Who wants realism?! (Full Version)

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



Message

Joaquim -> Who wants realism?! (3/24/2001 7:23:00 AM)

I've seen a lot of messages about troops costs... and availability. And their qualities. Well, what it's on the table it's balancing games, no realism, nor US troopers qualities. I don't mind how many weapons USA got in Europe in 45, not even if Panzers were so much better than it's oponents, no.. I think that war is (and was) won and lost in tech - everybody is brave (or not) if necessary. Even in acient times, I guess Alexander the Great faced one or two «better» generals, and won. If you want a wargame to be realistic... well, probably you will know the winner before the game, or force the player to use dumb tactics if apropriate... What I want (besides a million or two US Dolars?)? Well, I want to get a fair game, whatever nations involved... not to say that you should have any chance with 39 Polish against 45 Germans... but... and finish off these «spec weapons» (as US jeeps and halftracks)... and never meet Mae west again!! (when somebody said Mae West were good I tought he was talking about the woman.... ;) ...) And unit values change very so much with player, terrain, armies composition... it must to be hard get it right at the first attempt - but Matrix is working in v. 5.0 - the zero means (I bet) that they will find something to put there - that's suporting a game!!! The players should be forced to play every nation, as I did, while trying to get a Campaign running... I'm a bad player... this game is killing me!!! Why did I download this?!? Why doesn't it run smooth while I'm working..?... oh! no... ...and after trying every nation, you'll see that they continue to discord on unit values, because one had bad luck with his PzIs and thinks its very expansive, while other who fond his infantry smashed by PzIs will say PzIs are very effective to their cost... as are Mae Wests, wicch appear to have a very good deflected armor - even if it doesn't look like in the pictures (be it of the original or the tanks)... For me units should have two costs: one tac - based in their value in combat (averaged to player, terrain - perhaps incresing when you buy it, to avoid large armies of PzIs, halftracks...) and another of production, based in production costs... this would, perhaps, make easier, the making of a campaign using the old Third Reich map... :D



MindSpy -> (3/24/2001 7:39:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Joaquim: I've seen a lot of messages about troops costs... and availability. And their qualities. If you want a wargame to be realistic... well, probably you will know the winner before the game, or force the player to use dumb tactics if apropriate... What I want (besides a million or two US Dolars?)? Well, I want to get a fair game, whatever nations involved... :D
MINDSPY I agree with you. I would also add that there is nothing wrong with fantasy playing where any Nation has a fair chance. Gmaes regardless of nations involved can be made fair, by using varying flag points, by written victory conditions when the game cannot include a sufficient difference in points ... etc. However, if you get involved in games that reflect a period or a historical battle you must accept that beyond a certain range of Fantasy, what if, I was in charge possibilities, you cannot get parity without changing the content of the game. Units are based on the historical record as much as they were designed to be. Other game possibilites abound however, you cannot decrease the abilites of units or formations with disregard to the actual cappacities and still have the game remain true to it's designer's wishes. in such cases of not being able to get a fair shake, it is our expectations that need modifying not the games, usually. MINDSPY



Nikademus -> (3/24/2001 7:47:00 AM)

i believe that deflection (slope) rating for the MaeWest is small OOB error if memory serves. I remember seeing it too with the M2 for the USArmy oob and it had a huge slope rating even though the similar M3 did not. Chking the Marine OOB showed the correct slope rating which was much more verticle. Agreed with rest, game should treat all fairly. I think alot of the confusion/controversey is caused by the National characterisitics which circumvent to a degree the basic 'measure' of a unit, represented by its exp and morale rating. I'm gonna play a few battles with it off and see what i can see.



murx -> (3/24/2001 8:06:00 AM)

If one would like *historical correct* values for units how to calculate them ? Sturmtiger produced 18 Jagdtiger produced 77 Flakpanzer IV/2cm Wirbelwind produced 86 Elefant produced 90 Flakpanzer 38(t) produced 150 PzJg IV produced 278 Jagdpanther produced 392 Kingtiger produced 485 PzJg IV/A produced 930 Stug IV produced 1139 Tiger produced 1350 Hetzer produced 2584 Panther produced 3740 PzKw IV produced 7419 Stug III produced 8587 (Numbers taken from 'The Ardennen Offensive", but read realistic). murx



Charles2222 -> (3/24/2001 9:33:00 AM)

murx: I'm not thoroughly checking your production figures there, but the Panther was produced to the tune of 5,976. And for all you people who think that the Germans shouldn't have the Panther/Tiger/Ktiger available to a very great extent (assuming we're limiting to stuff produced in '45), get this. The Ktiger had 112, the PZIVH had 385, and the Panther had 459. So the argument that the German shouldn't be able to pick very many Panthers falls through the cracks as the Panther was produced 20% more than the PZIVH, while KTiger/Panther is comparitively an even higher disparency from the PZIVH. OTOH, the SGIII series, and many other tank destroyer types outproduced all the aforementioned tanks production figures. BTW, despite popular belief to the contrary, the Panther also outproduced the PZIV series in '44 by another substantial margin 3749 to 3126. It was only in the inaugural year of the Panther that the PZIV series won out 3013 to 1768. Also if you put all Tiger/KTiger production together for '44, and compare it to the PZIV series, the Tigers lose only 3126 to 1000. Combine the super tanks Tiger/Ktiger/Panther to PZIV series, and the super tanks win 4749 to 3126 (In other words, with full '44 production realized, there were more than 50% of the super tanks produced than the PZIV series). This was merely tank comparison, however, the tank destroyers were produced in quite huge quantities in '44.



Wallymanowar -> (3/26/2001 9:40:00 AM)

Availability is a very sticky issue. Production figures don't always mean availability - it doesn't include things like how many of that model are available from previous years, how many are out due to mechanical breakdown or fuel shortages, or local concentrations, or even if that model was used on that front. To use an outrageous analogy - No (or very few) US Marines were used in Europe in WW2, does this mean that we should inflate their unit costs to reflect their availability if they are used versus the Germans? - You begin to get an idea of how difficult it is to come to a concensus about cost and availability and balance that with the idea that this is a game that should have balance in playability. If you go by the idea that in combat one Panther was worth ten Shermans then maybe in terms of game balance we should have one Panther cost the same as ten Shermans - maybe then you would see more reasonable expenditure of the purchase points that would mirror the reality of history, while at the same time keeping it an exciting game to play.



DoubleDeuce -> (3/26/2001 9:48:00 AM)

Even though a particular unit type was not actually in a specific area at a given time, I think they should be made available. Many people seem to enjoy the what-if scenarios. That way if you want something that may not be historically accuracy you can still have it. Those of us who want to simulate german airborne operations in the east can do that too!



Redleg -> (3/26/2001 11:20:00 AM)

I share the idea about over-riding the National Characteristics in search of good, competitive play. With the right Troop Quality, etc settings some very good matches can be had using nations/years that are otherwise very sorry to play with. For example Czech, Hungary, Rumania in early 30s. Good battles can come from unexpected places with manually adjusted settings. Nationalist China vs Communist China is another example. One of the worst battles I ever saw was 1930 German (uses 1939 settings) vs Soviet (also uses 1939 settings) but set TQ for both sides to about 70-75 and you get a real shoot-out. Ditto US in early years. Get the idea I like cavalry? You're right!



Charles2222 -> (3/26/2001 9:05:00 PM)

Part of the point I was trying to make, indeed, was somewhat of a poiunt against my prior beliefs. My thoghts were that perhaps 30% of my force would be PZIVH, 30% SGIII series, 20-25% Panthers, and 'maybe' 10% being either Tiger opr KTiger. All with the idea of reflecting production figures in reality. I must say, with that information, that I'm very surprised that there should be more Panthers than PZIVHs, and, indeed, that there should be 50% more of the super tanks (Panther, Tiger, KTiger), than there should be PZIVHs. I haven't put all the numbers together, but I suspect a '44 Axis force instead of my guess of 30% SGIII series, would be closer to 40-50%. For what I was figuring before, the total armored force didn't tally up to 100% because I'm figuring the remainder would be loose ends, like the occassional Nashorn, HT, Jagdpanther etc. I suspect very many of us are quite surprised that such a large portion of the super tanks were made, out of all the tanks that they made from '44-'45 (the PZIII series still had somewhere around 250 made in '44, but I don't have the figures with me).



Joaquim -> (3/26/2001 10:44:00 PM)

Reading History it's hard!! Here in Europe any soccer coach - after beating the other team down - will say «the other team was very good»; as to say: «Look at us, beated that damn good team!! That's makes us super!!» So, one should «give a discount» when one reads american books praising german tanks... ;) and should remember that Germany wasn't so advanced in 44/45 as it sometimes may seem, and that not every german troop was a battle hardened veteran... But, thanks God we don't need to read History here, all that's asked is a convincing, balanced game - and that's what we have! Of course balancing is a problem, allways needing some fine tuning - because these damn smart players will allways discover another subpriced unit...!... For balancing this game the only solution is waiting for version 5, and then Matrix organize a huge league with all players, and random countries/year (same year for both players!... :D ), in some 5 years we should have this finished and can then work serious on fine tuning balancing... :) ... I jst need the version 5 to get ready... :)



K_Tiger -> (3/27/2001 2:03:00 AM)

Joaquim: I think for this time..the german tanks werent so bad.... We could speak about the decision to build heavy tanks up to 70 tonns...but no other country hade such vehikles in his armory (ok..t35.. ;) ). And also no one writhe about the Allied Tanks and her breakdowns...seems all produced tanks..drived until today. And dont forget..a tank is more as a gun with armor,...tracks..optics..wading..steel hardening..how many space inside..how many comfort..turret traverse...longrange targeting..and mutch more.. And...if the german tanks do look like shermans..no one from us would play today WWII games..belive me.. ;)



Joaquim -> (3/27/2001 3:03:00 AM)

K_Tiger: And...if the german tanks do look like shermans..no one from us would play today WWII games..belive me.. I believe!... and I've allways been a kind of germanphilo (in portuguese germanófilo, means german friend), my guess is that the Allies had the tech to do tanks as good as german, but, there wasn't no need... I think that the Pershing was received with that question: «Why a so good/expansive tank now?!»... I'm a tech believer, I think that the Greeks beat the Persians by superior tech (and train with that tech), I think the agressor country ussually it's the more developed one (we should be carefull with the US nowadays... :) )... But I also think we are in a game here, and that tech not allways prevail - as Hannibal can tell us - But, well, if in Ancient games one can play early Egypt against Late Rome, with some hope for victory, why shouldn't we be able to do almost the same in W@W? I don't mean that 39 Poles should get a fair change against any 45 power... only that a huge army of italians should have a fair game with a small US, or German, for what matters....



MrWhite -> (3/27/2001 3:15:00 AM)

I agree that the Allies had the Tech to build those behemoths, but the simple question is why? I mean take it fromt eh American perspective, Whats the point of building 50 - 70 Ton tanks when you have to rail car them to the coast then ship them GB, and then afterwards land them on some bombed out coast. I mean God, can you think of how many less tanks there would be. I think the way of planning a military campaign is not to plan around one set of weapons platform, if you plan on crushing the enmy with a dozen 70 ton tanks then your in a real pinch when you have a force of 50 Shermans all diffren variants crusining in hosing infantry and moving along with infantry support. The Americans saw the Sherman as a combined arms tank and used and out produced and out shipped... What were teh ending figures, teh Shermans out number German tanks 12 to 1 or something like that? I don't know but a 70 ton tank is not versatile, its a roadblock waiting to happen in my opinion, and if I were an Americans trying to figure out and plan the speedy end of the war I would not be shipping over a couple of 70 ton road blocks but 40 or 50 small fast attack tanks to outnumber my foe. Then again I think thats what the American strategist were thinking... Hence at the ne dof the war you finnally saw the AMericans using taht extra cargo space to ferry over new equipment types, tehn it wasn't mission critical. The Sherman was the key to vicotry, it's ability to aid troops and support in the destruiction of enemy tanks proved vital to the ending of the war. Can you imagine if instead of landing a couple hundred Shermans America landed a a couple of dozen tanks, tank support wouldn't exisits and it would ahve come down to who could outproduce who, and might have prolonged the war somewhat by the slow movement of large tanks across teh ocean... Ohh well my opinions no one else I think hehe... MrWhite



K_Tiger -> (3/27/2001 3:37:00 AM)

Hmm.. you could not argument in such a manner...and if, why the usa needs 50.000 shermans?..they didnt need them all..or germany and building the v rockets.. I will not say, that the allied could not build better tanks..but if we spoke about..why there hade no jet`s?? if we turn back the time...and you were the german leader..i swear..the me 262 hade his first fligth in 42.. Thats all hypothetic....the history is written.. Today you could made the same example...why the other countrys did not made copies from porsches..or mercedes??...simple answer..the us guys loves her uhm...fords.. ;) italians ..fiats..and the japanese..her, hehe..smal cars



K_Tiger -> (3/27/2001 3:53:00 AM)

oh..again i must post here.. ;) Mr..White Seems you r from the side who thinking the USA/Britts hade won the war??... If someone have the rigth to say this..r the russians..and they payed hard for it.. But they couldn do so..without the USA..and her lend-lease programm...and i did not spoke about the armors and planes..they recived...more important was the food.. But if the germs did not attack the russians..there were no way for the USA to land in europe..



MrWhite -> (3/27/2001 4:22:00 AM)

Sorry, K my psot really wasn't in reply to your thoughts on cmparison of German and American tanks in description but to the old adage of use of tools by need and merit. I also have to agree that if it were not for the Russians involvement the Germans would quite easily batter an Allied Assault. Ther big wahtifs come in then... MrWhite



Pack Rat -> (3/27/2001 9:11:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by MrWhite: I agree that the Allies had the Tech to build those behemoths, but the simple question is why? MrWhite
Did we? It is my understanding that German tanks when looked at in modern times still amaze engineers as to the tolerances built into them. Less tolerance means faster production. It wasn't by accident that the Sherman persisted through out the war. They were cost effective and fast to make, in comparison to anything better. American armor doctrine at the time said the Shermans make the hole, the antitank systems (Wolverines) hold the hole open. No need to build a better tank. Except it didn't work really well, lose wise. So I would say at some point the tank loses must have begun to bother them even though they could get more, I would also guess that crews became even more important. I do wonder how much the Sherman owes to political, rather than Army wishes. That better versions came along makes me think the front line armor people eventualy got through to the people making the calls on what needed to be built. But at no time in any version can you compare German vs American tanks with equal footing. Attrition still ruled the American way of thinking.



MrWhite -> (3/27/2001 12:51:00 PM)

Yeah what I said in previous post, I just added in the quoted comment that It was entirely feasable for American Engineers to design and construct similar vehicles, but as both of us have stated, what's the point. The Sherman system worked fin cost effective and a hell of a lot easier to ship large quantaties... Still I don't think it was beyond American scope to desing simliary equal vehicles of design,but as you said that was agaisnt teh current doctrine of armored combat. I still think it could have been done if the armed forces had wanted it... Just didn't seam like any one would want it... Well maybe the Sherman Crews, but that's about it... MrWhite



Redleg -> (3/27/2001 1:03:00 PM)

Actually, the Sherman was thought by those in charge of strategy to be "good enough" if produced in large numbers. But then, those officials didn't have to ride and fight and die in the "Ronsons". We suffered terrible tank losses due to this expedient and I personally have always thought that the U.S. should never again trade G.I.s for dollars! Period.



Wild Bill -> (3/28/2001 9:19:00 PM)

HOw true, Redleg. The book, Death Traps so amply portrays this fact. Wild Bill



Paul Vebber -> (3/28/2001 9:36:00 PM)

We have to be a bit careful though as teh Sherman evolved quite a lot. An Easy 8 was quite different machine from an orignal M1. Fireflys were quite capable also. Many accounts that show German disdain for the M4, go to great pains to except the long barreled versions which were very much respected.



AmmoSgt -> (3/28/2001 11:34:00 PM)

just to be a little bit perverse ..i must take exception to the statement in part .. first the Tech to build the tanks ..The Germans were ahead by about a full year thru most the war on the technology to make turret rings that could handle the load of both gun and armor ..IIRC it had to do with alloys and ring race hardening and being able to make enought high quality stuff to support the other elements of production .. The US had the M-6 Heavy which I see very little info on and i think that was in '41 and just as surely and the Ordnance Department thought That repeating rifles were a BAD Idea in the Civil War and thought that Machine Guns were wasteful in WW1 .. they were to swift on the uptakeof what we call common wisdom in World War 2 ... but the Germans didn't start out mounting 88's they had 75l 24's!!! 20mm !!!! real short 50mm not really set up for Killing T-34's ... Experience in making any weapon of war, and finessing a feature, in some subtile way maybe, even an arcane way to the man on the street , to turn it into a powerful advantage , however obscure to the untrained eye , so it could be a war winner only comes with time and Trial and error ( probably something like making and programing a war game ) The Germans had about a Year's lead in that 'X Factor" in Armor and maybe 6 months in Aircraft.. The US had about a 55 Year lead in making aircraft carriers .. and that makes about as much sense as the tank tech lag..except for "what if" situations The will to exploit very complex technology , which starts with being able to generate usable power , steam /electrical, to machine tool manifacturing, to resourch allcation, to skill of workforce ,to ad infinitum , is what gets the end product on the Battlefield I don't have any references handy but check out the US M-6 heavy tank IIRC 60 tons 4+ inch armor 3" at gun with coaxle 37mm about 5 MG's full traverse Turret and in 1941 ... I think i am real close on those specs .. and some were made .. I haven't a clue how many or how fast they could go or anything else .. so .. it 's not just tech and not just unit experience .. it has a lot to do with what was a ctually at any given battle I see alot of ratios of how many and what kind of tanks would be at a battle .. what i don't see is, what would be the ratio of Infantry to armor for any Given side,,, most battles would have to be pretty much tankless fights for the germans ( perish the thought, but..) maybe even for the Americans , but other factors come into play .. 251's were somewhere around 16,000 for the whole war all varients ( US made more DUKW's than that, something like 24,000) .. one could ask just as easily why didn't the germans build more halftracks .. my off the wall Guess would be about 20-25 Infantry divisions per tank division for the Germans and 80% of those would be unsupported by mechanized transport horses or walk and pick it up at the BahnHof ... and hundreds of thousands of horses were killed ..I have no Idea how many were used .. The US didn't use horses ..made the descion to be fully mechanized 600,000 2 1/2 ton trucks 400,000 jeeps .. this may have factored into tank production decisions, something like 150,000 halftracks ( check that, i don't have that number handy) Mr White said it best " The Americans saw the Shermans as a combined arms tank" and it was combined with both quanity and in a good many cases superior quality .. arty there ! i said it :)



Kluckenbill -> (3/29/2001 12:32:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Joaquim: Way back in the first post: For me units should have two costs: one tac - based in their value in combat (averaged to player, terrain - perhaps incresing when you buy it, to avoid large armies of PzIs, halftracks...) and another of production, based in production costs... this would, perhaps, make easier, the making of a campaign using the old Third Reich map... :D
I agree. I'd love to see two separate unit cost systems with a toggle feature. One cost system would be based on the unit's value in the game. I realize this would be somewhat subjective, but there have been numerous discussions about this issue and I'm sure we could come up with something that would lead to very competetive play. I don't care if there were 500 times as many M4A1 Shermans as Jagdtigers, if the calculation says the Jagdtiger is worth 2 Shermans, then it should cost twice as much to lead to a competetive game. The other cost system should be based more on scarcity and availability. This system would be even better if there was some way to make the cost change over time! For example, a Tiger 1 should be very expensive in late '42 through early '43, when they were quite scarce, but then become progressively cheaper as they became more common. This would have an impact on campaigners (like me) that upgrade the instant a new tank becomes available.



Paul Vebber -> (3/29/2001 1:27:00 AM)

We ahve tried to do that, albeit largely subjectively and the subject of much tweaking once it comes out :D In V 5 with rarity on units frequency showing up in the purchase screens is linked a 3 point system - plentiful, common and uncommon - with the old "Radio code 3" guys a "special case". What happens is then teh p=urchase screen comes up, unit names in red are not available. THis means sometimes you don;t get teh support MGS or AT units in an infnatry CO or don;t have teh full range of choices, and if you uy multiples of teh same formation, it gets "rerolled" each time so the odds of buying additional formations of scarce things rapidly goes down. THis is not a perfect solution, but will help to increase the diversity of units in battlegenerator games as players will not be able to count on buying "optimum" mixes of thier favorute unit types all the tme and will usually (particularlyin big games) get stuck with some odd assortments of units. But it has seemed a considerable improvement in testing overall.



Redleg -> (3/29/2001 1:40:00 AM)

The costing thing is easy to tweak in the scenario editor..... I'd like to see more human v. human scenarios developed for online and pbem. In fact, that is going to be my next little project. Anxious to see how will work out.



Kluckenbill -> (3/30/2001 4:36:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Redleg: The costing thing is easy to tweak in the scenario editor..... I'd like to see more human v. human scenarios developed for online and pbem. In fact, that is going to be my next little project. Anxious to see how will work out.
I have started to work on a spreadsheet to generate a "fair" point system for all units. I've fooled around with it off and on a few times and then gave up. I don't think it would be terribly difficult to do, but it is more time consuming than I had originally anticipated. It would be helpful if there was somewhere I could get a spreadsheet of all the unit values, I'm too busy/lazy to input them myself.



Paul Vebber -> (3/30/2001 5:32:00 AM)

Use Freds OOBDump utility www.Freds.webprovider.com and drop Fred a little note, seems he's ben in some sort of accident! Let me tell you after nearly over a month, a 44MB "spreadsheet from hell" and much wailing and nashing of teeth, its easier said than done....



USMCGrunt -> (3/30/2001 7:19:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Kluckenbill: I have started to work on a spreadsheet to generate a "fair" point system for all units.
Kluckenbill, It's a noble gesture, but I think you will find you're beating your head against the wall after you start passing it around. I think everyone out there has a different idea what is "fair" for unit costs. I saw at least seven different opinions in this message thread alone. Every version change of the game so far has generated a lot of heated debate over what people think is the "fair" cost of units. (Sometimes I think people just want something to argue about.) This is why Matrix listens to the gamers in forum and on occasion changes the unit cost. Most of the time though, they stick to thier guns and leave things as-is. This is why Matrix includes the OOB editor (along with several others) with the download of the game. That way, if you don't like something, you can change it to the way you want it. Just don't expect everyone to think your idea is right.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.8125