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

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Back when SL came out, and then became popular, there was a lot of grog grumbling about how SL was not realistic; it was "just made up," to use one quote I remember in particular. The "unrealistic" camp tended to follow what I think of as a sort of engineering approach to wargaming: you add up weight of metal and explosives and small arm fire a unit (battalion, division, corps, etc) can throw in a given time period, compare this with the weight another unit can throw, and this is how you determine combat effectiveness.

SL, or course, didn't really do this -- "leaders" made a big difference as to how squads fought, as did morale, and range was computed in part based on SLA Marshall's "Men Under Fire" and not purely on the characteristics of the small arms wielded by the soldiers.

Paul is correct that there is not a ton of historical material covering battles at CM's level; there are probably hundreds of books written on D-Day, and nothing written on "How B Company Held Part of a Hill Outside Some French Village Against A German Company's Attack For 35 Minutes." This doesn't make CM unrealistic. It does make it difficult to specifically *test* the historical reliability of CM in this instance, but the lack of specific testability doesn't really point to lack of realism; at most it is evidence of lack of proof of realism.

But there are other ways to prove realism than comparing what happened in a particular battle with the historical record of that specific battle. There is, in the aggregate, a lot of descriptions about how soldiers fought particular small unit actions, such that, in the aggregate, we can determine that the soldiers in CM do (or do not) act in realistic ways.

It is true that we don't know, and probably can't know, whether squad A of the first platoon of Coy. A began its assault on some village by moving through a building, or by moving through some woods next to the building...but I don't see that that matters, and if squad A had to do the attack again, they might make a different choice the next time.

As long as CM models the real world as best it can, and also models infantry action such that the results will be realistic based on as much small-action infantry data as there is out there, it will be "realistic."

And if later research reveals that mooning the enemy before close assaulting them "shocked" the enemy and led to greatly increased chances of success in the attack, CM would be unrealistic if this were not modeled, regardless of whether certain units actually mooned other units before attacking.

And of course there would be extensive discussions on the boards about how quickly the various nationalities could actually moon each other, and whether the speed advantage given to kilted scots is realistic. There shouldn't be much dispute over the fact that units who wore pants with button flies, such as the Italians (see Gavin's On to Berlin) should be penalized in close combat. But these discussions are the price of realism.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hehe... we could change the FP rating to MP rating -> Moon Power The uncivilized, overfed party boys (i.e. US Army) would of course get a +2 modifier because they had more pre-war experience with mooning compared to the more stuffy Brits and Germans

Andrew's main point is correct. While it might be harder to find historical small unit actions for CM (harder, not impossible mind you!) we do know that such battles happened thousands of times on the Western Front. We have a lot of information about how these battles played out at the lowest level, much of it coming from official military sources, deeply researched historical study, and 1st hand accounts. And for all the failings of the scientists to document every little thing about the weapons, much is known about how they worked and what they could do. So there is plenty of information to judge CM's ability to realistically simulate WWII tactical warfare at this level.

Steve

[Cybeq]

I have both games and I like CM better. It is more realistic and you must use realistic tactics to prevail. In SPWAW once you find the little tricks you can perform all kinds of gamey little manuvers and humiliate the AI. Not so with CM. Example: turret speed is not modeled in SP. This rules out many realistic tactics that Americans had to use to best the German armor. In CM I can send a Hellcat speeding past a Hetzer and watch as the Hetzer tries in vain to track me with it's turretless gun. Try that in SP and watch as the Hetzer instantly rotates and fires off opportunity shots. In CM I once took out a Panther with a Stuart. I raced right past it, up behind it, and shot it in the butt. In SP the enemy reacts instantly. You cannot use speed as an advantage. Artillery is less effective in SP. I like the massive scope of SP but once you play the hyper-realistic CM you can't go back.

[Mr Snuffleupagas]

Steve,

Your adherence to realism is a great thing. With this in mind, what are your intentions for frontline calculations in operations?

Snuffles

[Triggerhappy]

Thanks for your answer Steve. Seems like i will have to live without CM campaigns. Weel, to be honest, CM is the best wargame I ever played, even without campaigns. Keep up the good work.

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

laid to rest alive

waiting in a shallow grave

mines have learned patience

- Kurtz

Rührt euch!

[Paul Lakowski]

Steve since you ignor the 'numerous anecdotal evidence' that suggests that german optics and ammo are better, then you understand I can ignor your 50 year old anecdotal evidence from a Vet...just because its anecdotal you understand

The problem is that if you ignor accurate OOB and maps but argue that you've got the mechanics right [even though a number of well informed posters question that fact]...then you have the details right but the structure wrong....its far more important to get the structure right and ignor the details until later.

But thats just my opinion I guess the bottom line is that a different company will have to do their version of this level of comabat to balance things off abit...you know give us more choices.

[dima]

Steve, I don't think there is a need to explain all the reasons why CM is what it is.

It is kind of pointless and even seems like you feel sorry We love CM, we don't want anything else. Those who do - don't ( and shouldn't ) hang out here, they play other games and visit other messageboards.

[This message has been edited by dima (edited 12-08-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Paul

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve since you ignor the 'numerous anecdotal evidence' that suggests that german optics and ammo are better, then you understand I can ignor your 50 year old anecdotal evidence from a Vet...just because its anecdotal you understand <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, just as your claim that some "expert" you know says that PE is more realistic compared to CM. I was only returning your self appointed expert's commentary with some from a guy that was actually there.

As for the optics thing... frustrates the Hell out of you when you can't present a case other than "well, he said it is better so make it +10", doesn't it? You and anybody else has been invited to present a cohesive qualitative and qunatitive case for better treatment of optics, but so far much of what we have had is whining. And we are going to attempt to quantify and qualify this in CM2. We just aren't going to base a scientific model on what amounts to "wives tales". Or is that how you design your simulation models?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The problem is that if you ignor accurate OOB and maps but argue that you've got the mechanics right [even though a number of well informed posters question that fact]...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As they should. Having historically accurate OOBs and maps is not a prerequisite for determining accuracy. After all, what scenarios in Steel Beats are historically accurate? Since frontline NATO and frontline Soviet forces have never gone into combat with each other the answer would have to be "none". So by your narrow thinking Steel Beasts is "just a game" and anybody that treats it as more, even informed members of the military, are blinded by Hollywood (Tom Clancy) visions of warfare?

The fact is that you CAN make historically accurate OOBs and maps in CM. They are even more accurate and detailed than Steel Panthers in many ways. Certainly the treatment of each unit is FAR more realistic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>then you have the details right but the structure wrong....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And Steel Panthers has the details wrong and the structure (in your opinion) right, yet you somehow think that is good enough for realism? You can make maps and OOBs in SP until your fingers are worn raw, but the game is inherently unrealistic and therefore everything that follows has little relationship to reality. And that is easy to prove too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>its far more important to get the structure right and ignor the details until later.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And then you have Steel Panthers again 5 years later the details have STILL not been made realistic.

But this begs the question... what is it about CM's "structure" that is flawed? That it isn't at the scale you personally like better? Why not say that SP has it all wrong too, since there is even more documentation out there for Divisional level and Corps engagements on the Eastern Front?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But thats just my opinion I guess the bottom line is that a different company will have to do their version of this level of comabat to balance things off abit...you know give us more choices.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like what choices? Where does CM fall falt in your opinion? Do you have anything to back that up with other than "I personally couldn't find an OOB and map so I say the game is a bunch of hooey?". Contrary to what you have portrayed, there ARE detailed OOBs and maps at CM's level of combat. Some of the best scenarios in CM were developed from painstaking research into these details. So to say that such information doesn't exist is flat out wrong. And to deny that there is huge volume of documentation of this level of warfare, in terms of how it functioned, is silly.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Dima,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, I don't think there is a need to explain all the reasons why CM is what it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. However, I hate seeing horribly flawed logic, held up as some sort of scientificly sound Truth, go unchallenged.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Mr. Snuffles wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Your adherence to realism is a great thing. With this in mind, what are your intentions for frontline calculations in operations?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While the existing frontline system is not as realistic as it should be (but not as unrealistic as some think), we don't know if we are going to change this any time soon. The original Op frontline was not straight and it caused many side problems. We tried quite hard to fix these problems, but more problems always appeared on the horizion. So, ironically, what we have now is on balance more realistic than what was in the game originally (in Beta form).

Although I said "Realism" is first, it should be implied that "Practicallity" is always the final arbitrator for ANY design decision, no matter what it is trying to acomplish. Kinda like gravity

Steve

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Steve, I don't often disagree with you, but on this occasion, I will.

Your evaluation of SP is based on the original game five years ago. SPWAW is a far cry from that. I'm sure from the content of your post you have not yet tried Steel Panthers World at War.

With stunning graphics, realistic and varied sounds, tons of new features like dropping paras from transports, glider landings, Partiaan and special forces with special attributes, reinforcements, varying victory conditions, a campaign and a scenario editor, both made much more user friendly, a completely reworked armor and combat system, and finally converting into a Windows compatible game have made it a classic for this century.

This last modification mentioned has brought the old dos game into the windows generation and kept it alive and well.

And the price is nothing to sneeze at (Free, just download it). It was a work that has gone on for 18 months and only now coming to a conclusion.

Now on the point of being very different, yes they are. Having been deeply involved in the testing and production of both games, I can see clearly the advantages to both of them.

You know my loyalty to CM, BTS and its ongoing work. I love Combat Mission. I also love Steel Panthers World at War. I think they are both great games.

Nor would I for a moment minimize the quality of COmbat Mission. Without a doubt it has set the wargaming trend for the 21st century. Beauriful graphics, fantastic sounds, great AI and easy to use editor.

And one can own both and play both. I do, all the time. On the SPWAW I strongly recommend Combat Mission. So now on this forum I will strongly recommend to SPii that he own both of them, especially if he is a game collector.

You can find it at http://www.matrixcames.com .

Then click on "Our Games" and follow the signs. You might take a look and see what you think.

Or if you can get the December issue of Computer Gaming, you'll find the CD version of the game included with the magazine on the newstand.

Enjoy them both. They each have a different approach to warfare.

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester

Scenario Design Team

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Bill,

What took you so long?

As you have known from the first few emails we exchanged long ago... I do not think of SP as being very realistic. I found it fun for a while, but ultimately was frustrated by its lack of realism. Combat Mission, on the other hand, gives me that level of realism I have always been looking for. I also feel that as a game CM is more fun for me, but that is much more of a subjective opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You know my loyalty to CM, BTS and its ongoing work. I love Combat Mission. I also love Steel Panthers World at War. I think they are both great games.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I think they are both great, and that each has something to offer. For me this discussion has been purely about level of realism, not about the game aspects. I hope that you can see that in my posts, but if not this is clarification.

Paul's contention is that SP is more realistic SIMPLY BECAUSE he has more research material that can be put into a SP scenario vs. a CM scenario. And that this alone is the key factor in determining the level of realism of a game. And because of that, he ranks SP as being more realistic than CM. I take huge issue with that, as noted above.

As others have said... SP and CM are not really comparable. SP, the original, was designed to be a game and not a simulation. So the rest that followed was by design aimed at being a game. As a game SP succeeded in becomming one of the best out there in the wargaming genre EVER. Nothing can take that away from SP. The revamping of SP by Matrix appears to have added much to the original. It has probably even made it more realistic.

But as a realistic sim... compared to CM it can't match it. I have outlined some of the reasons why, but most come back to me IGO-UGO system. While it might be a fun system to some, it is an impediment to realism at the very least. To others it is more frustrating than fun as well.

But each to his own

I would rather not debate CM vs. SP at all. But I also can't stand seeing CM being blown off as "unrealistic" based on highly flawed logic. I not only owe it to us as developers to set the record straight, but also as someone who honestly feels that CM is a better simulation of realistic WWII combat. I'm sorry that SP has been caught in the cross fire.

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the optics thing... frustrates the Hell out of you when you can't present a case other than "well, he said it is better so make it +10", doesn't it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! Are you talking about German "Uber Optics" again. Point…Counter Point.

I couldn't help but get a little smirk on my face when I read the following:

From: "Montgomery's Scientists, Operational Research in Northwest Europe, The Work of No.2 Operational Research Section with 21st Army Group" edited by T. Copp.

Solandt's initial ORG report analysed crew casualties in the Mark III Matilda Infantry Tank during the first El Alamein battle, July 1942. Other work focussed on methods of ranging, firing on the move and the German all-around vision Cupola. Studies comparing the gunsights used in German and British tanks led to important results and an object lesson in OR methods. Solandt recalled this investigation as one of the highlights of his time at Lulworth. The problem presented to Solandt was that "the Germans had introduced a new tank gunsight which was vastly superior to the British sight." Tank crews in the desert were sure that it was the new sight that made it possible for the Germans to knock out British tanks at long range before they were themselves in danger. However, careful measurements showed the British gunsight was accurate. The German sight was similarly tested and found to be inferior. "We were therefore forced," Solandt wrote, "to treat it as an operations research rather than a technical problem...

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hey Jeff,

Hehehe... that quote is a gem! And exactly why we have stood our ground and asked for convincing evidence to change our modeling. As I have said from the get go... I am not saying that we have it perfect, but so far there has not been a really good challenge presented. Lots of stuff typed up and posted, but not much there from a simulation standpoint. At least not for now CM2 will look at this differently

Steve

[Wild Bill Wilder]

Thanks for the reply, Steve. I appreciate it.

Always the gentleman...well, whenever folks will let you .

I agree with your thinking completely. Neither game needs defending (or attacking). Choose one or both. Both are fun for me.

In fact, I think I'll quit writing now and go play a little of both.

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester

Scenario Design Team

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Fuerte]

"The turret speed is not modeled in SPWAW"... correct, this is perhaps the biggest problem in SPWAW. But, on the other hand, CM:BO may have its own characteristic reality problems. One that we have right now in our PBEM game (1.05) is the fast move problem... I have two allied cars, one recon and also the another a fast car, both of them have a very good hitting rate when they fire at enemy troops when they are driving at their full speed (so far they have killed one German armored car, one AT gun, one AA gun and one artillery spotter. I'm a very happy man at the moment! ). CM certainly has its own problems with reality, but they are much smaller than in SPWAW.

[Mr Snuffleupagas]

Steve,

Thanks for the response about the frontlines in operation. What kind of problems did you have when the frontline was not straight?

Snuffles

[Brian Rock]

There is a typo in the url Wild Bill gave for SPW@W.

The correct url is http://www.matrixgames.com/

[Kharan]

Steve, perhaps you should try SPWAW, it could even benefit CM2 in some way .

About the negative sides some have mentioned:

As opposed to SP, in SPWAW the armor ratings are in millimeters and slopes and the "sacrificial lamb"-tactic has been eliminated by user-selected opportunity fire and giving the passive player's unit more shots based on experience. Artillery is deadly and you really have to use combined arms to win. Online play and the aforementioned new opfire system have smoothed the roughest edges of the IGO-UGO system.

CM is a great game with some teething problems, but dismissing it because of them is equally ridiculous to dismissing SPWAW as some kind of patch to Steel Panthers I.

Ps. I'm also glad you can discuss this here without the horrible binary thinking and herd mentality so common in internet gaming communities.

[This message has been edited by Kharan (edited 12-08-2000).]

[Cybeq]

Actually this post has convinced me to go back and re-install SPWAW. While not as "fun" as CMBO it does have some really cool features. I just remembered how much I loved sending my Soviet Partisans infiltrating behind enemy lines to attack their artillery positions. And I remembered that artillery is now more effective in SPWAW. I was thinking of the original SP when I said the arty was ineffective. Crud, in SP1 buying any arty less that 155mm was a waste of money. One more super-cool feature in SPWAW. I absolutely LOVE how SPA can be used both in direct-fire and indirect fire. It makes the purchase of Priests a viable option. In CM the utility of a Priest is severely limited because it must expose itself to fire it's gun. You'd love to bring that big 105 to bear on a machine gun nest but the second you expose it..... BANGO!

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

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." -Sun Tzu, The Art Of War

[PzKpfw 1]

I don't see a need for comparisons, CM & SP, are 2 very difrent wargames with diferent designers and difrent design & production goals & one has over 5yrs advancement in genere & tech.

BTS was able to design a game basicly from what I understand outside of a big software company's influence, and like HPS chose to model 'realisim'. When pushing 'realism' an wargame product is generaly targeting initialy anyway's an grog audience, which in sales terms is a minute market compared to the FPS, RTS, & CRPG etc, genere software.

SP which was an great game for it's day & the 1st real step forward in PC wargames IMHO; as it went farther graphichly and and balanced detail better then previous wargames. But it stil had to be produced for the masses, this meant 'realism' concesions etc were made to make it appeal friendly to grog & casual wargamer alike.

I also am a bit perplexed on why their appears to be an need here to downplay other wargames to CM, no one in BTS was involved in SP to my knowledge, & have no idea about the detail of discussions over realism that occured during the SP series and roadblocks that were imposed & only a few overcome in SP 2 & 3. IMHO it's akin to another designer comeing here to downplay CM, even though he knows squat about CMs engine, or design decisions.

As to realism I can point out that the later SP2 & 3 MOBS the 70 - 90's Soviet/Russian armor model was the most accurate in a Wargame to that date, as we had the help of Steve Zaloga, Rick Griest, Jim Warford, Cookie Sewell etc, in getting the models done and working out the ERA model etc and all the work was almost for nothing, as the publisher was inclined that Russian tanks were to tough compared to the T-72M1 performance in the Gulf we finaly got the MOBS approved after an uphill battle. Gary Grigsby, Keith Bhors & Jim Wirth were outstanding ppl to work with as well as were the beta team.

CM is a awsome war game, it's revolutionary & the best of the current crop of TAC wargames IMHO. Just as SP once was as well, in many ppls minds and still is as evident of the mods done to the SP engine. Is CM the PC TAC wargame to end all wargames, that only the future will tell.

Regards, John Waters

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

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 12-09-2000).]