WinSPBT vs WinSPWW2 vs SP3WaW?

[RERomine]

There are some AI logic differences between the WaW version and the Win versions as well. One thing that really drove me nuts on the WaW version was having an assault mission with points per turn flags with poor weather resulting in slow movement. A decisive victory was all but out of the question. To get a marginal victory, you needed to secure all the flags about one third of the way into the battle. Capturing all the flags in about 10-15 turns, with units moving slow due to the weather, while having to breach a minefield was all but impossible. Most of my assault battles under those conditions ended up being draws.

At least WaW compensated by pure ignorance of AI deployment. Infantry companies were deployed in clustered groups and it told you when you inflicted casualties, even if you couldn't see what you were hitting with artillery. Find one unit and blast the whole area for a four hex diameter. WaW was really poor in placing fortifications. They could be found buried in a forest with only a clear view of the hex to their immediate front and that's it.

One other AI problem with WaW is capture one flag and the screaming hordes all jump out of their holes and try to recapture it. Capture one flag and WaW throws away one major advantage of being on the defensive. The Win games rationally wait to counter attack until such a move is required.

Minefield deployment is also predicable in WaW. It starts right at the deployment line, is 2-3 hexes in depth and there are never mines outside of the main belt. That is the extent of WaW's use of obstacles.

The Win logic with mines is also predictable, but not usefully so. One can expect Win games to place mines on the roads, which is a logical place to do so. The high speed avenues of approach is basically useless. It would take too long to clear the roads. The Win logic also tends to have a main belt of mines, but it can start anywhere between the deployment line back to the edge of the forward most objective. Also expect to find some of the flag locations mined. There is no breaching the line and forgetting about the engineers. The lead elements better have some with them or you just take your chances when capturing flags. Another nice touch is an extra partial line of obstacles along the edges of the map to slow down flanking maneuvers. These partial lines may be something other than mines and not be there at all, but can be a rude surprise of they are unexpected found. If mines, is it the main line or is it a partial line? Finally, mines can be expected to be scattered beyond main belt of mines. Busting through the main belt of mines and doing open field running also has it's risks. The scattered mines are basically random, but the only thing that is predictable is that they will be there. Where is anyone's guess.

WaW seems to have been coded to do a lot more "head hunting" than it should. While radio direction finding has improved since WWII allowing for better targeting of C&C locations, I found my HQ getting hit way too often for my taste in WaW considering it was WWII. It's been a while since I played WaW, but that is one impression that sticks with me.

Overall, Don and Andy have done a spectacular job with the AI. There are aspects of WaW that are nice, but the bottom line is how good of a battle do you get out of the AI with what you have to work with. Personally, I've never liked games that gave the AI an edge to compensate for inherent weakness. Straight up, the Win games give you a better fight than WaW.

[Stian]

What I love about the Win- games, apart from what others mentions here, is that the "benevolent dictatorship" of the devs Don and Andy ensure the games difference between MBT and WW2 is minimal, and that any changes are thoroughly tested and verified. And they listen to the community

I came here from having played WaW a lot - started playing WinSPMBT to get some modern action, and found having to switch between them for PBEM games was tedious since keys were different and so on. So I persuaded my PBEM mates to change to WinSPWW2 as well

I've tried SPWAW again last year, but like many found the pace too fast and the graphics too "shiny and colourful" if thats a correct term And the multitude of mods there was for WaW a while caused much confusion when installing... I see they now have something called SPWAW Enhanced but never tried it.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by RERomine

There are some AI logic differences between the WaW version and the Win versions as well. One thing that really drove me nuts on the WaW version was having an assault mission with points per turn flags with poor weather resulting in slow movement. A decisive victory was all but out of the question. To get a marginal victory, you needed to secure all the flags about one third of the way into the battle. Capturing all the flags in about 10-15 turns, with units moving slow due to the weather, while having to breach a minefield was all but impossible. Most of my assault battles under those conditions ended up being draws.

At least WaW compensated by pure ignorance of AI deployment. Infantry companies were deployed in clustered groups and it told you when you inflicted casualties, even if you couldn't see what you were hitting with artillery. Find one unit and blast the whole area for a four hex diameter. WaW was really poor in placing fortifications. They could be found buried in a forest with only a clear view of the hex to their immediate front and that's it.

One other AI problem with WaW is capture one flag and the screaming hordes all jump out of their holes and try to recapture it. Capture one flag and WaW throws away one major advantage of being on the defensive. The Win games rationally wait to counter attack until such a move is required.

Minefield deployment is also predicable in WaW. It starts right at the deployment line, is 2-3 hexes in depth and there are never mines outside of the main belt. That is the extent of WaW's use of obstacles.

The Win logic with mines is also predictable, but not usefully so. One can expect Win games to place mines on the roads, which is a logical place to do so. The high speed avenues of approach is basically useless. It would take too long to clear the roads. The Win logic also tends to have a main belt of mines, but it can start anywhere between the deployment line back to the edge of the forward most objective. Also expect to find some of the flag locations mined. There is no breaching the line and forgetting about the engineers. The lead elements better have some with them or you just take your chances when capturing flags. Another nice touch is an extra partial line of obstacles along the edges of the map to slow down flanking maneuvers. These partial lines may be something other than mines and not be there at all, but can be a rude surprise of they are unexpected found. If mines, is it the main line or is it a partial line? Finally, mines can be expected to be scattered beyond main belt of mines. Busting through the main belt of mines and doing open field running also has it's risks. The scattered mines are basically random, but the only thing that is predictable is that they will be there. Where is anyone's guess.

WaW seems to have been coded to do a lot more "head hunting" than it should. While radio direction finding has improved since WWII allowing for better targeting of C&C locations, I found my HQ getting hit way too often for my taste in WaW considering it was WWII. It's been a while since I played WaW, but that is one impression that sticks with me.

Overall, Don and Andy have done a spectacular job with the AI. There are aspects of WaW that are nice, but the bottom line is how good of a battle do you get out of the AI with what you have to work with. Personally, I've never liked games that gave the AI an edge to compensate for inherent weakness. Straight up, the Win games give you a better fight than WaW.

I at one time had stated that mines in WW2 weren't simply just a matter of a solid line across the height of the map, as some seemed to believe. It's good to see somebody finally backed me up on this, but I will say I have yet to see flags mined, but that may be because I'm playing the only mode which the AI is trained for, the cluster one. It is grapeshot where you're probably getting flags with mines.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Charles22

I at one time had stated that mines in WW2 weren't simply just a matter of a solid line across the height of the map, as some seemed to believe. It's good to see somebody finally backed me up on this, but I will say I have yet to see flags mined, but that may be because I'm playing the only mode which the AI is trained for, the cluster one. It is grapeshot where you're probably getting flags with mines.

Another element that impacts how mines are laid is the number of battle points. Andy has mentioned there is a unit selection loop the AI goes through when selecting it's force so obstacle points are probably included in that loop for a defend mission. If there are some obstacle points left over after the main belt is completed, they get scattered about the map. WaW on the other hand, just seems to make it's main belt wider. Wider has it's complications, but WaW won't hit the breaching force with artillery if it can't seen anyone. That makes breaching the mines timely, but not dangerous.

Mining flags is just a matter of probability, I suspect. As I recall Charles, you play on a 200x200 map where I use a 100x100 map. In my battles, the mine density is going to be higher and the odds of some being in the flag hexes increase accordingly. That said, I got the impression they were laid more deliberately in the flag hexes, but honestly I never explored this concept. The AI concentrates some defensive formations around the grouped flags. It stands to reason mines would be part of those defensive positions. There could just be a higher density of mines around the flags and then probability comes into play and some just end up in the flag hexes.

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by RERomine

Another element that impacts how mines are laid is the number of battle points. Andy has mentioned there is a unit selection loop the AI goes through when selecting it's force so obstacle points are probably included in that loop for a defend mission. If there are some obstacle points left over after the main belt is completed, they get scattered about the map. WaW on the other hand, just seems to make it's main belt wider. Wider has it's complications, but WaW won't hit the breaching force with artillery if it can't seen anyone. That makes breaching the mines timely, but not dangerous.

Mining flags is just a matter of probability, I suspect. As I recall Charles, you play on a 200x200 map where I use a 100x100 map. In my battles, the mine density is going to be higher and the odds of some being in the flag hexes increase accordingly. That said, I got the impression they were laid more deliberately in the flag hexes, but honestly I never explored this concept. The AI concentrates some defensive formations around the grouped flags. It stands to reason mines would be part of those defensive positions. There could just be a higher density of mines around the flags and then probability comes into play and some just end up in the flag hexes.

Your point is well taken, that is my map is larger (200 X 130 actually), considerably and my amount of units less, so there would be a difference, though I think you routinely are playing grapeshot, or if not that the default rate of grapeshot. In my case I don't play them at all. There's probably less call for mining flags when the AI is geared specifically for that type.

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Charles22

I at one time had stated that mines in WW2 weren't simply just a matter of a solid line across the height of the map, as some seemed to believe. It's good to see somebody finally backed me up on this, but I will say I have yet to see flags mined, but that may be because I'm playing the only mode which the AI is trained for, the cluster one. It is grapeshot where you're probably getting flags with mines.

Mining random objective hexes (and nearby to objective hexes) is a wee nasty that the AI will do sometimes, no matter what the pattern happens to be. Usually done when it has lots of engineering points. So be careful on approaching the objectives in an assault!.

The top and bottom map edge strips can be doubled. Sometimes 1 of the strips will be barbed wire or obstacles (esp on beach maps). And if the main mine belt goes to the top as well, you can face a triple-depth belt if you try to go round the flanks. Also long-ago fixed was the old SSI code bug that meant it never put mines on the flank edge row, thus making an edge run always worthwhile. Our code also puts obstacles (think of them as a pile of logs or those metal X things) on bridges as well, sometimes with a mine combined.

Andy

[Imp]

Overall, Don and Andy have done a spectacular job with the AI.

I would say that about sums it up tried to keep what I said subjective while I remembered WAW was easier did not remember quite why so would not comment.
It seems though as of this date WAW has not recieved a further update so from a program not playability point of view it is streets behind.

Small maps
Poor graphics
Unstable, mainly slight graphic issues if remember, think it leaked as well so slow resource hog but please do not take as correct was a while back.
Would get glitches even if only thing running, camo games I have 2 monitors & run it on one while often have 4-5 other things running on the other including live internet feeds & programs with zero problems conflicts resource issues.

Camo game is updated & supported on a regular basis in house by its designers.
WAW any new updates seem to be made by a 3rd party.
As I said choose a camp

On mines camo placement does indeed have a pattern
Flanks, road forward line or partial line then near objectives.
But it does vary where the line is & how its deployed my recent encounters with they were used from what I found in partial front line reinforced in 2 places to a depth of about 300m with scattered meaning find a path.
Then protected rear routes to bunkers
Placed again in front & on objectives.
They did there job as had an idea where most but not all might be so slowed advance painfully at times.

[Marek_Tucan]

I would put the Camo mine placement rules in yet simpler way:
"The mines are always where the player does not want them to be" After all, it's one of the Murphy's laws of combat operations: "The easy way is always mined!"

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Marek_Tucan

I would put the Camo mine placement rules in yet simpler way:
"The mines are always where the player does not want them to be" After all, it's one of the Murphy's laws of combat operations: "The easy way is always mined!"

Or possibly, the AI places them like a person would place them. Mining the high speed avenues of approach are not available in assault missions. It's predictable that mines will be on the roads, but the player can't do anything about it. I've seen so many mines it would take too long to make the clear them and make functional use of the road. Honestly, I've done the same thing myself. I don't allow high speed avenues of approach to be used. The only thing you can predict with Win games is mines will be there, somewhere. The thing is, this seems to me to be a relatively simple coding change that WaW hasn't picked up on. Throw in artillery hitting units clearing mines and you have easily made assault operations more difficult against the AI.