Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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 >>

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 10/3/2003 7:22:02 AM

David Lehmann

Posts: 72
Joined: 10/10/2000
From: France
Status: offline

Wow ... I never intended to trigger such a heated debate about nations' discrepancies etc. My single point was just to post details/info/proposals about the army I know the best, that is to say the French army which I like to study as well as I do for the German army. I already sent many proposals (in form of .pdf files) about French OB modifications especially in the unit organization, weapons distribution etc. I don't know exactly what will or will not be used from all what I sent but generally I never heard things like "keep your stupid files about Frenchies" and several member of the Matrix team like Paul Vebber seemed always interested by new and detailed info ... Panzer Leo was also interested and corrected several points in the French OB even if he had only time to fix several things in the infantry section.
I don't want a nation to be artificially 'boosted' I just try to provide as many info as I can so that people can work on them ... hoping that it will be somehow taken into account in the game developpment ... if not for SPWAW I hope for the future Combat Leader Western module that will be developped one day I guess.
SPWAW nevertheless remains a game, it is not really a tactical simulation and I hope CL will be closer to the simulation. I have to say that the French army is always caricaturated and I have understood that SPWAW is done to recreate the defeats of those who lost even if, on my side, I think that the tactical level of SPWAW should not reflect the strategical level.

Best regards,

David

_____________________________

"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing in the tempting place."

(in reply to rbrunsman)

Post #: 1

- 10/3/2003 7:41:51 AM

Vathailos

Posts: 346
Joined: 5/13/2003
From: In a van, down by the river.
Status: offline

Ammo,

Read my whole explanation on how I experienced the game-modeled M9 operating. The reason I mentioned the SS-crewed Panther is because IIRC, crew skill adds to spotting chances. SS = higher experience = better chance to spot enemies 3 hexes away. I hope that makes more sense now.

Anyway, I've had some real "hard data" experiences of my own. I've fired real US Recoilless Rifles, LAWs, AT-4, and a few Soviet-manufactured weapons. They're NOT very accurate at ranges over 200m, the LAW not over 80m.

As far as US data goes, I've also fired our AT weapons on a range, under range conditions. I hadn't just run a 1/2 mile, dive behind a log, arm, check your backblast, and pop up to fire. In other words, MUCH different accuracy when you're firing in combat vs. range conditions. And weapons tests are even more clinical, stationary "same way every time" mounts for the weapons, etc.

I'm not a poor shot by any means, and as I said I have difficulty hitting targets with our best "iron sighted" AT weapons today at distances over 200-250 meters, as a trained Airborne troop. Now make that target move, add trees/fog of war, elevation changes, and it's a whole new ballgame. Now, if it's that difficult (and I honestly wish it wasn't) with the best the US has to offer in terms of dumb-fire light AT weapons today, I think it would be at least that difficult then. I can't imagine the US making it sights markedly worse 50+ years later. Add to that the training level of the average GI firing that Bazooka... Have you personally fired any of the above, or an M9? Under what conditions? If so, do your experiences differ?

Now, I hope you can see why I disagree with you on the M9. It's just my personal experience. IMO as it is in 7.1, it's far too powerful. A platoon of M20 scout cars with M9 Bazooka teams riding shotgun and a Browning .30 cal can easily take out 4 Panthers, and that's not "right". Don't believe me? Suppress (button up) all the Panthers with the MG (which at 8-10 hexes is likely to stay hidden). Use trees or nearby hill to approach to within 4-5 hexes. Drop the first team (or rally it if a Panther happens to hit a scout car). Use that team to fire one round each at each of the Panthers. The suppression from the Bazooka is insane. Then drive the next three up to 3 hexes from your nearest Panther's flank (but the M9 often kills as easily with a frontal strike), and fire away. 4-5 shots per M9 team, one hit is usually all it takes, and there you go. 4 dead Panthers.

What does a platoon of M20s or Greyhounds with 4 M9 teams cost anyway? As much as 1 Panther G? I honestly believe they're an unbalancing factor. You believe differently. I could probably dig up data about penetration angles on Panther frontal armor that could show the M9 to achieve frontal kills far too easily if I was pressed to, but I'm not sure it's worth my time ATM.

Anyway, as far as the other obvious historical discrepancies, I agree with you that they should be fixed in the next mod (ex. 76mm PEN values differing for the same gun dependant upon nation firing). I'd also love to see WP in the game. There are a lot of "gee-whiz" armaments out there that different countries developed, but just how many need to be coded into the game for:

A) a good game?

B) a balanced game?

If they'd update the ballistics for which there is sufficient evidence to do so, I'd be very pleased. As I stated, I don't like twinks. And if you think I'm a "Tiger kiddy", I'd be happy to introduce you to my comrades driving their SU-100s ;).

But as I see it, the LEAST EFFECTIVE way to get that mission accomplished is to run out flaming anyone who doesn�t immediately fall in behind you marking time. I understand your passion about this, and as I�ve said before, I would love to see about 90% of your suggestions implemented. I�d even be willing to continue debate on the remaining 10%.

But effective debate can�t be �you take it my way, you do what I say, as I say it, or kiss my arse!� You�re method of delivery clouds your message, and hampers your effectiveness to communicate it. Less effective communication = less chance to see your wishes fulfilled.

Start a petition, and I�ll sign it. But the more brazen and rude the message, the more folks will fail to read it in its entirety. If you�ve got the time, how about doing up a list of �suggested balancing modifications� for the 5 major OOBs with their rationale, and I�d like to help you get it worked through to fruition. Interested?

(in reply to rbrunsman)

Post #: 2