US Forces question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

US Forces question

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> US Forces question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

US Forces question - 9/11/2006 9:15:54 AM

Badream

Posts: 3
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

I'm been playing SPWaW ver 8.4 PBEM and single player for a while now and love it. I have noticed something a little odd though.

The game at times seems to favour US equipment. In a recent game I had 4 of my Tigers knocked out all on the first or second shot by Shermans and Jacksons, all hits were to the frontal armour, with no losses to the US forces. Someone had mentioned this before, so my question is to the makers of the game, or someone that knows the code well: Is the SPWaW program code biased towards US forces, giving them an advantage in the "hit" and "Damage" calculations and results? Or, did I just have an extremely unlucky time of it with my ill-fated Tigers?

I would hope to think that this is not the case as it would be a slap in the face to the US Personel who fought, suffered and died in that confict, as it cheapens their efforts to liberate the countries overrun by the Axis superpowers, by portraying that they had an unfair advantage over Axis forces when in combat. The very fact that it took the combined efforts of the USSR, the Commonwealth, the USA, and a host of other smaller counties, to stop and finally defeat them, after many bloody years of conflict, is testament to the difficult task it was to achieve this.

If this is the case, then SPWaW, as a battle simulator, is no better than a spagetti western movie, where the hero gunfighter, stands up firing his revolver from the hip, hitting all the baddies who were unsucessfully blazing away, making a lot of noise but not hitting a thing, at a range in excess of 100m. This would be historially inaccurate to say the least.

Post #: 1

RE: US Forces question - 9/11/2006 12:18:01 PM

vahauser

Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline

The SPWAW game engine does not favor one nation over another. You just had a run of bad luck. It happens.

If you have doubts, then try this. Set up and play a battle, US Army vs. Japan in December 1941. That should remove any doubts you have.

Or try the campaign, "A Long Long Road to Victory". That will also remove any doubts you have.

(in reply to Badream)

Post #: 2

RE: US Forces question - 9/11/2006 2:57:57 PM

BruceAZ

Posts: 608
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Badream

The game at times seems to favour US equipment. In a recent game I had 4 of my Tigers knocked out all on the first or second shot by Shermans and Jacksons, all hits were to the frontal armour, with no losses to the US forces. ...I just have an extremely unlucky time of it with my ill-fated Tigers?

Yes.

It is a simple matter of luck as the code does not favor anyone. Had you commanded a company of Sherman's, I think your Tigers would have easily taken them out before the Sherman's could get into effective range. In fact, we have a training scen that will teach the novice how to kill a Tiger.

I always thought the poor US Player had junk until early 1945 but could swarm the German player with superior numbers in the early years. The US PLayers strength, I my opinion, is in his good infantry and quick-response artillery - not his tanks. And I believe this to be historically accurate. You can ask the Tankheads and they can give you the specifics.

I guess this is why so many players like to play the German player as they had cool stuff - or at least until 1944. If you want to command an awesome tank force then the Russians in the later years have some very effective equipment.

Keep playing, you will see the Tiger superiority soon.

Recon
Semper Fi

_____________________________

(in reply to Badream)

Post #: 3

RE: US Forces question - 9/11/2006 2:58:28 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

First off, the M36 Jackson was built specifically to defeat the Tiger and Panther armour; hitting them with a 90mm AP shot is going to "kill" those tanks almost every time.

Shermans, OTOH, should only rarely be "killing" Tigers from the front. And only if they are using the 76mm main gun w/APCR ammo. Of course, there are always the lucky "vulnerable location" hits, but they happen infrequently enough that you can't count on them to work.

_____________________________

(in reply to vahauser)

Post #: 4

RE: US Forces question - 9/14/2006 12:48:08 AM

Badream

Posts: 3
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

Thank you for your replies to my delemma. Three out of the four Tigers were knocked out by Jacksons, the other by a Sherman, all frontal hits. My opponent is looking at a descisive victory, but hey thats how the cookie crumbles I guess, and he earned it.

I once played a fellow who was complaining that SPWaW favoured the US. I told him at the time that I thought it was rubbish. Hey I killed a few of his tanks, but the game still ground to a draw. I think he was just a poor sport. I just wanted to clarrify this point once and for all. Thankyou for laying my concerns to rest.

I think SPWaW is a great game, and I can see myself playing it for years to come.

(in reply to Badream)

Post #: 5

RE: US Forces question - 9/14/2006 1:46:41 AM

Titanwarrior89

Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline

I know how ya feel. The same with me. It seems that the Marines get creamed every time they move up against the japs.

I move next to them(japs) and the squad will loose 2,3 or more and Don't even return fire. Send in another unit and the same thing. So hang in there.

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Badream)

Post #: 6

RE: US Forces question - 9/14/2006 3:12:35 AM

Badream

Posts: 3
Joined: 9/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

From: FlashfyreSP
First off, the M36 Jackson was built specifically to defeat the Tiger and Panther armour; hitting them with a 90mm AP shot is going to "kill" those tanks almost every time.

Those Jacksons have under rated by the historians. I hadn't heard of them before playing SPWaW. The Shermans tend to get most of mentions in the history books. By virtue of their armamant, they must have scored a good proportion of the kills on the German armour by US armoured forces from the battles in Normandy onwards.

I will have to rethink my strategy towards the Americans I think

(in reply to Badream)

Post #: 7

RE: US Forces question - 9/14/2006 5:40:32 AM

azraelck

Posts: 581
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline

Yeah, Tank Destroyers aren't as sexy as Tanks... though only a gearhead and avid historian and wargamer would find a Sherman anything resembling sexy. I guess that's why I want one.

That, or it'd be safer in rush hour traffic... :P

_____________________________

"Wait... Holden was a cat. Suddenly it makes sense."

(in reply to Badream)

Post #: 8

RE: US Forces question - 9/14/2006 8:50:50 AM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Badream

quote:

From: FlashfyreSP
First off, the M36 Jackson was built specifically to defeat the Tiger and Panther armour; hitting them with a 90mm AP shot is going to "kill" those tanks almost every time.

Those Jacksons have under rated by the historians. I hadn't heard of them before playing SPWaW. The Shermans tend to get most of mentions in the history books. By virtue of their armamant, they must have scored a good proportion of the kills on the German armour by US armoured forces from the battles in Normandy onwards.

I will have to rethink my strategy towards the Americans I think

The M36 made its appearance in October 1944, and was only found in small numbers (comparatively speaking) until early 1945. Strengths and losses of M36s from 1944-1945:

Oct 1944 - 170 in action, 2 lost
Nov 1944 - 183 in action, 5 lost
Dec 1944 - 236 in action, 21 lost
Jan 1945 - 365 in action, 26 lost
Feb 1945 - 826 in action, 18 lost
Mar 1945 - 884 in action, 21 lost
Apr 1945 - 1054 in action, 34 lost
May 1945 - 1029 in action, 25 lost
Source: M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942-53, Steven J Zaloga

There was one notable encounter: On 5 Jan 1945, Jagdtiger #134, one of a few supporting a panzergrenadier attack along with a captured M4 Sherman, was struck in the side by a HVAP round from an M36 at a range of about 900 meters. The round penetrated, setting off the ammunition and causing a catastrophic explosion which blew out the superstructure sides. The M36 then engaged the Sherman, knocking it out. Finally, it fired HE at the grenadiers, causing them to retire.

_____________________________

(in reply to Badream)

Post #: 9

RE: US Forces question - 9/16/2006 1:28:24 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

"Yeah, Tank Destroyers aren't as sexy as Tanks"

Who sez????

_____________________________

(in reply to azraelck)

Post #: 10

RE: US Forces question - 9/16/2006 3:34:53 PM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

"Yeah, Tank Destroyers aren't as sexy as Tanks"

Who sez????

M10s are the least sexy of all!!

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 11

RE: US Forces question - 9/16/2006 5:51:19 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

"Yeah, Tank Destroyers aren't as sexy as Tanks"

Who sez????

M10s are the least sexy of all!!

That tears it!

So......Alby.....did you get that "hot free gift" for yourself or somebody else??????

< Message edited by m10bob -- 9/16/2006 5:57:34 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Alby)

Post #: 12

RE: US Forces question - 9/16/2006 6:02:18 PM

Alby

Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

"Yeah, Tank Destroyers aren't as sexy as Tanks"

Who sez????

M10s are the least sexy of all!!

That tears it!

So......Alby.....did you get that "hot free gift" for yourself or somebody else??????