From: "Ed Kloskowski" Subject: Semper Fi Well I haven't really seen much traffic at all about this game so I figured I would post some intial impressions. I have to say that I am growing fond of it. It uses a phased turn system that I find very playable and balancing in term of OpFire. The enemy AI is cagey even with no tweaking, the manual is fair to good, I am reading it and it goes a long way to explaining the game - And a first ---- is the online manual REALLY augments the paper manual & game, its 2 PDF's one is the manual all updated and the the other is a UNIT list, both are illustrated in color. Its kind of a cross between SP, PG and a little of TacOps. editor is pretty cool, interface doesn't get in the way ONCE you learn it ( I would say the learning curve is 2-3 hours MAX, although I am still trying to figure out the whole UNIT ACTIVATIOn thing) I paid $37 at EB at that price it filled my need for a good turn based wargame. Its got quirks (actually some of my favorites have really quirky things about them) like - no unit carry over from scen to scen in the campaign - cant figure HOW they did multi player (I am a solo gamer almost exclusively though) - Unit activation Over all I have to say that I like the game and find it strangely reminicent of Age Of Rifles from a playabilty standpoint, looks wise, interface wise. The two games bear little resembelnce, but If you asked me what it feels like to play then I would have to say Age of Rifles (that game is a CLASSIC IMHO that snuck up on me and gave me TONS of fun game play, I think this one may have that quality) edk From: "SteveW@I-Magic" Subject: Re: Semper Fi Ed, Hope this is helpful and addresses at least one of the quirks in a way that helps: Make _sure_ when you scroll around between different teams that you choose your company HQ first, and then click on the walkie-talkie button to have your HQ signal all related units and make them active _for that phase_. Once you've done this, you can coordinate movement and fire for your whole group in a single phase, instead of having to take a phase for action for each and every single unit. Another thing for everyone here to remember is that the units present on the map are _not_ -- repeat _not_ -- just individual vehicles. They represent a layer of abstraction somewhere in between the vehicle-by-vehicle approach of a Steel Panthers type game and the gross abstractions (gross in the non-judgmental meaning of the word, of course ) of a Panzer General type game. Treat the units as such abstractions and the game will make more sense as you play it. Make the (reasonable) mistake of thinking of units as individual vehicles or infantry groups and certain things won't make sense. Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any more questions. Very Best, Steve Wartofsky Interactive Magic From: "Steven Wartofsky" Subject: Re: Semper Fi Semper Fi is a very traditional turn-based, hex-based wargame, focused on current-day USMC ground forces and tactics. People used to real-time strategy games, with abilities to select groups of units and click a destination and let the AI move the units to destination, will have to reorient themselves to focus on the fun in this game. The goal here is to pay attention to the force values of each and every one of your units, to assess and calculate each unit's abilities before a move, to control the game unit by unit. The main strength, as I see it, of this title is in the command HQ leadership range and its effect on a team's ability to coordinate fire and movement. Let a unit get out of range of its commanding unit, or fail to issue an "all units -- attention" command prior to initiating the f&m for a team (signaling your intention to use a phase to coordinate a whole team's efforts, rather than wasting it on a separate unit's entirely independent initiative), and you'll soon find your team mired in disorganization. The other distinguishing feature of the game is in its initiative system. Rather than having a pure you-go/I-go approach, who gets to move next depends on the initiative taken (and its success) in the last move. It's a _little_ bit like the leadership initiative in our Great Battles series (Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar -- which has just mastered, BTW, and should be out soon), but with a phase/turn system which affects the dynamics a bit differently. A major addition to the main game, and not to be overlooked, in my opinion, is the scenario editor and AI editor included with the game. You can both create your own scenarios, with a tool which is well advanced beyond those currently available in other similar games, and you can tweak the AI if you don't like the balance of forces as programmed for the AI in the default settings for the game, with the AI editor. Full information on how to use both is provided with the game. Semper Fi is not a whiz-bang-flash title like many out there, but I feel it will be fun for those familiar with the conventions of turn-based, hex-based wargames. I'll be very interested to hear feedback of any type here in the newsgroup. Thanks for your time and attention, Steve Wartofsky Interactive Magic From: David Pipes Subject: Re: Semper Fi Chive wrote: > > In article <34F75B95.9B139DA8@home.com>, robearP@home.com says... > > > Gosh, wargamers? It is intriguing, in that it rewards planning and > > punishes the lack of it. It also models command/control/intelligence and > > morale, which a lot of people have been begging for in a sim. But it > > has a level of abstraction that seems to put some folks off. > > Could you expand on this? > > I'm one of those people who are begging for wargames that do a decent job > of modeling command/control/intelligence and morale. But it's been tough > to dredge up much concrete information on Semper Fi. Could you give some > more details on how these factors are implemented? Well, first off, each unit belongs to an HQ unit. The game allows the movement of one unit, then the enemy has a chance to move one, unless your side achieves initiative (which is gained by success and lost by failure). So the base game is one counter, one move/attack sequence, alternating friendly and enemy. Same system used in many modern boardgames. Command and control is implemented with a control radius for each HQ. If a unit moves outside of the radius, it is activated only as described above. But you can activate an HQ, then have it send orders to the other units, allowing all the HQ's assets to move in *one* phase. This must be done by pushing a button after selecting the right unit each turn (the HQ). Morale is affected by losses, and improves or degrades the performance of units. Eventually, a broken unit will not be able to be activated, and will retreat on it's own. Intel is reflected through the use of line of sight and limited into on enemy units. You can see roughly how many troops there are (stacking values) but not their morale (I think). BTW, attack value is determined by the type of unit, it's current size and the weapons system chosen for use (there is limited ammo too). The defensive value is determined by the *terrain* a unit is in, as well as it's armor value. There is a max attack value and range for each weapons system a unit has, as well as close assault values against soft and hard targets. > What do you mean by "a level of abstraction that seems to put some people > off". What is so highly abstracted? Well, the units are clearly counters, not little tanks and the like. They represent more the ability to project force than the actual details of who is hiding behind one tree. And the map is kind of a background, with about 4 levels of height superimposed. So it looks more like a boardgame than a miniatures game. These days, that's abstract. I didn't like it the first time I tried it, really, but after seeing the effect that tactics had on performance, I find it a lot more interesting. The first time I tried, I had to assault two towns. I did so by splitting my force and circling one of them. In the process, I moved across the open only 300 yards from an enemy stack, and got eaten alive. Another unit chose an avenue of approach that was vulnerable from two different stacks, and *it* got thrashed. The second try, I used a hill to assemble my forces behind, then rushed around it and concentrated everything on one town, which only had one defender. The other defenders grouped around the second town, and I took the second by laying down an initial fire from two sides and then rushing for close assault with a third unit. I evaporated them with little loss. I then crossed a bit north of the road between the two towns, assembled on a ridge and, taking a little more fire this time, got rid of the units supporting the second town. I was a turn away from assaulting it when the scenario ended, and I got a marginal victory. In other words, it rewarded the concentration of force, the use of covering fire (my initial ranged attacks), good command and control (moving my units together under the HQ's control) and smart use of terrain. Pretty good, eh? Like I said, the game was designed by Joe Balkoski and Arnold Hendrick was a design consultant. It's a boardgame, really. Now I think I'll play some more. :-) -- ---------------------------------------- David Pipes Remove P from return address to reply. ---------------------------------------- From: "SteveW@I-Magic" Subject: Re: Semper Fi Henri, Here are some clarifications on the points you raise, from the people who designed the game: >> You talked about the use of covering fire. Are there any suppression >> effects? >> >I don't think so, except for morale loss due to casualties. [Mike R. Inella]: However, that morale loss simulates suppression effects. The disrupted and disorganized results reduce or eliminate the ability to conduct opportunity fire [an important loss for any group in this game]. >> Is there any opportunity fire during the opponents move? If there is no >> opportunity fire how does the game prevent a player from just moving >> through the line-of-sight of the enemy without taking damage? Are the >> movement pulses fairly short? I find that these issues are especially a >> concern with a modern wargame since modern weapons can be targeted with >> only a brief sighting of the enemy even at long range. >> >Yes, and you can turn opportunity fire on or off for each unit (your own, >that is). An entrenched company can really tear an attacking force to >tatters with opportunity fire if they are approaching over open ground. The designers confirm that the above answer is correct. As Mike says, "watch out if you approach over open ground!" >Three comments: > >1) the amount of ammo is relatively low. In every game I have played so >far, ALL my units ran out of AT ammo before the end of the scenario. Fopr >all I know, this may be realistic, with opportunity fire and all that... [Mike R. Inella]: Units that use missiles as their primary AT weapon are limited in ammo. That's because the missiles are very limited [in availability], compared to other ammo types. This means that Dragon squads, or LAV-TOWs, etc., will usually run out of ammo. This reflects the shortage of ammo as well as the fact that firing once in the game actually represents a salvo more than it represents [just] a single shot. >2) In my limited experience I find it all but impossible to assault an >enemy platoon entrenched in a city hex surrounded by other city hexes >without taking very heavy losses. When I bring a platoon adjacent to an >enemy in a city hex, my platoon evaporates. In a meeting engagement >scenario, I lost four or five units this way before I could push a single >enemy platoon off a victory hex. Fortunately, in most cases, the victory >hexes are adjacent to open terrain, so that I can blast the enemy for a >distance. [Mike R. Inella]: Smoke is the way to go here. Urban warfare is very costly, as the Germans found out in Stalingrad. Use mortars to lay smoke in the enemy hex as well as in approaching hexes and you should have greater success. >3) Mortars seem to have no effect on enemies entrenched in cities. I >bombarded a city hex with four infantry units with a mortar for three >successive turns without any apparent effect. Again, I have no idea if this >is realistic or not. [Mike R. Inella]: This is consistent. Mortars basically work by throwing out lots of shrapnel, which has great effect on infantry in the open, but less effect on infantry under cover, unless it lands directly on top of them. Use the mortars to lay smoke instead. As you can see, the design team at Stanley thought through these issues carefully; while we can't guarantee absolutely accuracy according to a varied audience's different standards of realism, the game designers _have_ made a sustained effort to address many such issues in the game design. Remember that there's a certain level of abstraction -- a certain scale -- giving the game its focus, and approach gameplay issues knowing you're dealing with that level of abstraction. I hope this helps! We're all here and eager to give you the best info we can, feel free to ask any other questions you might have about play. Very Best, Steve Wartofsky Interactive Magic