Fire cost AP....

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Fire cost AP....

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] >> John Tiller's Campaign Series >> Fire cost AP....

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Fire cost AP.... - 5/15/2008 2:04:29 PM

dgk196

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline

I was watching one of my DVD's the other night. It had a segment on crew served weapons.
In it, implied or otherwise stated, basically, a crew served weapon can usually fire at a rate of two times (or more) than that of a similar weapon in a tank! Of course there are exceptions, but basically it should hold for most weapons, until you get into the really big guns!

So, if a tank with a 75mm had a AP fire cost of say 40, should a 75mm anti-tank gun have an AP fire cost of 20? I mean aren't those extra ammunition handlers for the anti-tank gun there for just that purpose, cut down on the time required to reload, resulting a potentially higher rate of fire?

Dennis

Post #: 1

RE: Fire cost AP.... - 5/15/2008 4:45:44 PM

Miamieagle

Posts: 173
Joined: 10/26/2007
Status: offline

Thats a good point dgk196. I once saw a Type 95HA GO Japanese Tank take about 6 to 8 shots in succesion at the American line during the the Invation of the Philipines. Some guns and its crew where able to take more shots than other. I think it should be�investigated in a fair process and incorporated into this program.

That been said this could mess up the balance issue that other members are alway concern about. Maybe it would be�possible to implemented it as a option.

< Message edited by Miamieagle -- 5/15/2008 4:47:06 PM >

(in reply to dgk196)

Post #: 2

RE: Fire cost AP.... - 5/16/2008 5:25:30 AM

Borst50

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline

ok...I understand your point....now let me ask you

within the context of the campaign series, how long does a single turn represent? I dont know for sure, becayse I am not looking at the manual as i write this, but i would guess it is 1 turn is 3 or 4 minutes, and since this is a IGOYOUGO game everything is happening simultaneously. ok...so what is the rate of fire for a normal take crew? I cant say....do not have access to that info. and also technonlogy plays a part...WW2 tanks are not auto loaders like the tanks of today are. The loader has to manually lift them into the barrel, and those suckers are not light, add to that in the heat of combat, things are going to be a little slower in practise. Yes, smaller calibre guns have lighter ammo, therefore slightly fatser loading times, but within the framework of the game I dont think thats an issue.

Now...add to this, and am still thinking within the game framework, morale plays an important part. If you look at the game...your units in a DCG, for example, they gain experience points, and when they reach a certain level, their morale increases. I have looked, but the manual doesnt state, but I am wondering if with an increase in morale/experience, if the firing costs go down. To be blunt, I have never noticed. But I think thats where the designers should concentrate. The higher the morale, the lower the movement costs and firing costs. The basics are in place, just tweek the game a little bit in that respect.

well....food for thought

(in reply to dgk196)

Post #: 3

RE: Fire cost AP.... - 5/16/2008 7:29:16 AM

dgk196

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline

Good points....

I believe that a game turn represents 6 minutes of real time. That said, since we are in the realm of minutes, that means that a unit with an AP cost of fifty, executes an attack every 3 minutes! Please notice, I didn't say fire once every 3 minutes, though for some units that may be the case! There certainly is more to engaging a target than just shooting, though that is the result of any activities associated with the 'attack'. What else? Ranging, when necessary. Watching the result of your shot, did it hit, was the shot 'short' or 'long'? Did you lead the target sufficiently? Then you apply those observations and make any necessary corrections and then take your next shot!

All of these things happen, and maybe more, if you're attacking with a tank or an anti-tank gun. What I was referring to was any 'additional' personnel that may reduce the time required in any of the processes of firing a gun. Since, generally, tank crews are fewer in number than an equivalent crew of a gun, there has to be some effect, presumably, on the rate of fire. And if that is true, then (in this game) it should not take as many AP's for a crew served gun vs. that of a tank armed with the same caliber weapon. And I believe that the AP firing cost for these is different. I was just wondering if having an equivalent size crew served gun compared to that of a tank should have a much higher rate of fire, cost less AP's!? Of course I realize it will be type specific, but that's okay its already being done, I'm just wondering if the relationship is correct?

Some time ago, we developed a set of 'optional' rules for a board game similar to this game. In it we altered some of the factors for experience, training, morale..... etc.

Basically, it limited the range at which targets can be engaged and how often they where able to attack! For this game, you could do something like limiting inexperienced and or poorly trained troops to firing at say half range, or less, and requiring a higher AP cost for all operations! And then as you said, as troops become more proficient and better trained they will begin to be able to use the weapons at their maximum ratings. So if you had a scenario where two different 'units' of the same side, or different sides, differed in their experience and training you would have variant abilities within the same scenario!

All optional settings of course!

Dennis

< Message edited by dgk196 -- 5/17/2008 6:56:53 AM >

(in reply to Borst50)

Post #: 4

RE: Fire cost AP.... - 5/17/2008 6:44:30 AM

cw58

Posts: 277
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Hanford, CA, US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dgk196

So, if a tank with a 75mm had a AP fire cost of say 40, should a 75mm anti-tank gun have an AP fire cost of 20? I mean aren't those extra ammunition handlers for the anti-tank gun there for just that purpose, cut down on the time required to reload, resulting a potentially higher rate of fire?

Dennis

Interesting debate, so I'll add my 2 cents. I think you may have answered your own question in a later post when you stressed the word "attacks, not fires". I don't have an extensive knowledge of WWII weapons, but it seems to me that it would be faster to adjust the aim of your second shot (and following ones) with a turreted weapon. Not to mention moving to face a new threat, perhaps 30 or 40 degrees to the right or left. Not so hard with a 37mm ATG, but those 75mm ATG gotta be heavy.

This would be especially true if the ATG was dug in for defensive and/or concealment purposes.

And I think the same applies to Assault Guns/Tank Destroyers. The crew would have to manuever the vehicle to line up their next shot, whereas a tank could manuever both vehicle and turret. So I think the game tries to model the number of effective attacks in a turn and not the amount of shots that can be fired.

So I think a number of factors are considered, including the number of crew. But that's just an opinion; I don't have any experience or references to back it up, so I could have it all wrong. Perhaps someone with expertise in this area could chime in. But I appreciate your willingness to start discussions. Makes for good reading. Interesting ideas about linking experience with APs, I had never considered that.

For Borst 50:
About morale... The only thing morale effects is removing disruption. Higher morale means it's easier for a unit to lose its disrupted status. That's it.

It would be nice for campaigns if it did more than that, but I think that's something that would have to be hard-coded into the main program.

cw58

< Message edited by cw58 -- 5/17/2008 6:45:08 AM >

(in reply to dgk196)

Post #: 5

RE: Fire cost AP.... - 5/17/2008 7:29:03 AM

dgk196

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline

The linking of attack factors or rates or close assault with 'abilities' is something we started with war games many years ago. Not that experience or training will make a round penetrate more armor, but a well trained experienced crew will know their target and just where to put a shot for maximum effectiveness. Or a well 'drilled' crew might have a higher rate of fire and or a better capability to get the first round on the target, and so on........

I always looked upon a generic unit type, unless it is modified in some way to reflect morale etc., as the maximum 'ability' situation of a unit. Then if you have a game such as this, which has an AP cost for performing activities, firing, loading, movement and so on you can create situations that allow for 'other' variables. Yes, even movement. Remember you are not moving individual vehicles. You are moving formations. Sometimes it can be like 'trying to get cats to march in a parade'! Such 'things' as training, experience, morale and so on, could be taken into account. All of those things would be judgment calls of course. But if you had the ability to easily modify the AP cost of units you could, theoretically, take into account such things. You could even have 'expert' units require the expenditure of fewer AP's to perform some activities, giving them an 'edge' over other units!

So, if you had the ability to vary the AP cost of units even just plus or minus ten points, it could make a significant difference in close call situations! And that's what you want. The twice as good or three times as good makes the players feel good or bad about their units abilities. But such ratios are, in my opinion, a little over the top. I like to have situations where the outcome is a close call. Its kind of like 'just painting the outside corner with a fast ball' instead of over the middle of the plate! The difference, inches! The result a grand slam instead of a strike out!! You don't have to have a fast ball pitcher that throws a 180 mph fast ball (though that would be something to see), you need one with control! For me that's the experience / training aspect. The morale? A pitcher with no self confidence! Sorry about the sports analogy, but its easier to get the point across sometimes, when using 'familiar' terms.

Dennis

< Message edited by dgk196 -- 5/17/2008 9:09:53 AM >

(in reply to cw58)

Post #: 6

RE: Fire cost AP.... - 5/17/2008 8:53:06 PM

Borst50

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/1/2008
Status: offline

you make some very good points, and all things considered, I think, i believe....the game, id best served keeping it the way it is. Now...after having said that, yes some thing can and need to be tweeked, nothing is ever perfect. I am not a purist...where everything has to be completely accurate, but I do firmly maintain, the some resembalance to reality be maintained.

within the context of the game as it is now, you will find that sp direct firing crew served weapons do have a slighter faster firing rate that leg crew served direct firing weapons. If you look at you unit within the game as you play a battle you can see on the AP bar the rate at which it shrinks, meaning how many points are left. Yes, lighter wapons, with smaller calibre ammo, will be quicker tio load than heavier ones...BUT...to warrant a 3rd shot in the space of 6 minutes? I do not believe so. Nor do I think. the addition of extra personell will help. Now you have extra bodies running around, stumbling over each other, and basically getting in the way. And within the context of the game, that will change the SP's of each unit.

ROFL...if ya want a sports analogy, heres one for you....it's 4th down and goal to go on the 1 inch line, your direct fire crew served weapon takes the snap....he turns and hands off to the running back, but wait.....flag is thrown......play dead.....too many men on the field...the offensive line had an extra lineman.

In the final analysis, Gernerals who have had much more experience then us armchair generals, knew what they were doing when they created the OOB's for their respective armies. They decided tactics, weapons, and personell to fit the job they wanted....yes....we can second guess everything....but I am wondering...to really know the subject matter....shouldnt we wak a mile in THIER shoes? Fight the battles they fought, with the equipment they had and the organization they created? Makes sense to me, but is just my opinion.

I do agree with you that alternate options should be OPTIONAL, but the down side to that is way too many updates....ahem....like its been almost 8 weeks since the files were sent to matrix for formatting...still waiting on 1.03....just thought i would throw that in there for other people who read this thread....so I do not see any changes like you are proposing anytime within any forseeable future. BUT...nothing is to say we, as players, cant modify our own files....true?

Anyway, just thought I would throw that out there.

(in reply to dgk196)

Post #: 7

RE: Fire cost AP.... - 5/18/2008 1:26:18 AM

cw58

Posts: 277
Joined: 8/4/2007
From: Hanford, CA, US
Status: offline

dgk196

For this discussion, I'm assuming that when we say "experienced", we're talking about morale level. Unless you're proposing a new unit trait?

I agree with you that a more experienced unit should be able to perform more actions in a turn than a 'green' unit. The trick is how to incorporate that idea without having to recode the entire game. I believe all the action costs (firing, etc.) are accessed by the game from the platoon.obx files. Easy enough to change by unit type (rifle pltn, mg, etc.) but not based on morale. You would have to create new unit types (normal, veteran, elite, etc.) The rate of movement is a little different, but essentially the same problem remains. However, it may be possible to adjust the number of APs based on morale level.

Example: Let's say that the average morale level is 6. You're playing a campaign game and some of your units achieve a morale level of 7. If they then received a 10% bonus to APs (now having 110 APs), this could simulate their ability to do everything a little bit better. Maybe move that extra hex or move and get that extra shot.

So rather than trying to adjust the costs of all the different actions, adjust the APs. This would have to be coded in the main program, so that makes it a job for the CS Legion. I don't know if this is practical or even possible, but it's an idea.

cw58

(in reply to dgk196)

Post #: 8

RE: Fire cost AP.... - 5/18/2008 8:59:38 AM

dgk196

Posts: 248
Joined: 3/21/2006
Status: offline

@cw58

I think you are 'headed' in the right direction! I envisioned separate 'costs' for the various individual activities.
But I envisioned three core attributes for units. These where 'experience', 'training' and 'morale'. The 'experience'
would be how much 'combat time' has the unit had? The 'training' basic, specialized, that sort of thing.
The 'morale' would be reflective of the length of time a unit has been in the front line, or if the troops are fanatical,
if they have suffered high losses and so on.

These 'attributes' would then determine the AP's for the unit. Don't ask me how! So many AP's for every day, week, month
in action? So many points for each day, week, or month of training? So many points for a perceived 'morale' situation?
Are each of these 'attributes' equal? Is training more important than experience? And is morale the 'joker' in the deck?
Not an easy problem is it? But if you just made them variables and allowed the designer of scenario's or the user's to make the
determination then the only ones they have to argue with, in the end, is themselves!

But at a minimum the individual units would not have a 'cookie cutter' aspect when it came to the various era's of WWII.
For example the 'French' might have a low morale level at the start of WWII, but the 'Free French' and partisans are, by comparison,
very much more motivated (higher morale?)! The Russians, poorly trained and at times little to no experience for some of their 'branches'
almost throughout the war. And on and on......... you get the idea, I'm sure. It just would be nice to feel that I was being able to take
some of these things into account.

Dennis