(Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> SPWaW Thread Hall of Fame

Message

AmmoSgt -> (5/2/2002 1:55:38 PM)
PS: practically none of the above would apply to the US M3 "Grease Gun" shorter barrel, uncompensated, and a much lighter weight.. but then it only cost 15 dollars to make while the Thompsons cost 209 dollars ( WW2 dollars) to make.

Panzer Leo -> (5/2/2002 4:29:09 PM)
[QUOTE]In short, if any SMG can have a claim at being effective at 4 hexes it would be the Thompson's [/QUOTE] Some good points, but I think there must be something you're overseeing, that gives the Thompson a big setback. I cannot argue on a technical base what and why, but I can show you why I believe the Thompson was one of the worst SMGs in effective range. These are just a few links, that deal with Thompsons: [URL]http://www.wwiitech.net/main/usa/weapons/tommygun/index.html[/URL] [URL]http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg29-e.htm[/URL] [URL]http://www.pnwhg.org/1stid/m1a1thompson.htm[/URL] [URL]http://centurian.topcities.com/eamclan/weapons.htm[/URL] All of the above links give the Thompson an effective range of 50-60m. I could not find a single link with the Thompson having a remarkable higher range than the above, except this one with 110m: [URL]http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-usa/inf-usa-smg-thompson/inf-usa-smg-thompson-br.html[/URL] But the effective range on this site is calculated different from the others, as you can see from the range given for the MP38/40 with 200m: [URL]http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-deutschland/inf-de-smg-mp38-40/inf-de-smg-mp38-40-br.html[/URL] So everything i found, that compared the Thompson to other guns like the MP38/40 state the MP38/40 about the double effective range...in the game it is only a factor of 1.5. And when it comes to compare it to the PPsH, well than the Thompson looks really bad... If you could show me a site, where your assumptions of a higher range are described and comparisons to other SMG models are made, it would really help to back your point of view. For now I have only your word for it :D (and some good thoughts, but I think they are not waterproof :rolleyes: )

TheOriginalOverlord -> (5/3/2002 6:39:36 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo [B] Some good points, but I think there must be something you're overseeing, that gives the Thompson a big setback. I cannot argue on a technical base what and why, but I can show you why I believe the Thompson was one of the worst SMGs in effective range. These are just a few links, that deal with Thompsons: [URL]http://www.wwiitech.net/main/usa/weapons/tommygun/index.html[/URL] [URL]http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg29-e.htm[/URL] [URL]http://www.pnwhg.org/1stid/m1a1thompson.htm[/URL] [URL]http://centurian.topcities.com/eamclan/weapons.htm[/URL] All of the above links give the Thompson an effective range of 50-60m. I could not find a single link with the Thompson having a remarkable higher range than the above, except this one with 110m: [URL]http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-usa/inf-usa-smg-thompson/inf-usa-smg-thompson-br.html[/URL] But the effective range on this site is calculated different from the others, as you can see from the range given for the MP38/40 with 200m: [URL]http://www.wwiitechpubs.com/barrack/inf-deutschland/inf-de-smg-mp38-40/inf-de-smg-mp38-40-br.html[/URL] So everything i found, that compared the Thompson to other guns like the MP38/40 state the MP38/40 about the double effective range...in the game it is only a factor of 1.5. And when it comes to compare it to the PPsH, well than the Thompson looks really bad... If you could show me a site, where your assumptions of a higher range are described and comparisons to other SMG models are made, it would really help to back your point of view. For now I have only your word for it :D (and some good thoughts, but I think they are not waterproof :rolleyes: ) [/B][/QUOTE] personal experience note MP38/40 neat weapon and reliable. I personaly don't have a problem with a 200m range for this. Using my friends MP40 I shot at man size "popup" targets at 200m. I got 4 hits from a full mag (32rnds). I was standing and unsupported firing 4 shot bursts. So figure 8 rnds per hit. The burst that didn't hit was right on the target but I didn't get the "lucky" bullet on target. Stens- very simple and crude except for the later Mk5 (better sights and stock) Weapon is not very stable due to wobbly stock. Accuracy is not anywhere close to the MP40. At 25m it cannot keep a full burst(4-5 rnds) on a mansize target. Mk5 probably a little better but not by much. Thompsons- Fairly accurate, more so than Sten by far not quite as good as MP40. M1921/28 versions had Cutts compensator to help reduce muzzle climb. Wartime M1 series didn't and also had simple fixed sights. M3 grease gun- Decent accuracy, better than Sten almost as good as Thompson. Has slow ROF so it's easy to control. PPSh series- Good weapon, great suppressive fire. At least as accurate as Thompson, maybe even the MP40. High ROF and high Mv means getting a good concentrated burst on target. Particular PPSh-41 I shot was excellant but accuracy wasn't that good, I believe it was crap ammo we used. Function was perfect and it "seemed" accuracy was good one burts would be on tgt and the next would be off. I'm gonna blame the ammo on this one. personal experience off How about giving ALL SMGs a range of say 400m but adjust ACC and HE kill accordingly so you will have some suppressive effect.

Svennemir -> (5/3/2002 9:03:43 PM)
I don't think any SMG should have range over 4 hexes, they become far too deadly then! (I've multiple times seen USMC squads with Thompson kill 6-8 japanese with a single burst at 4-5 maybe 6 hex range in 6.1 when SMGs were divine weapons.

Panzer Leo -> (5/3/2002 9:11:33 PM)
personel experience is always welcome :D Your description of the weapons compared to each other is pretty much the line up I use... Sten as worst, then Thompson, MP 38/40 and finally PPSh as best. As you mentioned, the Thompson I use is the wartime production model M1 or M1A1, both being a "cheaper" version with less accuracy and simpler sights. I only know 9mm rounds and how they behave (what an odd arc you get when going on longer distance :D ) and then not fired by MP38/40, but P1 (P38) or UZI, so it's good to have some real firing notes... [QUOTE]How about giving ALL SMGs a range of say 400m but adjust ACC and HE kill accordingly so you will have some suppressive effect.[/QUOTE] That's actually the main problem on this... I have experimented quite a bit with ACC and HE, but it's tough to simulate a gun like the Thompson. The ACC is already at low level, so not much to do...the HE is another problem. If I have e.g. the Thompson, I want a real high HE at close range. But that same high HE will cause casualties even at longer ranges, because it some sort of just "overrules" the low ACC value with it's high HE. So 400m is something almost not to model realistically with SPWAW (at least I couldn't figure out sofar). But I could test to raise the max range of SMGs in general by 50m (1hex), bringing the PPSh to 250m and the STEN to 150m...I'll look into it...

Svennemir -> (5/4/2002 1:33:24 AM)
Hmm.. just posted this in the wrong forum by accident, but here's something about Machine Guns and this is where it is meant to be posted: I think by far the most important infantry weapon issue is the medium/heavy MGs. They are not very effective meat choppers in SPWAW, I find that a rifle squad can often cope with even a HMG at ranges~200 yds without much trouble. The high-ROF AAA have had their effectivity lessened considerably lately. But the nerf also hit the real MGs, so their relative balance hasn't been so much improved yet. The problem is that a machine gun is only a single weapon while a rifle squad has ~10 rifles + LMG firing, making them sometimes more effective than real machine guns - especially considering unit costs and mobility. Running around full speed in open terrain 200 yards from a machine gun should be more like suicide than a way to take it out (I may be exaggerating here). Another problem which might not be seen "on paper" is that machine guns rely a lot on OpFire. In one's own turn they can only be used if they're not moved, meaning the enemy will often face them when it's his own turn. As most of you have experienced, concentrated fire can often eliminate threats from OpFiring units, meaning the player whose turn it is can often do better than the other since he can rally several times. That's why not so many OpFire shots will be seen as soon as the MGs are suppressed, and that's why their effectivity should be increased, making them more intimidating even though it is not their turn. I think both accuracy and kill values could be tweaked upwards for MGs. Maybe considerably. Input?

Panzer Leo -> (5/4/2002 3:18:26 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Svennemir [B] I think both accuracy and kill values could be tweaked upwards for MGs. Maybe considerably. Input? [/B][/QUOTE] Errr...??? Do you mean MGs are to weak with 130/130 or even with 100/100 like in v7.1 ? With H2H I will go back to 100/100 and then the better MGs are occasionally able to wipe out whole squads with one shot...should be enough :D The setback of the infantry weapons with 130/130 forced me to pull down the multibarrelled guns in HE and use 100/100. For the SMGs I think I found a good setup: ranging from 150-250m, with most SMGs causing rarely casualties in the last 50-100m and doing only suppression. I was also able to make Thompson and PPSh equally lethal up to 100m and then the Thompson crashing down, while the PPSh keeps it's performence better over range... The MP38/40 is a bit less lethal the first 100m, but beats the Thompson over 100m ... a.s.o

Panzer Leo -> (5/5/2002 12:37:27 AM)
Here's one for "Bernie": You reminded me of an idea I once had, but forgot... You asked on some thread, if it would be possible to have no casualty reports on Arty bombardment in SPWAW...well I figured out how and created a mech.exe, that will not give away enemy positions when being hit by Arty... Disadvantage (if you can say so): there won't be casualty reports at all for combat (only for mines or so...)...but this should rather add to realism then be a real disadvantage (you can still see the casualties in the icon change on the map - but then you gotta do headcount;) )... I'll do some testing and if it shows up as stable, it will be the future H2H mech.exe... Thanks, Bernie :D

Drex -> Soviet accuracy (5/6/2002 1:48:01 AM)
I'm wondering if anyone has had problems with the accuracy of soviet armor in H2H? I've been creamed twice now and had to abandon the games. but as the US vs Germans it seems balanced. these games are in '44 or '45. In one game the opponent did a test and charged my position and just cleaned my clock and I'm talking about defending with T-34/85s and better.

Panzer Leo -> Re: Soviet accuracy (5/6/2002 3:45:15 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex [B]I'm wondering if anyone has had problems with the accuracy of soviet armor in H2H? I've been creamed twice now and had to abandon the games. but as the US vs Germans it seems balanced. these games are in '44 or '45. In one game the opponent did a test and charged my position and just cleaned my clock and I'm talking about defending with T-34/85s and better. [/B][/QUOTE] Basically, there're no changes to Soviet armor...the only thing that would have a slight effect on to hit chances is maybe a bit lowered leadership values on the Russian side, but that would make only for a few percent - nothing dramatic...(and in '44/'45 the exp and leadership is good enough to not automatically get creamed as Russian...) Could you be more specific with your battles/test...what vehicles opposing at what distances, who had cover, a.s.o. ?

Kevin E. Duguay -> Strummorser Tiger (5/6/2002 11:15:05 PM)
Am I in the middle of a bad dream or what? Im in the middle of converting a scenario by Wild Bill and every thing is going well. But then I go to switch over the Strummorser and it is no longer listed anywhere! We have experimental vehicles like the 105mm K18 Pz Sfl IVa (2 produced), and the 128mm Pz Sfl V (2 produced) but no Strummorser Tiger (18 produced and issued to 3 Strummorser companies 1001-1003). If the vehicle won't fit in the German or Czech OOBs, why not put it in the Bulgarian or Hungarian OOB? I don't mind looking for it as long as it's there. Also I whould like to know if there is a possability to change the Flam Pz III from gray to Panzer Yellow? In the few books I have ,I've never seen a Flam Pz III in Pz Gray. And for any one interested, the cammo SPW 251/1 is not dead. If you realy want your half tracks to be cammo just look in the Rummanian OOB. They may be purchased in sections or platoons under MISC, or directly exchanged for the gray ones with the "Change unit to another unit" toggle. Have a nice day!:D

Panzer Leo -> (5/7/2002 12:19:23 AM)
[QUOTE]But then I go to switch over the Strummorser and it is no longer listed anywhere! [/QUOTE] ...and what's wrong with the thing in the Czech OOB named "Sturmtiger" ? [QUOTE]Also I whould like to know if there is a possability to change the Flam Pz III from gray to Panzer Yellow? In the few books I have ,I've never seen a Flam Pz III in Pz Gray. [/QUOTE] so it will be...;)

Kevin E. Duguay -> Strummorser Tiger (5/7/2002 2:43:44 AM)
Leo, went through the Czech OOB with a fine tooth comb and still can't find it! Should I try to down load H2H again? Could I have a version without the Strummorser?:confused:

Panzer Leo -> Re: Strummorser Tiger (5/7/2002 2:53:06 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin E. Duguay [B]Leo, went through the Czech OOB with a fine tooth comb and still can't find it! Should I try to down load H2H again? Could I have a version without the Strummorser?:confused: [/B][/QUOTE] My mistake...sorry:rolleyes: I forgot to change nationality to "Czechoslovakia"...it is in the OOB, but it does not show up... To fix it for yourself, go into the OOB editor and change the nationality of the Sturmtiger from Germany to Czech... Is already corrected for the final release...thanks, another error eliminated :D And have fun blasting away whole towns with this little toy ;)

Kevin E. Duguay -> (5/7/2002 3:28:02 AM)
Thanks Leo I'll start blasting right away! One more thing, the turret armor on the Mobelwagen is wrong. Should'nt this be 25mm all around? Your Mobelwagen icon has shields up so this would be ok. An icon is out there with shields down also. Then the only armor to take into consideration would be for the gun shield. Take a look and see what you think. Icon with shields down is in the OOB section of this forum, its by Mike Amos. (War Horse) Hope this helps, and thanks again!:)

Panzer Leo -> (5/7/2002 4:07:03 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin E. Duguay [B]One more thing, the turret armor on the Mobelwagen is wrong. Should'nt this be 25mm all around? Your Mobelwagen icon has shields up so this would be ok. An icon is out there with shields down also. Then the only armor to take into consideration would be for the gun shield. Take a look and see what you think. Icon with shields down is in the OOB section of this forum, its by Mike Amos. (War Horse) Hope this helps, and thanks again!:) [/B][/QUOTE] That's a tough one...I did not change Paul's armor values...they look like a kind of "merged" armor plates (of mobile gun shield and side and front shields). Usually I do not touch Paul's ratings, unless no doubt exists they are wrong... If I would model it with shields lowered down, it would be completely vulnerable to the sides and rear. That was only the case, when being ready for 360 degrees AA fire. I'm not sure, if the shields could be lowered seperately, but then it would also mean, that the crew kept up side plates, when in danger of being shot at from small arms and no 360 degrees was necessary...would be great if there was a button to switch the shields up and down, but I'm not sure if this will even make it into CL;) So I think when in doubt, ruling in favour of the accused...shields up:D

Kevin E. Duguay -> German towed AT platoons (5/8/2002 9:16:59 AM)
How about 3 gun towed AT gun platoons? I can't even find a refrence to a 4 gun platoon. Except maybe the Africa Korps. I.E. 2-50mm pak, 1-76mmr pak, 1-47mm Bohler or some other unofficial mix of ATG and sometimes more than 4 guns. :confused:

Kevin E. Duguay -> Mobelwagen/shields (5/8/2002 9:37:26 AM)
Just checked the few photos in the few publications I have. Front shield my be lowered independently. This allows the main gun to be depressed enough to engage ground targets. The side shields could be locked in a semi-lowered possition. If you have a photo handy notice the small armored flaps on the front and rear shields, they swung out to hold side shields in a semi-lowered possition. With shields in this possition 360 degree AA fire was possible. But if front shield is UP the main armament could not in any way fire at ground targets. So is'nt a frontal armor rating of 50 a bit high for a gun shield?:)

Panzer Leo -> Re: German towed AT platoons (5/8/2002 3:03:40 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin E. Duguay [B]How about 3 gun towed AT gun platoons? I can't even find a refrence to a 4 gun platoon. Except maybe the Africa Korps. I.E. 2-50mm pak, 1-76mmr pak, 1-47mm Bohler or some other unofficial mix of ATG and sometimes more than 4 guns. :confused: [/B][/QUOTE] sounds reasonable to me and meets my data of the TO&E...I will make a 3 gun Krupp Protze drawn AT-gun platoon. [QUOTE]So is'nt a frontal armor rating of 50 a bit high for a gun shield?[/QUOTE] Yes, from now on front shield will be assumed lowered down and only the gun shield remains as frontal protection. I have to figure out it's strenght (20-25mm I assume) and will change the values...good work !

Kevin E. Duguay -> (5/10/2002 12:34:21 PM)
Thanks Leo, glad I could help! Here's some more. The Soviet Mot SMG Co is missing the truck for the first squad and is also short one truck in each platoon from 1941 on. The Soviet Mot Guards Co has to many vehicles. The Guards platoons have 3 squads and an MG and 5 trucks. This formation also has 4 komsomolets tractors with nothing to tow. Also when I was looking up some information on Soviet Mec units I found mention of the first motorized infantry battalion being formed back in 1929. The unit was called the First Mechanized Regiment and consisted of 1-tank battalion(MS-1 tanks), a Avtobroni(half track) unit, 1- motor rifle battalion, and an artillery battery. The half tracks were modled after Kegresse types had an armor basis of 7mm, max speed of 40 kph, it had a 5 man crew, and they were armed with 2 MGs. These were used just like armored cars. So basicly what Im asking is could we push the date back for Soviet Motor Rifle units to maybe 1930? If I find anything else I,ll be back!:)

Panzer Leo -> (5/11/2002 1:21:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin E. Duguay [B]Thanks Leo, glad I could help! Here's some more. The Soviet Mot SMG Co is missing the truck for the first squad and is also short one truck in each platoon from 1941 on. The Soviet Mot Guards Co has to many vehicles. The Guards platoons have 3 squads and an MG and 5 trucks. This formation also has 4 komsomolets tractors with nothing to tow. Also when I was looking up some information on Soviet Mec units I found mention of the first motorized infantry battalion being formed back in 1929. The unit was called the First Mechanized Regiment and consisted of 1-tank battalion(MS-1 tanks), a Avtobroni(half track) unit, 1- motor rifle battalion, and an artillery battery. The half tracks were modled after Kegresse types had an armor basis of 7mm, max speed of 40 kph, it had a 5 man crew, and they were armed with 2 MGs. These were used just like armored cars. So basicly what Im asking is could we push the date back for Soviet Motor Rifle units to maybe 1930? If I find anything else I,ll be back!:) [/B][/QUOTE] The Soviet Mot troops are already remodeled :) I stumbled across it, when playing some Mot Guards and redid all mot formations... Sov Mot Rifle from 1930 on ??? Why not...:D Can't find a reason why they shouldn't be able to put some troops on trucks before the war...if you could digg out some more TO&E of mot troops I would fell better, but there's not much I can do wrong with it;)

Kevin E. Duguay -> Motor Rifle Units (5/14/2002 9:12:40 PM)
Leo, did you mean to say that you went through all Nationalities Motor Units? If not and you kept most of the Matrix version 7.1 OOBs then check out my thread at OOB/TO&E's/Military Equipment sub thread SP:WaW OOB Modifications, titled Soviet Mot Unit's Messed Up! I have a full listing of all the nationalities that may in my opinion need some work or additions or reorganization. I would have typed it all out again here but it's quite extensive. Also there is mention of some other problems with other units that I noticed. For example, the Polish LWP SMG gunners and LPW engineer Squads are armed with 37mm M5 Guns as their primary weapon. there are others so check it out and see if anything in that thread can help you out!:D

Panzer Leo -> Re: Motor Rifle Units (5/16/2002 2:51:33 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kevin E. Duguay [B]Leo, did you mean to say that you went through all Nationalities Motor Units? If not and you kept most of the Matrix version 7.1 OOBs then check out my thread at OOB/TO&E's/Military Equipment sub thread SP:WaW OOB Modifications, titled Soviet Mot Unit's Messed Up! I have a full listing of all the nationalities that may in my opinion need some work or additions or reorganization. I would have typed it all out again here but it's quite extensive. Also there is mention of some other problems with other units that I noticed. For example, the Polish LWP SMG gunners and LPW engineer Squads are armed with 37mm M5 Guns as their primary weapon. there are others so check it out and see if anything in that thread can help you out!:D [/B][/QUOTE] Well, hmmm...I got quite a few of them already changed, but not nearly as much as you put up on the thread... I will go through your list and work in what seems reasonable (and that looks to be almost all...) Thanks for ruining my evening Kevin ;)

Kevin E. Duguay -> (5/16/2002 3:06:50 AM)
Any time Leo! :D

El Vito -> production numbers (5/19/2002 5:49:34 AM)
I don't know what can be done, but if you look at production numbers of Soviet to German tanks there is a great injustice in tank costs. 35,120 T-34/76's were produced from 40-45 18,330 T-34/85's from late 43-45 compared to 9,537 Stug III's 6,000 Panthers 7,000 Panzer IV G,H,J 1,354 Tiger E 489 King Tigers but if you look at the unit costs of German tanks to Soviet, they are roughly the same. sure the Soviet tanks are a bit cheaper but not as cheap as they should be. How were these values figured? How can Stugs IIIs and T34/76's be roughly the same cost when there were 4 times as many T34's?

Alby -> (5/19/2002 9:49:05 AM)
Good Points vito, Perhaps Leo is looking into that somewhat..

Svennemir -> (5/20/2002 2:38:32 AM)
Actually the costs are not based on production numbers nor actual production cost for the reason that Soviets are "meant" to have more Buy Points than e.g. the Germans. Try setting up a hotseat game GE vs SO, and buy 3000 pts. worth of German equipment. The Soviet Union will then (IIRC) get just around 4000 points. That can make a bigger difference than most would think judging the numbers (in my experience).

El Vito -> (5/20/2002 3:21:44 AM)
I guess giving the Soviets more points could solve this problem, but I have yet to find the German player who would accept this. Its hard enough to talk them into an 8k to 4k assault, which in my opinion is still not enough for a realistic Soviet attack. The Germans would have won the war if they were only outnumbered 2:1 don't you think?

Drex -> (5/20/2002 3:51:29 AM)
I agree with El Vito. Try playing as the soviets against the Germans with even points and see what happens. Of course both players should be equal in experience. The German armor range finding is so superior to the Russians that the Soviets need the extra points to make up for the losses they end up receiving.

Panzer Leo -> (5/20/2002 4:23:32 AM)
o.k. guys, I can follow your points and and I also think they are worth trying it... As you can see, I already gave the Russians an advantage on tank costs and they are not pure battle effectiveness costs (compare the T-34/85 at 102 to the Pzkpfw IVh at 112 and I think everyone agrees the T-34 is the better tank). I was always a fan of "guiding" folks into historical battle setups and that is best done by costs. So promoting the use of T-34 tanks for the Russians is just a good idea as it is for a US player to use lots of Arty... But there're limits to what I can do with the costs. I have only a certain field to work in (255 points). That means I have to consider the costs of other units of a nation, when changing some vehicles. I can go down with the T-34 even a bit further, but it won't be to much, because I still have to rate a tank like the BT-7m in a reasonable way...if I would put a T-34 at 50, I would have to put the BT-7 at 30 to make it anyhow reasonable to purchase one, but then how does this compare to the infantry squads ? Sure the Russians had lots of tanks, but didn't they have lots of infantry, too ? That would then effect the costs of MGs a.s.o. So I'm somewhat limited especially the nearer it gets to the bottom of the costs scala. I will see what makes sense and how much space I have left to tweak... But a second point to consider: the T-34s on one side, fine, but what about the other mass produced vehicle, the Sherman - in my point of view there wouldn't be a reason to not apply the same rules to them (in US hands mainly, as other nations didn't get any amount close to the US numbers and the Shermans should be considered a bit more precious for British, e.g.) further thoughts for and against appreciated :)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.25