(Full Version)

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

Message

orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 7:41:00 AM)
Charles, I try to be more polite, but since you've called me a liar I'll suggest that you brush up on your reading comprehension skills and your math as well. Then divide 500 by the 3 squads, 1MG unit, and 4 halftracks in the PLATOON I was talking about, and then shut the hell up. Okay?

Charles22 -> (12/30/2000 8:49:00 AM)
orc4hire: As you know, and admit, I misunderstood you. Firstly I didn't call you a liar and if I did, it would only be relevant if you said what I thought you did. Now you've said you are trying to be polite, but maybe next time you will succeed, for this is what trying to be polite and accomplishing it looks like. I wish you well, sorry I just misunderstood you that's all; really.

orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 9:13:00 AM)
Charles, If you had said something like, "500 kills per squad? That's an awful lot." then you would have been polite. And I would have replied something very like, "No, sorry; I must not have been clear enough. That was for the platoon as a whole. The rifle squads had something like 130 kills each." The difference, you see, between that and what you actually said is that in this example there is an assumption of miscommunication and a request for clarification. The assumption in your actual post was that I was making a deliberate counter-factual statement, about which you proceded to lecture me at length. Furthermore, what I said was that I try to be polite, but that given your tone I was making an exception for you. In other words, I was _not_ trying to be polite to you. If you expect politeness from someone, sir, I would suggest that you be more circumspect with your accusations in the future. Now, if you have anything further to say to me, kindly do so via email; I do not wish to clutter up this forum with this sort of conversation and will not reply to you here on this topic again.

Charles22 -> (12/30/2000 9:29:00 AM)
orc4hire: Like I didn't know that you were being rude to me. I still wish you well orc.

AmmoSgt -> (12/30/2000 11:32:00 AM)
Whoa back up a minute ..10 asaults based on a 10 man squad ??? where does this come from ...i am not getting anything like these results at default settings even with experienced troops ..are ya'll using default settings ... what setting do ya have on your AI ?? How many games in your campaign ..1 platoon taking out 20 tanks ?in how many turns.surely not 1 turn ??

RobertMc -> (12/30/2000 12:02:00 PM)
AmmoSgt: I'm saying that--based on what I understand and my experiences in the game--there is no limit on a squad's number of assaults if you can "make" the suppression rolls. So, theoretically you could have ten assaults from a single ten man squad. I have had squads that performed six and seven assaults. These squads had no AT weapons or intrinsic HE Pen, AP Pen or HEAT. Not all were successful, but the mere fact that they could perform this number of assaults is unbelieveable. The assault computations do not--as far as I can see--model the expenditure of energy and ammunition/grenades/improvised assault weapons. In other words, squads don't run out of "assault potential" until they are destroyed.

Paul Vebber -> (12/30/2000 12:25:00 PM)
There are no 10 assaults per 10 man squad, but a minimun 1% chance PER MAN (additive) that the squad assault will be successful. Each squad has only one assualt at a time, but if the troops can rally and pass morale checks, they can continue attempts to assualt until they fail, A failure can be because of any number of things. Experience can be a real killer in the game. 60-70 is supposed to be "OK" 70-80 is "experienced" 80-90 is veran and 90-100 are battle hardened. Over 100 things start to go "hollywood" A few elites can make a game interesting, but if you have significant forces up in the 120s to 130s, then you have a bunch of guys like John Wayne and Arnold Swarzenegger rolled into one - single handedly able to take out a platoon or two themselvers that may be able to take out a whole platoon of tanks single handed. If you are good enough that you can routinely get a core up to the 130s, then you have to adjust the prefs to keep the game balanced. I would say turn the enemy infantry toughness up to 150 and turn your infantry toughness down to 65. IF you think your troops are too effective against tanks, cut ther toughness down and they will once again die like mere mortals.

Paul Vebber -> (12/30/2000 12:25:00 PM)
There are no 10 assaults per 10 man squad, but a minimun 1% chance PER MAN (additive) that the squad assault will be successful. Each squad has only one assualt at a time, but if the troops can rally and pass morale checks, they can continue attempts to assualt until they fail, A failure can be because of any number of things. Experience can be a real killer in the game. 60-70 is supposed to be "OK" 70-80 is "experienced" 80-90 is veran and 90-100 are battle hardened. Over 100 things start to go "hollywood" A few elites can make a game interesting, but if you have significant forces up in the 120s to 130s, then you have a bunch of guys like John Wayne and Arnold Swarzenegger rolled into one - single handedly able to take out a platoon or two themselvers that may be able to take out a whole platoon of tanks single handed. If you are good enough that you can routinely get a core up to the 130s, then you have to adjust the prefs to keep the game balanced. I would say turn the enemy infantry toughness up to 150 and turn your infantry toughness down to 65. IF you think your troops are too effective against tanks, cut their toughness and rout/rally prefs down and they will once again die like mere mortals. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited December 30, 2000).]

orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 12:35:00 PM)
AmmoSgt, Default settings. Unless I've missed something in 4.x (most of my playing has been under earlier versions) each assault takes 1 'shot', but I have had experienced squads make several assaults in 1 turn, especially if some are opfire. Knocking out the 20 or so Russian tanks with 1 platoon was over the course of, hmm, maybe 4 turns, and some I think were immobilized and abandoned. Were the veteran infantry is really deadly is in that they get several shots, and if they fail on 1 assault, they can easily rally back up and keep trying till they get it. If an assault took _all_ the units' shots, that would go a long way towards bringing things into balance, and be more realistic as well. (How many tanks can 1 squad attack with improvised weapons in a few minutes? I would think that 1 would be challenging enough...)

orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 12:39:00 PM)
Paul, Does cutting the infantry toughness just make the infantry die easier or does it cut their offensive power as well? I don't have a problem with how hard the infantry are to hit, just the giant can openers they carry....

Paul Vebber -> (12/30/2000 12:52:00 PM)
Since experience is a "double whammy" that makes infantry harder to kill AND kill better themselves, the pref cuts both their experience by multiplying it times pref/100, and making them more vulnerable to some fire. I have asked TOm abount some questions in the code that may be causing a "leftover" form platoon days warping things... we are also trying to find the problem with the 4th player crashing online play - that may well be related to some memory management difficulties... IT may be a week or two before we have a fix...we are trying to get our other games done :-) But we do not plan to abandon SP:WaW...some fixes may have to wait until we get further along in SP:MW and kill 2 birds with one stone...

RobertMc -> (12/30/2000 12:59:00 PM)
There are no 10 assaults per 10 man squad, but a minimun 1% chance PER MAN (additive) that the squad assault will be successful. Each squad has only one assualt at a time, but if the troops can rally and pass morale checks, they can continue attempts to assualt until they fail, A failure can be because of any number of things Paul: Is the following incorrect? Theoretically, using a ten-man squad: Attempt Assault. Assault Success/Failure. 1 Casualty. Reduce Suppression Down to "2" Attempt Assault. Assault Success/Failure. 1 Casualty. Reduce Suppression Down to "2". Attempt Assault. Assault Success/Failure... 1 Casualty. Reduce Suppression Down to "2". Attempt... Well, you get my point, I'm sure. Is there not the potential for 10 assaults by a ten man squad? Not necessarily in one turn, but over the course of a game? And even if a squad fails an assault attempt, they can continue to assault if their suppression number is brought down low enough? Where is the expenditure of energy and weapons in this computation? Wouldn't a squad that attempted two or three assaults use up their energy and assault weapons/grenades/improvised weapons? How can they continue to assault without being superhuman? Bear in mind, I'm talking about squads that have no intrinsic HE Pen, AP Pen or HEAT weapons. Shouldn't there be a reasonable limit to the number of assaults a squad can carry out? Currently, they can theoretically continue to assault until the last man is a casualty.

orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 1:00:00 PM)
Ah, that makes sense. I'll probably give tinkering with the preferences a whirl. Actually I'm more eager to see SP:MW released than little fixes like this in SP:WAW... This is a minor thing, really, and not as annoying to me personally as, say, the endless flights of planes the AI picks in some battles (which I understand is a factor of how many points it has to allocate and probably not easily fixed). The problem with all those planes is that they make the game _boring_, which is the worst fault of all...

Paul Vebber -> (12/30/2000 1:30:00 PM)
RobertMc: You are correct, I thought that you meant that an "Assault" was 10 individual "assaults" one by each guy. We are checking a couple of things that may be aiding the "high experience guys are manic tank killers" problem. For the "pertuatual assault" the game doesn't use fatigue, there are many activities that could casue the troops to "get tired". That like "realistic" C2 tends to make a game"less fun" - TRying or 10 or 15 turns to rally your exhausted troops to move after 4 or 5 turns of desperate hand to hand fighting or otherwise not repsonding to your actions may well be more accurate, but there is a game aspect that must be abstracted. That is why I am so adamant about not specifying a precise time legth for a turn. Some turns may actually be 10 minutes long or longer as tired troops take pot shots at each other followed by 2 or 3 turns a minute or two as rushes and repels are conducted, followed by another period of relative inaction. If what I think is the problem is the problem, it will be more difficult to pass the "pre-assualt morale check" and thus assualts will be a good bit less likely to occur, at least for "regular squads with a bit of suppression, or who move or fail a skill check. There will still tend to be a problem with 1130 experience 99 morale roops being superhuman...but that is the way teh game is inherantly designed! Thanks for the discussion of this! These sort of things, when enough folks are convinved there is a problem, and the nature of it is brought out, we can often do something. Not always [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] but sometimes!

Paul Vebber -> (12/30/2000 1:34:00 PM)
Orc4hire - if you set the air pref to some number other than xxx for the enemy you can limit the planes to that number of flights (or 0 if you don't want to deal with planes in that battle). SP:MW is mving along slow but sure. The new Armor system is casuing a bit of a delay for me, SOOOO complicated that trying to simplify it to something "decent" without being off in lala land is proving difficult! I can't thank Paul Lakowski enough for his help! IF you are interested, contact Ilja - his team can always use help!

orc4hire -> (12/30/2000 1:58:00 PM)
Ah, that sets the number of flights....cool. Okay, definitly time to start monkeying with the preferences. Thanks. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Hmm, not sure how much I'll be able to help, but I may drop a note and see what I can do....

RobertMc -> (12/30/2000 2:12:00 PM)
If what I think is the problem is the problem, it will be more difficult to pass the "pre-assualt morale check" and thus assualts will be a good bit less likely to occur, at least for "regular squads with a bit of suppression, or who move or fail a skill check. There will still tend to be a problem with 1130 experience 99 morale roops being superhuman...but that is the way teh game is inherantly designed! Paul: This sounds fine to me. A tougher pre-assault morale check will probably help a lot. As to the 1130 exp., 99 morale troops...they is what they is!!! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] One way I would suggest representing exhaustion/shock/weapons expenditure is to disallow half squads or under from being able to assault. I'd think these guys--having witnessed the violent deaths or wounding of their mates--would be most concerned with staying alive rather than trying to carry out assaults. Thank you for your response and also thank you for listening.

Paul Vebber -> (12/30/2000 11:25:00 PM)
Thats what we have this board for [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

Daniel Oskar -> (12/30/2000 11:52:00 PM)
I agree that the infantry does appear to be superhuman sometimes, but it does cause the realistic effect. Unescorted tanks are VERY afraid of infantry. If the effectiveness of the grunts is toned down too much, we will see tanks zipping through infantry infested terrain on their merry way to their objectives without a care in the world.

RobertMc -> (12/31/2000 2:08:00 AM)
Daniel: Before the advent of AT weapons, this is precisely what happened most of the time. Tanks did overrun infantry positions and continue on. My thrust in this discussion has never been squads that have AT weapons, such as bazookas, panzerfausts or molotovs. I think squads that have no inherent HEAT (AT weapons) are getting too strong of a chance to destroy tanks. I have no problem with the squads that are equipped with AT weapons. I'm not disputing the fact that infantry can take out tanks with grenades and improvised weapons. This has been proven in warfare. I just think that in SPWAW they have too strong a chance to do so. Now: if your AT-weaponless squads have a lowered chance to assault and take out tanks, you'll have to rely more on getting your AT guns and AT-weapon-equipped squads into position to assault, which seems to me the way it ought to be and the way it is in reality. I'm just asking for the "fear" factor to be increased, which would be the toughened morale check, and the modelling of exhaustion of men and ammunition, which would be a reduced number of assaults per AT-weaponless squad.

RobertMc -> (12/31/2000 2:29:00 AM)
Before the advent of AT weapons, this is precisely what happened most of the time. Tanks did overrun infantry positions and continue on. Daniel: Too long-winded, I know [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] but I had to add this. Countries created AT guns for just this reason. Also the AT-rifles (most of which were wretched, but it was all they had). Currently in the game, there's very little reason to buy AT guns, but in reality they were considered vital on any battlefield where an armored thrust was expected. And many thousands of AT-rifles were used in the field by just about every country prior to 1943 (and probably thrown away in the field as well!!!). For better or for worse, you should have to rely on these historically-used weapons at some point in SPWAW.

orc4hire -> (12/31/2000 3:24:00 AM)
Daniel, Tanks _now_ are very nervous about meeting infantry in close terrain, certainly. (Though, ironically, modern infantry close enough to a tank to be 'inside' the reach of its weapons doesn't have any more ability to harm the tank than their grandfathers in WWII did; all infantry AT weapons have a minimum 'stand off' distance.) But in WWII, especially '39 and '40 infantry were far, far more afraid of the tanks. 'Panzer Fever' I think the Germans called it; infantry fleeing in terror at the approach of tanks. Read the tale of Task Force Smith at the beginning of the Korean War. Here's a quick comparison with another game system (which doesn't really prove anything, but shows how much better infantry is at dealing with tanks in SPWAW). In the old board game Squad Leader an average German infantry squad would have about an 8% chance of taking out an adjacent tank (50% chance of making his pre-afv attack morale check, 16% chance of rolling 4 or less -- his firepower rating -- to make the kill). That was his 1 close assault available; an 8% chance of taking out 1 tank, 0% of taking out 2. SPWAW, a similar squad had maybe a 75% chance of making his pre attack morale check, then about a 90% chance of making the kill (based on the number displayed during combat... I'll calculate with 80% to allow for some variation), for a total chance of 60%. 7.5 times as likely to kill the tank as their unfortunate cousins trapped in the SL system. But wait, there's more! The SPWAW squad can probably attack at least 3 more times! In fact, he has about a 13% chance of making his morale check and the 'kill' chance all 4 times. In other words, his chance of killing 4 tanks is 50% better than the SL squad's chance of killing 1. Now, these are obviously very rough numbers, not a serious statistical analysis of what goes into calculating an assault in SPWAW, and comparing 2 game system's mechanics is an apples and oranges thing, but I think it is illustrative of the problem; in terms of the outcome, SPWAW infantry is 6-7 times as deadly vs. tanks as the infantry in a respectable board game coving the same scale and period. And my example is a moderate one; early war infantry in SL had a significant morale check penalty that would make the difference even more dramatic.

Daniel Oskar -> (12/31/2000 12:19:00 PM)
As a young marine I distictly recall being taught to use my trusty M16 as an anti tank weapon. Certainly a grunt with a rifle alone will not knock out a tank, but by concentrating your fire in vision blocks, fire control optics, ect... you can effectively render the giant blind. Then one of your buddies with an AT weapon can drive a stake through its heart. Even without AT weapons you will have greatly reduced the giants effectiveness. It's hard to drive or shoot looking through shattered glass. I can't speak for tankers in the 40's, but it can't be much different from the modern guys. They don't like being around enemy infantry unsupported by friendlies. You just don't know who has an RPG, molotov, or what. On the other side, a charging tank will certainly scare the crap out of you if your only armor is a camo shirt.

RobertMc -> (12/31/2000 12:30:00 PM)
Daniel: I guess balance is what we're all trying to find here. Tanks neither too strong nor too weak, infantry neither too foolhardy nor lacking in courage. With all the variables in SPWAW and all the complexities, I think balance is a difficult thing to find and probably never will be perfectly found. I'm just thankful SPWAW is as good as it is and the Matrix guys are wargamers. Without them, where would we be?

Daniel Oskar -> (12/31/2000 12:50:00 PM)
I agree, nothing out there even comes close to SPWaW. As far as balance I think the big problem is when a given squad lays waste to several tanks in a given turn. While I definitely belive that grunts can ruin a tankers day, I really doubt that there are that many squads out there with the guts to cause that kind of carnage in a short period of time.

orc4hire -> (12/31/2000 2:00:00 PM)
Daniel, I have in my possesion here my great uncle's old Army Field Manual, July 23, 1941 edition, and it offers much the same advice. I suspect it is given as much to keep the soldier's mind concentrated on doing something as from any hope of doing any good. Have you ever actually heard of a tank disabled by infantry shooting out the periscopes? I haven't. Sure, there are accounts of guys taking out tanks with improvised weapons, but there are a _lot_ more tales of the tanks taking them out. The British in North Africa joked, "What's a Battle Group? A Brigade Group that has been twice overrun by tanks." And Task Force Smith _with_ AT weapons, was utterly ineffective against an NKPA tank battalian. "He fired twenty-two rockets, none of which did any damage. Some of the rounds were so old that they did not explode properly. The tankers, thinking they were up against only a small roadblock, made no real attempt to engage Task Force Smith, but continued down the road. The enlisted men of Task Force Smith stuck their heads out of their holes and watched them disappear around the bend." Doubtless they didn't realize that all they had to do was fire at the vision slits and shove logs in the tracks to disable the tanks driving through their positions.

Igor -> (12/31/2000 3:25:00 PM)
Yes, the T-34s continued down the road; but this is an apples and oranges comparison. Task force Smith hit the chose weapon key, chose the bazooka, and plinked away at the tanks. They never got out of their holes and close assaulted, and the tanks never left the road to mix it up with the infantry (their tactical awareness, btw, stank). Since the bazooka was all but worthless, no damage was done. Now let's recast that to WW II, say 1942 on. The infantry is no longer useless retreads and rookies, and by hook or by crook they have close range anti-tank weapons (whether they were issued them or not) of the explosive and/or flame variety. Were they to pop smoke, come out of their holes, and actually close assault the tanks; do you think the tankers would have been free to blithely ignore them or would have gotten away scot free?

panda124c -> (12/31/2000 11:08:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Flashfyre: If not, climb on the tank, open the hatch, stick your gun inside, and fire. Bullets ricocheting inside a steel box makes a pretty good meat-grinder. Only if not buttoned up. At least after the Russo-Japanese War where the Russians learned that you need to have hatch latches on the inside.

panda124c -> (12/31/2000 11:33:00 PM)
Infantry does tend to be over effective in destroying tanks. I think the problem is; the chance of an infantry squad making a successful assualt is NOT related to it's anti-tank capacity. When an Infantry unit is out of AT ammo it's chance of successfully close assualting or it chance of initiating a close assualt should be much lower. At this time there appears to be no difference between an infantry squad with AT ammo and one without, during close assualt.

Daniel Oskar -> (12/31/2000 11:46:00 PM)
...keep the soldier's mind concentrated on doing something as from any hope of doing any good. Have you ever actually heard of a tank disabled by infantry shooting out the periscopes? ... Unless you stick your rifle in an open hatch and let fly, you probably aren't going to knock out a tank. Yes, shooting at vision slits does give you something to do as tanks cruise through your position. The point is by engaging the tank you will cause those inside some concern, and at least keep them buttoned up. That alone greatly reduces their already poor visibility and as a result, their effectiveness. You may get lucky and damage the optics, and this will not "disable " the tank, but it will further reduce effectiveness. As to tanks palling prey to the simple grunt in the real world, try "The History of the Panzerkorps Grossdeutschland" by Helmuth Spaeter. You will see that the german soldier was quite capable of taking care of himself.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7832031