Charles2222
Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
|
Paul Vebber: quote:
Charles, What is it about the new OObs you don;t like? Do you have the latest version (24 Sept). Technically you can use Fred's editor Dump to csv to slice and dice them anyway you like.
I haven't got any OOBs since 6.1, and that's the way I want it. I have no time to bother with unofficial versions, and I'm not on the anti-Tiger ![]("smile.gif") team either so it's not like they were needed. I'm not too sure what you mean by editor dump, but I have modified my own OOBs slightly before through that editor. If that editor would be able to go to any directory on my computer, that would certainly help, and I'm not saying it doesn't, I just don't recall that it could. In any case I don't know the OOB extensions from any of the others.
I'm not sure what's been done with the OOBs, but the fact that you mentioned the Tiger FT being reduced to 158 and the MG42 discussion (these just 'happen' to be weapons that US players would happen to face, as pre-US Gerry stuff is never complained about) that went on makes me very suspicious that post-'42 Gerry has taken a beating. I can alter Tiger FT afterwards back to the 175 or whatever it is now. I can remember to look up the MG42 ratings before I download too, but I sure don't want to have go through what might be all sorts of little nuances to bring down Gerry and then change ALL of that on many units.
I don't have a whole lot of opinion on pricing, at least what you say has been done, because given the limits and the liberal amount of replacement points doled out, the price of most things don't enter into campaigner's concerns too much. I hope that CL's replacement points is more along the lines of Panzer Strike, etc., to where it's a challenge dealing with limited points and delays in fighting the next battle if you re-equip too much.
Summing up, at least as SPWAW stands, campaign-wise, currently, I have much less issue with any pricing that could be made up, than with Gerry stuff being chiseled away so the US stuff can destroy it from the front (or of course MG42's proving too much of a nuisance, or whatever other thing in Gerry pool must be too threatening).
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
German tanks to cheap or allied tanks to expensive? - 
- 
![]("frown.gif")
Personally I just use the Rarity button when playing games where my opponent might be tempted to overbuy on the heavy stuff. Same for artillery.
- ![]("rolleyes.gif")
![]("confused.gif")
![]("tongue.gif")
![]("wink.gif")
![]("biggrin.gif")
PzLeo:
The primary source for gun pentration is Lorrin Bird and Robert Livingstons "WWII Ballistics Armor and Gunnery". Robert is one of the primary sources of data for the guns vs armor wargamer.org site. Lorrin has been gracious enough to help me considerably with priliminary work on Combat Leader and to use include some of his formulas in that game. He has posted excellent data on the TO/E forum and is more than happy to discuss these sort of details. See my post there also.
The thing that you are not accounting for in the 170 vs 200 thing is T/D ratio. Book penetration numbers are nearly useless to use for determining if a giving piece of armor can be penetrated, because as I explain in the T/D thread up at TO&E, the penetration varies as a function of thickness to diameter ratio. The game accounts fo the variation in penetration with T/D, but it does so in "steps" because I did not have Lorrin's formulation back then and did my own curve fit to data I had to get a table of T/D adjustment factors that the game uses. The difference is no more than a couple of % between my "step values" and Lorrin's smooth functions. I only have APCBC and APCR - AP rounds are assumed APCBC and APDS assumed the same as APCR. COmbat Leader has more shell types.
Penetration in the game for 0 degrees is based on Lorrin's work where he adjusts to US 240BHN test plate and 50% probability of penetration. The game assumes that projectiles tend to fail to meet expectaiton abit more often than exceed it, and becasue there are some projectile failure mechanisms that SP:WaW does not consider that Lorrin does, the random number draw is skewed abit downward. (making it slightly less likely then 50% that "equal" pen and armor values will result in a penetration.)
As a rule of thumb, (not considering T/D) to convert a base armor and slope to "0 degree equivalent" is to take base/((cos(angle))^1.4)
The T/D is used is to adjust the "power factor" from 1.1 at very low T/D known as "overmatch" the armor tend to "plug" and fail catastrophically. At high T/d the power factor can exceed 2 as the armor tends to "flow" and compress away frm the projctile, increasing the effective resistance substantially until the ound penetrates to sufficient depth to cause the mechanis to shift to plug failure.
So depending on the T/D ratio both 200m and 170mm canbe correct penetration values. The game also seperately compute the probability of ricochet. The game also assumes that the target is not "frozen" in the same position round after round so a +/-10 Degree horizontal random factor on the horizontal angle.
The bottom line is if you agree with Lorrin and Roberts methodology, it is basically what I use (though not all the things like shatter are explicitly modeled - that will have to wait for Combat Leader). I ran several comparisons between the pridicted probability of penetration using Lorrins book, and tests using SP:WaW and the results were no worse than 15% off and most (albeit a small sample - like 7 or 8) were within 5%
If you haven't ordered WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunner, it is required reading to understand the issues.
[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]
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