the fly boys themselves rant about it you can't even be sure they got the mechanics right let alone the battle right ....it may just end up being really good art , or should I call it entertainment!

There's a great deal of seduction that goes on with the imagery in computer games that can very easily 'propagandize' [ what I mean is make it seem real].

In SB we have a sim that all the tankers repeatedly tell us operates like the real thing and now the US Army wants to work with us to develop it even more....does that mean it simulates real battle well....don't know but we've got the mechanics right so far!

To me this is the closest I've seen to realism , but it doesn't have 3d acceleration and to some users that makes it 'not realistic' , personally I would never treat its lessons a gospel just a good guide.

The USARMY guys apparently want to use it to simulate 'medium brigade combat' tactics against "Opfor"

Now we've got resent users experience to rely on [ some with battle field experience] and the ODS data base to operate on. But the data base on WW-II battles is too small to do easily even Rgt Bn battles level action let alone the 'sub tactical' level...

So you've got a great game that breaks new ground and may even get some of the mechanics right [ except optics and penetration questions etc ], but that by its self doesn't make it a great simulator of WW-II battlefield...it may just make it a great game.

When I asked my friend about why he selected PE over CM he said that PE spooked him cause 'it seemed so brutally real'....and this is a scientist who's well read in military history with decades of experience with computer games.

[Guest AbnAirCav]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

CM is designed to be realistic first, all other things second.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, brother, amen. Keep the faith.

[Triggerhappy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Our answer is, and has always been, "while it might be fun, it is also highly unrealistic. CM is designed to be realistic first, all other things second."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know it's been discussed a lot but I just won't give up...

"CM is designed to be realistic first, all other things second"

- Even if that means loosing fun? Obviously there are a few guys like me out there who would love to see this feature in CM2 so why not just do it? People who prefer to keep it realistic won't need to use the option while others will love CM even more. If it's too much work, if there are other things that are more important to you I understand that. But please don't omit on a campaign feature just because it would be unrealistic. To me, CM - just like any other game - is a *game* first, all other things second. If realism is the only thing that counts then there would be no CM at all. Or does anybody really think "yes, that's how officers commanded their troops in WW2"? Don't get me wrong - I'm a realism fan. But I'm also the kind of guy who hates being unable to switch off the cockpit in a flight sim. So why not using the quick battle generator in a campaign and add a minimal force management system with replacing/repairing units in between battles, plus adding experience gains for the units?

------------------

laid to rest alive

waiting in a shallow grave

mines have learned patience

- Kurtz

Rührt euch!

[Fuerte]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

When I asked my friend about why he selected PE over CM he said that PE spooked him cause 'it seemed so brutally real'<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is PE?

[Guest KwazyDog]

Im asumming its Panzer Elite Fuerte. Hmmm, he must have had a different version from me...

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 12-07-2000).]

[lparkh]

I also would love to see a campaign mode...or at least operations with experience gaining. I don't see what is unrealistic about units gaining experience across battles that are separated somewhat in time. i can understand that multiyears might be a stretch but weren't there operations across months where green units learned how to fight???

Lin

[Guest Big Time Software]

Paul wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm not going to dwell on this too much [cause its a matter of opinion] just to point out that most peoples idea of what's realistic and what's not realistic about WW-II tactical battles is driven by hollywood with a small bit of historical reading [and no I don't mean BTS specifically].<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. But what you are implying is that all the people saying that CM is a realistic approximation of small unit warfare is basing their opinions on Saving Private Ryan. Far from it. We have everybody from privates to colonels saying CM has hit the mark. And it will come to no surprise to most people here that CM is unofficially in use for training right now in several countries' militaries, including at least one armored unit here in the US.

No, CM is not a perfect simulation. But you appear to want to call it more of a "game" than a "sim". I take great issue with that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now we've got resent users experience to rely on [ some with battle field experience] and the ODS data base to operate on. But the data base on WW-II battles is too small to do easily even Rgt Bn battles level action let alone the 'sub tactical' level...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What is your point? That because the Army doesn't have a "sub tactical" database that no wargame can accurately simulate such levels of combat? If that isn't your point, I don't understand what is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To me this is the closest I've seen to realism , but it doesn't have 3d acceleration and to some users that makes it 'not realistic' , personally I would never treat its lessons a gospel just a good guide.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I for one never said that CM is "gospel". True for all games. However, my point is that having hitorical OBs does not a realistic game system make. You appear to think that because you can put an OB and map into SP that it is realistic, and that since it is difficult to find info at lower levels that CM is not as realistic. That's some pretty flawed thinking.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So you've got a great game that breaks new ground and may even get some of the mechanics right [ except optics and penetration questions etc ], but that by its self doesn't make it a great simulator of WW-II battlefield...it may just make it a great game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you are saying that CM has got it wrong enough that it isn't a "great simulator of WW-II battlefield"? Care to enlighten us as to where we fell short? But wait... this is coming from someone that thinks that SP, because you can fill out an OB you find in a book, is somehow a good simulator of WWII tactics. Love to know what sources you read that has the attacker sending trucks forward to waste the enemy's defensive capabilities while you move up tanks to take out the now helpless enemy...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When I asked my friend about why he selected PE over CM he said that PE spooked him cause 'it seemed so brutally real'....and this is a scientist who's well read in military history with decades of experience with computer games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Every person is welcome to his opinion. His is no more valid than someone else with some relevant experience to draw from. Need I remind you how many vets, some with combat experience, are saying that CM is the first game to "get it right"? Hell, we even had an M8 gunner from WWII write us and tell us how realistic it is. Guess he was mistaken since you have proved your point so very well (as usual).

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Trigger Happy:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even if that means loosing fun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

When Fun and Realism go head to head, we side with Realism (all things being equal). That was a very concious decision we made before we started. However, there are ways to make Realism fun. The proof is CM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Obviously there are a few guys like me out there who would love to see this feature in CM2 so why not just do it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You answered it yourself...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it's too much work, if there are other things that are more important to you I understand that. But please don't omit on a campaign feature just because it would be unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was omitted for both reasons. We do not have the time or resources to put in and support two "campaign" systems. The amount of work necessary to make even one is huge. So we chose the one that is more "realistic" and, incdientally, in our opinion more fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>To me, CM - just like any other game - is a *game* first, all other things second. If realism is the only thing that counts then there would be no CM at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course Realism is not the ONLY thing that counts. Why do you think that CM is what it is and doesn't look like, say, a game from HPS? We could have shaved about 1.5 years of development time off of CM if we wanted to make just a *game*, or 1.5 years if we just wanted to make something that was "realistic" but not very fun. Instead we made a simulation that is both realistic and fun (to the best of our abilities).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I'm also the kind of guy who hates being unable to switch off the cockpit in a flight sim. So why not using the quick battle generator in a campaign and add a minimal force management system with replacing/repairing units in between battles, plus adding experience gains for the units?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because when you try to make one game to make all people happy, you almost always make something that nobody is happy with. There are plenty of examples of this, but the one many here can think of first is Across the Rhine. Classic example of trying to do exactly what you are looking for. We, as game designers, know to keep as far away from this as possible. Always leads to trouble

CM is what it is because we had a simple design goal -> to make it realistic, all other things second. And if you like the way CM is now, you should keep this in mind. Focused vision and dedication to it is what made CM what it is.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-07-2000).]