Ok guys need some opinions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Alby -> Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 12:56:34 AM)

These items

3)Reduced hex radius of secondary damage applied from attacks to units in the same or nearby hexes (the random artillery splash radius has been reduced).
4)Reduced effect of secondary damage to units in the same or nearby hexes from direct fire attacks (firing direct fire at unit and hitting other units in hex has been reduced, somewhat).



What changes would the players like to see, if any
Or would the players rather leave it as it is in 8.403.

I know it seems to be affecting arty effectivness somewhat so i personally would like to see it tweaked up some more.

also need some opinions on this item
the ‘splash’ from air-dropped weapons, which wipe out entire squads with one bomb.


Opinions please...[:)]



soldier -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 2:17:31 AM)

3: I like the way that direct fire (supposedly more accurate) from SP SIg guns is handled now. They used to kill more enemy in adjacent hexes. However indirect artillery fire seems to have lost its "beaten zone" effect as if shells were always landing dead centre of a hex and not affecting surrounding enemy. If it could be increased for indirecrt fire.
4 : Seems to work pretty well.

Dive bombers should be a more accurate way of delivering HE to a target than a Howitzer but they still miss so much. They are expensive, rare assets, only get one shot, are vunerable and give away your force positions in two player games. If they didn't cause all that carnage I'd never buy them.



BruceAZ -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 2:47:36 AM)

Good thread!

I have always felt the old saying that the true Queen of the Battlefield was artillery. [&o]

In my opinion, their effectiveness in SPWAW is too limited. In real life, a good artillery barrage will stop a determined attack - cold. Look at all of the history books and reports about their effectiveness. If I remember correctly, the USAAF stopped a major German tank attack using medium and LR bombers during the later battles in Normandy. I am sure there are others too numerous to mention here.

I can also testify their effectiveness in real life. You are heavily suppressed and movement is very limited, if at all. The only time I have ever seen someone or thing (as in track or truck) running through a artillery, rocket, or mortar barrage was in the movies.

I can also attest to the effectiveness of Marine Air support as nothing is more terrifying than seeing two Phantoms rolling in at Mach I and dropping 1,000 lb bombs 2,000 yards from your position. Scared the hell out of you. We didn’t move for over 30 minutes just adjusting our ears and lungs to the overpressure. Needless to say, their targets just vanished.

My 2 cents? Crank 'em up but also increase their cost significantly and appropriately. I hate to see a SPWAW weapon that can really turn the tide for one side but they are very effective! The only way you can offset this is to jack up the cost to make them available but at a price.

Recon
Semper Fi



Goblin -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 3:24:50 AM)

Alby, you have permission to post my private email comments about my experience with the KV 2 tank, if you like.


Goblin



Swamprat -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 11:58:15 AM)

quote:

3)Reduced hex radius of secondary damage applied from attacks to units in the same or nearby hexes (the random artillery splash radius has been reduced).
4)Reduced effect of secondary damage to units in the same or nearby hexes from direct fire attacks (firing direct fire at unit and hitting other units in hex has been reduced, somewhat).



I would like to see secondary damage from indirect fire taken back to what it was. Direct fire should see reduced secondary damage in neighbouring hexes, but it's ok in the same hex.

The splash from air attacks is also fine. They are one shot weapons and they are supposed to be frightening. Ironically this splash is more effective against infantry, even though aircraft target vehicles.

The cost of the heavier artillery and aircraft carrying 1000lb bombs maybe should be raised, but that is an OOB issue, not a mech issue.

That's my opinion anyway.



Alby -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 5:52:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Alby, you have permission to post my private email comments about my experience
with the KV 2 tank, if you like.


Goblin


Quoting Goblin...

"KV-2, with crew experience of 92. 6 Rounds of 'Z' fire into a
woodland (non-fortified) hex with German troops (suspected experience
around 80), range 6 hexes. No casualties with 6 rounds of 152mm HE at 6
hexes. 8 more rounds of direct fire into hex after German unit spotted. No
main gun casualties at all. 3 MG casualties. Total of 14 rounds of 152mm
high explosive into a non fortified hex, and I killed 3 guys with
machineguns, with a very experienced crew. All at 6 hexes or less.
Something wrong with this picture? After 14 rounds into a 50 yard hex, it
isn't even a forested hex anymore (its a smoking moonscape with shredded
tree-stumps), and the enemy should all have died from heart failure at the
very least. Arty set to 160 effectiveness.
It should at least cause suppression.
I am ok with it not doing so, just pointing it out.
If it hits the actual hex with a squad in it, there should not be a squad in that hex any longer.
Same with that 600mm mortar.
Try and get a casualty with that, or with a 210mm or 220mm.
The same problem exists with even 75mm armed tanks. Almost no
casualties to infantry unless ungodly close with the main gun, especially
with average crew skills in the game, and most kills come with the
machineguns, even on sighted targets.
If the tank crew can see the target,
a 75mm round should cause a casualty more often than not. The casualty rate
on a 150 or 152 should be 2 or 3 or more if the crew can see the target.
They don't have to hit a man, they have to hit his hex, and everyone in that hex is in trouble.
These are not little guns."



FNG -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 6:00:01 PM)

I'm having a rare battle against the Japanese with a British core force. I strung some wire along a hilltop and zeroed my artillery on the wire before starting the game. Since the Japanese hit the wire, I have hammered them with on-board 4.5" howitzers, 3" mortars and off-board 25 pounder troops. These are open hexes, no trees, nothin', and I have hardly scored a casualty with artillery. Vickers HMGs and Brens have been stacking them up like cordwood....

Something isn't right with artillery.



Riun T -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 6:02:09 PM)

Heres my nickels worth, in my 13 years as a DEMTEC for the canadian forces I've spent 8 of that in and around Dundurn CFB saskatchewan which was an aireal test range in the second WW and progressed to an Artillery ,AT and small arms range. In this job I got to measure,catalog, and photograph alot of various damage assessments of most of the calibers and ordinance this post involves. A 75 with HE on a groundlevel or shallow penetrating touchoff will make an approx.6-8 foot wide crater, 2-3 feet deep, and will disperse debris of no more than 5 pin bowlingball sized chunks for say 15-45 feet of plausable killing range. Now keep in mind that I'm only conveying basic data on a ground detination, if we where to get a vehicleladden fuel and ammo secondary explosion[X(] WELL we'll see, anyway. A 105 on the otherhand will make a30-50 foot wide crater of 12-18 feet deep, WILL throw whole tanks! { in my case witnessed a complete M113 APC from a range of 2000yrds be thrown a good 70-100 yards from its restingplace and completely squashed itself flat upon landing} and as I saw will cast multi TONned vehicles for a football field!!. And finally the range was limited to 250ld bombs from 41-46 and I looked up enough exsamples to say definitively that just a 250lder will make a20-50 YARD wide crater, 5-9 YARDS deep, and is capable of heaving locomotive engine sized debris a 1/4 mile or more !! MAKE YOUR OWN JUDGMENTS GUYS I HAVE NO STATS FOR ANYTHING LIKE A 1000LDer RT[:'(]



FNG -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 6:10:14 PM)

Man, that sounds like a sweet job [:D]



Riun T -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 6:16:47 PM)

IT WAS sonny IT WAS.RT



VikingNo2 -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 9:50:35 PM)

I think its was good the way it was.



terbare -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/15/2006 10:29:20 PM)

I believe your on the right track with the changes you made with the direct fire artillery, so often I have more effect on the adjacent hexes than on the target hex. I also have seen planes win a scenario by wiping out both sides simultaneously by bombing right thru the middle of the battle. I would also like to see in the Long Campaign that the AI get heavier caliber guns for the Russians , I have played up to 1943 and never saw a larger caliber than a 76mm bombarding me, where is Stalins "god of war".



KG Erwin -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 1:44:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: terbare

I believe your on the right track with the changes you made with the direct fire artillery, so often I have more effect on the adjacent hexes than on the target hex. I also have seen planes win a scenario by wiping out both sides simultaneously by bombing right thru the middle of the battle. I would also like to see in the Long Campaign that the AI get heavier caliber guns for the Russians , I have played up to 1943 and never saw a larger caliber than a 76mm bombarding me, where is Stalins "god of war".


This can be fixed by providing more AI-only formations, as long as enough slots exist. The AI purchase schemes are a tricky business.



sabrejack -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 2:13:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Arty set to 160 effectiveness.



I assume this is in 8.403?

Just from this post alone, surely there's a good case for the effectiveness to be bumped up for the next update?



By the way - any word on what the next update will be called (v8.5 etc?), and is there any (vague) timeframe for it yet?



KG Erwin -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 2:47:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack


quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Arty set to 160 effectiveness.



I assume this is in 8.403?

Just from this post alone, surely there's a good case for the effectiveness to be bumped up for the next update?



By the way - any word on what the next update will be called (v8.5 etc?), and is there any (vague) timeframe for it yet?


Answers (IMHO):

1) Yes, due to player requests

2) Yes

3) No




PimpYourAFV -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 4:10:35 AM)


I oppose any reductions to arty and bomb splash damage. I like it the way it is now and reducing it would just take the fun out of the game. Arty is impotent in the game compared to reality unless turned up to at least 140/140 so making it even weaker is not a good idea. Bombing is quite destructive if it hits just right but so it is in real life, and bombers are quite limited in the game already so if anything I'd like to see them able to do more bombing runs. Like medium and heavy bombers, nobody ever uses the level types cause they are considered useless. I use them if available cause I don't play perfectly optimally and just wanna have fun.



Goblin -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 4:13:23 AM)

Tokyo,

It already was reduced. The reduction seems to have a secondary effect that is undesirable, as described in my email to Alby, posted above, plus artillery seems next to worthless right now.





Goblin



PimpYourAFV -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 5:50:05 AM)


Goblin, much power to you in your efforts to fix it. Arty is very important to me cause I tend to use a lot of WW1 type units and 'tactics' (if you could call them that).



Alby -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 8:40:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: terbare

I believe your on the right track with the changes you made with the direct fire artillery, so often I have more effect on the adjacent hexes than on the target hex. I also have seen planes win a scenario by wiping out both sides simultaneously by bombing right thru the middle of the battle. I would also like to see in the Long Campaign that the AI get heavier caliber guns for the Russians , I have played up to 1943 and never saw a larger caliber than a 76mm bombarding me, where is Stalins "god of war".


This can be fixed by providing more AI-only formations, as long as enough slots exist. The AI purchase schemes are a tricky business.

There is an AI formation with 122MM in it
it has used it against me
LOL
Think theres a 152 in one also



m10bob -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 12:14:55 PM)

quote:

What changes would the players like to see, if any
Or would the players rather leave it as it is in 8.403.


From a prior post:

From "real life" experience:
Steel Panthers in any version has been weaker than circus lemonade.
(I always increase the factor to approx 130% against soft targets and at least 110% against hard targets to compensate.)
The current version has weakened the mortars (apparently) and the snipers are useless dolts all over again.
Real units continue to carry 60mm mortars because they work and are accurate, completely the opposite of the misrepresentation in SP).
Same with rifle grenades.
Nothing against SP..It's a game


New comments:

I saw a B 52 drop a string of 500 Lb bombs a mile away from my guys.
The ground shook and you can see the bombs "eating" the air in the vicinity.
(Up close, this will suck the air out of a mans lungs and cause them to collapse.)
There is actually a wave caused from each bomb which can be seen, very distinctly.
After the planes left, we cautiously walked in.
Any survivers we found were either walking away crying and in total shock, or on the ground, cringing in fetal positions, etc, crying.
These fellas were probably a block away from the bombs.
Nothing closer was living.
When that 'wave" goes out, it is the explosive breaking the sound barrier, (as I understand it), and the concussion (concussive effect) literally tears the flesh from bone.
This causes as much damage as any shrapnel, (on a bomb of this size.)
The 1,000 lb bomb was very common as well, but the ones I saw were 500 lb. I verified this later.
Maybe Flash or somebody who knows bombs can tell you what kind they were, but it was a horrific example that "close" counts in these things as well.
IMO, to "lessen" the splash effect of bombs of this size is going in the wrong direction.
My opinion is of course slanted...



PimpYourAFV -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 2:57:05 PM)


Thanks m10bob, I was hoping someone with army experience would argue for more effective arty and bombing.



264rifle -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 7:02:28 PM)

Most WWII aerial bombs of the GP (general purpose) type cantained about 50% explosive by weight. Large size artillery shells seem to carry 14-18% explosive by weight. Examples are the the US 155 M107 shell 43.5kg with 6.6kg/TNT and the US M106 shell for 8in How 90.7 with 16.5kg/TNT.

I do agree that something needs to be fixed but i am not sure how to do it. Tales of fire support from 37mm gun tanks when in the game the co-ax gun is much more effective???? Unless you are shooting at infantry or a tank in the same hex as one of your own units. (One hex = 1/2 of a football field) in which case you always seem to miss the enemy but hit your own troops[X(] even from the next hex (other half of football feild[:@])
I have heard of friendly fire but come on!!

While I do appreciate combat experience (I have none) were there any changes in mortars or rifle grenades from 1940-45 to 1965-75??? Like more pointed noses, more streamline bodies, different fin designs or more precision manufacture of body and tail fin parts that might have some affect on accuracy??? Not saying that game is 100% right but making game conform to weapon performance that is 20-25 years newer might not be 100% right either.



bud -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 7:34:18 PM)

after going over and over this 8.403 artillery situation off Alby`s 1/27/06 post -- and playing a online game the other nite and seeing my 8'' OFF/b artillery come down on Albys tank, ( i have given up on 155`s) -- it just fire at me and moved away in its turn - ( i wont say what Alby`s remarks where -- jejeje -- oops ) --- then i see ON/b artillery doing some real damage now --( and yes we have been tweaking the % to hit hard and soft ) -- now i know Mike said he may change the splash in the future -- ( and thank YOU for your long time support Mike ) --but did his changes in 8.403 change allllllll artillery ?? --- are the same changes that where done affect -- ON/B ,OFF/B artillery and PLANES ALL the same ---- did it effect caliber size ( war head ) all the same too --- i must say that theres a differents when big artillery hits a unit and its splash damage and a plane drops med bombs ??? --- so after seeing a few more posts about artillery , i keep asking myself my it changed -- so when i posted that question i was reminded by my pal Ably - ( maybe ex pal after this post -- lol - ) that there some players complaining about artillery to Mike and more to the point about splash damage ----but were they the few or the majority of players here ??? --- so why not open a post and have a vote ( perhaps by someone known to many ) -- and ask -- 1 -- i would like to go back to the 8.4 artillery -- 2 -- i like the 8.403 artillery -- 3 -- i would like to change the following in artillery -- plz be specific -- just to tast the waters --- thz Bud (aka ICED )



Alby -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 7:39:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bud
so why not open a post and have a vote ( perhaps by someone known to many ) -- and ask -- 1 -- i would like to go back to the 8.4 artillery -- 2 -- i like the 8.403 artillery -- 3 -- i would like to change the following in artillery -- plz be specific -- just to tast the waters --- thz Bud (aka ICED )


Thats why this thread was started
[:)]



JEB Davis -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 7:50:12 PM)

IMHO, both artillery and HE direct fire effectiveness vs. infantry needs to be bumped up in the hex it hits. BUT splash in an adjacent hex should NOT be increased - remember a hex is 1/2 a football field.

Suppression should be bumped up also.

Please don't overdo it, though. Let's avoid wild pendulum swings.



bud -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/16/2006 8:17:23 PM)

ok then -- my vote --- return to 8.4 artillery --- bud ( aka ICED ) -- if the less of the majority feels the artillery needs adjustment -- then let them fool with this dam tweaking artillery %



soldier -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/17/2006 2:38:18 PM)

The only problem i noticed with splash damage in previous versions was that direct large calibre gun fire (150mm SIG especially) would often kill more enemies in adjacent hexes than the target hex. Actually you could get more casualties by deliberatley firing wide next to your enemy than right at him. Never did get too many targetted kills (as Goblin noted). Preferred the old damage systems when it comes to indirect artillery and bombs.



m10bob -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/19/2006 9:07:12 PM)

quote:

The only problem i noticed with splash damage in previous versions was that direct large calibre gun fire (150mm SIG especially) would often kill more enemies in adjacent hexes than the target hex. Actually you could get more casualties by deliberatley firing wide next to your enemy than right at him. Never did get too many targetted kills (as Goblin noted). Preferred the old damage systems when it comes to indirect artillery and bombs.


I agree with soldier on this. Direct fire should not splatter across a 50 yard/metre(?) area like this. Heavy arty, however might, depending on both the calibre and the hardness of the target it hits.
(Bricks and built up areas would become shrapnel as well. Don't know how this would be simulated, (how to limit the extra spatter just to built up areas.)
Of course, shrapnel plays hell in forested ares and tree splinters add to the problem.
(This latter is NOT something I have observed, except in "Band Of Brothers", like you guys).



Colonel von Blitz -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/20/2006 10:16:48 AM)

I've been playing with version 8.4 only, just starting some games with 8.403.

In my opinion, it's only good if splash damage has been reduced, because 152/155mm barrage caused too much casualties in 8.4. Especially, if your troops were entrenched, the barrage that hits adjacent hexes (50-100 meters away), caused frequently 1 or 2 casualties.

BUT, what I didn't like, was the lack of effectivness when the shells hit target hexes right on. Too often there would be no damage at all [&:] This is emphasized by the fact that when firing direct support with heavy guns, it's ALWAYS more wise to use area fire than targetting enemy squads...[:@] and way too often there still would not be a single casualty, or maybe just one (and that would be from adjacent squad, not from the squad that is in targeted hex).

So, as a summary, I'd say that reduced splash damage is OK. But something should be done to this routine that controls casualties when big shells hit an occupied hex, no matter if it was indirect or direct fire! Also, maybe there should be more 'cover' for entrenched units and more penalties (more casualties) for moving units, if they're caught by a barrage? This leads to cranking up the arty, of course, so in order to balance the game, the price of indirect weapons should be increased.

Or maybe...I don't know...this is delicate issue, and too big a change could ruin everything. These changes are eternal swings of a pendulum, iterating itself to a static state as time goes by...but shall this SPWaW community ever find this 'static state', I doubt that because we all have different opinions about the effectivity of unit/unit class X [:D]

-Colonel von Blitz-



azraelck -> RE: Ok guys need some opinions (2/20/2006 10:39:21 AM)

I was watching a thing on military Channel not long ago, and they were talking about the Battle of Iwo Jima. They talked about the Japanese mortars, I think 150mm but I may be wrong; it's too early in the morning. Anyways, one man said he saw an officer get hit by that mortar. He was just... gone.

In my DAR with the USMC; my line has been pounded with 75mm howitzers and 81mm and 105mm mortar fire... with no casualties. While I understand that artillery is meant to suppress enemy positions; they should cause some casualties. I am in open ground, and yet not one man has died due to a direct hit from a mortar. If artillery actualy did anything; I would have lost the battle by now, or at least it would be far more difficult. That's mostly whats wrong with defend and delay missions IMO. They can pound and pound, but nothing ever happens. You might collapse a building, set some trees on fire, but no one dies.

Also, regarding those fires. It's FIRE. Troops should not willingly sit in a hex that's burning, nor should they rush into one that's burning. Yet both my units and Japanese units treat flaming hexes ike they would a sunny, grassy field. At least give a chance for casualties while occupying a burning hex.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.34375