WinSPBT vs WinSPWW2 vs SP3WaW?

[Poopsi]

Just wondering if people could enlighten me about the major differences and their personal preferences
(yes, I'm aware that the last one isn't from the people here. But still, it's sort of relevant, I think)

Anyway, some orientating questions:

- Does WinSPBT lack any crucial feature that SPWW2 has? (otherwise I'd be interested in some modern battle gameplay)

- Does SP3 World at War have any feature that I would miss?


Sidenote: I'm a newbie at this game, but seems both very enjoyable and (particularily WinSPWW2) very friendly towards my netbook. (Low reqs, can play windowed, likely low battery drain for when my gynecology teacher starts ranting about his long past youth...), so I was wondering if I'd get even more stuff in the at-a-glance less friendly interface of SP3WaW


And while we are at it, is there any general tactical hints database for SPWW2?

[Marek_Tucan]

The SPMBT and SPWW2 game engine should be practically identical, with the only exception of WW2 not using modern stuff like tandem HEAT and so on. Currently the SPWW2 is a lil' bit ahead, to be even with MBT once next MBT patch gets released by the developpers.

Compůarison with SPWAW is always tricky and relies much on personal taste. Me, i like MBT/WW2 series more, think it has better gameplay features and... 15 height levels and great map generator - need I say more?

[Cross]

To read about the differences I recommend this thread here:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...ighlight=spwaw

Though SPWW2 and SPMBT have been updated with even more cool features since that thread.

There is some tactical help here:

http://www.theblitz.org/message_boar....php?tid=50259

There's also tactical help in the Game Guide.


cheers
Cross

[Imp]

Not played the most recent version of SPWAW as think recently upated but compared to SPWW2, MBT the version I played is unstable & poor graphicaly.
SPWAW biggest problem though is it plays more like a game.
The speed of its vehicles & small map size mean you can reach any part of the map quickly so tactics take a back seat. Also units are godlike in there awareness of whats around them & shoot at everything, think RTS.
Just my view & I thought it was a good game till I tried the others & realised its limitations. If you want a game & an easy ride go WAW, if your more after a SIM go for the other 2 plus you get to play with modern equipment as well.

[Marek_Tucan]

If you want an easy ride, just crank up your "spotting" and "hitting" preferneces in MBT or WW2 and you're good to go

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Imp

MBT the version I played is unstable & poor graphicaly.

Given that winSPWW2 and winSPMBT are virtually the same code and play the same way that statement is just a bit puzzling

Don

[Imp]

Originally Posted by DRG

Given that winSPWW2 and winSPMBT are virtually the same code and play the same way that statement is just a bit puzzling

Don

Miss representation maybe bad grammer on my part I wrote

Not played the most recent version of SPWAW as think recently upated but compared to SPWW2, MBT the version I played is unstable & poor graphicaly

What I meant was SPWAW is unstable & poor graphicaly compared to the camo games. Although thats by no means its worst issues.
Should have used & instead of ,

[DRG]

OK. Makes sense now. The sentance structure threw me off

Don

[Imp]

As its playing on my mind lets put this to rest once & for all.
My observations are based on SPWAW version 8.4 & I think there is a new one which we will assume has fixed stability & graphic problems. Also hopefully has updated its map engine to produce both better & larger maps.
WW2 & MBT are basicaly the same & will be treated as such based on current versions which will refer to as MBT

Scale
They either use diffrent scales or turn times or.
From memory WAW units can move 70-100% faster than equivalent MBT ones.
Strangely weapon ranges are constant so one must assume WAW turn is twice as long as MBTs.
If this is so WAW troops do not fire very much as ROF are pretty similar.
I checked this for a dozen units as something was obviosly wrong & the movement rates used by MBT are the correct ones.
In WAW this makes using infantry easier as can perform flank moves etc in one turn & makes vehicles plain silly. Moving 30 or more hexes down a road is easily possible so in urban terrain you can reinforce a force very easily. Even some troops can cover large amounts of terrain fast. If the map size has not been increased this means you can cover it very rapidly & little thought is required. You do not need a plan.

MBT units always have the same movement capabities, i.e. same number of MP available while WAW units slow down from turbo mode to nearer realistic once they are seen by the enemy. Lose about 1/3rd I think of MP, an asterix appears in info box so you know the enemy can see you. It is possible to switch this off but even so if you feel contact is likely so move 1 hex at a time you can see your MP suddenly vanish so you know you have been detected.

Since a revision MBT move radius display can be wrong so treat as a guide as does not calculate slope movement correctly. WAWs of course can vary depending on if the unit is seen or not
MBT has a similar thing for LOS which works fine & shows all hexes visible to that unit. Think in WAW you have to roate the unit to check this.

Units load & unload from transport at no cost in WAW meaning they can jump from one vehicle to another & cross the entire map in 1 turn.
In MBT both units lose part of there MP based on the size of the loading unloading unit

Game mechanics.
While both use basicaly the same mechanics this is about the only similarity that remains between the 2 games as the way they use them is diffrent.
WAW seems to have far less routines or poorer versions covering unit actions so when units are under AI control including reaction fire they perform in a far more simplified way.
WAW units fire at any & all targets, MBT seem to have a very slight delay in transfer of info between forces meaning a unit that is just sighted is not instantly fired on by every thing in sight. Closer units & those in contact are likely to react first rippling out if it performs another action. Its routines may also stop it firing at a specific type of unit. Hard to expalin but the way the MBT model works it takes away certain aspects of units being moved & reacted to individually. If you do it correctly get a fairly good representation of a formation breaking cover simultaniosly to conduct an attack, WAW fails to represent this on any real level somehow so is much more a piece by piece game. Actualy probably put that wrong its surprising that MBT manges to represent it at any level rather than a failing of WAW that it can't.

WAW does have the ability to stop fire being bled by continously op firing at the cost of increased suppression, MBT normaly once a unit goes quite it will not fire again. However you can get caught out if it rallies slightly due to another units action gaining a shot.

Artillery routines are very diffrent personal choice I suppose but WAWs is very easy to use making getting it on target a simple affair.

C&C is diffrent
MBT abstracts being out of command by slowly adding suppresion to out of contact units. This means they perform worse & can eventualy lead to them being pinned.
WAW many people switch it off but if on offers a more detailed way of play as unit commanders get a certain amount of orders each turn which they allocate to change units objectives call in arty etc.
On the face of it this is good but it slows the game dramatically as the interface for issuing orders is not executed well. MBT has the same ability to issue orders & the same problems with the interface which is probably why its not used. You need to access a seperate screen rather than do from the map screen is the problem in both cases.

Suppresion
WAW units both gain & lose suppresion faster & it operates slightly diffrently using a bigger range generally in WAW. WAW units have the ability if not fired on for a turn to become completly unsepressed. MBT never do they alwayss retain 1 suppresion after recieve it so are no longer "fresh" units.

Units in WAW disapear from view immediatly they leave your LOS in MBT they tend to hang around for a turn once you have lost sight of them. At first I thought the WAW system was better but the MBT way means you can take a break of several days & still come back & have an idea of whats going on. It helps a great deal in PBEM games where this can often be the case or if you have multiple games going on.
Occasionaly it does not work correctly & a unit that does not move stays visible for a long time.

MBT replays also tend only to show units fired on, if a unit just moves & disapears from view it will not show the move. This means posting sentries to watch for vehicles can not work very well as you get no idea which way they went unless they can shoot at them. This can also cause problems with airdrops as even if the aircraft is een it will not show unless fired on. I think WAW shows all movement but not sure.

These are I think the main things that effect game play & make the games play very diffrently. There are other things to like
Both use some diffrent movent rates for terrain
WAW has walls as this seems an issue for some players
WAW only has 3 levels MBT not sure but at least 12 I think
MBT info screens for units are clear & give more info. If it says it carries special ammo it does.
Reminds me WAW can play with 3 ammo loadouts from full to restricted & partial squads.
MBT has a very good editor compared to WAWs for both units & map however I would not like to speculate on which version it is easier to build scenarios in. Both are not entirely user friendly when it comes to plotting unit paths its a long process to get it right. Could just be me.
WAW allows weapon jams & fixing of damaged units MBT does not. All well & good but it does not differntiate between the chances of fixing things. A vehicle immobile by mines will recover as quicly as one stuck in mud. Repair its weapon with no thought for the chance for the weapon type or if it has retired somewhere safe to fix it or is currently engaged in battle.
Lots of other things like being able to set rally points airdrops etc the list just goes on.
The fundamentals are the same but they have diversified into 2 diffrent beasts in the way they play so you have to choose your camp.

To me WAW is easier to pick up a play requiring less brain power to play due to poor routines & sweeping moves you can make.
If you try using C&C to redress these problems it just becomes plain clunky & play slows to a crawl.
This is without the fundamental issue that movement rates are pure pie in the sky.

This is just my view on the 2 diffrent bites at the same cherry

[runequester]

The only things I miss from WAW is weapon jamming, immobilized vehicles getting fixed occasionally, and having squads start a few men under strength