No love for a little brigade command? (SP3 scale)

[G. K. Zhukov]

Thanks for the prompt and comprehensive answer, Andy.

I do agree on the main (flawed) points of SP3:

1. Any damage resulted in a loss.

2. Company and higher command units identifiable at plain sight.

3. Incredibly accurate artillery model.

4. Rudimentary AI.

I also agree on the compulsory command and control system matter. At this high scale I feel it is a must. I am even a staunch supporter of using it at the WinSP scale (my dislike of ASL for the lack of C&C is notorious).

I think the Camo Workshop has done a very good job at improving problems No. 3. and 4 above. So what could be done to solve 1. and 2.?

The solution perhaps is going the abstract way.

No. 2: Company and higher command units identifiable at plain sight.

Command units should be abstracted. I.e., the command tank or the infantry command section should be "floating somewhere" inside their company areas, and they should not be specifically represented on map (thus avoiding being individually targeted by enemy fire). Effects on command structure would be randomly assigned by the computer ("bad luck - they knocked out the captain's tank").

E.g.: this way, you would see three tank platoons of a Soviet tank company, each probably with a generic icon representing 3 tanks (one of them, even with the same 3-tank icon, might physically be 4 to account for the company command tank). Command & Control would be working if the 3 platoons were within "X" 200-meter hexes of each other. Otherwise, the separated units would be "out of command" (determine randomly which two are OOC if all three are too far away from one another - meaning the command tank is temporarily attached to the not-out-of-command platoon).

1. Any damage resulted in a loss.

This is a good one. I concur creating new sub-units with immobilized individual vehicles would be a no-go.

I remember Frank Chadwick's "Command Decision" (up to 3rd Edition I think) and "Sands of War", where vehicle platoons where treated as single vehicles and consequently were treated as damaged vehicles when they suffered a "step loss" or "damage" result. Tch tch tch...

AFAIK the most satisfactory way of representing losses to a platoon.sized unit is via "cohesion hits" or a similar concept. Games like "Panzer Command", The "Grant Tactical Series" and "Clash of Armor/Kampgruppe Commander" work like that. Meaning that progressively successful attacks against a platoon-sized unit will make it suffer progressively worse (and normally cumulative) results: from "suppressed" to an outright "step loss" (the former similar to the current WinSP suppression resuults and the latter meaning effective loss of vehicles/heavy weapons/manpower). You would be able to "rally" a platoon that has several "cohesion hits" - but not a step-reduced one.

One last thing: sprinkle a bit of battlefield chaos and C&C degrading due to losses and C&C structure failures on top of the above and you can have a nice brigade group turning into a mass of routed units running for their lives and surrendering en masse.

Thanks in advance for putting up with all this.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

God this brought back memories, and not all of them good. The artillery issue was absolutely ridiculous (Though I did like the concept of the pre-bombardment as in RL.) and this from a strong advocate of artillery. Because of it the AI as pointed out never really to some degree stood a chance depending on the battle. And flanking maneuvers were definitely a piece of cake, and it got to a point where I would just stop executing that maneuver against the AI and just "slug it out" on the main line of attack/or defense.

I honestly thought though it was better then SP1 but, it really wasn't much better, if at all, than SP2 (Which I enjoyed more.) and possibly was a step backward to some extent.

Fear not!! My ever "shrinking gut" tells me Andy and Don are far from pulling "rabbits out of the hat" in regards to the software and game play that, will render games like SP3 a long distant memory. Of that I'm sure. SP3 was pushed out to fast and SSI was under pressure and would change hands about three or four times until UBI-SOFT bought them out and is now barely a "shadow" of it's former self.

I my opinion SP3 offered little to the player over SP2 however from a developers point of view the three games combined offered a very good platform to take a broad spectrum of the good, the "needed" and bad and apply them to another platform/design.

Thank you all for this topic, it was a nice diversion from the norm and brought back many good memories from where many of us started from and truly learned there are different meanings to the term "I'm having an all nighter..." though I have to admit, some of the other meanings are fun too!!!

From the point of view of cutting my teeth, learning game play tactics, play ability and other factors...
A. First a HUGE THANK YOU to Mr. Charles S. Roberts he started so many of us down the road to war-gaming.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1574/tactics-ii

B. I received my degree from Avalon Hill with so many good games I owned.

C. Got my Masters from SSI with the intro to PC Gaming.

D. But received my PhD. from SPI with my thesis papers "played on"...
1812/Ardennes Offensive/Austerlitz/Battle of Stalingrad/Bundeswehr/The Battle for Cassino/Chinese Farm (And not whom the title implies.)/Don will like this...Canadian Civil War/Desert Fox & War/Red Star White Star including update (Favorite)/Fighting Sail/Sixth Fleet and Star Force plus so many more.

I owned at least close to 60 board games mostly from A & C above, now I remember why in my dish washing days in high school I never had a BIG savings account!?! But I had so much fun though.
http://www.spigames.net/index.html
http://avalonhill.wizards.com/
http://www.abandonia.com/en/company/...lations%2C+Inc.
http://playitagainproject.org/companies/ssi/

Para 5 of the last ref MIGHT be useful to someone out here-maybe?

Regards,
Pat