More on OOB accuracy

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

More on OOB accuracy

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 >> More on OOB accuracy

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

More on OOB accuracy - 10/12/2000 1:45:00 PM

hammerhead

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: Shell Beach,CA,USA
Status: offline

Bill and Voriax and Arralen and others who might be following this thread: I must say again that it was not my intent to start fires on this board. A am sorry. So chill. Futhermore, I have little grasp of the limitations of the Matrix Games editor. And just yesterday my very excited friends and I, having just gotten the editor , realized that certain significant changes to the OOB's would blow through(impact) many of the old scenarios. This would mean that many, if not all, of the great scenarios already produced for Matrix Games would be nullified. THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN! ( IMHO) (Indeed in the somewhat distant past, my earlier attempts at scenarios for SP turned into hours of work and lots of frustrations because it seemed whenever I ( very slowly but accurately )got them ready for review, SSI would come out with a revision which in some cases obviated my work (made it useless). I would not want this to happen to the Matrix scenarios...nor its designers! But my brief look at the Matrix Games editor seems also to show that there are both slots available in the matrices as well as the ability to change ranges, sizes, capacities, and much more, without disturbing the integrity of either the unit matrices, or the formation matrices. So I feel that there is not really a valid argument for just leaving the stuff the way it is. Indeed, the most glaring errors I saw in my (confessed) perhaps too quick look at the data, can be easily fixed. Example: I was just play testing my Hill 122 US '44 St Lo scenario and found that the M15a1 AA HT shows the range of the 50 cal AA MGs to be only 20 hexs!! That is only 1km if I am not mistaken. On a gun which has a very effective range at 3000 meters. Such errors as this are very important to me. I do not think such errors are tollerated in Nazi weapons. HMMM? I do not wish to design scenarios with such technical errors. ( Yes I know you have not seen any of my earlier scenarios...But for various reasons I have been distributing them to a small circle of friends.) I would like to design US scenarios for the Gamers folks but will be hard pressed to spend my limited time to do so without some assurance that I can be sure of the tools I am using. My name goes on my work. Therefore..I do not want the OOB's to be so modified that I cannot be assured that they will make my work unusable ( ie stepping on the matices ...requiring all new scenarios) Conversely, I do not want to work on a design which has little historical accuracy in the OOB-TOE arena ...while I am struggling to make the maps and the OOA and unit names accurate. If this becomes the case, I will simply go back to my "locals only" designs. I realize that the Nazi weapons systems had litteraly hundreds of different types of weapons and almost as many different types of formations, ( indeed, this was a major reason for their defeat). But the US weapons and formations were far fewer in type and variation. Their structure and specifications are not a hazy subject, nor a matter of someone's opinion. They are a matter of fact. And these facts are easily accessible to anyone who wants to know and has the ability to procure or to check out from the library the relatively few books which are needed. And they are the only nation of which I claim to have any authority. Again...I am sorry if I am fanning some apparently old flames for you 'veterans'. But perhaps I have spoken for some of the others who follow this game's development and earnestly hope for as accurate a gameset as is practable. From what I have seen of the excellent work from you guys, your love of these games seems to ensure such an approach. ------------------ "Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

_____________________________

"Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

Post #: 1

- 10/12/2000 4:59:00 PM

troopie

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline

Hammerhead, The usual policy is, if the OOB you are using differs from the standard, to post the OOB. I have not posted SPWAW scenarios, but I have posted SP2 and SPww2 scenarios. In only two cases did I use the standard OOBs. The rest of the time I used edited OOBs abd posted them. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 2

- 10/13/2000 1:40:00 AM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Hammerhead, an occasional flamefight does spice things a bit...

First of all I doubt that the Nazi's get any more special treatment than the Yanks. The accuracy of the oob largely depends of the accuracy of the people who are doing the oob. As for the 50cal..it already has one strange advantage. While all other tank mg's fire at the long range (as secondary weapons) only if the crew passes an experience check, the 50cal AAMG always fires, and it has nothing to do with the oob as far as I can tell. Also the ranges...I'm not aware of all the thoughts behind the initial decisions concerning these ranges, but in many cases they are adjusted to the game. While the bullet from 50cal will fly 3000m I seriously doubt you will hit into anything at that range nor would you even try to fire at that range. Ditto to most weapons... If I'd put the range of 50cal to 60 hexes, then I'd have to increase the range of just about every gun, creating a situation where gun ranges are 'across the map'. I don't think we'd want that. Also if you look around the oob you'll notice that AA mg's tend to have shorter range than normal ones. I think this is too a game decision to avoid wide range aamg fire. The 50cal hmg has a range of 35 hexes, 1750 metres. And to confuse things even more, the 50cal aircraft weapon has range of 6 hexes.

So what I'm grasping at is that sometimes playability steps over reality. In such cases it's best to ensure that all oob's are 'in line' relative to similar weapons in other oobs. My opinions only, Paul and rest of Matrix Gurus may have other thoughts. Voriax ------------------ OOB-Wan Kenobi

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 3

- 10/13/2000 4:10:00 AM

RUsco

Posts: 402
Joined: 8/11/2000
From: Grand Rapids,MI USA
Status: offline

In responce to the effective range of the .50 cal Browning Heavy MG. Sgt Heathcock, USMC Sniper (Most confirmed kills) Killed a Viet Cong at a range of 2500 Meters With a M-2 Browning MG. 1 shot. This is documented in a book writen abouit him. I loaned my copy to my brother a while back and haven't seen it since.

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 4

- 10/13/2000 4:42:00 AM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

In looking at the OOB one must consider the limitations of the simulation. Since this is not real life certain compromises must be made. For instance an Amerincan Inf. Company, the HQ Platoon was not 12 men, it was not intended as a fighting unit. I contained, clerks, runners, cooks, and other administrative types. Do you count these men (I believe the actual number number of men was something like 30) as fighting units? This is a decision that the creator of the OOB has to make. Personally I feel that this platoon is over rated. Each Army handled their HQ units differently so there is a wide variation between 'fighting ability' and actual number of men on the line. If I remember correctly a German Division actually had an extra Regiment that was for supplying replacements, this unit often became an front line unit. Also Company administration was handled at the Batalion level thus reducing the number of none combatants in at the Company level. So what you are trying to simulate is the determining factor in the size and make up of a unit. These are just a couple of examples of compromises that have to be made in a simulation. Overall the effect and balance of the different units (comparing each army to each other army) is excellent. There are even more compromises that need to be made in weapons performance, not to mention doctoren of use, ie: British 3.7" AA were never used as AT guns, you know it just not 'proper' eh wat. ;-) So in my continuing quest for perfection I have modified my OOB (German only so far) to include a 'supply mule' class ammo carrier. I do have a small question, all of the slots for German units are used is there anyway to get more slots without deleting an existing unit? Boy do I need a spell checker.

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 5

- 10/13/2000 7:12:00 AM

Major Destruction

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/10/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline

[QUOTE] I do have a small question, all of the slots for German units are used is there anyway to get more slots without deleting an existing unit? Not in the Germany list. You could place your new unit into an unused slot of a different Nation. But if you want to create a unit for a scenario, you can create pretty much anything you like via the scenario editor but limited only by the available icons and the weapon list.

_____________________________

They struggled with a ferocity that was to be expected of brave men fighting with forlorn hope against an enemy who had the advantage of position......knowing that courage was the one thing that would save them.

Julius Caesar, 57 BC

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 6

- 10/13/2000 7:20:00 AM

hammerhead

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: Shell Beach,CA,USA
Status: offline

Thanks to all for your calm replies! As I wrote this thread starter at 2 am last, and as I am a retread ( new ) recruit...I was happy to see lots of tolerance out there for my forewardness in critizing those who work so well and hard at getting this stuff out there for us to play. PBEAR's remark: >In only two cases did I use the standard OOBs. The rest of the time I used edited OOBs abd posted them.< ...may be closer to reality for most scenario designers ... but I wish it were not so. The job is hard enough already. But I will accept that as a better solution than my own ( design for locals only play ) and will modify the OOBs if I cannot convince those in charge to take a closer look at some of their work. I had thought that using the 50 cal MG example would be understood as only an example of what I perceive as some major problems with the US TOE OOB setup. Shorting plt's of squads, late introduction of crucial weapons, inaccurate; ranges, carrying capacities, and other capabilities shows a clear bias to the undue advantage of the Axis forces. If there is indeed so much modification needed for 'gaming' reasons, I am suprised at how little these reasons have been employed for German units and weapons. The 88 still carries it phenomanal range and accuracy, as many other Nazi weapons do. And the Germans seem to get every weapons listed and employed...to the point where the sniper gets to carry grenades ( Still ? ) While any experienced sniper who went to work would likely take some such protection along for close order security..... Well I have said me piece...for now. The US OOB/TOE setup needs a bath. ------------------ "Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

_____________________________

"Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 7

- 10/13/2000 7:37:00 AM

Major Ed

Posts: 51
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Jackson, MS USA
Status: offline

Speaking on the range of the .50 cal, when I went through the Infantry Officers Basic Course (to many years ago to count)and for several years of serivce in mech inf units we used "Ma Deuce" extensively. We (plt ldrs and co. CO's) were told to use 1000-1500 meters as its "effective" range, since this was the tracer burn-out range. You can use it at greater distances, but with less accuracy. If you aren't a sniper with the training and steady support (we fired from flexible mounts on top of M-113's) you definitely have a hard time getting to 2000 meters. It may be that the programmers used the published "max effective ranges" in the game design. Unless they got familiar with all the weapons used during WW II it may have been the best compromise to equalize each weapons effectiveness.

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 8

- 10/13/2000 9:14:00 AM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by RUsco: In responce to the effective range of the .50 cal Browning Heavy MG. Sgt Heathcock, USMC Sniper (Most confirmed kills) Killed a Viet Cong at a range of 2500 Meters With a M-2 Browning MG. 1 shot. This is documented in a book writen abouit him. I loaned my copy to my brother a while back and haven't seen it since.

I guessed this will come up

His weapon was equipped with a scope, not a standard equipment on ww2 50cal's. And you can find similar one-shot long range kills done with just about any weapon. Voriax ------------------ OOB-Wan Kenobi

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 9

- 10/13/2000 5:02:00 PM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

Hey Hammer, If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.) This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret." I think that you will have more success with this tactic. By giving us detailed information we will be able to examine the specific game mechanics involved. After consulting the available sources, we can probably do a good job representing the unit in question. BA Evans

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 10

- 10/13/2000 5:05:00 PM

RUsco

Posts: 402
Joined: 8/11/2000
From: Grand Rapids,MI USA
Status: offline

Still, scope or not, It does portray the accuraccy of the .50 cal. MG. Its still a hell of a shot.

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 11

- 10/13/2000 5:34:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BA Evans: [B]Hey Hammer, If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.) This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret." Have to agree here, especially when such heavily weighted ordinances such as suggestions/accusations of 'bias towards Nazi weapons' is being tossed around. Nothing wrong with constructive critisism, but in order to address an issue, specific info is needed. Personally i dont see the US OOB as being terribly off base though i will admit that my expertise lies more with AFV's and related vehicles vs. the myrid of small arms weapons of which Steel Panther's abounds. Only thing on the US OOB i still question are the varying armor stats for the various marks of Sherman, though it has been much improved. If it seems like more tweaking is being devoted to the German OOB, well this may very well be true, but not because of any real 'bias' but more so because the German tends to be one of the more popular choices for campaign play from what i've observed down the years. That combined with the greater # of years that they were involved in the war (and on so many various fronts), with so many different weapons and subvarients of weapons tends to absorb alot of attention. PS...about that front turret rating for the Tiger I......(kidding!)

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 12

- 10/13/2000 5:58:00 PM

panda124c

Posts: 1692
Joined: 5/23/2000
From: Houston, TX, USA
Status: offline

Thank you, from what you are saying there is no restriction on which OOB you use to create a unit such that the Italian OOB could be used to make new German units. Correct?

quote:

Originally posted by Major Destruction: [QUOTE] I do have a small question, all of the slots for German units are used is there anyway to get more slots without deleting an existing unit? Not in the Germany list. You could place your new unit into an unused slot of a different Nation. But if you want to create a unit for a scenario, you can create pretty much anything you like via the scenario editor but limited only by the available icons and the weapon list.

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 13

- 10/13/2000 7:30:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

I find it fascinating how frequently the Gerry OOBs come across as 'unfair' or 'too unrealistic', are the same people who are playing the US forces. The 88 has too far a range? It was an heavy AA gun for crying out loud, which could shoot (straight up) to 32,000 ft. For the US players who feel this way, realise that the visibility in this game is never over 45, therefore an 88 cannot fire on a Sherman without the possibility of return fire. In other words, the 88's extensive range is all but useless over the field, with the exception of how a longer range will help it's accuracy effectiveness.

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 14

- 10/13/2000 8:40:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by RUsco: Still, scope or not, It does portray the accuraccy of the .50 cal. MG. Its still a hell of a shot.

Only if he did it repeatedly! If he managed to get just one long range kill I can call it an accident

Voriax ------------------ OOB-Wan Kenobi

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 15

- 10/15/2000 12:15:00 PM

hammerhead

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: Shell Beach,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by BA Evans: Hey Hammer, If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.) This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret." I think that you will have more success with this tactic. By giving us detailed information we will be able to examine the specific game mechanics involved. After consulting the available sources, we can probably do a good job representing the unit in question. BA Evans

quote:

Originally posted by Nikademus: [QUOTE]Originally posted by BA Evans: [B]Hey Hammer, If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.) This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret." Have to agree here, especially when such heavily weighted ordinances such as suggestions/accusations of 'bias towards Nazi weapons' is being tossed around. Nothing wrong with constructive critisism, but in order to address an issue, specific info is needed. Personally i dont see the US OOB as being terribly off base though i will admit that my expertise lies more with AFV's and related vehicles vs. the myrid of small arms weapons of which Steel Panther's abounds. Only thing on the US OOB i still question are the varying armor stats for the various marks of Sherman, though it has been much improved. If it seems like more tweaking is being devoted to the German OOB, well this may very well be true, but not because of any real 'bias' but more so because the German tends to be one of the more popular choices for campaign play from what i've observed down the years. That combined with the greater # of years that they were involved in the war (and on so many various fronts), with so many different weapons and subvarients of weapons tends to absorb alot of attention. PS...about that front turret rating for the Tiger I......(kidding!)

I will be most happy to provide my input (constructive ) rather than my criticism. I shall post the info to this forum so that all who are interested can have a go at it (and me) if they like. If this is not acceptable please advise. Regarding the input that the 88 is a "heavy AA gun for gosh sakes" and shoots 32k feet straight up, it makes my point perfectly. The US 90 mm AA gun is ALSO a heavy AA gun but someone has chosen to limit its range to 56? hexes ( 2800 meters ) allowing it to fire straight up only some 24000 feet. Whereas in point of fact it was designed and functioned as a high altitude AA gun. And although it was not the largest nor most powerful US AA gun, it did top out at some 36,000 feet. Perhaps THAT is why most of the complaints about US weapons being disfavored: US weapons are apparently not as well known as German WW II weapons. Perhaps most designers and contributors to these games find US stuff a little boring? Something to do with a lot of real corny American movies about WW2? I do not know ( and in any hobby the German stuff is the most (sadly) admired.) But by mid '44 the US had a definite leg up on the GErmans, in terms of aricrew competancy, vehicle reliability, artillery skill and artillery weapon and tageting quality. Are all of these aspects reflected in the SP games, or any computer games? No. Even the old board war games were designed for the stated intent of having the Nazi's given a better chance in battle. The game would be boring otherwise. That is OK with as long as it is clearly noted and known ( especialy by the new or young and impressionable player, as well as those playing what they would like to consider as historically accurate games do not fall to such temptations. If these games are to teach as well as entertain, then ALL of the facts must be unculcated into the games. If US units are to be ignored, if their capabilities are to be limited for "playability reasons" that is fine, as long as we do not claim or imply that they are otherwise. Example: when it is found that a German fighter which would fly into an area of US armored infantry in clear weather would be cut to shreads because of the large ( HUGE) amounts of AAA ( both in terms of attached AAA units and the 50 cals on almost every vehicle in the American arsenal): In such a situation, it may require that the US AAA should be somehow limited ( so that there can be some reason for using NAzi fighters after mid 44 ...other than to see them becoming holes in the Italian and French countrysides. And for the player on the German side ...even me ...what fun would that be!? Perhaps rather than trying to minimize the effectiveness of Allied units/weapons, where they do have a clear advantage, the cost of such superior units/weapons should relfect their awsome effect on the battlefield ...just as the usually superior German armor's effect is reflected in the price. I do know a little about the SP system. I was using Jim Belo's editor back in '96. I am also familiar with OOB's T/O&E's and have an extensive library on both...as well as many books on the German OOB's TOE's and weapons ....and an extensive military history libray. My father fought as a US AAC in WW2. I have perhaps a little more awe and respect for the sometimes superior US weapons that did exist in WW2. ( HE flew a P38 in the Pacific) And as a result I am always a little disappointed in other Americans who (IMHO) may give the AXIS more of their admiration than I feel is .... appropriate. I will try to provide as much info on the US weapons/units as I have time, skill, and resources to acquire. If this is acceptable to those in charge, let me know. ------------------ "Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

_____________________________

"Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 16

- 10/15/2000 12:48:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

This gets interesting...regarding the 88 and the 90mm AA gun, there is *very* little difference between them in the game except in the accuracy of the 88. I don't know why this is so but perhaps this 90mm gun didn't have sights specially made for ground target use? Then this american lead from 44'...while this has truth in it, it really has nothing to do about the basic quality of German equipment. The Germans had to manufacture their gear in extreme conditions but they still managed to field some rather extraordinary equipment, albeit in small quantities. And actually there have always been a system of taking into account the strenghtening/weakening of base skills in the armies included in the oob. There exists a base value for morale and experience for each year and for each army. When units are created this value is used as a base. For germans these values decrease towards the end of the war, with allies it increases. This is from memory..would need a search but I recall Paul? saying that the vehicle break up percentages also vary from year to year and from nation to nation. Hammerhead, if you want to take time to send oob suggestions they are welcome. If you want to do a complete oob or a list of changes needed you can also mail them to me directly. Just keep in mind deletions from the current oob's will be frowned upon and probably ignored. ------------------ OOB-Wan Kenobi

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 17

- 10/15/2000 1:02:00 PM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

Hey it's my old friend the .50 cal. You know perhaps recitations of Hathcock's deeds should require the preface:"Do not attempt this shot at this range at home!" missed you all, sven

quote:

Originally posted by Major Ed: Speaking on the range of the .50 cal, when I went through the Infantry Officers Basic Course (to many years ago to count)and for several years of serivce in mech inf units we used "Ma Deuce" extensively. We (plt ldrs and co. CO's) were told to use 1000-1500 meters as its "effective" range, since this was the tracer burn-out range. You can use it at greater distances, but with less accuracy. If you aren't a sniper with the training and steady support (we fired from flexible mounts on top of M-113's) you definitely have a hard time getting to 2000 meters. It may be that the programmers used the published "max effective ranges" in the game design. Unless they got familiar with all the weapons used during WW II it may have been the best compromise to equalize each weapons effectiveness.

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 18

- 10/15/2000 1:06:00 PM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

This gets interesting...regarding the 88 and the 90mm AA gun, there is *very* little difference between them in the game except in the accuracy of the 88. I don't know why this is so but perhaps this 90mm gun didn't have sights specially made for ground target use? ============================================= Remember I live next to the Air Defense Schools, and the curator says that the 90mm AA did not have the proper sights. Our doctrine was not as flexible concerning the multiple uses of "heavy" AA. I am sure that there are examples of field expedients, but they were not doctrinally sound(according to Coastal Artillery brass). sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give.... [This message has been edited by sven (edited October 15, 2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 19

- 10/16/2000 10:21:00 AM

hammerhead

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: Shell Beach,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by sven: This gets interesting...regarding the 88 and the 90mm AA gun, there is *very* little difference between them in the game except in the accuracy of the 88. I don't know why this is so but perhaps this 90mm gun didn't have sights specially made for ground target use? ============================================= Remember I live next to the Air Defense Schools, and the curator says that the 90mm AA did not have the proper sights. Our doctrine was not as flexible concerning the multiple uses of "heavy" AA. I am sure that there are examples of field expedients, but they were not doctrinally sound(according to Coastal Artillery brass). sven

OK. I may be confused here but all I could find for the 88 that resembled an AA gun was the 88mm FLAK 18 "AT" ...which has a range of 80 hexes ie 4000 meters ie 2.4 miles ie ~13,000 feet.... and since I could find no other AA gun for the Nazis does not mean there is not one in the OB's...Nevertheless, the US 90 mm AAA gun in comparison has a range of 56 hexes ie 2800 meters ie 1.7 miles ie ~8600 feet...so either I have not found the 88gun you are referring to or NEITHER gun is properly ranged ...In any case the US gun comes out to be a good ( or bad) 33/100 ie one third poorer in range ...I doubt such a claim very much. As I said (claimed) earlier, Bradley did not like the number of AAA Btns he was being sent to just sit back and guard the Corps artillery against the highly unlikely event of a huge Nazi air attack. He therefor changed "doctrine" and requested (ordered) both light auto-weapons SP AA units (quad.50's, 37mm/duel 50's, and 40 mm units), as well as medium semi-mobile auto-weapons units ( 76mm M1A1 and 90mm) AA guns ( often towed by the lighter AA HT's noted above ) to be deployed in forward and even attacking formations. ( Humerous note [for those not on the other end of these guns ]- the Quad 50 was called the 'chopper' and the 'lawn mower' by the happy infantry whose unit they were fortunately attached to. But rather than continue to address each of these issues individually, I propose to simply write out a list of my 'constructs' for all to read and heed or read and heave.

------------------ "Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

_____________________________

"Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 20

- 10/16/2000 5:37:00 PM

Arralen

Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by hammerhead: OK. I may be confused here but all I could find for the 88 that resembled an AA gun was the 88mm FLAK 18 "AT" ...

There's an "AT" and an "AA" version in the OOB, which describe basically the same gun, but with different ammo loads and some tweaked stats to reflect the "prime use". The "AT" version is classed as "AT-gun" and has more AP shells; it will show up in the At-Gun selection. The "AA" version is rated as "heavy AA" and will only show up in a special "88 AA battery", it has very few AP shells at all and some modified RgF/FC value to make it more suitable to the AA role. Remember - the AT gun will not shoot at a/c !! The "range" given in the unit stats is never either the maximum range or the effective range you may find in a technical description/manual, but depends on various factors. Arralen

_____________________________

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 21

- 10/16/2000 6:21:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

hammerhead: If I recall correctly, the original complaint was that the 88 had too great a range. No, in fact it's actually too short id we're comparing it's range to it's role against enemy air. I would certainly suggest that while the 88 may have had the longest range or similar to other heavy guns, it couldn't shoot as far horizontially as vertically and achieve a smidgen of accuracy. The 80 range you pointed out is probably quite fair for it, however, as I said, the range is quite moot anyway, because it bascially cannot exchange fire with it's lengthy range. On the subject of the US 90mm, it probably doesn't deserve the 88 flak's range, but it's still superior beyond the range of the current maximum visibility, so that it too is being punished so to speak, and has to exchange fire with mere 37mm (some of them have range of forty with maximum visibility of 45). Few people know this, it would appear, and I didn't know it until recently, but the Germans actually had an 128mm flak gun as well, but you never hear many stories about "the dreaded 128", as I would suspect the Germans never used it in an AT role, or did so, so infrequently, that it was only if it was stuck in a city's AA defense and found itself being stormed by ground forces, at the same time there were no air units to shoot down. .

_____________________________

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 22

- 10/16/2000 7:52:00 PM

Dice4Eyes

Posts: 59
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: Few people know this, it would appear, and I didn't know it until recently, but the Germans actually had an 128mm flak gun as well, but you never hear many stories about "the dreaded 128", as I would suspect the Germans never used it in an AT role, or did so, so infrequently, that it was only if it was stuck in a city's AA defense and found itself being stormed by ground forces, at the same time there were no air units to shoot down. [/B]

Yes thats right, the 10,5cm and 128mm Flak guns were orgenised in GrossBatterien for the protection of German cities. From what i can surmise they were quite effective against allied raids. I think they were radar controled, but i dont now. Anybody got any information on German fire control radars? ------------------ Divide et Impera Daniel E

_____________________________

Divide et Impera Daniel E

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 23

- 10/17/2000 1:49:00 AM

John T_MatrixForum

Posts: 84
Joined: 8/7/2000
From: Stockholm Sweden
Status: offline

Hammerhead I find two more reasons why German equipment are a bit overrated. 1. US kit is well known, both pros and cons so it is easier to treat them correct. If the tracer is spent at 1500 meters this is a good argument that the effective combat range is aprox 1500 meters. Few are familiar with German kit so it's harder to prove that teoretical values are wrong. 2. Military history is full of overrated but defeated enemies. it is understandable that the victor tries to focus on enemy strenght rather than their own failings. If we want a Historical correct outcome you either reduces US Kit and keeps the Experience factor or Improves the Kit and lowers the Exp. I feel that most US game designers favors to blame the engineers designing the weapon systems rather than the men fighting and dying. From sources like Max Hastings, Keegan etc. I got the belife that most US officers had less time in training than the average German counterpart had combat experience. This and the Western Allieds respect for own losses, In the game a US GI should cost five times the price of a German. The Allied did not want to waste lives while the Germans had twelve years of "Nothing for You, All For Germany" Propaganda to stiffen the resolve to sustain casualties. And of course this can't be changed with keeping play balance as long we want to play Meeting engagement with same number of build points. The "true value" option is in the right direction but does not model the reluctance to get your men wasted. To model that you need a Buy point and a Killed Point(enemy VP) value for each unit. Example: US Inf Buy 3, Killed 15 US M4 Buy 35, Killed 8 (Ie the Vehicle doesn't count for VP, it just the men) GE Inf Buy 2, Killed 4 USSR Buy 1, Killed 1(0.5?) (This can be done in the Scenario editor but not in generated battles) /John T.

_____________________________

/John T

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 24

- 10/17/2000 1:28:00 PM

hammerhead

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: Shell Beach,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Arralen: There's an "AT" and an "AA" version in the OOB, which describe basically the same gun, but with different ammo loads and some tweaked stats to reflect the "prime use". The "AT" version is classed as "AT-gun" and has more AP shells; it will show up in the At-Gun selection. The "AA" version is rated as "heavy AA" and will only show up in a special "88 AA battery", it has very few AP shells at all and some modified RgF/FC value to make it more suitable to the AA role. Remember - the AT gun will not shoot at a/c !! The "range" given in the unit stats is never either the maximum range or the effective range you may find in a technical description/manual, but depends on various factors. Arralen

Yes. yes. I know about the difference in the game between the AT and the AA guns. But this is not quite relevant to my point. ------------------ "Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

_____________________________

"Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 25

- 10/17/2000 1:33:00 PM

hammerhead

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: Shell Beach,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Charles22: hammerhead: If I recall correctly, the original complaint was that the 88 had too great a range. No, in fact it's actually too short id we're comparing it's range to it's role against enemy air. I would certainly suggest that while the 88 may have had the longest range or similar to other heavy guns, it couldn't shoot as far horizontially as vertically and achieve a smidgen of accuracy. The 80 range you pointed out is probably quite fair for it, however, as I said, the range is quite moot anyway, because it bascially cannot exchange fire with it's lengthy range. On the subject of the US 90mm, it probably doesn't deserve the 88 flak's range, but it's still superior beyond the range of the current maximum visibility, so that it too is being punished so to speak, and has to exchange fire with mere 37mm (some of them have range of forty with maximum visibility of 45). Few people know this, it would appear, and I didn't know it until recently, but the Germans actually had an 128mm flak gun as well, but you never hear many stories about "the dreaded 128", as I would suspect the Germans never used it in an AT role, or did so, so infrequently, that it was only if it was stuck in a city's AA defense and found itself being stormed by ground forces, at the same time there were no air units to shoot down. .

GI's called any german direct fire cannon an "88". The 128 was the gun used on the Maus, which was an experimental German tank not actually in production by the end of the war. ------------------ "Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

_____________________________

"Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 26

- 10/17/2000 1:45:00 PM

hammerhead

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: Shell Beach,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by John T: Hammerhead I find two more reasons why German equipment are a bit overrated. 1. US kit is well known, both pros and cons so it is easier to treat them correct. If the tracer is spent at 1500 meters this is a good argument that the effective combat range is aprox 1500 meters. Few are familiar with German kit so it's harder to prove that teoretical values are wrong. 2. Military history is full of overrated but defeated enemies. it is understandable that the victor tries to focus on enemy strenght rather than their own failings. If we want a Historical correct outcome you either reduces US Kit and keeps the Experience factor or Improves the Kit and lowers the Exp. I feel that most US game designers favors to blame the engineers designing the weapon systems rather than the men fighting and dying. From sources like Max Hastings, Keegan etc. I got the belife that most US officers had less time in training than the average German counterpart had combat experience. This and the Western Allieds respect for own losses, In the game a US GI should cost five times the price of a German. The Allied did not want to waste lives while the Germans had twelve years of "Nothing for You, All For Germany" Propaganda to stiffen the resolve to sustain casualties. And of course this can't be changed with keeping play balance as long we want to play Meeting engagement with same number of build points. The "true value" option is in the right direction but does not model the reluctance to get your men wasted. To model that you need a Buy point and a Killed Point(enemy VP) value for each unit. Example: US Inf Buy 3, Killed 15 US M4 Buy 35, Killed 8 (Ie the Vehicle doesn't count for VP, it just the men) GE Inf Buy 2, Killed 4 USSR Buy 1, Killed 1(0.5?) (This can be done in the Scenario editor but not in generated battles) /John T.

Hastings and Keeting are both quite questionable sources for an evaluation of US training, morale, and effectiveness. They are both British and have made some rediculous statements about almost every aspect of the French campaign. Thier defense of Monty in most cases is pure poppycock!

See Carlo D'Estes books ...in particular "Decision in Normandy" I find most British publications lack authority and contain poor bibliographys and source data. BTW The Brits still keep their archives on WW2 sealed. Tip of the day. As far as your numbers for buys and kills ...although I play these games a lot, I would have to spend some good amount of time in determining whether such a scheme would be valid. ------------------ "Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

_____________________________

"Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 27

- 10/17/2000 2:04:00 PM

hammerhead

Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000
From: Shell Beach,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by BA Evans: Hey Hammer, If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.) This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret." I think that you will have more success with this tactic. By giving us detailed information we will be able to examine the specific game mechanics involved. After consulting the available sources, we can probably do a good job representing the unit in question. BA Evans

Very well, here you are! I had said in an earlier post that I would compile a list of 'constructive inputs' to the US OOB/t/o&e issues I had mentioned I felt needed LOTS of work. However, in order to be taken seriously about some of the problems and my proposed solutions, I feel that professionally accurate methods of authorities should be used. Therefore it will not be possible to provide a list of summarized "constructive inputs" as each issue should contain as many authoritative sources as I can gather. Below I address the 90 mm M3 US Antitank gun. Using both official and unofficial sources: "United States Army in WW II - The Ordnance Department -Planning Munitions for War" , Green, Thompson, and Roots. Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. 1955. We have, "For when firing the most powerful ammunition, tungsten carbide core [ which the US held a far larger quantity the Nazis], the most powerful German tank gun [excluding the 128mm Maus gun -only experimental before the end of the war], the 8.8cm Kw.K.43 (L71) of the Tiger II, or Royal Tiger - and the U.S. 90-mm. gun M3 - of the gun motor carriage M36 and the Pershing tank - had almost identical velocities: the German [8.8cm] gun obtained 3,240 f/s and the American [90mm] 3,350 f/s." And from, "Standard Catalog of US Military Vehicles -1940 - 1965" , T Berndt. Krause Publications. 1993. We have, "The main armament on the M26 Pershing was a 90mm [same 90mm M3 as on the M36 Jackson] with a muzzle velocity of 3350 feet per second; it could penetrate about seven inches of armor at 1000 yards." And from a British publication [always questionable]: "The Tank Story - History of the World Wars" , Ed; A. Kershaw. BPC Publishing, London. 1972. We have, "Moreover, its [Pershing] 90mm [M3] gun enabled it to outshoot its main rival, the German Tiger Mark VI." Rarely do the Brits give any credit to US arms! While the SP W@W menus provide incredible differences in these two guns in terms of range and penetration. [Sorry if the matrix below gets messed up. This is not wysiwyg. But I hope you get the idea.] Gun Range Penetration Kw.K.8.8cm 88 or 80 hexes 35/225 M3 90mm 56 hexes 35/147 177.8mm@1000yards per sources above. I do not know [as I write this post] what the SPW@W penetration numbers convert to in terms of millimeters. But the other numbers provided on the 90 and 88 must now come into question in my mind - such as the fire control and accuracy of these guns. I will agree that the US avoided using sabot rounds, as they were dangerous to handle. The attitude of the Germans were somewhat different ...and example is that during the war some 15,000 German soldiers were executed for "punitive reasons' , whereas the US shot one and the Brits shot some 100 soldiers. My research shows that the data on these guns as provided in SPW@W are inaccurate. Such significant errors ( two of the most important guns on tanks in WW2) should be addressed. IMHO. It and other such errors as I have seen have led me to the radical idea that the Nazi weapons have benefited from a certain bias in subject game. This may be due to a lack of interest in US weapons by game designers, [I have heard that gamers favor playing the German side by a five to one ratio]. This may be due to the easier availability of books and lastic models on German weapons. Or it might be that as youngsters we all just thought the German stuff was somehow cooler, and never grew up, or had the frame of mind and skill to investigate our own country's weapons systems. Or we just thought that the Nazis were Neato. I find the wealth of knowledge on the German stuff and the disinterest or lack of knowledge on the US stuff a little disturbing. I anticipate some irrelevant arguments to these data, but I feel that those who wish to get to the bottom of such issues will respond appropriately. Since such research is time consuming, and since I am not a member of your staff [no time to meet your work hour requirements] I hope you who are able to, and have the authority to do so, will respond appropriately. I intend to bring other issues to your (forum) attention as I have time to do so [and you have the patience to allow]. As a retired engineer in the American defense contractor field, I like to get stats and data correct ....whether the government stipulates so in his contract, or not. Again...DO NOT MISREAD ME! I love these games. But I have no pity on the guy who will be broken hearted if his neato Nazi weapons are not as cool and 'superior' as he might wish. I do feel that many of the earlier egregious errors in the SP games have been corrected. To wit: -10 for German artillery and air crews late in the war, fair acc and fc on the US 37 mm gun, fair treatment of the Bofors 40mm gun. Better treatment of the US 76 mm and 3 inch AT guns, and much more. However, I think there is still a lot to be done! But, based on some of the responses I have gotten [ not yours!], I wonder if some of the folks on the forum are understanding what I am trying to say. Tip of the day. Did anyone know that the engine for the FW 190 came from an American design? ------------------ "Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

_____________________________

"Mediocrity carries its own price." It is my pleasure to communicate with you. Greg - "Hammerhead"

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 28

- 10/17/2000 3:40:00 PM

Arralen

Posts: 827
Joined: 5/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by hammerhead: Below I address the 90 mm M3 US Antitank gun. ... I do not know [as I write this post] what the SPW@W penetration numbers convert to in terms of millimeters.

Millimeters.

quote:

It and other such errors..

You yourself are in error - you better have a closer look .. the M3 gun is rated with PenAP 185.

quote:

as I have seen have led me to the radical idea that the Nazi weapons .

These where GERMAN weapons, not necessarily NAZI weapons. Not every german was (or even is) a nazi. If you continue to call all Germans "Nazi", I'll start taking this personally ... A distant relative of mine ended up as a tanker in the SS - he wasn't even "in the party (?)" ... he even didn't wanted that war but had the choice to either serve as a tanker or be shot .. he choosed to serve, and as he did well, he was send to the SS div. as a "reward". He ended in the SS because short time after his "promotion" he was captured by the Red Army and shot for wearing the black uniform. (At least, I hope he was shot emidiatly

)

quote:

Did anyone know that the engine for the FW 190 came from an American design.

Really? Who cares? And how many designs based on some german invention? Stefan (Arralen)

_____________________________

AMD FX-4300
Gigabyte 970A-DS3P
Kingston 24GB DDR3-1600 (PC3-12800)
Asus GTX 750 Ti OC 2GB GDDR5
Seagate Barracuda SATA III 1TB
Windows 8.1

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 29

- 10/17/2000 9:37:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Sorry - I don't have much time to respond lately, but wanted to quickly chime in here. The M36 seems to have the wrong 90mm gun designated. THis will be fixed, but hopefully one can understand the problems trying to rate everyt weapon form every country to the level of detail we have tried to go here. 10's of thousands of data points, even if we are 99% accurate hundreds will have typos, like the M36 given weapon 64 instead of 65. I'm sure this will get fixed. To the specific point, Please read the designers notes and look back at some of the threads on how the weapons are rated. IT is not just by using "book" penetration data. One can't just take book numbers and compare them at ace value becasue every country had different (and sometimes multiple) definitions of "penetration" that differed in effect by 25% or more. The data I have from multiple sources indiates teh 88 had significantly better AP penetration than the M3 - an example is the www.wargamer.org/GvA data, several other sources corroborate this data. The figures used in the game are backed off form 30 degrees vertical slope at 500m to o slope at 0 meters using the same proceedure for all weapons. The result is consistant - but generally will not match any book data exactly (much of which compares apples to oranges based on differeing definitions of penetration). The game uses a database of "book values" and two different threoretical estimators to come up with penetration. Fire control and accuracy are guesstimates. There is simply insufficient data to reliably set accuracy numbers that aren't skewed by crew proficiency, so these are often based on the original values in the game extended. FOr every instance of a gun being "accurate" are anecdotes to the contray, so barrel length and muzzle velocity are used to baseline raw gun accuracy. Using www.wargamer.org/GvA data as an example - the 88 APCBC ammo MV=1000m/sec down an L71 barrel, while the M3 APBC MV was 808 m/sec down an L52 barrel. Given that data I fudged the M3 to the HIGH side becasue I felt it was more accurate than the raw numbers gave it credit for. There is no "ground truth" metric that can be objectively be debated, hence you have the editor to change them to your taste. But one needs to be careful to judge context when throwing quotes around, and in the context of rating scores of weapons for many of which there is little or no data, a schem of rating values based on info common to them all must be used. That means outliers will exist, and many of those have been argued vociferously (see tiger front turret debate:-) and we change things as deemed appropriate by the OOB working group. As to OOBs and formations one has to remeber that we are under some severe limits based on what teh game allows us to do. We can't just change EVERYTHING as teh bugs that crop back up after being stomped, and persistant "toughies" point out. SO we have to live with "inaccuracies" form strict history (which I would argue is in many ways moot becasue "book" TO&E went out the window by contact with the enemy...but we need some sort of baseline and "book" TO&E - or as close as we can come was chosen. We also have a body of scenarios with which combatibility must be maintained. I submit given the time expended and scope of work undertaken, that the current result is about as accurate as can be had, and we will continue to improve them - a process that could easily take years as data is found and reviewed and discussed. We welcome questions about where the stats come from, and strive to make the OOB's better, but they can never be "perfect" only interanlly more consistent... ...but I do take a bit of offense to being caste a Nazi-phile. I did all the weapon numbers and have gone out of my way sometimes to give credit to the US and UK equipment even when the raw data tended to indicate otherwise. Honest disagreements ABOUT DATA are welcome, but lets keep the snide remarks out of technical debate, eh Greg? [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited October 17, 2000).]

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to hammerhead)

Post #: 30