RE: HQ units and FO's (Full Version)

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



Message

m10bob -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 3:17:58 AM)

quote:

As far as my comment regarding the relative value of units in the game, I stand by what I said about platoon HQs and multiple FOs. They have little relative value.


I disagree with this as far as the Americans are concerned because being the only force in the field to have radios right down to squad level, they were the only people with the ability to call in fire,(weather and dead zones providing)..



m10bob -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 3:22:24 AM)

quote:

Its an issue being discussed.
perhaps Paras move too fast


No, they do not move too fast Alby..I do not suggest you "dumb down" the speed of Airborne to appease anybody.
Once a troop arrives at Jump school, he is required to RUN everyplace he goes.There is NO WALKING ALLOWED!
Walking will get you transferred to a leg unit within the hour.
Guaranteed.
This is one of the reasons an Airborne unit can move faster on the ground than anybody else.


FWIW, before graduating, an Airborne class can "Airborne Shuffle" for miles and not even think about it..........



Goblin -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 3:29:11 AM)

Alby, if you keep your FO within 3 hexes of the A0 unit, it never goes out of contact. Of course, since it usually cannot see its target, the arty it is calling is less effective. I usually place one with the A0, and several forward with the recon and leading units, and only call with the rear FO if the others are out of contact/dead.

Goblin



Alby -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 3:49:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

Its an issue being discussed.
perhaps Paras move too fast


No, they do not move too fast Alby..I do not suggest you "dumb down" the speed of Airborne to appease anybody.
Once a troop arrives at Jump school, he is required to RUN everyplace he goes.There is NO WALKING ALLOWED!
Walking will get you transferred to a leg unit within the hour.
Guaranteed.
This is one of the reasons an Airborne unit can move faster on the ground than anybody else.


FWIW, before graduating, an Airborne class can "Airborne Shuffle" for miles and not even think about it..........

no we are not dumbing down their speed...
knew I'd get some responses from that one.
[:D]



Alby -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 3:52:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin
So an infantry platoon (US) might look like this:

14-16 man Plt HQ w/ typical squad armament
12 man squad w/ typical squad armament
12 man Heavy Infantry w/ typical HI armament.

The only problem I see is the Plt HQ class not automatically getting the special abilities of the infantry they are with, which it won't as the game is now.

Thoughts?


Goblin



So far this seems like a possible 'compromise'
however, One more problem, some nations have but one PLT HQ unit, so in this instance, this unit would carry the same weapons from 1930-1949.
other nations that have more room would be able to 'upgrade' their PLT Hq units weapons.
Unless we create and use only one generic Plt HQ unit from 1930-1949 for each nation.
Are you saying just alter the existing PLT HQs units we have now??



Alby -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 4:05:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Goblin

Alby, if you keep your FO within 3 hexes of the A0 unit, it never goes out of contact. Of course, since it usually cannot see its target, the arty it is calling is less effective. I usually place one with the A0, and several forward with the recon and leading units, and only call with the rear FO if the others are out of contact/dead.

Goblin

You can have a single FO next to your HQ unit and still have some arty formations 'out of contact' if you play with 'unit comm on'
you have never got the "FORMATION OUT OF CONTACT" message?????
[X(]

but who keeps their FO right next to their HQ anway
dont you place them where they can see whats going on??
hence the term 'forward' observer...
[;)]



FlashfyreSP -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 4:24:11 AM)

Back to the original topic: FO units attached to the A0 HQ formation.

One other thing to consider is the frequency of actual Forward Observers and which nations would have them. Most artillery plotting in the WWII-era was done by 'battery control' units, who were in contact with observation posts using landline telephones and switchboards. Not radios...only a few nations were advanced enough to use radio comms for artillery. In-game, everyone has a radio. The FO has one, and it moves with him. In reality, though, most FOs would lose their comms if they moved outside their OP, as the phone lines weren't mobile.

I would only allow an FO directly attached to the A0 unit to exist in the following OOBs:

US
USMC
UK
Germany
Canada
ANZAC
India (followed British doctrine)
Philippines (followed US doctrine)

In some cases, I would allow it in others if they were mainly supplied by/attached to one of the previous nations. For example, the Free French operating under British command.



Dragoon 45 -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 4:31:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlashfyreSP

Dragoon45

Most of the Platoons in Enhanced do not have "platoon MGs" anymore; squads have LMGs, of course, but the MMG/HMG support weapons are kept in separate formations attached to the company. This is in keeping with the doctrine of the day (observed to one extent or another by all armies involved) that MGs were battalion support units, along with mortars, and were kept in Support/Weapons Companies. The units were allocated to the battalion as needed; MGs were usually assigned to flank protection when the battalion was on the advance, for example. So we removed them from direct platoon control, making them company assets to be used where the player wants. They don't suffer from "out-of-contact" status because their parent platoon has moved beyond the 3-hex range; they can be concentrated in an area and benefit from the rally ability of their formation leader. In some nations, the Platoon HQ is the only unit in the platoon that has an automatic weapon; Indian Army doctrine for the early years called for 1 Vickers-Berthier LMG to be assigned each platoon, not each squad.



I noticed that but, each infantry company has a weapons plt which consists of mortars, MG's and AT assets. In the case of the US Army, doctrine was that the MG's and AT assets were attached to the platoons. When you talk about HMG's I agree they were in general controlled by the company commander they were assigned to and were in general Bn Spt weapons, but the MMG's were parcelled out to the Platoons. The whole rationale for MMG's were a lighter version of the HMG that could keep up with the troops during movement and support them during assaults or on the defensive. You can replicate this by assigning them to the plt HQ's using the assign a new HQ menu. But to me a much better way is to just incorporate them into the Plt HQ, where the plt ldr or plt sgt would have directed their fire. True this would be a change for any future versions of the OOB's, not for the current ones. But these MMG's I think should be employed with the platoons. The MMG's and the LMG's were what the plt built its base of fire on to cover any tactical movement or assaults.

WW I doctrine had MG's of all classes as BN Spt weapons they normally formed a separate unit at either Bn or Regt level. Pre War and WW II doctrine changed gradually over time. The need for more firepower at the squad and plt level was evident early on . This is where the first LMG's and automatic rifles started being included into the infantry squads pre-war. As the war progressed the need for additional firepower meant including additional BAR's or other weapons in the squad. In some cases the M1919A6 replaced the BAR in the squad itself in order to increase the firepower of the squad. But everything I have read or seen shows M1919A4's attached directly to the plt in order to beef up the plt's base of fire. Then also from what I have read the M1919A6 was not a well liked weapon by the infantry for a number of reasons. Most units removed the stock and bipod and used the normal tripod for firing it. This really confuses the issue because the M1919A6 was really not an LMG as the term was used during the war. It was an MMG that was unsuccessfully converted into an LMG. I also would remind that doctrine and how things were actually done in a lot of cases didn't come close to resembling each other.

In modern US Light Infantry units, each Light Infantry Plt has a weapons squad which consists of GP MG's and AT systems. This is a direct outgrowth of the WW II practice of attaching the companies MMG's to the Platoon. The rationale went that if the MMG was going to be attached to the plt anyway, just go ahead and make them part of the plt organization. This fosters unit cohesion.





Dragoon 45 -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 4:39:42 AM)



Quote: FlashfyreSP

Back to the original topic: FO units attached to the A0 HQ formation.

One other thing to consider is the frequency of actual Forward Observers and which nations would have them. Most artillery plotting in the WWII-era was done by 'battery control' units, who were in contact with observation posts using landline telephones and switchboards. Not radios...only a few nations were advanced enough to use radio comms for artillery. In-game, everyone has a radio. The FO has one, and it moves with him. In reality, though, most FOs would lose their comms if they moved outside their OP, as the phone lines weren't mobile.

I would only allow an FO directly attached to the A0 unit to exist in the following OOBs:

US
USMC
UK
Germany
Canada
ANZAC
India (followed British doctrine)
Philippines (followed US doctrine)

In some cases, I would allow it in others if they were mainly supplied by/attached to one of the previous nations. For example, the Free French operating under British command.

Unquote.


Flash that sounds like a very good compromise. I orginally brought this subject up because of scenario's where the designer included artillery and/or med/hvy mortars and then didn't include an FO to control them. Especially galling to me is a scenario where aircraft is included and no FO's.



vahauser -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/24/2006 10:46:49 AM)

I don't like to belabor this point, but as long as Command Control is OFF, then you never NEED more than one FO. A friend of mine (who shall remain nameless, since he posts on this board) routinely puts two FOs in the battles he designs, but that is more for "flavor" than anything else. Also, as Goblin notes, some players prefer (as different from need) to use more than one FO in their battles. Even I, a notorious single-FO player, will on occasion use more than one FO in rare and unusual circumstances.

My primary concern with the line of reasoning that I detect in this thread, is that an FO will become a non-optional, mandatory feature (like those ****ing platoon HQs), taking a player's choices and preferences out of the loop. Even now, in enhanced SPWAW v2, I already see a tendency in this direction where FOs are attached to some recon formations. I see this as a very bad decision on the part of the enhanced SPWAW v2 team because it makes buying said recon formations not cost-effective and foolish to buy, in my opinion. If I want recon, then I want to buy recon, not FO. If I want FO, then I want to buy FO, not recon. Church and state need to be clearly er-... uh... FO and recon need to be clearly separate, or FO and anything else for that matter. I don't want one (or more) of my precious unit slots wasted on yet another FO that I didn't want or need in the first place.



JEB Davis -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 9:25:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
As I stated towards the top of this thread, the real culprit here is everybody plays these days with Command Control OFF. Even I (a die-hard Command Control ON player if there ever was one) play with it turned OFF these days because nobody will play with me unless I agree to turn it OFF. ...... With Command Control ON, however, that is a whole different story not worth addressing because nobody plays that way anymore.


Victor, just to let you know, there are still some C&C ON diehards out there [;)]. I greatly prefer it and know a few others that do. One reason I prefer it is that it makes me think and plan more. We know it's not perfectly implemented, but with C&C OFF the game has way too much freedom of movement. I think this excessive freedom of movement allows a player to be able to use his troops in ways that are un-historical, it allows a "godlike" control which no WWII commander could ever have had.

That said, Alby, Flash, and the rest involved with Enhanced: 3 cheers for the Plt. HQ's, and thanks again for all your work. And 3 cheers for using multiple FO's.



m10bob -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 11:39:15 AM)

quote:

I think this excessive freedom of movement allows a player to be able to use his troops in ways that are un-historical, it allows a "godlike" control which no WWII commander could ever have had.


JEB...I don't think it's so much a case of having "God-like" powers, so much as it is having an individual unit being able to digress from original plans as the battle develops, if opportunity opens itself.
Several armies of that war allowed and expected the "man on the ground" initiative to alter plans if it might help to accomplish the mission more efficiently.
The only real sticklers for total adhenrance to "C&C was the Soviet army, where any devience whatsoever might mean capital punishment for the offender.
Micro-management is both costly and often fatal, in the arena of combat.
I very much appreciate the in-game option to have C&C, I just don't condone its' use in a real-life "shooting war"..
In combat, elimination of everything pointing its' barrel in a direction counter to yours is paramount to maintaining cohesion with a higher echelon.
Initiative in combat belongs on the front line,(and should be both expected, and rewarded), but it does not belong in the "smoking car",nor press briefing room at the rear......



Alby -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 3:10:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JEB Davis

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
As I stated towards the top of this thread, the real culprit here is everybody plays these days with Command Control OFF. Even I (a die-hard Command Control ON player if there ever was one) play with it turned OFF these days because nobody will play with me unless I agree to turn it OFF. ...... With Command Control ON, however, that is a whole different story not worth addressing because nobody plays that way anymore.


Victor, just to let you know, there are still some C&C ON diehards out there [;)]. I greatly prefer it and know a few others that do. One reason I prefer it is that it makes me think and plan more. We know it's not perfectly implemented, but with C&C OFF the game has way too much freedom of movement. I think this excessive freedom of movement allows a player to be able to use his troops in ways that are un-historical, it allows a "godlike" control which no WWII commander could ever have had.

That said, Alby, Flash, and the rest involved with Enhanced: 3 cheers for the Plt. HQ's, and thanks again for all your work. And 3 cheers for using multiple FO's.


It appears we may be removing them from the 'specialty' type unit formations.
airborne and engineers, since they dont get the same 'special'qualities of the formation.
Some players are mad because they dont fight good enough and want them ALL removed, but how can we remove them all when there are players, like you, who like them and know how to use them correctly..
sigh, trying to please everyone is becoming increasingly painful
[:(]
Thanks for support JEB



JEB Davis -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 7:20:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

I think this excessive freedom of movement allows a player to be able to use his troops in ways that are un-historical, it allows a "godlike" control which no WWII commander could ever have had.


JEB...I don't think it's so much a case of having "God-like" powers, so much as it is having an individual unit being able to digress from original plans as the battle develops, if opportunity opens itself.


Bob, perhaps "demi-god-like" is more accurate. By the way, I deliberately used a lowercase g in godlike so as to not offend the Almighty [:)]

Anyway, individual units DO have the ability to digress and change their plans of action when using C&C. If you are a "good steward" of your officers' orders and save them for such occasions, protecting the platoon leader units from supression so they can do their job, it works out pretty well.

Of course, there are time when there are no orders and you're stuck - and likewise in real war, soldiers of any army may be "stuck" and without contact or orders from their commanding officer. In such a case, 2 options come to mind: they would have to either (a) stick to the last objective they were given, or (b) stay put and wait for orders to come through. I think C&C does a fairly good job of simulating this. I'm not seeking an argument.

I make no claims here that my way is right and yours is wrong... but I'll stick to my guns on this. [;)]
We can both enjoy the game the way we prefer.

Alby, you are very welcome! You are one of the guys that keep this awesome game getting better as the years go by. Don't lose heart because of these squabbles (not that I think you will [;)]). There will always be different opinions, when you have firm convictions, stick with them.



Alby -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 9:15:46 PM)

Well here is the plan....

Plt HQs will be removed form Airborne and Engineer formations.
where room permits, "special' Plt and CO HQ units will be created that have the same speed as the troops in certain formations,
basically the 'Elite" formations, such as Hungary has elite 'Guard' Infantry with speed of 10, so a special 'Guard Plt Ldr' and 'Guard CO HQ' will be created just for the Guard formations.
this will require alot of using of the '3' code.
In oobs where there is no room to create any of these special units, I suppose all PLT HQs and CO HQs should be given same speed as the 'elite' boys, so they at least can keep up with them.

Is this acceptable to everyone??

A patch will be posted that has only these changes to the OOBs, plus the 30 or so other oob fixes I have listed in the thread in the Enhanced forum, the mech.exe, and a couple PIC and/or ENC files
anyone who has any pic or ENC files they want to add, get them to me soon.
The mech.exe will now show this on the opening screen
COLONEL: ITS SPWAW ENHANCED FV
The FV meaning 'Final Version'



vahauser -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 10:09:17 PM)

Alby,

I applaud your efforts regarding platoon HQs.  Definitely a move in the best direction, in my opinion.

I have only four remaining "items" on my enhanced v2 agenda:
1) Either include ad-hoc formations not based on TOEs (like SS armor platoon) to EVERY NATION's OOBs, or do away with them.  In other words, evenly and fairly distribute them to all OOBs, no discrimination for/against individual OOBs. In my opinion.
2) Put a minimum limit on artillery delay times of 0.2 on all nations unless continuing fire against a hex or targeting a pre-registered hex.  American artillery with minimum delay times of 0.1 is just too powerful. In my opinion.
3) Mixed formations of FO/recon are not cost-effective and should be split apart into 100% FO and 100% recon.  In my opinion.
4) Come up with a way to differentiate between 1930 AFVs and 1949 AFVs regarding fire control.  Having every AFV from 1930 to 1949 have a fire control of 4 just seems so horribly wrong to me.  In my opinion.

I am not trying to cause trouble.  I just see these issues as problems to be addressed.

--V



vahauser -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 10:26:45 PM)

JEB,

Playing with C&C ON is the true path of the power gamer, requires far more skill and planning and finesse. 
C&C OFF makes the game more of an arcade game: line up anywhere; instantly respond in any and all directions; go blast 'em!

But I resigned myself years ago (all the way back in the old days when all Matrix was was SPWAW (don't let my join date of 2002 fool you, I had a different username "victorhauser" back in the early days), the days of Wild Bill and Paul Vebber and Charles_22, et. al.) that the only way I could be included in the group (the group of guys I gamed with on weekends in my local area) was with C&C OFF.  Sigh.  Oh well.  Improvise, adapt, overcome.  I've learned to deal with it.

--V



Goblin -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 10:41:59 PM)

vahauser - number 2 above is game code, which the Enhanced Team cannot change.



Goblin



azraelck -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/27/2006 11:28:24 PM)

#4 is another limitation in the game code. There's only so much you can do, to keep tanks from always hitting and still have some variation, when the entire system is designed to account for tanks such as a Leopard II or M1A1 Abrams, with computer assisted targeting. There is IIRC a 0-9 limit on FC, and going 0 or 1 makes them too worthless to bother with ever using, while going higher than 4 or 5 starts getting to the point that some tanks simply don't miss, which is equally inaccurate and gamey. So you have tanks with little variation in FC ratings, simply because there's not enough leeway to give them much variation.  



JEB Davis -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 12:06:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser
Playing with C&C ON is the true path of the power gamer, requires far more skill and planning and finesse. 
C&C OFF makes the game more of an arcade game: line up anywhere; instantly respond in any and all directions; go blast 'em!

We obviously agree on C&C. Not into power gaming though. Just want to get good at the game and play "historically" if I can manage to, that is... [:D]



vahauser -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 12:33:39 AM)

quote:

#4 is another limitation in the game code. There's only so much you can do, to keep tanks from always hitting and still have some variation
-- azraelck [italics and underlining by vahauser]

But my point is that right now we have NO variation. Do we have to use integers in the code? Can we use a 1-10 scale and divide the result by 2 or something? I'm not asking these questions facetiously, I really don't know. But I want to believe that a group of guys as creative as the ones we have working with SPWAW can come up with something to give us some kind of variation of AFV fire control between 1930 and 1949. There HAS to be a way.


quote:

vahauser - number 2 above is game code, which the Enhanced Team cannot change.
-- Goblin

But doesn't enhanced v2 and standard 8.4 use basically the same game engine? And in standard 8.4 the absolute minimum delay time I can get with the Americans is 0.2 (when not firing in continuation or at a pre-registered target). But in enhanced v2, all you need is an FO with an experience over 60 and artillery experience over 55 (I have tested and verified this) and you get American minimum delay times of 0.1 (no matter when or where I'm firing). SOMETHING changed between standard 8.4 and enhanced v2.

P.S. Goblin, I'm interested in an enhanced v2 PBEM game if you are.



Alby -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 12:44:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Alby,

I applaud your efforts regarding platoon HQs. Definitely a move in the best direction, in my opinion.

Thanks, we try to make evryone happy, but is difficult at best.

I have only four remaining "items" on my enhanced v2 agenda:
1) Either include ad-hoc formations not based on TOEs (like SS armor platoon) to EVERY NATION's OOBs, or do away with them. In other words, evenly and fairly distribute them to all OOBs, no discrimination for/against individual OOBs. In my opinion.

What is the big deal about this formation?
you have yet to explain it.
If you would look at any other oobs, many of them do have "mixed" armor formations
I have explained the reasoning behind it and its historical probability of the Germans 'piecing' together formations in a pinch, is it just the name that is bugging you??
Or is it that you would rather have all the Panthers and Tigers 'Elite'?
You are only person that has ever complained about it.

2) Put a minimum limit on artillery delay times of 0.2 on all nations unless continuing fire against a hex or targeting a pre-registered hex. American artillery with minimum delay times of 0.1 is just too powerful. In my opinion.

No way we can do that. the USA is hard coded in the game to get faster artillery times than anyone else, I have tried something that might get them at to at least to 02.
Need to test it more.

3) Mixed formations of FO/recon are not cost-effective and should be split apart into 100% FO and 100% recon. In my opinion.

Dont take this the wrong way, but just because you choose tom only use one FO unit in a given game, does not mean evryone else wants to play just like you.

4) Come up with a way to differentiate between 1930 AFVs and 1949 AFVs regarding fire control. Having every AFV from 1930 to 1949 have a fire control of 4 just seems so horribly wrong to me. In my opinion.

Thats the way the programmer, programmed the units in the game to work correctly. Over the years they got skewed into Modern Tanks ratings. It bothered him and He decided to restore the game to the way he programmed it to work.
We didnt just make them up.
dont read to much into those numbers, the national ratings have alot to do with how a unit performs.

I am not trying to cause trouble. I just see these issues as problems to be addressed.

They seem to be for the most part, only problems to you, I am not trying to be a smartass or anything, but so far, no one has complained about them except you.
Other than the PLT HQ thing. [;)]

--V


Good Gaming
Alby



azraelck -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 12:47:50 AM)

Problem being is that SPWaW is not a big money maker for Matrix, and is not high on the list of projects for enhancement. The Enhanced mod was put together as a OoB and graphics mod by other players, Matrix did not directly work on it.

Another thing, is that making the ratings, such as FC, work with something other than INT variables from 0-9, may require significant reorking of the code and OoBs to balance it out. I wrote an RPG engine a few years ago, and balancing out numbers is not an easy task. Everything has to work together, otherwise you get weird oddities, such as Stuarts that destroy a Maus or IS2m in one shot. Or a spell that somehow managed to kill your entire party, even when it's meant as a heal all. :p I don't want to get into the details of how SPWaW works, I don't want to know. But I'll bet that just expanding the range would cause a balancing nightmare, due to the existing numbers being in place and set up for the rest of the engine for such a long time, and the engine not ajusted to account for the expanded range.

So long as Matrix does not release the source code, or update it any, then some things will just remain the way they are. Personally, I'm happy enough with it that it's the most used program on my computer save for my WinXP drivers, and it was among the top programs on my other computer up until it died.



Alby -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 12:59:34 AM)

this comes straight from the programmer,,
note second sentence...


Fire Control:
How stable is the firing platform. Please do these from scratch, as every one has pretty much ignored me on this issue.
0 = All unit weapons that are not crewed guns and not mounted on vehicles, such as infantry, cavalry, bicycle and motorcycle troops and crews.
1 = Anti-aircraft machine guns mounted outside vehicles and light machine guns on bipods (not part of a squad).
2 = Machine guns on tripods, infantry guns, recoilless rifles, small anti-tank guns that tend to bounce around when fired (generally 37mm or less), all mortars and artillery.
3 = Heavy machine guns on tripods, larger and more stable anti-tank guns (generally 45mm or larger), all anti-aircraft guns. Note that anti-aircraft guns (such as the German 88mm Flak) can fire while unlimbered (these should still have shots available after movement – not a bug - and fire control issue in this case is covered in code).
4 = Vehicular weapons (really shouldn’t include bow machine guns, but this has been accounted for elsewhere), and most fortification weapons.




vahauser -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 1:08:00 AM)

Alby,

I can live with SS armor platoon.  I've already figured out a workaround.

I can live with mixed FO/recon.  I've already figured out a workaround.

American artillery delay times have a potential for abuse in PBEM games, however, that I do not have a workaround for.  My suspicion is that what changed between standard 8.4 and enhanced v2 has more to do with FOs than with the artillery units themselves.

If nobody else is concerned that French FT-17s (post WWI) have the same fire control as a British Centurion III (post Korea), then I guess there's nothing more to be said here.  Although, in my opinion, how a national modifier can somehow make up for a 1-man turret, inferior optics, and inferior vehicle/crew layout (a la the FT-17) when compared to the 3-man turret, superior optics, and superior vehicle/crew layout of the Centurion III is difficult for me to accept today.  I will learn to just deal with it and won't mention it again. 

--V



Alby -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 1:20:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vahauser

Alby,

I can live with SS armor platoon. I've already figured out a workaround.

work around to what???
[&:]
Just dont buy that formation if you dont like it..

I can live with mixed FO/recon. I've already figured out a workaround.

American artillery delay times have a potential for abuse in PBEM games, however, that I do not have a workaround for. My suspicion is that what changed between standard 8.4 and enhanced v2 has more to do with FOs than with the artillery units themselves.

Everyone has always had to deal with the USA arty in PBEM and Online games, it has alweays been hardcoded for faster response.
We did nothing to any FOs other than raise their price,

If nobody else is concerned that French FT-17s (post WWI) have the same fire control as a British Centurion III (post Korea), then I guess there's nothing more to be said here. Although, in my opinion, how a national modifier can somehow make up for a 1-man turret, inferior optics, and inferior vehicle/crew layout (a la the FT-17) when compared to the 3-man turret, superior optics, and superior vehicle/crew layout of the Centurion III is difficult for me to accept today. I will learn to just deal with it and won't mention it again.

You forgot to mention the centurion has a 7 rangefinder rating to the FT 17s rating of 2
these ratings work toegther.

[:)]


--V



[:)]



FlashfyreSP -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 1:21:46 AM)

Some of these ratings work together to create bonuses/penalties to the To Hit chance of each unit. Fire Control (FC) is a straight +3 (+5?) x FC added to the To Hit chance; Rangefinder (RgF) provides the level of "ranging rings" where the To Hit chance is adjusted. Stabilizer (Stab) is a binary switch-type rating, that tells the code the unit either HAS or DOES NOT HAVE gun stabilizer gear installed.

So the variations aren't necessarily all in the FC rating; the Rangefinder rating is more varied from tank to tank, and changes the FC bonus accordingly. RgF rating x 6/8/10/12 = range bands that impose penalties of x.67/x.5/x.33/x.25 to the To Hit chance.

Two tanks, Tank A and Tank B, are firing on the range. Both have a base To Hit chance of 50% at their targets at a range of 20 hexes.

Tank A, with FC of 4 and RgF of 3, has a final modified To Hit chance of 31%.
Tank B, with FC of 4 and RgF of 5, has a final modified To Hit chance of 42%.

Why?

Tank A's RgF rating gives him 'range rings' of 18/24/30/36 hexes. Target is at 20 hexes, within his second range ring. His modifier is .5 x 62% = 31%.
Tank B's RgF rating gives him 'range rings' of 30/40/50/60 hexes. Target is at 20 hexes, within his first range ring. His modifier is .67 x 62% = 41.5 (42)%.


EDIT: I just noticed the FT17/Centurion comparison. I'll fill in some of the numbers here:

FT17 has a FC of 4 and a RgF of 2. It's 'range rings' are 12/16/20/24 hexes.
Centurion III has a FC of 4 and a RgF of 7. It's 'range rings' are 42/56/70/84 hexces.

Target is at 30 hexes. Base Chance To Hit is 50%.

FT17 fires and receives a final To Hit chance of (50% + 12%) x .25 = 62% x .25 = 15.5%
Centurion III fires and receives a final To Hit chance of (50% + 12%) x .67 = 62% x .67 = 41.5%

Fire Control is a minor modifier to the combat routine; Rangefinder should be a much greater concern to the player. Changing the FC rating from 4 to 3 results in a decrease of 3% to the To Hit chance; changing the RgF rating from 4 to 3 resets the unit's whole 'range ring' array and changes the engagement ranges it is effective in. From 24/32/40/48 hexes to 18/24/30/36 hexes. With that, targets at 20 hexes are now harder to hit than they were.

Hope this helps explain how the game uses some of the numbers everyone sees in the OOB.



vahauser -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 2:04:27 AM)

FlashFyre,
Thank you. I appreciate your excellent explanation.

Alby,
Let's say I only want (or can only afford) a few tanks, but I want them to be elite. And let's say I want them to be StuGs. How can I do this? That is the workaround I'm referring to.



azraelck -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 2:26:45 AM)

Edit the OoBs to reflect whatever you want. Of course, I'm making it sound incredibly easy. I haven't bothered, as I don't have any ideas on anything I particularly want just yet. Too busy enjoying whats there that I have yet to play with.

And Flashfyre, alby, and the Gunny are the trifecta here. They haven't dated any japanese girls, and been driven into apathy and sloth. ;) I'm far too uncaring to post a wall of text and do actual math, much lest test a game until I figure out the algorithms involved in something, just to answer a question. ;)



vahauser -> RE: HQ units and FO's (7/28/2006 2:51:07 AM)

azraelck,

Let's suppose you are I are going to play a PBEM game (or I'm in a tournament).  I can't edit the OOBs.  Have to go with the OOBs as they are.  And I still want a small number of elite StuGs (and only StuGs) in a small points battle.  That is the need for the workaround.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.359375