Scouting/Recon

[Warwick]

I have always wondered if that was because AFAIK, WinMBT is a port of SP3, which had a different time and space scale.

WinSPMBT is most definitely NOT a port of SP3. Refer to Don's post earlier in this thread. Lineage is SP2--> SP2WW2--> SPWW2--> SPMBT--> WinSPMBT + WinSPWW2.

Regards,
Warwick

[PatG]

Drifting off topic some more. My understanding is that the main reason SPMBT scenarios are shorter than SPWW2 is that the WWII squaddies get to march into battle while their grandsons (and daughters) get to ride. SPMBT tanks are faster, APCs are faster and helicopters are insanely quick by WW2 standards so it makes sense to use a reduced turn count. The reduced turn count also maintains the tempo of the scenario. An aggressive balls to the wall advance on a high value v-hex cluster might take 20 or 25 turns in WW2. To give the player the the same sense of an all out rush in MBT you have to drop the turn count to 10 or even less.

[DRG]

WinSPMBT is NOT "a port of SP3" READ THE $#!*! GAME GUIDE! that question is answered in the very first line right below "What is WinSPMBT?"

Don

[RERomine]

Now Don, take a deep breath.

You know most people don't read documentation completely through. Mostly, they read what they want to know and skip over other stuff. I wrote a series of programs over five years ago, complete with support documentation. Whenever something went wrong, I was pulled in even though how to handle the situation was clearly explained in the docs. I even sent the docs to them every single time they had issues, but next time they would just pull me in again. You can provide the information, but can't make people read it.

[Imp]

Maybe there is something wrong with my copy then I normally accept turns & vision as they come. Low 20s is common higher in low visibility slow terrain like jungle urban snow. I would say the game looks at several factors & adjusts accordingly. Including quite possibly combatants, Vietnam war for instance tends to be longer possibly because it expects more leg units.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by PatG

Drifting off topic some more. My understanding is that the main reason SPMBT scenarios are shorter than SPWW2 is that the WWII squaddies get to march into battle while their grandsons (and daughters) get to ride. SPMBT tanks are faster, APCs are faster and helicopters are insanely quick by WW2 standards so it makes sense to use a reduced turn count. The reduced turn count also maintains the tempo of the scenario. An aggressive balls to the wall advance on a high value v-hex cluster might take 20 or 25 turns in WW2. To give the player the the same sense of an all out rush in MBT you have to drop the turn count to 10 or even less.

This is my understanding as well.
Assuming motorized/mech/whatever forces and maueuver vs "assault" warfare I have zero issues with the increased tempo (read - shorter game length) of WinSPMBT.
Some, in fact most, "official" scenarios will take this into account and be designed with a longer game length to give time for infantry warfare. Unfortunately "player vs computer" games do not. The "problem" is the game assumes mobile forces and does not, in fact due to coding probably can not, deal well with foot mobile forces.
This "problem" is, I believe, somewhat exagerated by the fact that infantry mobility/spotting/fire is basically the same in all versions of the game. And there's no real reason it should be different. Basic infantry tactics and mobility really havn't changed much since WW II.

To recap...scenario designers can, and often do allow extra time for infantry scouting, the AI does not.

The real questions are :
Is this a big enough problem to try to come up with a solution?
Is any solution easily enough coded into the game to be worth the effort?

[RERomine]

I believe the time differential is a bit over stated. Yes, modern troops get to the broken end of the bottle faster, but slugging matches especially where infantry is concern, isn't going to be. Armor may be faster, but infantry has a longer reach. Fast can be translated into reckless and lead to a lot of tanks and APCs dying quickly.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by RERomine

I believe the time differential is a bit over stated. Yes, modern troops get to the broken end of the bottle faster, but slugging matches especially where infantry is concern, isn't going to be. Armor may be faster, but infantry has a longer reach. Fast can be translated into reckless and lead to a lot of tanks and APCs dying quickly.

EXACTLY !

I think - and I stress this is a personal opinion - that WinSPMBT indirectly encourages reckless banzi charges and high casulty battles.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

EXACTLY !

I think - and I stress this is a personal opinion - that WinSPMBT indirectly encourages reckless banzi charges and high casulty battles.

I'll let the other person be reckless. The flags aren't worth enough to sacrifice expensive armor trying to capture them.

[Imp]

I agree the flags certainly in MBT should be worth a lot more. bothering to adjust them to there max which is still nowhere near in later years is not worth it as very time consuming as all have to be done individually in small increments.
For this I like Weasel & Kiwis (sorry if credited wrong) scoring sheet over at the Blitz as it does 2 things.
Firstly it addresses the spirit of the flags as objectives by giving them a far bigger role in the outcome of the victory, they could be worth zero but you still need them.
Secondly it gives a greater variety to victory types with 9 instead of 5 outcomes.

Not going for the flags because you are going to run into the second line of defence sort of for me takes away the spirit of the game & against the AI is pointless. Taking up position & waiting for it to come to you with little effort to move forward till you have spent several turns destroying in a meeting means you are playing a delay so of course you win. Then go & mop up what flags are safe. I am not saying you should not take up positions but you should also be pushing forward somewhere, it is.

I am not going to post there take on victory outcomes as have not consulted but it can be found at theblitz.org