A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (Full Version)

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



Message


Dragoon 45 -> A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 3:05:22 AM)

1. The FG-42 armed German Paratroops are now not available until Nov 44, in the older version they appeared in mid 43 which as far as I know is accurate?

2. Why are the SS Armor companies of mixed vehicle types?

3. I like the onboard US artillery batteries that now include an FO. I would suggest adding a CP Tent to the unit also to replicate the Fire Direction Center and organic transport for the tubes (trucks, M-2 Halftracks, prime movers, etc). Also normal practice was to have an attached section of ADA with each battery and also a small ground security detachment also.

4. The M-37 HMC (standardized in Nov 44) was based on the M-24 light tank chassis and the information I have indicates it was introduced into service too late for the war in Europe. There was also a 155mm Howitzer SP based on the same chassis (the M-41 HMC: Gorilla) which entered service in late 45.




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 3:22:10 AM)

1. because that unit also carries a panzerfaust which isn't available until Nov 44. with only limted unit slots available, and a unit has to go to the end of a particular year (cant start and stop in middle of a year) some compromises have to be made.

2. There are 2 different type SS armor formations in the German Oob now.
One has the mixed vehicles to portary units being thrown together for a particular mission. or to resemble the Germans having to throw together mixed units, due to losses.

3 and 4 Flash could answer better than me.
I imagine available unit slots comes into play here too.




FlashfyreSP -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 5:12:18 AM)

3. All good suggestion, but we wanted to be careful about puting alot of things into formatuions that players may want to have the option to buy, not be required to have everytime. There have been complaints over the years about forcing the player to have transports, whether they wanted them or not. Which is why many formations don't come with them; if the player wishes, they can usually purchase transport sections or platoons as needed. I'm not sure what you mean by ADA, but having a small security detachment falls under the same concern as the organic transports. However, if the feeling is that this is something that would be approved, we can certainly put it on the list of revisions.

4. This was another "carry-over" unit from 8.3. It did not receive much scrutiny, and it looks like the Dates of Availability, as well as the armour values and possibly other unit data, are incorrect. This one will go on the list to be corrected for the patch. It ws standardized in November 1944, with field units not becoming widely available until at least April 1945. Unfortunately, due to slot limits, the M41 "Gorilla" won't make it into the OOB. It would make a nice addition for the post-war period, and Korea; a "Light Combat Group", with Chaffees, M37 and M41 SPA, and Armoured Infantry. I just wish we had the slots...or a split OOB.




Dragoon 45 -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 8:13:26 AM)

Flash, Standard procedure was for an artillery battery to have an attached sect or plt of M-16's for air defense. These attached meatchoppers proved quite useful in the early days of the Bulge beating off attacks on artillery batteries by German Infantry.

I would dearly love to see either additional slots or additional OOB sets added to the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

3. All good suggestion, but we wanted to be careful about puting alot of things into formatuions that players may want to have the option to buy, not be required to have everytime. There have been complaints over the years about forcing the player to have transports, whether they wanted them or not. Which is why many formations don't come with them; if the player wishes, they can usually purchase transport sections or platoons as needed. I'm not sure what you mean by ADA, but having a small security detachment falls under the same concern as the organic transports. However, if the feeling is that this is something that would be approved, we can certainly put it on the list of revisions.

4. This was another "carry-over" unit from 8.3. It did not receive much scrutiny, and it looks like the Dates of Availability, as well as the armour values and possibly other unit data, are incorrect. This one will go on the list to be corrected for the patch. It ws standardized in November 1944, with field units not becoming widely available until at least April 1945. Unfortunately, due to slot limits, the M41 "Gorilla" won't make it into the OOB. It would make a nice addition for the post-war period, and Korea; a "Light Combat Group", with Chaffees, M37 and M41 SPA, and Armoured Infantry. I just wish we had the slots...or a split OOB.






Don Doom -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 12:16:25 PM)

Alby, since when can't you start in the middle of the year? I have mucked with the oob's long enough that you can start any month of the year. Stopping at the end of the year is true.




Twotribes -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 2:49:45 PM)

I am sure thats what he meant and simply miswrote it. Obviously you can start any month of any year.




FlashfyreSP -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 3:09:02 PM)

1. As a possible solution, we could arm Unit #158 with the FjG42 (Slot1) and the MP38/40 (Slot2), reassign its Date from May 42 to sometime in 43, and rearm Unit #159 with the Kar98k (Slot1) and the MG42 LMG (Slot2). This would give us an FJ unit from 43-45 w/the FjG42 rifle, the period of its use; as I understand the history of this weapon, only 5000 were made by the end of the war. Since Unit #159 covers the post-war "hypothetical" German Army, I would think the Kar98 and the MG42 would have been more readily available for arming any "hypothetical" force.




Dragoon 45 -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 4:16:27 PM)

The FG-42 came in two versions, the FG-42-1 (a little over 2000 produced) and the FG-42-2 (7000 produced). According to the sources I have they were not used on the Eastern Front, only used in Italy and Western Europe. I brought up the change in the availability dates for the reason that the FG-42 is unique in small arms development. It was a selective fire (single or automatic fire) weapon that used an old style full power cartridge (the standard 7.92 x 57mm Mauser). It was a successful design (sanctioned by the Luftwaffe) but was not sanctioned by the OKW due to excessive complication in its manufacture, so it never went into mass production. I do agree that the FG-42 should probably disappear after 45 due to the limited numbers produced. The SturmGewehr 44 (MP-44) would probably replace it in service if the war had continued after May 45. Incidentally according to Ian V. Hogg in "Military Small Arms of the 20th Century", the first deliveries of the MP-44/StuG-44 were made to the troops in July 43. Don't know what units received them though.

Also there was a StuG-45 model that was to go into production in mid 45. It used the same 7.92x33mm Kurz rd that the MP/StuG-44 used, but was a totally different weapon. Although it didn't go into production or see service in WW II, the design was resurected about 10 years later and was developed into the H&K CETME series service rifles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

1. As a possible solution, we could arm Unit #158 with the FjG42 (Slot1) and the MP38/40 (Slot2), reassign its Date from May 42 to sometime in 43, and rearm Unit #159 with the Kar98k (Slot1) and the MG42 LMG (Slot2). This would give us an FJ unit from 43-45 w/the FjG42 rifle, the period of its use; as I understand the history of this weapon, only 5000 were made by the end of the war. Since Unit #159 covers the post-war "hypothetical" German Army, I would think the Kar98 and the MG42 would have been more readily available for arming any "hypothetical" force.





adantas -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/2/2006 10:07:31 PM)

Hi Folks,

First of all I`d like to say that this Mod rocks :D
Like a lot the new terrain graphics and improved figthing ability of the AI.
Question about the OOB is why we still have many of the LBMs as drawnings instead of pictures like the ones of H2H Mod?..Just my personal taste but I really like picture LBMs..add more "historical"feeling IHMO.

Adantas
Aka Von Bismarck at Blitz Forum 




KG Erwin -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 12:48:53 AM)

Adantas, for my own variation, I DID appropriate many of the photos from H2H.  If you play solo, there's nothing to keep you from doing this.    




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 1:26:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Doom

Alby, since when can't you start in the middle of the year? I have mucked with the oob's long enough that you can start any month of the year. Stopping at the end of the year is true.


you really think I didnt know you can start in whatever month you wish??
[;)]
What I was trying to say was you cant start AND STOP in the middle or wherever.
Of course you can start in any month, but you always have to go until end of the year.




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 1:31:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adantas

Hi Folks,

First of all I`d like to say that this Mod rocks :D
Like a lot the new terrain graphics and improved figthing ability of the AI.
Question about the OOB is why we still have many of the LBMs as drawnings instead of pictures like the ones of H2H Mod?..Just my personal taste but I really like picture LBMs..add more "historical"feeling IHMO.

Adantas
Aka Von Bismarck at Blitz Forum

Because we didnt want to just copy H2H by giving all vehicles live pictures.
And most likely, the ones we would have found, would have been same ones in H2H.
We still wanted to Keep SPWAW Its own, if you get what I am trying to say...
[&:]

best answer I can give you.
[:)]




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 1:50:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

1. As a possible solution, we could arm Unit #158 with the FjG42 (Slot1) and the MP38/40 (Slot2), reassign its Date from May 42 to sometime in 43, and rearm Unit #159 with the Kar98k (Slot1) and the MG42 LMG (Slot2). This would give us an FJ unit from 43-45 w/the FjG42 rifle, the period of its use; as I understand the history of this weapon, only 5000 were made by the end of the war. Since Unit #159 covers the post-war "hypothetical" German Army, I would think the Kar98 and the MG42 would have been more readily available for arming any "hypothetical" force.


"The FG-42 (Fallschirmjagergevehr 42, or Paratrooper's rifle, model 1942) is rather interesting, yet unsuccessful development in small arms of the Hitler's Germany."

And....

"In the original form, also known as FG-42 1st model or FG-42-1, this rifle was made in limited numbers - no more than 2 000 rifles in 1st modification were delivered to Luftwaffe. It soon became apparent that the lightweight rifle lacked the necessary strength to handle powerful rifle ammunition in full automatic mode; it also was too expensive to manufacture. Recognizing that, Krieghoff engineers by the early 1944 redesigned the FG-42 into so called 2nd model. Being heavier and slightly longer, the FG-42-2 was still too light to be effectively fired in full auto, even from integral bipod, and still too expensive, especially compared to the contemporary Stg.44 assault rifle. Before the end of war about 5 000 2nd model FG-42 rifles were produced by Krieghoff and several other minor manufacturers. The FG-42 made no direct impact on the postwar developments in small arms, except that it served as a basis for relatively unspectacular American M60 machine gun."


So after reading this, I still would not have the weapon available until sometime in 1944 since only 2000 of the first model were Issued. and the second model, where some 5-7000 (this site states 5000) were produced..
Note it says produced, not issued. for model 2

Your Thoughts???

[:)]




adantas -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 4:11:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby

quote:

ORIGINAL: adantas

Hi Folks,

First of all I`d like to say that this Mod rocks :D
Like a lot the new terrain graphics and improved figthing ability of the AI.
Question about the OOB is why we still have many of the LBMs as drawnings instead of pictures like the ones of H2H Mod?..Just my personal taste but I really like picture LBMs..add more "historical"feeling IHMO.

Adantas
Aka Von Bismarck at Blitz Forum

Because we didnt want to just copy H2H by giving all vehicles live pictures.
And most likely, the ones we would have found, would have been same ones in H2H.
We still wanted to Keep SPWAW Its own, if you get what I am trying to say...
[&:]

best answer I can give you.
[:)]



Ok Alby,

I got it of course [:)]
And I'm doing exactly what you say and changing them..
So, Any chance we have my Brazilian OOB on it someday?[:D]

Adantas




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 5:09:24 AM)

I have a brazian oob for H2H, that the one you mean?




Dragoon 45 -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 7:09:53 AM)

Alby,

Let's say the original 2000 rifles were issued to the Fallschrimjager Battalions. 2000 rifles would be more than enough to equip 4 battalions of troops. Out of the next 5-7000 produced of the FG-42-2 model say 4000 were issued. That is another 8 battalions of troops so equipped. So there is easily enough rifles to equip one full division of troops. Remember not everyone in the infantry would carry this rifle, some squad members would be carrying the MG-34/42, some carrying machine pistols, and some armed with probably the Gewehr-43.

All the references I have state the FG-42 either version was a successful weapon. Its main fault was a tendency to cant when aimed due to its side mounted magazine. The German Army didn't like the weapon due to its expensive manufacturing costs, mainly costs associated with the machining of various parts. Cost of the weapon was the main reason it was not produced more numerously.

I tend to place faith in Ian V. Hogg, a retired British Army Master Gunner and Military Historian, when dealing with small arms and artillery. He has many good things to say about the weapon in general and does bring up the issue of its instability in automatic fire. That said only a very desperate soldier fires his weapon on auto fire if the weapon is so equipped. I can not think of a single assault rifle or submachine gun that is accurate in automatic fire. All of them are too light weight. That is why a lot of modern assault rifles and submachine guns now are fitted with a selector that permitts three round bursts. The Three Round Bursts are easier to control and have a better chance to hit the target with more than one round. Even the BAR was hard to control on automatic fire. Good gunners learned how to fire in 3-5 round bursts so they would have more accuracy and not over heat the barrels.

The Gewehr-43 and FJ-42 were semi-automatic rifles that used full size cartridges. Both of these rifles gave the individual infantry man a marked increase in firepower over the Kar-98 bolt action rifle. It is perhaps a blessing that only a limited number of these weapons were actually produced. If every German Infantry Man had been equipped with a semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifle, the casaulities on the Allied side would have been much higher.

Having carried an M-60 as both the Gunner and A-gunner, I find your web site reference a little off. I also attended the Foreign Weapons Identification Course taught by the Special Forces at Ft Bragg in the early 80's. I have fired just about every machine gun, assault rifle, and submachine gun produced in the last 50 years. The M-60 is a much more reliable MG than a lot of the other models out there. The initial models were a little shakey, but they were improved and the final versions were very good guns. I have found out a lot of the so-called experts on military small arms have never served in the military. Their only experience with the guns are a lot of times shooting worn-out models on a range. Soldiers quickly learn what works and what doesn't work with their individual weapons. They tend to find ways to quickly emphasis the strengths and minimize the weaknesses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

1. As a possible solution, we could arm Unit #158 with the FjG42 (Slot1) and the MP38/40 (Slot2), reassign its Date from May 42 to sometime in 43, and rearm Unit #159 with the Kar98k (Slot1) and the MG42 LMG (Slot2). This would give us an FJ unit from 43-45 w/the FjG42 rifle, the period of its use; as I understand the history of this weapon, only 5000 were made by the end of the war. Since Unit #159 covers the post-war "hypothetical" German Army, I would think the Kar98 and the MG42 would have been more readily available for arming any "hypothetical" force.


"The FG-42 (Fallschirmjagergevehr 42, or Paratrooper's rifle, model 1942) is rather interesting, yet unsuccessful development in small arms of the Hitler's Germany."

And....

"In the original form, also known as FG-42 1st model or FG-42-1, this rifle was made in limited numbers - no more than 2 000 rifles in 1st modification were delivered to Luftwaffe. It soon became apparent that the lightweight rifle lacked the necessary strength to handle powerful rifle ammunition in full automatic mode; it also was too expensive to manufacture. Recognizing that, Krieghoff engineers by the early 1944 redesigned the FG-42 into so called 2nd model. Being heavier and slightly longer, the FG-42-2 was still too light to be effectively fired in full auto, even from integral bipod, and still too expensive, especially compared to the contemporary Stg.44 assault rifle. Before the end of war about 5 000 2nd model FG-42 rifles were produced by Krieghoff and several other minor manufacturers. The FG-42 made no direct impact on the postwar developments in small arms, except that it served as a basis for relatively unspectacular American M60 machine gun."


So after reading this, I still would not have the weapon available until sometime in 1944 since only 2000 of the first model were Issued. and the second model, where some 5-7000 (this site states 5000) were produced..
Note it says produced, not issued. for model 2

Your Thoughts???

[:)]





KG Erwin -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 8:36:03 AM)

You guys sort it out the best you can,  but the obsession with the Germans has been in the wargaming world for decades, and while I understand certain aspects of it, why not do the same for, say, the Russians?

The Russian TOEs went thru  continual permutations, too, and after looking at the partial data for the tank disribution in 1941, I'm surprised that so little attention is paid to them. 

With the enhanced SPWaW, they are now great candidates for a long WWII campaign.  The Soviet upgrade path is pretty impressive.   




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 4:42:08 PM)

well I have made the changes Flashfyre suggested.
altho took Dragoons suggestion to give post war Paras the STG-44
Gunny
Actually alot of time was spent on the Russians.
most of the revised Russian OOB was taken from people much more knowledgable than me.
[:)]
One point, we can nit pick the oobs to death, in the end, not every wepaon or unit can be in the game, there are limitations that we all are aware of.
all this debate over this one single rifle has me perplexed to say the least.
[:D]






o4r -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 5:38:18 PM)

Anybody has this problem when playing Russia, the German only purchase infantry and no tanks?

I did some modification by replacing the new Mech file back to ver 8.4 mech, will that cause the problem?




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 5:52:28 PM)

depends on the size battle




o4r -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 6:35:07 PM)

I uses large map, I use the battle generator.

I was playing russian vs AI German.

Somehow, they kept purchasing infantry and infantry.




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 7:56:47 PM)

I meant how many Points you are using, not size of map...sorry




o4r -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 9:37:02 PM)

I think I found the problem, Look at German AI formation 1024, It is set to purchase tank 1942. Once I changed to January 1938, it started to purchase tanks.

Dunno I got it right or not but somehow after this changes, AI when played German started to buy more tanks and tank destroyer rather than mass infantry.




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 9:45:52 PM)

there are  also other formations the AI buys, that are not all marked as +++AI such and such++
[:)]
But might be good idea to change that date to earlier like you did.




o4r -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 10:38:57 PM)

OK, I changed the year to 1944.

When I selected a random generator battle for year 1943, again the AI german purchased a lot of infantry. Hmm...... [:'(]




KG Erwin -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/3/2006 10:56:29 PM)

Alby, I wasn't implying that the team ignored the Russians, but in vanilla 8.403 it was pretty difficult to generate any enthusiasm for them for the players.

Now, they present a viable country to play AS in a long campaign.  It's still a tough road to hoe, but if you stick with them, I think that a reasonable facsimile of the juggernaut that beat the Germans into the ground can be created.  I hold a lot of respect for the "Ivans". [;)]




m10bob -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/4/2006 4:59:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

" I think that a reasonable facsimile of the juggernaut that beat the Germans into the ground can be created. I hold a lot of respect for the Ivans". [;)]



Yeah, call me  old fashioned, but I'm one of those "John Wayne All-Americans" that still believes the "other" Allies (the ones in Africa and Italy and the Western Front) kinda helped, yuh know.......[sm=Tank-fahr09.gif]




Twotribes -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/4/2006 5:33:49 PM)

Speaking of the "Ivan" juggernaut.

Just checked the Fire Control and Range Finder numbers on German and Soviet Tanks and Tank Destroyers. They are pretty much the same, the early German Tanks through Pz III E all have FC 4 and RF 2

The Pz III G to M have FC 4 and RF 3

All early Soviet tanks have FC 4 and RF 2 Except one very early T-28 model with a 1 for RF.

All but one model of T-34 have FC 4 and RF 3

All but one model of KV-1 have FC 4 and RF 3 By 44 most Soviet tanks have 4/4 or 4/5 so the 4/6 and 4/7 of the germans is not noticable then either.

Basicly since the crew morale and training have been upped also there is no difference between German and Soviet tanks, well except that historicly the Germans beat the better armored and gunned Soviet Tanks in the first year with little problem.

I would advice anyone playing the Germans NOT to be historical.




Alby -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/4/2006 5:43:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Alby, I wasn't implying that the team ignored the Russians, but in vanilla 8.403 it was pretty difficult to generate any enthusiasm for them for the players.

Now, they present a viable country to play AS in a long campaign. It's still a tough road to hoe, but if you stick with them, I think that a reasonable facsimile of the juggernaut that beat the Germans into the ground can be created. I hold a lot of respect for the "Ivans". [;)]


I know you were'nt
[:)]
The Russians can still be a task to use early in the war, but are pretty tough by wars end!




FlashfyreSP -> RE: A few more questions and comments about the Enhanced OOB's (6/4/2006 6:05:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Speaking of the "Ivan" juggernaut.

Just checked the Fire Control and Range Finder numbers on German and Soviet Tanks and Tank Destroyers. They are pretty much the same, the early German Tanks through Pz III E all have FC 4 and RF 2

The Pz III G to M have FC 4 and RF 3

All early Soviet tanks have FC 4 and RF 2 Except one very early T-28 model with a 1 for RF.

All but one model of T-34 have FC 4 and RF 3

All but one model of KV-1 have FC 4 and RF 3 By 44 most Soviet tanks have 4/4 or 4/5 so the 4/6 and 4/7 of the germans is not noticable then either.

Basicly since the crew morale and training have been upped also there is no difference between German and Soviet tanks, well except that historicly the Germans beat the better armored and gunned Soviet Tanks in the first year with little problem.

I would advice anyone playing the Germans NOT to be historical.


The true test of a unit's ability to fight isn't these values; it's the Experience and Skill ratings of the commanders. Russian tanks had gun sights and rangefinding equipment, just like the German tanks did. They both had rangefinding equipment; while the Russian gear was not as high-quality as the German gear, it worked, and the Russians got good at using them.

This has been the trouble with the game over the years; using these stats to artificially "balance" the sides, in response to a lot of "perceived" history. Remember too that the base game code was SPIII, a modern-era game, which was built to cover units from WWII through the 21st Century. That means that these ratings, above 3 or 4, are approaching modern-day tanks with onboard computers and laser rangefinders. The ratings are an abstract value representing the technology of the period; don't read too much into them, or make the mistake of thinking that each increase in the number is a samll improvement in technology or quality. These ratings, for the most part, are subjective.

Edited for sentence structure error.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.890625