Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

SU OOB - I'm confused

 
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 >> SU OOB - I'm confused Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
SU OOB - I'm confused - 5/29/2001 11:59:00 PM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		T-34 M42 is available Oct 42 T-34 M43 is available Oct 42 Would I be correct to assume that M42 availability should be Oct 41? If not, what? T-34 M43 has 4 rounds of subcaliber ammo. Is there any means to fire this stuff when you want to? What controls this? Also, the oob reflects the superiority of the big cats in terms of optics, penetration and armor to the various T-34's and the KV-1/85 and IS-I and II. However, it does not reflect the fact that Soviets built these at approximately 3 times the rate that the Germans did (for this I threw out 1942 when Germans built nearly nothing). It does seem that if the oob accurately models the superiority of the German models, then the Soviet models should be realistically cheaper, no more than one third the cost for comparable models. I realize the comparison is a little difficult, as the T-34M4X is 3 to 4 tons heavier than the PzIV, but the T-34/85 is much lighter than the Panther and that the Stalins fit in between the Tiger and the Panther in size. I think that 3 to 1 actually gives the Germans the benefit of the doubt, as at least some production must go to the West. Paul

_____________________________
Post #: 1
- 5/30/2001 12:52:00 AM   
steel

 

Posts: 167
Joined: 6/9/2000
From: Finland, Helsinki
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Goodman: T-34 M42 is available Oct 42 T-34 M43 is available Oct 42 Would I be correct to assume that M42 availability should be Oct 41? If not, what? T-34 M43 has 4 rounds of subcaliber ammo. Is there any means to fire this stuff when you want to? What controls this? Also, the oob reflects the superiority of the big cats in terms of optics, penetration and armor to the various T-34's and the KV-1/85 and IS-I and II. However, it does not reflect the fact that Soviets built these at approximately 3 times the rate that the Germans did (for this I threw out 1942 when Germans built nearly nothing). It does seem that if the oob accurately models the superiority of the German models, then the Soviet models should be realistically cheaper, no more than one third the cost for comparable models. I realize the comparison is a little difficult, as the T-34M4X is 3 to 4 tons heavier than the PzIV, but the T-34/85 is much lighter than the Panther and that the Stalins fit in between the Tiger and the Panther in size. I think that 3 to 1 actually gives the Germans the benefit of the doubt, as at least some production must go to the West. Paul
Yes ! I have your side. Why Su equipment is so expencive vs Ge.When play Ge vs Su, there is no way to win Su side expect more battle points give Soviet player.OOB detailed is not very accurate via Soviet. Can somebody do something and correct this kind foolines.Cheapier units and muts earlier year some pantzers (T34,Su-85,JS1-4,T44) This mistakes is been very long time SPWAW.When SPWAW first time came out,then there was right cost Ge vs Su, but now days German are higher rankin list, I think (Very sad if some country get bonus points). Steel :mad:

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 2
- 5/30/2001 2:15:00 AM   
Lars Remmen

 

Posts: 357
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by steel: Yes ! I have your side. Why Su equipment is so expencive vs Ge.When play Ge vs Su, there is no way to win Su side expect more battle points give Soviet player.OOB detailed is not very accurate via Soviet. Can somebody do something and correct this kind foolines.Cheapier units and muts earlier year some pantzers (T34,Su-85,JS1-4,T44) This mistakes is been very long time SPWAW.When SPWAW first time came out,then there was right cost Ge vs Su, but now days German are higher rankin list, I think (Very sad if some country get bonus points). Steel :mad:
Hello, I think the point values in the OOB's are calculated using formula accounting for armour, gun effectiveness, speed and so forth. Thus the point cost is really a measure of how effective the armoured unit is and not a measure of how many were produced. One can use battle points in the prefrences to simulate that.

_____________________________

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 3
- 5/30/2001 2:24:00 AM   
Voriax

 

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline 		Lars, you are correct. There is indeed a formula. This same topic was under a discussion last summer...I then spent some time testing and coined up one formula, which was then modified by Matrix guys and taken into use. Though I'm not sure how much is still left of my original formula :rolleyes: The most important values were armour thickness and the maximum penetration of the main gun. Then points were added or removed based on just about all stats the vehicle has...now this was only for tanks, there are other methods for determining point values for other unit types. Voriax

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 4
- 5/30/2001 2:32:00 AM   
johansson

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 3/7/2001
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi IMHO the cost of the units should (as they are) be calculated after how good the unit is not how large number any country had of them. Would it be a fun game if you could outnumber every German panzer 10-1 whit T34’s for the same prize? The points have one purpose and that is to make even battles how are fun to play!

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 5
- 5/30/2001 5:19:00 AM   
achappelle

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 5/11/2001
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline 		Good point J, though, I wouldn't mind seeing instead of 50 T34s in my backfield, 300-400, doom on you my German friends!!

_____________________________

"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 6
- 5/30/2001 5:20:00 AM   
achappelle

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 5/11/2001
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline 		Tanks seem to fire APCR-like ammo based on the type of target.

_____________________________

"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 7
- 5/30/2001 6:53:00 PM   
Paul Goodman

 

Posts: 198
Joined: 7/5/2000
From: Portsmouth, VA, USA
Status: offline 		J, don't you really mean "fun to play from the German side?" While assigning purchase value based on the quality of a tank may have certain merits, did any one include suitability for mass production in that evaluation? I think not. However, as the Red Army so well demonstrated, this is a significant factor. Furthermore, while all this was going on (the rating of AFV's by quality), the SU had a inherit purchasing point advantage. This has been eliminated in 5.0/5.1. The result has been to unbalance the game in favor of the German side. Does anyone know what the correct availability of the T-34M42 is? Paul

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 8
- 5/30/2001 7:29:00 PM   
Lars Remmen

 

Posts: 357
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Goodman: J, don't you really mean "fun to play from the German side?" While assigning purchase value based on the quality of a tank may have certain merits, did any one include suitability for mass production in that evaluation? I think not. However, as the Red Army so well demonstrated, this is a significant factor. Furthermore, while all this was going on (the rating of AFV's by quality), the SU had a inherit purchasing point advantage. This has been eliminated in 5.0/5.1. The result has been to unbalance the game in favor of the German side. Does anyone know what the correct availability of the T-34M42 is? Paul
Hello, The points can be adjusted in the prefrences. You can choose to play a 1000 vs. 10000 point battle. That'll give the Soviets an advantage. If it unbalances PBEM play then the players should agree on how many points the different sides have.

_____________________________

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 9
- 5/31/2001 2:32:00 AM   
Tortfeasor

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: helsinki. Finland
Status: offline 		if a German player had Tigers for 1000 points and the Russian player had T-34-m43 for the same amount. I wonder ho? would win the game of year 1942! Tiger costs 169 points, for 1014 points he would get 6 pcs tigers (88mm). Russian player would get 8 pcs T-34-m43 (76mm), for a amount of 1048 points.
quote:

Originally posted by johansson: Hi IMHO the cost of the units should (as they are) be calculated after how good the unit is not how large number any country had of them. Would it be a fun game if you could outnumber every German panzer 10-1 whit T34’s for the same prize? The points have one purpose and that is to make even battles how are fun to play!
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: [ May 30, 2001: Message edited by: Tortfeasor ]

_____________________________

My opinion might have been changed, but not the fact that I am correct.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 10
- 5/31/2001 2:40:00 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Tortfeasor: if a German player had Tigers for 1000 points and the Russian player had T-34-m43 for the same amount. I wonder ho? would win the game of year 1942! Tiger costs 169 points for 1014 points he would get 6 pcs tigers and the Russian would get 8 pcs T-34-m43 for a amount of 1048 points
I have a rule of thumb that in a tank v tank battle any tanks that cost more than 30% more than their opponents will win the battle. So 170 pt tanks will normally whip up on 130 pt tanks even if the total points for each side is equal. The side with cheaper tanks will generally lose the first vehicle, and then it is a downhill slide from there. God help you if you are playing 10k battles. I don't like more than 3k even on a large map. No room for maneuver if there are that many troops. Try playing a 1k battle and you will find that units that move well do just as well as units that fight well. thanks, John.

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 11
- 5/31/2001 2:42:00 AM   
Tortfeasor

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: helsinki. Finland
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tortfeasor: [QB]if a German player had Tigers for 1000 points and the Russian player had T-34-m43 for the same amount. Tiger costs 169 points, for 1014 points he would get 6 pcs tigers (88mm). Russian player would get 8 pcs T-34-m43 (76mm), for a amount of 1048 points. I wonder ho? would win the game of year 1942! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

_____________________________

My opinion might have been changed, but not the fact that I am correct.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 12
- 5/31/2001 2:54:00 AM   
Tortfeasor

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: helsinki. Finland
Status: offline 		As I have noted, that in tank battles you need at least 4 to 5 T34-m43 to knok out a Tiger.

_____________________________

My opinion might have been changed, but not the fact that I am correct.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 13
- 5/31/2001 2:58:00 AM   
Tortfeasor

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: helsinki. Finland
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Tortfeasor: As I have noted, that in tank battles you need at least 4 to 5 T34-m43 to knok out a Tiger and survive to bury your dead.


_____________________________

My opinion might have been changed, but not the fact that I am correct.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 14
- 5/31/2001 3:04:00 AM   
Tortfeasor

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: helsinki. Finland
Status: offline 		One thing that is iritaiting is that "Edit/Delete" and "reply With Quot" buttons are to close each other.

_____________________________

My opinion might have been changed, but not the fact that I am correct.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 15
- 5/31/2001 5:16:00 AM   
Fredde

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Goteborg, Sweden
Status: offline 		Just curious whether country training is involved here as well.. probably is ;) Soviets are definitely not useless, they are only useless when you don't play them as a mainly infantry based force.. i usually buy a very small number of tanks of the biggest sort possible, and the rest infantry and arty.

_____________________________

"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. Mäkelä about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 16
- 5/31/2001 10:57:00 AM   
Tortfeasor

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: helsinki. Finland
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Fredde: i usually buy a very small number of tanks of the biggest sort possible, and the rest infantry and arty.
Then you are useing the game system against it self. That`s not historic battles settings. I think that the moust engaging battles is tank battles with some infantry.

_____________________________

My opinion might have been changed, but not the fact that I am correct.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 17
- 5/31/2001 11:19:00 AM   
Fredde

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Goteborg, Sweden
Status: offline 		(Getting slightly off topic here) Of course one can argue that Steel Panthers is about armoured fighting only.. but i'm not sure i agree, perhaps as far as the original version went this was true, but the Matrix product is so much more.. and strikes me as far more realistic. The one who wins the infantry battle wins the game since armour and artillery alone can't hold terrain.. on the other hand infantry without armour and arty will be an easy target.. combined arms in a true sense leaving no branch any good without the others. I do believe that the very most battles were infantry battles supported by armour and not the other way around. Then again.. of course, those tanks were far from often of the best type. Look at the number of men and number of tanks involved here.. very interesting I think.. these examples are from Soviet offensives in 1945.. which should mean comparatively plenty of armour. Of course, this is just an example, and not all of this was deployed in the first line.. but still.. ratios between battalions/arty/armour is something to look at.. ranges between 2-6 tanks/inf guns per battalion. Numbers are given per front kilometer (from final offensive against Berlin and another operation at the same time): 89 inf (kår = couple of divisions, dunno the english word): Battalions: 6 Arty and mortars: 148 Tanks and assault guns: 13 29th guards: Battalions 5.1 Arty and mortars: 951 Tanks and assault guns: 23 4th guards: Battalions 7.2 Arty and mortars: 251 Tanks and assault guns 44 Source of ths info is a book called "The tactics development in the Soviet army during the great patriotic war 1941-1945", written by general Kolganov of the Frunze academy together with several others. [ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: Fredde ]

_____________________________

"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. Mäkelä about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 18
- 5/31/2001 3:23:00 PM   
Tortfeasor

 

Posts: 137
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: helsinki. Finland
Status: offline 		Fredde witch nation is your favorit army. Mine is the Russian side but i don`t use them, becourse then i must buy for all my points infantry and artillery to survive.

_____________________________

My opinion might have been changed, but not the fact that I am correct.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 19
- 5/31/2001 3:56:00 PM   
murx

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		to Fredde kår = couple of divisions, dunno the english word This means probably Corps (Korps in German). A Corps is made up of several Divisions. Maybe 'kår' is pronounced the same way the English 'Corps' ? murx

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 20
- 5/31/2001 7:40:00 PM   
Fredde

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Goteborg, Sweden
Status: offline 		Murx, yes that's the word :) Thanks! Couldn't find it at 3 am last night :rolleyes: Tortfeasor.. my favourite army in SPWAW is the Finnish, followed closely by the Japs, Soviets and Germans. I do not play completely without armour, but i always base my force on infantry, no matter which nation I use. Like the sneaky behaviour of infantry and AT guns, truly enjoy when I manage to surprise my enemy with a well-planned infantry attack from unexpected directions or manage to set up a few AT guns in good positions ruling the field.

_____________________________

"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. Mäkelä about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 21
- 5/31/2001 11:09:00 PM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		The artillery numbers should be illuminating to those who want a single battalion to wipe out companies wholesale with a single barrage. The problem requiring such large numbers of tubes was lack of information the player has in spades on what and where the enemy is and the time delays in that info geting to the required echelon - in m ost cases the info was OBE by the timeit was actionable. Most of those tubes were massed and used as huge preperatory barrages followed up by infantry assault supported by tanks! Even as teh game is now I don't think one would want to face an enemy with humdreds of tubes of artillery! As to the point difference between Tiger and T-34 - you have to look at it in terms of quantifying the effect of the unit in game terms. And looing at combuined arms effects and situations. If one makes a tiger say 200 points and a T-34 50 points, based on "it takes 4 T-34s to kill a Tiger then What is a PZIIIh compared to a T-34? 25 points, since it takes 2 Mk IIIh to kill a T-34? No for 1000 points one gets 5 Tigers or 40 PZIIIh to face 20 T-34. Now in a city a company of Soviet RPG armed Guards can easily take on 5 Tigers, so they should be 2000 points? But in open ground the Tigers will generally hold there own with even a few supporting recon Teams. SO say 5 Recon Teams should be worth 1000 since they even the odds? You see you quickly spiral into nonsensical and spiral arguments whn you try to base point cost on "how many it takes to kill ..." So the points are based on a set of formula that score each unit characteristic, including quantity of ammo (why JS-IIs are so cheap with only like 16 AP rounds) on a consistant scale with global multipliers for some unit classes. The goal is to make a combined arms team bought with similar points have similar capabilities in teh game, high "bang for your buck" units will always fall out, as will tactical mismatches like the Company of Tigers vs a similar value of infantry in woods or city. But overall the points result in farly even combined arms battles in the 1000-5000 point range. Battels larger or smaller than that should be "at your own risk" becasue at higher than a regiments worth of troops the game engine starts to break down [ May 31, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 22
- 5/31/2001 11:53:00 PM   
achappelle

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 5/11/2001
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline 		I've found the exact opposite, Tanks rule the battlefield. When fighting the AI especially, taking out the tanks of the force then just makes the battle a matter of infantry suppression, and mop up. Don't get me wrong, along with my hordes of experienced and deadly T34s I've got Tank Desant troops hitching a ride, but my force is definitely Armour-oriented. Combined arms is definitely the way to go, run them over with tanks, then occupy with your second wave of foot sloggers.

_____________________________

"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 23
- 6/1/2001 1:32:00 AM   
Fredde

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Goteborg, Sweden
Status: offline 		Paul, yes.. you are right as usual.. ;) Arty in those numbers would be a real massacre in SPWAW terms. I'm not sure if they count in 50 mm mortars here as well, but i doubt it.. saw a similar one for the Finnish front with even greater number of tubes (including the 50 mm mortars). About the tubes number listed here.. not all of these were used to support the first line attack, counter-artillery fire, disturbing fire, area firing to prevent reserves from coming through etc. Your note about the arty takes me to my old wish of making OB/heavy artillery mission based (some never give up :D .. you buy a number of missions from the OB battery instead of having it along all the time.. these missions should be more powerful and more expensive used for preparatory bombardments, especially tough spots etc- Working more like air strikes than arty as it is now.

_____________________________

"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. Mäkelä about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 24
- 6/1/2001 1:41:00 AM   
Gallo Rojo


Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline 		I have been following this post very interested. I don't have 5.1 version yet (I'm waiting for the CD), but I have noticed that purchase advantage that soviets had on 4.* version was removed on 5.0 version. It's a pity because I think that this advantage was useful to solve this problem that we're discussing here. I have not time to right a long post right now (I'm working) but I'll do it later. If thinks are like Tortfeasor said (if you have 1000 points Soviets can buy 8 T-34m43 vs 6 Tigers… well, Soviets are dead…) I like to play with soviets and my personal experience says me that I need at least 3 T-34m43 to each Tiger to get a chance to win) Only hope for Russians should be that the new "rarity factor" feature restricts Germans to buy a lot of Tigers. As I don't have 5.1 version I don't know if this is the case, but if it is not, as I said, it would be almost impossible for USSR to win against Germans on 1943.

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 25
- 6/1/2001 2:42:00 AM   
john g

 

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov: I've found the exact opposite, Tanks rule the battlefield. When fighting the AI especially, taking out the tanks of the force then just makes the battle a matter of infantry suppression, and mop up. Don't get me wrong, along with my hordes of experienced and deadly T34s I've got Tank Desant troops hitching a ride, but my force is definitely Armour-oriented. Combined arms is definitely the way to go, run them over with tanks, then occupy with your second wave of foot sloggers.
Early in the war perhaps, but when infantry at weapons are commonplace, tanks die in droves to experianced well positioned infantry. I too play primarily infantry oriented forces. My German WWII campaign core started as a company of infantry, a company of engineer and just 3 platoons of tanks. More in line of the percentages of the late pg div not the early pz div. Infantry can go where tanks can't and can ambush tanks a lot easier than tanks can ambush infantry. thanks, John.

_____________________________


(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 26
- 6/1/2001 2:53:00 AM   
achappelle

 

Posts: 150
Joined: 5/11/2001
From: Vancouver, BC
Status: offline 		Whatever works for that general's style of play, obviously go for it. For me, suppressing an area with artillery, then charging Tanks, with infantry mounted on it works for me and my style of play. I think John we could draw the historical parallel that I'm Patton to your Montgomery, both effective, just different paths to the solution.

_____________________________

"Molon Labe" - Leonidas @ Thermopylae (Come Get Them!!)

(in reply to Paul Goodman)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SU OOB - I'm confused Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.391