On Tactics and Turns

[grofaz]

I want to run this by the community:

1. For the most part (this applies to included scenarios and user made ones) the attacker does not have enough time to reach the objectives.

2. The same lack of time (i.e. turns) limit tactics, specially approach, to frontal assaults most of the time.

And yes, it's getting old and something I didn't see in the CM series.

Your thoughts?

[Jeff Conner]

I recall an anecdote from my youth. I was taking a police rifle instructor class, much of which was learning how to shoot a rifle. If I took my time, thought about all the things I needed to pay attention to and made deliberate body movements, I was a pretty good shot. When I needed to speed things up to meet the time constraints established by the instructors, I threw rounds all over the place and was just awful. It was hard on my confidence as a shooter. I asked the instructors about this and was told in a gunfight, between the adrenalin and actions of the bad guy, you won't have time to be perfect. You need to practice until your muscle memory takes over and things become automatic. I have tried to follow this advice as much as my budget and time constraints will allow (which in the total scheme of things is really not all that much). I am not a more accurate shooter, but I am a bit smoother and consequently, a bit faster 20 years later.

Now, I am not sure how exactly this relates to Squad Battles. Time limits are as arbitrary in a war game as they are in shooting exercises. It is one person's estimate of how long it should take you to accomplish a task. Sometimes this person knows what they are talking about and sometimes they have expectations that may be unreasonable. But in real life, which both of these past times are trying to mimic, there are time constraints and failing them has consequences. Often the time constraints are not even known. Being able to accomplish a task faster and at an acceptable performance level is a valuable skill in almost all walks of life.

In the scenario design work I have done, both as a designer and a playtester, the number of turns is one of the most commonly used methods to try and balance a scenario. More turns is almost always an advantage for the attacker, fewer for the defender. It's an easy modification to make and the results can often be accurately estimated without having to do additional playtests.

And this leads to the point I should have made several paragraphs ago, if you truly believe that the vast majority of scenarios in the Squad Battles series are unbalanced, then perhaps you should make an effort to become part of the playtest team. There, your specific concerns could be addressed by the designer while there was an opportunity to make changes. And if you have concerns about some of the scenarios I have designed, feel free to drop me an email and let me know what they are. If changes are warranted, I will try and find time to make them for the next update.

Jeff

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I've been saying for awhile about larger and longer scenarios to add more strategy to the games. Don't get me wrong, they are all great games, IMO. I have an opponant that I am playing 12 different titles, being the same side all the way through started at the top of the scenario list and playing every one no matter balance or anything and both playing blind. The fun part besides having a great opponant is it seems we both are playing to win, but doesn't seem either of us are paying much attention to the victory conditions than we are just playing and letting the points be what they are. We see where the objectives are, but having them doesn't necessarily guarantee victory in any particular scenario, casualties and especially vehicles account for many points.

Anyway, I keep saying since somebody has recreated some scenarios from ASL, why not take a look at some of the Steel Panthers scenarios and try recreating a couple there in different titles and see how they work out. Also, try converting a couple from Campaign Series as well. I know they are different scales, but it can be done. Campaign Series has a unit of Panthers with a strength of 4, then you create a platoon of Panthers with 4 tanks. One inf unit in CS is roughly a platoon, so you just create a platoon of inf in SBs conversion. One hex of open terrain in CS equates to how many hexes in SBs and then you add that many in the area. There are plenty or scenarios in Steel Panthers that could also be tried for AIW, RSoE as well as the ww2 titles. Would also be nice to see some of the early war scenarios make it to the series.

I think it would be great to see a system similar to CS about random generated battles with the actual OOBs for each army each year. Meeting Engagements of up to a division chosen by each opp knowing which div they are facing or not as an option. Each person has the whole division to choose from and bring in as much or as little as they want. One person might bring his whole division on eventually while his opp may choose to only use one bde since he is doing so well. Having the scenarios open ended as far as turns go would make it where one has to concede the battle at some point if he is getting slaughtered. Maybe they get x amount of points to bring in units of their choosing after several turns. Hidden points for different areas on the map that would enable you to get help sooner or just leave it up to each player to bring in what they want, of course when getting a unit, you may or may not have it set that they get them that turn or x amount of turns later.

IMO, winning and losing is less important than the fun in playing is the real victory for us all.

Something to think about.

[grofaz]

Most of the time that I am the attacker (I don't have empirical data but pretty sure it's over 60%) there is no other way but for a full frontal attack IF I am to have a slight chance of making it to any of the objectives. Hence the Poll, I just suck (which I would not be offended by it because I really think I do) or others have also noticed the same thing.

I seldom have time to make any resemblance to a flanking attack. I am talking from decades of wargaming and also as an Army Infantry veteran. I do not mean to offend nor stir controversy, after all it's just a game, but I do put in some considerable time and would like to know if its just me, that's all. I will probably keep playing it anyways just because I like getting getting my ass kicked by such a fine group of fellow wargaming nerds.

Peace.

[fastphil]

I've been saying for awhile about larger and longer scenarios to add more strategy to the games. Don't get me wrong, they are all great games, IMO. I have an opponant that I am playing 12 different titles, being the same side all the way through started at the top of the scenario list and playing every one no matter balance or anything and both playing blind. The fun part besides having a great opponant is it seems we both are playing to win, but doesn't seem either of us are paying much attention to the victory conditions than we are just playing and letting the points be what they are. We see where the objectives are, but having them doesn't necessarily guarantee victory in any particular scenario, casualties and especially vehicles account for many points.

Anyway, I keep saying since somebody has recreated some scenarios from ASL, why not take a look at some of the Steel Panthers scenarios and try recreating a couple there in different titles and see how they work out. Also, try converting a couple from Campaign Series as well. I know they are different scales, but it can be done. Campaign Series has a unit of Panthers with a strength of 4, then you create a platoon of Panthers with 4 tanks. One inf unit in CS is roughly a platoon, so you just create a platoon of inf in SBs conversion. One hex of open terrain in CS equates to how many hexes in SBs and then you add that many in the area. There are plenty or scenarios in Steel Panthers that could also be tried for AIW, RSoE as well as the ww2 titles. Would also be nice to see some of the early war scenarios make it to the series.

I think it would be great to see a system similar to CS about random generated battles with the actual OOBs for each army each year. Meeting Engagements of up to a division chosen by each opp knowing which div they are facing or not as an option. Each person has the whole division to choose from and bring in as much or as little as they want. One person might bring his whole division on eventually while his opp may choose to only use one bde since he is doing so well. Having the scenarios open ended as far as turns go would make it where one has to concede the battle at some point if he is getting slaughtered. Maybe they get x amount of points to bring in units of their choosing after several turns. Hidden points for different areas on the map that would enable you to get help sooner or just leave it up to each player to bring in what they want, of course when getting a unit, you may or may not have it set that they get them that turn or x amount of turns later.

IMO, winning and losing is less important than the fun in playing is the real victory for us all.

Something to think about.

Go to JT's website-you will see Panzer Battles 'coming soon'. That is supposed to be the bridge between SB and PC.

The length of the SB's scenarios is always discussed during playtesting. I always like to see a few more turns especially when attacking. I'm on the attack in RV and I just know my opponent wishes the game were alot shorter. Usually the games have a mix of long and short scenarios. Rich and the developers always try to get a mix of scenarios just for that reason. If it really bothers you, be selective and only play the long ones as the attacker. ust kidding.

[grofaz]

"If it really bothers you, be selective and only play the long ones as the attacker. ust kidding."


send me the list...

[Laza]

While im think there are some scenarios on the short side, I wouldnt say are the norm.
There are plenty I can think of in which attackers have had time to have a medal ceremony, a few drinks and then start marching off the edge of map towards their next objective.

While not a perfect solution playing with variable ending with small scenarios can help the situation.

[Ozgur Budak]

Grofaz. Are you referring to a specific title?

[grofaz]

Yeah man, mostly AOTR and RV scenarios...This post feels like quicksand...

Anyways, the scenario makers, modmakers, play testers and everyone involved in the creative processes have done a wonderful job (otherwise we wouldn't be here playing and being a part of the community) And again, it may be just me, and that I royally suck which is fine too. I don't want to come off as a whiner, because we all know that - nobody likes a whiiineeer.

All the best!

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I'm not saying change what is already there, I'm suggesting adding more scenarios to the playlist, just longer and larger ones up to and including the suggestion about being able to have random Div vs Div battles, with or without random objs etc. One can use the whole div or only a part of it if they think they are doing fine without the rest of it. It's all about more options folks.