(Full Version)

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



Message

VikingNo2 -> (4/14/2003 12:18:32 PM)

I got here in 98, not much of a surfer, many of my Marines are though



Bernie -> (4/14/2003 12:56:51 PM)

Ahem...!

Does this mean we should check the new OOB's to make sure all the tank skirts aren't hula skirts? :rolleyes:

What IS the armor value of a grass skirt anyway? :)

Why are all my Rangers wearing lei's??? :D



Goblin -> (4/20/2003 5:09:13 AM)

The French APC's have a zero for all upper armor numbers.

Goblin



BryanMelvin -> (4/21/2003 1:14:07 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Goblin
[B]The French APC's have a zero for all upper armor numbers.

Goblin [/B][/QUOTE]


Thanks Goblin, I'll check this out. The OOBs should be ready this upcoming week;)



Goblin -> (4/21/2003 7:31:00 AM)

Way cool!

Did you see my post about the non-elite SAS? Hope so, its a shame that they aren't listed as elite.

Can't wait for the OOB's!

Goblin:D



KG Erwin -> Last minute observations (4/27/2003 12:32:42 PM)

I'll make my own corrections if these aren't incorporated, but USMC Platoon and Company HQs should be equipped with M1 Carbines rather than the M1903 Springfields starting in January 1943.



Goblin -> (4/27/2003 8:32:52 PM)

The US 60mm Mortar squad with 2 60mm mortars has 8 men, the squad with one 60mm mortar has 12. Isn't this backwards? Too late to fix?

Goblin



KG Erwin -> 60mm Mortar crews (4/28/2003 2:31:28 AM)

Never noticed that before, Goblin. I think the crews should be 4 men per tube. Now an individual mortar & crew can hitch a ride in a jeep. As a further note, the mortar, 30 & 50 cal MG secondary weps should also be M1 Carbines for the USMC starting in Jan 43. This really isn't a big issue, since I usually switch secondary arms "off" for MGs. In any case, despite the "official" TOEs, I'm sure some crews preferred to keep their old Springfields, or even pack a Thompson if one could be scrounged.



KG Erwin -> Speaking of "official" TOEs (4/28/2003 2:53:00 AM)

Here are a couple more USMC changes, according to the "official" D-series TOE of 1942. The D Battalion Weapons Company had 3 MG platoons, each with 8 30 cal HMGs, and two 50 cal HB-M2s in the AA/AT platoon. Add to this 4 37mm ATG and 4 81mm mortars, and this is an awesome concentration of firepower for an infantry battalion to have at its disposal. Each rifle company's weps platoon had 2 60mm mortars and 2 30 cal MMGs. Now, the regimental totals get a little confusing, as there were apparently 18 more 30 cal MMGs available to the regiment. Rottmann does not explain how these were distributed. In theory, each rifle platoon could have had its own 30 cal MMG attached, but this was not made official until the E-series of 1943. However, it's apparent that the weapons were already present in the earlier regimental TOE. Think about it--EACH 1942 Marine regiment had 72 30 cal 1917A HMGs, 36 30 cal 1919A4s, and 8 50 cal HB-M2s at full establishment. That's 116 machine guns--simply amazing. ( Postscript-- of course, one reason for all of these additional MGs was to make up for the fact the US had no squad-level equivalent of the German MG34. The BAR was plainly an inadequate substitute. )



Perfectionistul -> (4/28/2003 6:28:04 AM)

My suggestions: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=37487



KG Erwin -> My "provisional" OOB83 (4/29/2003 12:44:46 AM)

Bryan, I'm attaching my "provisional" USMC OOB 83 for you to check out. This includes the changes I've mentioned in various threads, and a few others. The Weapons Co E is not completely correct, though. There weren't enough slots, as it should have 6 30 cal HMGs and 6 30 cal MMGs in each Weps MG Plt (1943 model). I settled for 4 each, as the individual rifle platoons may have 30 cal MMGs attached. This OOB is based on info from Gordon Rottman's "US Marine Corps World War II Order of Battle", published by Greenwood Press 2002. For everyone else, this OOB is my own interpretation, and is NOT claimed to be "official" or 100% correct. Once the final SPWaW OOBs are released, I'll either delete this post or request it to be moved to the OOB mods sub-forum. Note: In further checking, I already noticed a goof--the new US Plt and Co HQs post-January 43 should be equipped with Garand M1 Rifles, not M1 carbines. The carbines were meant for crew-served weapons and support elements.



BryanMelvin -> Re: My "provisional" OOB83 (4/29/2003 10:49:18 PM)

Thanks, I'll take a peak at these.

The oobs have been sent out for final approval and should be out soon.

If minor adjustments can be made, I will make them.



Wild Bill -> (4/29/2003 11:54:57 PM)

Sounds good, Glenn. I'm glad to see you have done this piece of work. As for carbines with officers, well, no biggie. As we both know, Marines are famous for scrounging weapons outside of the nomenclature of weapons.

If that is the only problem, I assure you it is no biggie...WB



TheOriginalOverlord -> Re: Speaking of "official" TOEs (4/30/2003 6:21:04 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KG Erwin
[B]Here are a couple more USMC changes, according to the "official" D-series TOE of 1942. The D Battalion Weapons Company had 3 MG platoons, each with 8 30 cal HMGs, and two 50 cal HB-M2s in the AA/AT platoon. Add to this 4 37mm ATG and 4 81mm mortars, and this is an awesome concentration of firepower for an infantry battalion to have at its disposal. Each rifle company's weps platoon had 2 60mm mortars and 2 30 cal MMGs. Now, the regimental totals get a little confusing, as there were apparently 18 more 30 cal MMGs available to the regiment. Rottmann does not explain how these were distributed. In theory, each rifle platoon could have had its own 30 cal MMG attached, but this was not made official until the E-series of 1943. However, it's apparent that the weapons were already present in the earlier regimental TOE. Think about it--EACH 1942 Marine regiment had 72 30 cal 1917A HMGs, 36 30 cal 1919A4s, and 8 50 cal HB-M2s at full establishment. That's 116 machine guns--simply amazing. ( Postscript-- of course, one reason for all of these additional MGs was to make up for the fact the US had no squad-level equivalent of the German MG34. The BAR was plainly an inadequate substitute. ) [/B][/QUOTE]

In regards to the "D" series, I think you have mixed the Battalion Wpns Co with the Regimental Wpns Co.

The Regt WpnsCo had:
CO Hq, 75mm GMC Plt (2 SPM's), 3x AA/AT Plts (with 20mm)

The Bn WpnsCo had:CO Hq, AA/AT Plt (20mm), 81mm Plt, 3x MG Plt

There were no 37mm's until the "E" series and they fell under the Regt Wpns Co.



KG Erwin -> Overlord... (4/30/2003 11:20:28 PM)

...prior to Guadalcanal, the 1st Marine Division's 20mm AA were replaced by 37mm ATG at Regiment and Battalion. AA was mostly supplied by the attached elements of a Defense Bn and the SP 75's of the Special Weps Bn. However, the attached 1st (Light) Tank Bn still had two companies of M2A4s (A & B), with only Co C having M3s. This illustrates the problems with "who had what" at any given stage of the war. Units were not reconfigured at the same time as the TOEs were being made official. As a further example, some of the units deployed at Okinawa were organized using the G series TOE, which was not made official till September 1945. So, technically speaking, we were both right.



TheOriginalOverlord -> (5/1/2003 2:31:19 AM)

Is this data all in that new USMC OOB book? I was using (crap..forgot the title) but it's the Official USMC history of WW2 written by the USMC comes in like 6 volumns and covers the whole war.



KG Erwin -> Overlord... (5/1/2003 5:19:14 AM)

......all this stuff is indeed from the Gordon Rottmann book I referred to earlier. It was a very worthwhile addition to my library, and corrects errors that were found in the USMC Official Histories. Now, this being a first edition, it's not completely typo-free, but I recommend picking it up. The Military Book Club edition was $74.48, that's including shipping & handling. The sections on Marine Aviation Units may be of interest to other guys, but this is at present THE definitive reference. The 595 close-packed pages carry an amazing amount of info. Wanna know about the Marine War Dog Platoons? It's covered in this volume. For scenario and campaign designers, it's an invaluable source. I regret that I wasn't involved in the OOB update team, but I trust Bryan's team have done their homework and the late additions I've suggested, if they are acted upon, won't upset the final release timetable. For older scenarios, all this updated info may result in some major rewrites, which has always been a headache in OOB revisions. It's not my intention to be a pedant--I just want to "get it right", and give players the option to choose historical formations, as far as possible. In constructing USMC Battalion Landing Teams for a given period of the war, tremendous flexiblity was allowed. Depending on the mission, the BLT was constructed as a combined-arms force similar to the US Army Task Force or the German Kampfgruppe. This concept has been carried forward to the present day. As a general commentary, the Marines' accomplishments in WWII were that much more admirable in that they had to rely on the US Army's procurement branch to get up-to-date weapons, and were always second-choice in getting them issued. This is why Sherman tanks were not available till the Saipan invasion, and even then there were still M3 Stuarts in the landing forces. It's obvious that the European Theater ,and the US Army, had first dibs on all the new stuff, so the Marines had to make do with what they were given. ( Of course, it's also obvious that the USMC of WWII is my favorite fighting force of that era. I was never a Marine, but I have friends that were or presently are.) For those who are tired of my endless commentary, buy Rottmann's book, and draw your own conclusions. I just want to help, and make SPWaW be the best it can be. Glenn. :)



BryanMelvin -> Re: My "provisional" OOB83 (5/9/2003 10:15:05 AM)

The only problem I see in adding all the MMG's to the USMC oob would be game cost for 2 player purchase as well as AI selection in battle games.

Adding too many MG's will make USMC units way too expensive to purchase for the game engine to handle. Adjusting the cost could mess up AI purchases in Battle games too.

I'll see what else can be done to be close to what you mentioned :cool:



BruceAZ -> Re: Re: My "provisional" OOB83 (5/9/2003 10:43:37 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BryanMelvin
[B]The only problem I see in adding all the MMG's to the USMC oob would be game cost for 2 player purchase as well as AI selection in battle games.

Adding too many MG's will make USMC units way too expensive to purchase for the game engine to handle. Adjusting the cost could mess up AI purchases in Battle games too.

I'll see what else can be done to be close to what you mentioned :cool: [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Bryan:

Don't know that this makes any sense but if you were to add more MG's as a weapon to each Marine rifle unit it may make it more historically accuarte. Glen is right about the TOE but I don't think the AI can handle this by adding more MG units. From what I have read, most MG teams were assigned to squads and it was very rare that they operated independently. By putting an additional MG weapon to the squad could be refective of the additioanl MG assigned to BLT's.

Recon
Semper Fi



Wild Bill -> (5/9/2003 11:33:11 AM)

Bruce has a valid point here as do you Marauder. As we all know, support weapons were assigned to platoons to support them and came under the command of platoon leaders who in turn assigned them to various areas to support the individual squads.

Thus instead of having so many MGs separate, do as Bruce says, assign at least one MG to each platoon, subtracting it from the battalion total.

Most designers would do that anyway. Rarely did a Marine battalion in action if ever have that much MG support. Bruce or another Jarhead, correct me if I am wrong...WB



Wild Bill -> (5/9/2003 11:35:31 AM)

lLucky you, Glenn! I paid $100 for it from the Naval Institute. Rottmann has done a fine job synthesizing the USMC in this one volume.

To tell the truth, I wouldn't mind having that six volume set Overlord mentioned. Is that still available from the USMC?

WB



KG Erwin -> Bryan & crew... (5/9/2003 10:43:06 PM)

...thanks for considering some of my research. The 1942 mega-Weps MG Platoons are 264 points apiece, and in campaign play are just too cumbersome. In real life I'm sure these were split up for field deployment, so I'm going back and assigning an MG to each D rifle platoon. In this way, the later upgrading to the 43 E series and then the 44 F series is more realistic. You still have 5 MGs left in the MG platoons as a company reserve, though. I'm strictly speaking in terms of solo play. I never really considered the problems with the computer using this OOB, so some compromises are unavoidable.



Wild Bill -> (5/9/2003 10:57:24 PM)

If I remember correctly, you can also delete units from the battalion OOB. I mean smaller formations from the big ones.

In this case, you could purchase the battalion and with the MGs attached to the infantry units, you could delete the weapons or MG unit with the extras and cut down on cost. Would that work?

WB



BryanMelvin -> (5/10/2003 12:05:32 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wild Bill
[B]If I remember correctly, you can also delete units from the battalion OOB. I mean smaller formations from the big ones.

In this case, you could purchase the battalion and with the MGs attached to the infantry units, you could delete the weapons or MG unit with the extras and cut down on cost. Would that work?

WB [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, this works. I have done this often. I have purchased a Infantry Company and deleted two platoons and then added support platoons in their place or assigned support weapons to infantry platoons too.



BryanMelvin -> Wild Bill (5/10/2003 12:06:45 AM)

Bill - can you let David know we are updating the USMC oob and that we can delay the oobs a little while longer?



Wild Bill -> (5/10/2003 12:30:33 AM)

I will, but I think you as head of the OOB team should also give him an official report and let him know what you think a possible release date should be.

And let's both push for the inclusion of the new map features done by Rockin' Harry and his team of artists. That is a must!

Wild Bill



BryanMelvin -> (5/10/2003 1:18:49 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wild Bill
[B]I will, but I think you as head of the OOB team should also give him an official report and let him know what you think a possible release date should be.

And let's both push for the inclusion of the new map features done by Rockin' Harry and his team of artists. That is a must!

Wild Bill [/B][/QUOTE]

Will do - Bill

I will need to delay the release of OObs for another week atleast. to tidy up a few more issues!



BruceAZ -> (5/10/2003 6:14:51 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wild Bill
[B]I will, but I think you as head of the OOB team should also give him an official report and let him know what you think a possible release date should be.

And let's both push for the inclusion of the new map features done by Rockin' Harry and his team of artists. That is a must!

Wild Bill [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi Bill:

Its good to see you in print, my friend. This sounds like a good plan (adding a MG to the squad weapon) but I would really like to second your thought about the map/icon improvements done by others that are so talented! :eek: These guys really have a gift and we should take every opportunity to take advantage of this gift. This will benefit the SPWAW community as a whole.

Recon
Semper Fi



Rhodan -> (5/11/2003 3:46:34 PM)

Hi guys,

I am in a bit of a hurry at the moment so I didn't have the time to read all the replies thus far. Slap my wrist if I repeat someone else's words;

My (small-) issues with the OOB's have mainly to do with the looks. Is it possible to sort the entries in such a way that they show up in order? I mean Pnzr Sec, Pnzr Plat, Pnzr Co ( and possibly Pnzr bat). right now all the entries are available but usually they are plastered all over the list, with the sections sometimes being at top and the companies somewhere at the bottom.

Also, would it be possible to add an entry for a larger formation then a company? I've seen a COmbat group allready but was thinking if it was possible to buy a single organic battallion ( or maybe even regiment?) at the single click of a button?

Thanks :)



BryanMelvin -> (5/12/2003 3:50:06 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rhodan
[B]Hi guys,

I am in a bit of a hurry at the moment so I didn't have the time to read all the replies thus far. Slap my wrist if I repeat someone else's words;

My (small-) issues with the OOB's have mainly to do with the looks. Is it possible to sort the entries in such a way that they show up in order? I mean Pnzr Sec, Pnzr Plat, Pnzr Co ( and possibly Pnzr bat). right now all the entries are available but usually they are plastered all over the list, with the sections sometimes being at top and the companies somewhere at the bottom.

Also, would it be possible to add an entry for a larger formation then a company? I've seen a COmbat group allready but was thinking if it was possible to buy a single organic battallion ( or maybe even regiment?) at the single click of a button?

Thanks :) [/B][/QUOTE]

Great idea but if I moved these around to correct menu set-up order, then the new oobs would become in conflict with older scenarios. You would have infantry units appear as Halftracks and things like that :eek:

One thing that is important is to have the New OOBs work with older scenarios/campaigns made in the current 7.1 oobs

Please standby - these are almost ready!



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875