Small maps, fewer turns
 

Hi Guys

I often generate and play "random" battles because I prefer smaller maps (30 X 30) and battles that are easier to manage and take less time to play.

Is it possible to set the number of turns in a randomly generated battle? I'm playing a circa 2003 Ethiopia vs Eritrea battle on a 30 x 30 map and the number of turns was set at something like 29. The battlefield is already a carpet of smoking vehicles and it's only turn 9.

I'd like the game to end and the points to be tallied at around turn 16. You can set practically every other variable; I'm wondering if length of turns can be set.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

You should be able to click on the "stopwatch" button in the upper right of when viewing the map during unit selection and set the time length.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

30x30 and vehicles? Must be quite a slaghterhouse...

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I'd been playing years before I noticed that clock-face!

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Especially with Ethiopia vs Eritrea. I think the generated maps are fairly open in that region.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Thats all in the game guide AND the in game help file as well. The "stopwatch" has a hotkey ( . ) <period> you can access when viewing the map during the purchase phase.

As well the function of those buttons is displayed at the top of the screen when you move the mouse pointer over them so I really don't know what else we could do to alert people to their function.

Don

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Thanks much for the information. The game is so deep, one can and does miss things. Believe it or not, I did look through the in-game help file. Oh well.

Long day at the office staring at a computer screen, etc, etc. You know how that can be. :)

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Ah...the reason I have not been seeing that stopwatch is that I tend to let the computer purchase and deploy my units. So, there isn't an option to view the map...

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

You let the computer buy your units? I find that part of the game being half the fun.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Holy No Recruiting Batman!!!!:doh: Wow that's always been part of the fun, and my atttachment to my troops!!:sick:

As long as you are having a blast!!!!:cool::up:

It is an awesome game!!!!:angel

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I second that. It's hell of a lot of fun killing Bob's troops and watching him sob over their deaths. :D

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Yes, if you skip the purchase phase buy letting the AI buy for you then you would miss that and that's the only time you're given the option of changing game length.

Sometimes if I just want a challenge with a small force on a small map I'll let the AI purchase then fight with what's given. There's a much greater chance in reality of a commander fighing with what's available rather than with a carefully tailored , hand picked force


Don

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

This is--and has been since the old DOS version of SP--part of my rationale for letting the computer choose my force. I kind of like seeing what I've been given and making do with it. The random battle generator is one of the best features of the SP games, in my opinion.

Also, since I'm not an expert on every country's force structure, I worry that if I pick my own units I'm less likely to "get it right."

Sometimes when I play SPWW2 I'll buy my own units. I'm a fan of those oddball German assault guns like the Elefant, and throwing a force top-heavy with those against Soviet defenders is fun.

In the future with MBT I will be doing some scenario development. Soviet-Mujahedin, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Tanzania-Uganda, that kind of thing. So, I'll be spending more time with the editor.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I got lucky and ran across this setting awhile back.

Experimenting with the units, attempting to get the right mix is amazing.

Pardon me, but I usually, for my 750-1500 point battles, have to get a platoon of the finest tanks available, as well as some heavy artillery. At that point, whatever points are left gets me a few grunts, and if I am lucky, a sniper or two!

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

That's alot like poker playing the hand you are dealt.
Verrry Interesting..

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I love the many scenarios and maps that come with the game, but a really prefer smaller maps and have been trying (with limited success) to create some that are as amazing as the existing ones.

Years ago I was fortunate enough to find several official US army publications in a used book store, and they have really contributed to my renewed enjoyment of this game. The ones I have include "The Rifle Squads (Mechanized and Light Infantry) - TC 7-1", which was published in 1974, and several on the Red Army including "The Soviet Army: Troops, Organization and Equipment," which was published in 1984.

I've been trying to generate and fight battles using actual doctrine and realistic forces. Back in the DOS days my main strategy was simply to rush the enemy, but lately it's been a lot of fun--and educational as well--to make a real effort to employ bounding overwatch, suppressive fires, etc.

I like to try to assemble a realistic combined arms force, partly because I enjoy playing with infantry and APCs.

Recently I built a battle consisting of pro-government (green) forces fighting anti-government (red) forces for control of various key points in a city center. The pro-government side included special forces and "pro-government" infantry and a few Saladins, and the anti side had mostly miltia and insurgents with a couple of T-55s.

The AI leaves a bit to be desired, but in the end it was a chaotic and fun battle, with me a the pro-government side fighting the insurgents to a draw.

This game just has so many possibilities.

In addition to my planned Philippine scenario, I have one in mind featuring an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan (which nearly took place in 1998 or 1999, if my memory is correct).

I'm currently in the middle of some reasearch on Syria's complex and fascinating intervention in Lebanon during the 1970s-1980s. I noticed that the Lebanon OB includes several varieties of guerillas, which is just great. So, perhaps a scenario on some aspect of that would be interesting.

Many thanks to the developers of SPMBT and SP for Windows!


p.s. - I just LOVE those higher resolutions!

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

We're glad you like it and thanks for buying the CD

Don

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

With the old Dos version of SPMBT, one of the things that interested me was using very small units (deployable by a CH-47),
and inserting them into the rear of the AI's forces. There are some new units in this version (like the guerillas), I'm thinking of trying a similar strategy with small maps too.

I've only just started playing WinSPMBT, so I'm not sure if units like ambulances have been included, but I know I saw some civilians in the PLO forces.

ChristopherT

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I'm also a big fan of the smaller battles. (They suit my tiny attention span better!)

In larger battles I have too much time to decide that either my tactics or my choice of force was utter rubbish, and I should start all over again.

What I have the most fun doing is getting stuck into the OOB editor and making some SAS units for small 'scud-hunting' desert troops or 'Pebble Island' style raids.

It ain't terribly realistic, but it is a lot of fun!

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

lol, i already made a peeble island raid scen, i sometimes make unusual battles like this

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Oh, wow! Is it available anywhere?

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Just wanted to thank everyone who's posted on this thread, the methods posted here generate some very interesting battles for MBT and WW2. It's given me a renewed interest in both games, which I have been away from recently.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I actually prefer smaller battles (company size). This limits some maneuver since you do not have a force for flanking, etc but it can make for some nice, small fights. Being an old SL/ASL boardgamer, this size better suits my playing preferences anyway.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

These are the only two issues I've had with the smaller map/ smaller force games. The first one is really just a personnal learning curve, the second more of an game limitation.

1) When trying play with an elite SAS type infantry force, you have to find a very careful balance between how elite they are and how expensive they are.
(The first desert scud-hunting coloumn I made had lots of lovely SAS FO units with 40 vision TI/GSR, and 'pinkie' landrovers with milans and 40 vision and snipers with, you've guessed it, 40 vision. Unsurprisingly, on the other side of the map they found few scuds but an awful lot of tanks. I'm a bit more conservative with the vision now!)

2) When assaulting, especially if its an airbourne assault, I long for a big map to allow for more choices on where to assault from. But with a small force on a large map, understandably, the computer side spreads its forces out which can make grabbing V hexes too easy.
I sometimes wish you could force the computer to deploy within a certain distance of victory hexes, so then you could make villages, cross roads, hills etc be more meaningful objectives.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Good day,

Are you aware that you can change VH locations before a game starts?

Bob out:D

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

Thanks, but yes I am aware you can move them and that is indeed what I normally do in these games. I was more wishing that the enemy would set up closer to those points in order 'protect' them.
This would allow little special forces type raids on isolated targets such as a AAA battery, radar post, fuel depot etc. which has a garrison but is not dispersed across the whole map.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I'm an old SPI 1970s wargamer, and I always felt more comfortable with games I can complete within a reasonable amount of time. Monster games can be fun--on the computer and on a tabletop--but one can get lost in all the details. I find it easier to care about my troops when I can see many of them on my monitor without zooming all the way out.

I generated an Ethiopia vs Eritrea battle with my little Capital City map (see the Map section of this forum :)), and somewhere near the Interior Ministry (I think) one of my scouting Panhards got immobilized by some Eritrean infantry. I tried for a couple of turns to reach and rescue them while they tried to fight off repeated assaults, but alas, they were eventually destroyed with no survivors. It's kind of hard for me to feel that closeness when I'm playing a huge map.

I have, however, been tempted to play the Stalingrad campaign in winSPWW2. :)

But it's more likely that I will copy a section of the map and use it for smaller "generated" battles.

Company-sized battles are nice, but a couple of companies (at least) of infantry (I like mech because I like APCs) plus a platoon of tanks is really fun. I do like to have flanking forces, ad hoc task forces, etc.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I see what you mean now. ;)

Bob out:D

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I thought I once read in this forum that the AI would ignore a victory hex below a certain value, so as to prevent it from trying to recapture it (assuming you wanted the AI to hold its position regardless).

It would be nice if in a similar way you could oblige the AI to favour victory hexes of a specific value in the deployment phase.
Therefore you could set up that kind of raid battle in the map preview screen by manually changing the points value of hexs, or leave the values alone and play normally.

Just a thought chaps, please don't be too harsh if its a bollocks idea!

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I just finished a generated campaign in SPWW2 designed around a company sized force in Stalingrad on a 20X30 map. (Read about it in the AAR "Letters from Stalin's City" in the WW2 forum.) It was a challange at times, particulary when I had a special delay battle after taking more causatlies than I wanted to (granted, anything over 0 is too much :D). I ended up trying to perform an organized withdraw while under fire.

I found with the small maps that there doesn't seem to be as much strategy as with larger maps since it vastly limits manuverability, which I see as a big part of tactics. I found that my units linded up across the map and advanced or just sat in the buildings, double stacked, and waited. I do like how they play faster though.

Re: Small maps, fewer turns
 

I really enjoyed your AAR. The style was perfect. I noticed that the father was writing to his son. Since the son was also in the army, it made sense that the letters should discuss the battles the father was involved in.

I may use that format if I ever decide to do an AAR of my own. :)

The map size you chose may be a little small for me, but I find that with small-ish maps I get to know my troops better. It's easier to understand the overall battle. Plus, on larger maps it can take a long, long time to complete a turn, with so many squads to move and so many op-fires to resolve.

I love the large maps that come with the game and the ones being made and posted here, but playing with them just takes too much time.