Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I want a sim where I can win by defeat not only by destruction

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I want a sim where I can win by defeat not only by destruction

    Hi all,
    After several months of enjoyment from COTA, and playing TOAW III, i've come to the conclusion that the opportunities to win by defeat are practically non-existent.

    I've recently finished reading 'The art of maneuver' by Robert Leonhard and I don't find any opportunities to even attempt to defeat an enemy by maneuver instead of winning by destruction and fire.

    What sims would allow me to attempt things like pre-emption, dislocation and disruption?

    I want to be able to penetrate lines with a maneuver force and cause havoc on the enemy lines of communication, etc, I want to be able to smash the enemy's morale...

    Tall order I know...but I'm looking for something more.

  • #2
    I "think" you might find, that several battles in Steel Panthers actually involve victory hexes that are reflective of rewarding capture of terrain that is exactly what you are looking for.

    The specific hexes are often keyed to point value based on when you gained them, and how long you held them. Because terrain is as you say, important, and if you control the ground right, you control the battle.

    If you haven't encountered a chance to play any of the many versions of Steel Panthers, the fact that it is a free download should be attractive There's Steel Panthers WaW from Matrix Games, and Steel Panthers in 2 forms WW2 and MBT (modern) from SP Camo over at Shrapnel Games.

    As for other scales, I know that maneuver matters in grand strategy, so you might want to look closer at some titles there. It's possible at the operational scale, you might wish to consider AGW from Schwerpunckt. It doesn't get mentioned quite as often as TOAW3 from Matrix Games.
    Life is change. Built models for decades.
    Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
    I didn't for a long time either.

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the information and comments.

      I played SP MBT years ago and really enjoyed it! I will revisit it for sure!

      On the operational level of things, I suspect the problem is me, as I play quite a bit of TOAW3...

      Example of my problem/fustrations:

      I've played the Zimbabwe scenario. However, all the units enter from the south...and the winning points are scored for capturing Harare.

      This leaves pretty much only a straight drive north-east with my forces to obtain victory.

      I would like to establish air superiority (which should be trivial in reality!), and employ massive airborne drops to the north of the country, to start messing with infrastructure, lines of communications...this would draw attention away from the south allowing my forces to make a dash for the capital.

      It seems scenarios, sims, straitjacket the 'commander' into executing the scenario designers plan rather than some other personal plan...

      Not sure if any of this makes sense.

      Comment


      • #4
        Makes a lot of sense actually.

        Some games try to reflect the conditions forced upon the original commander(s) though.

        If the game says achieve victory in 10 turns, then taking 20 turns for a cool looking maneuver win is not reflective of the challenge.

        I just played a battle in a campaign on my DS in the title Steel Horizon. The point of the battle was to hold my base against stiff opposition. I won, but, I think I was over cautious, and might have missed out on a better victory by not encountering a naval force that I might have been tasked to defeat in addition to not losing the base. My point total was kinda lame for that battle.

        Sometimes a maneuver win is not a possible choice because a time constraint simply makes it non viable.

        I've played some games of Steel Panthers where I attacked so utterly recklessly right from the beginning, that I greatly over shot where I was assumed I might get by the scenario designer. In the process, I was in a position where I completely messed up the battle, because I ended up being where I wasn't supposed to be when timed enemy reinforcments arrived into the battle. It's never easy predicting what the gamer will do in a game.

        Maneuver victory usually requires a form of "supply" be built into the game design though. And this is rarely a factor in games below grand operational. As such, the Panther Games designs are not suited to it.
        Life is change. Built models for decades.
        Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
        I didn't for a long time either.

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, thats the problem really isn't it

          I read this wonderful book..'The art of maneuver'..it really makes sense to me, and I want to try 'maneuver'...but the sims to let me try seem not to exist

          Do I have to become a real infantry commander?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kneecaps View Post
            I've recently finished reading 'The art of maneuver' by Robert Leonhard and I don't find any opportunities to even attempt to defeat an enemy by maneuver instead of winning by destruction and fire.
            That's because the thesis of this and similar maneuver warfare advocate books is basically rubbish that was only needed to make the 70ties U.S. Army don't feel as inadequate as it was.

            Originally posted by kneecaps View Post

            What sims would allow me to attempt things like pre-emption, dislocation and disruption?
            You already tried Airborne Assault, which certainly is the best sim for even attempting any of the above.

            Originally posted by kneecaps View Post

            I want to be able to penetrate lines with a maneuver force and cause havoc on the enemy lines of communication, etc, I want to be able to smash the enemy's morale...
            Armies don't magically disappear when you surround them and knock out some communications.

            Now, in history armies did give up easily after such a strike, but - and here's the key - that has more to do with the surrounded army than with the attacker or the attack. To make a simulation of this you have to analyse why exactly some armies cease to fight easily and others don't.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Redwolf View Post
              That's because the thesis of this and similar maneuver warfare advocate books is basically rubbish that was only needed to make the 70ties U.S. Army don't feel as inadequate as it was.
              I don't quite follow here? The book gives the army a very rough time, was written in the early 90's...and seems to be a succinct treatment of maneuver warfare, based on good sense ....


              Originally posted by Redwolf View Post
              Now, in history armies did give up easily after such a strike, but - and here's the key - that has more to do with the surrounded army than with the attacker or the attack. To make a simulation of this you have to analyse why exactly some armies cease to fight easily and others don't.
              No, but look at the differences between the Desert Storm campaign in TOAW3 and reality. In TOAW3 command and control is perfect for Saddams army, where as in reality it was terrible with divisions unable to do anything without orders from the top. I've found it almost impossible to defeat the Iraqi army in desert storm like it was really done...instead I simply have to kill everything I see (with ease), with superior firepower...

              Comment


              • #8
                Sometimes a wargame is great at demonstrating possibilities in the absence of the human equation.

                But often it was the human equation that made the battle go the way it did.

                How many battles in WW2 happened the way they did simply because of brain dead thinking? for instance.

                Most wargames have trouble enforcing the brain dead decisions of the time. It's always assumed the wargamer will do all the thinking, and most wargamers want to at least be thinking when playing.

                In hindsight, I am sure some wargamers would like to be able to go back in time, and ask of Hitler, "what, are you just f**king stoooopid or something?" in response to many of his insane decisions.
                Life is change. Built models for decades.
                Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                I didn't for a long time either.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kneecaps View Post
                  No, but look at the differences between the Desert Storm campaign in TOAW3 and reality. In TOAW3 command and control is perfect for Saddams army, where as in reality it was terrible with divisions unable to do anything without orders from the top. I've found it almost impossible to defeat the Iraqi army in desert storm like it was really done...instead I simply have to kill everything I see (with ease), with superior firepower...
                  That's because TOAW doesn't have a model for "fvcked up army with no desire to fight".

                  But you see that's the issue here that you don't understand: the mismodeling is not in the attacker mechanism, or in the attack mechanism. It is in not being able to model a complete breakdown of will to fight.

                  Look at other examples: why did the units in the Minsk pocket lose the ability to fight, but the defenders of the Demjansk pocket did not? They were attacked the same way, the attackers cut the same lines of communications and if anything the Demjansk defenders were comparably much weaker in relation to their encyrcling opponent. How do you model this?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Redwolf View Post
                    That's because TOAW doesn't have a model for

                    But you see that's the issue here that you don't understand: the mismodeling is not in the attacker mechanism, or in the attack mechanism. It is in not being able to model a complete breakdown of will to fight.
                    I understand totally , i'm just expressing frustration at the situation.

                    Originally posted by Redwolf View Post

                    Look at other examples: why did the units in the Minsk pocket lose the ability to fight, but the defenders of the Demjansk pocket did not? They were attacked the same way, the attackers cut the same lines of communications and if anything the Demjansk defenders were comparably much weaker in relation to their encyrcling opponent. How do you model this?
                    Exactly...I think the point thats emerging is that as advanced as current sims are, they still boil down to attack, defence etc etc. Nothing really models the will to fight of the individual unit. How one goes about modelling this I can hardly imagine!

                    Comment

                    Latest Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X