(Full Version)

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



Message

Seth -> (5/11/2000 9:02:00 PM)

Some OOB comments on the top three countries. I can't pretend to be an expert on any of this stuff, so I'm only putting in what I'm sure about, although there are a few extra things I THINK are wrong. The US 1.Why do the Calliope and Whizbang only have rockets? They should be armed like other Shermans. 2.A lot of the artillery has the old generic pictures from SP1. This comment applies to all countries. The USMC 1. The picture of the Truck Mounted Rocket shows a Soviet Katyusha. 2. The Boys ATR picture shows a Bazooka. 3. The Marines didn't have any B-25's, and the picture shows an F4F. Germany 1. The picture of the Pz. IIIM shows a Pz. IV. 2. Porshe Maus should be spelled Porsche. 3. The Sd.Kfz. 6/2 picture is wrong. 4. The Ju. 87 B-1 only had 2 wing MG's. 5. The icon for the Ju. 87 G is wrong, it looks like one of the Bf. 109 ones. Apologies if anyone has mentioned any of this before. I'll look at more countries tonight. Thanks for the awesome game.



Wild Bill -> (5/11/2000 9:19:00 PM)

For those concerned about troops and their actions on the field...we decided that in most SP games, units folded too easily. So we made them a little quicker to rally and fight again. Nothing more frustrating than to have a screen full of routed units that won't move, fire or do anything but sit there. I hate that! That's why units recoup and fight quicker than before. WB ------------------ Wild Bill Wilder Coordinator, Scenario Design Matrix Games



Panther -> (5/11/2000 9:49:00 PM)

Could it be possible to create a german foreign unit country so to say. That way you can remove some of the oob from the germans and add more german stuff and add more of the accuired equipment that they used to the german foreign acquisition. This seems possible since you can choose your countries just like in sp3. I played the second scenerio the one with the gemans using every possible vehicle they have,and found shermans to be represented by t34 icons. Other than that so far so good. Thanks Guys.



Nick Papp -> (5/11/2000 9:49:00 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber: [B]I would argue it was very much a lack of training and morale...they were trained for a different war than the one that was thrust upon them, and once the operational mismatch was manifest, morale certainly suffered. Agreed to a point, but I don't think this is necessarily the case. Battles are fought by tanks, guns and men,and the variances you find are do to those local engagements, troops and officers. There are TONS of examples where units "outfought" themselves. Even with bad weapons, tacticts and supporting arms, men in armed conflicts can do some remarkabke things. Think of the Rumanians on the north flank of the Stalingrad salient in who held of the massed Soviet tank armies much longer than expected with almost no AT and little artillery or air support. We all hace to rememeber - "the history is written by the victors". And that can often overstate or understate a specific country's contributions. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber: [B]Such things are matters of judgement and no consensus if likely to ever be reached on such a thing, since it is so abstract. THe alternative of doing such things "historically" as outlined above would be a life's work for someone and then STILL be argued. One of the best "after-market" features of this game series has been the utilities which allow you to modify the unit variables. The morale settings are a bit different, as there has not really been a good editor to easily modify this value for a specific scenario. Fred Chlanda, who has added so much in the way of these utilities has a program called SPED23 - an scenario editor that is usable with SP2, SPWWII and SP3. Thsi program allows the user to modify various variables that are not so easily done within the game itself. Morale is just on eof those variable you can change for a specific scenario. So if you want to have a brave buch of Poles or Rumanians, or Italians who fight their "last stand" you cna model that into the scenarios. Fred will VERY likely be doing up a new version of this editor soon. If you want to give him some "encouragement", write him at chlanda@hotmail.com This way we don't have to have it perfect, as perfection is truely in the eye of the beholder!! Regards, Nick Papp



Kevin G -> (5/12/2000 4:50:00 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panther: [B]Could it be possible to create a german foreign unit country so to say. That way you can remove some of the oob from the germans and add more german stuff and add more of the accuired equipment that they used to the german foreign acquisition. This seems possible since you can choose your countries just like in sp3. The Nationalist Spanish OOB for the years 1941 to 1943 should do for that. It represents the Blue Division, which was an Infantry only division, so you don't have any of the armor or other fancy stuff that the regular German oob has; just infantry, infantry guns, and some arty and air. It can be very challenging against a tank-rich soviet force!



Harry -> (5/12/2000 6:59:00 PM)

The russian SO Paratrooper have a rifle with the performance of the german MP44 (StG44), but the Paratroopers are available June 41 ! Is this correct? In the german OOB there exist a FG42 and FJ Gewehr 42 which should be the same, but the FG42 have an acc-value of 2/4 resulting in 0 acc. The weapon should be erased.



Desert Fox -> (5/12/2000 8:27:00 PM)

I have an idea for an addition to the american oob. How bout putting the T-28 superheavy tank in? It was designed to be used in bunker assaulting on mainland Japan with its 155mm main gun. It would really be cool to see one of these in a hypothetical invasion of Japan scenario.



Mark_Ezra -> (5/12/2000 8:35:00 PM)

For OOB change consideration: US Army should not be supplied with the bazooka or M-10 TD until March '43. Bazookas had been delivered to front line troops just days before the Kasserine Pass battle but the troops had yet to be trained in it's use. I have yet to find a reference to the M 10 at Kasserine...but there are plenty of pictures of smoldering M3 GMC to indicate they were there in a TD roll. So let's add some AP to the M3 GMC/75M2 Gun and put it in a slot from Dec '41 to Dec '43. These dates will allow us to play an accurate battle of Kasserine Pass and assures that US Army forces in the Pacific are accurately supplied.



Seth -> (5/12/2000 10:01:00 PM)

Looked at the second three countries last night. Here are my comments: UK Humber Mk. IV-has the same picture as the Mk. II All Marmon-Herringtons have a picture of a Ba-64. Humber SC/LRC-has the Mk. II picture Cruisers Mk. I to Mk. IIICS have the same picture. Centaur IVCS has a picture of some other tank, a Cromwell, I think. The Tomahawk should have either 4 or 6 MG's, not 5. The Mustang III has 16 MG's! The Truck of Death (B-26) has been covered. Most of the CS tanks have the same picture as their non-CS counterparts. ANZAC The captured M 13/40 is free. The Valentine IIICS is free and has the same gun as the regular III. Nearly 2/3 of all infantry/cavalry, etc. have Suomi SMG's. The Rover Light armored car has a 57mm gun. Just doesn't seem right. The Boomerang has a Hurricane icon. The Australian ships are a bit odd. Each only has one gun, no armor, and is very small. The Hobart is size 3, awfully small for a cruiser. They should probably be eliminated and replaced with generic naval gun support. The Hurricane Mk. IV has 8 20mm cannons. The Beaufighter should have 4 20mm cannons, not 8. The Spitfire Mk. VIII has a brutal 6 20mm cannons and 15 MG's! The Hurricane Mk. IID weighs in at 19 MG's and 4 37mm cannon. If this is supposed to be the variant with the Vickers S guns, it should have 2 MG's and 2 40mm cannon. I'd hate to see what these two planes could do to a column of troops. The Baltimore has a Blenheim icon. The Wirraway has the wrong icon and should only have 2 MG's. The LVT A (2) is missing its turret. The Vickers Medium has the picture and icon for the Light Mk. I Troop appears after all the glider and transport names. The DC-3 really should be the C-47 or Dakota, depending who's using it. In both UK and Anzac, the Spitfire and Hurricane icons seem to get mixed up occasionally, and the Typhoon looks like a Hurricane. In the ANZAC listing in the encyclopedia, the units seem incredibly jumbled compared to other countries. Finland The Fokker D. XXI should have 4MG's and no cannon. Those guys on horses sure get around! They've shown up as everyone's cavalry and mule team so far.



Paul Vebber -> (5/12/2000 10:20:00 PM)

Keep these things coming...We will fix them! Thanks a bunch Seth!



Supervisor -> (5/12/2000 10:44:00 PM)

That's right. You can't even give it away.[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seth: [B]Looked at the second three countries last night. Here are my comments: ANZAC The captured M 13/40 is free. ------------------ Grenadier SPWAW Beta Team



Voriax -> (5/13/2000 12:27:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Keep these things coming...We will fix them!
You asked so.. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img] 19 out of 34 Finnish FT-17 tanks were mg-versions, so this should be added. Versions of BT-7 tanks were M35 and M37 models, I think the -7a version with 76,2 mm gun was not in use. T-28 tanks were reinforced to E models so the basic model should not be available until 49 but around 43 instead. There is a strange bunker thing. The OOB file contains several bunkers that have their nationality as Germany. They also have bit strange weapon combinations. Have these bunkers been left out intentionally or is it a bug? MOLOTOV COCKTAILS! What a shame to forget the main AT-weapon during the winter war. SG43 MMG has a wrong pic Seth already mentioned the cannon equipped Fokker. Btw, cannons were actually trialed but they slowed the plane down and their recoil caused inaccuracy. Pz-IVj's machine guns should be DT's OT-130 flame tanks were converted quite rapidly to gun tanks so the availability date should be changed..until 1943 I think. What's a 75mm vz.19 Field gun? My sources don't recognize it. Better choice would be 75 K17. (American 75MM Gun M1917) KV-1 tank trivia bit [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] There were only two tanks in use and they were different models, KV-1E m1940 and KV-1 m1942. Trivia 2: It's still the heaviest tank that has been in Finnish use. Myrsky II fighter was a complete flop, it participated only in the Lapland war (carefully) and was withdrawn from service already in 1947 after one plane disintegrated in dive. Remove it. Or if you want a replacement use a MS 406 instead. Gaz-AAMG. Did you want to include a mobile flak? Afaik some were captured in winter war but they certainly were not in use before that. there were only 12 152 H 15-17 guns in use, better choice would be russian 152 H 09-30, over 100 in use during continuation war. Many cannon units have Suomi SMG's. These should be replaced with some crappy rifles, for example italian rifles. It was a common practise to give poorer weapons to units that were not really frontline units. In the coastal gun bunker the 203mm naval gun is tad uncommon..4 were in use. A 152/45 Canet was the most common Finnish heavy coastal arty, you could use a 150 or 155 mm naval gun in it's place. Landsverk 182 armoured car was armed with one 13,2mm HMG and two 7,62 LMG's. (one car was in use) I may later look at the individual weapons. Already I'm quite amused that for example Sten SMG has same accuracy as Suomi SMG, but weapon stats are something that can be argued forever. Hopefully this post comes out even semilegible... Voriax



Seth -> (5/13/2000 12:35:00 AM)

Weren't those 4 203mm's in old Russian turrets? I seem to remember a website offering a virtual tour of one. As far as eliminating them goes, I like variety. As long as there were some, why not keep them? I suppose for countries whose unit space is full, like Germany things are different, but Finland has room. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited 05-12-2000).]



Voriax -> (5/13/2000 12:56:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Weren't those 4 203mm's in old Russian turrets? I seem to remember a website offering a virtual tour of one. As far as eliminating them goes, I like variety. As long as there were some, why not keep them? I suppose for countries whose unit space is full, like Germany things are different, but Finland has room. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited 05-12-2000).]
These guns were 'open' with just the gun shield. Those turreted ones you recall are most likely the 305mm ones, and the website is: http://www.hkkk.fi/~yrjola/war/kuivasaa/kuivasaa.html I was really suggesting that the naval fort could stay but the main weapon changed. There is indeed plenty of space in the OOB file so it would be easy to make a 2nd fort with smaller gun. Heh, if you think about it most of the hardware in the Finnish OB are such items that were in (very) short supply.



Seth -> (5/13/2000 1:10:00 AM)

Yes, that's the turret I was thinking of. That would be a really cool unit. Especially vs. hordes of Russian infantry, ahahaha! I've often been fascinated at how some of the smaller countries managed to fight with such a bizarre grab-bag of equipment. Maybe there could be a way to offer a 'historical supply' preference option for those who prefer realism, to keep people from parlaying two Finnish KV-1's into an armored division, etc.



Voriax -> (5/14/2000 6:26:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Yes, that's the turret I was thinking of. That would be a really cool unit. Especially vs. hordes of Russian infantry, ahahaha! I've often been fascinated at how some of the smaller countries managed to fight with such a bizarre grab-bag of equipment. Maybe there could be a way to offer a 'historical supply' preference option for those who prefer realism, to keep people from parlaying two Finnish KV-1's into an armored division, etc.
Finnsh coastal arty fired quite a lot against Russian troops and with great effect. Although the calibres were usually much smaller than 305mm. Fyi, this twin gun turret has about 1600 tons of steel in it of which about 500 tons is armour. Armour thickness is 305mm all around except 105mm on top. The variety of material was a great pain indeed. When you don't have money to rationalize you'll end up buying an occasional modern equipment but you have to keep whatever old stuff you have. I have couple good books about Finnish arty and coastal arty and gee what really obscure guns were used. I'd like to see the deBange cannons from 1877. They had no recoil system so they had to be realigned after every shot. Their Finnish nickname translates to 'Jumping Jack' But as the weapon file seems to be kinda full guess I can't have them. Or I'll just have to create such unit and use some available weapon. Historical amounts of units could be made by creating a new formation that has the exact force composition. For example the finnish heavy tanks were in a separate heavy platoon of the armoured brigade. Also snippets of info like these 2 Klim's could be added to those small info texts some units have. btw, how do you attach one to a unit? Oh and are the leader names directly from SP3? Somehow the Finnish leaders are occasionally bit funnily named? And as I gained speed [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] a thing about bunkers. Wood bunkers are neat, but bigger ones should have a lot of more armour, especially on top. I'll give you the requirements of a typical bunker from a 'Salpa' (Latch) defensive line built mainly during 1944. Basic MG bunker had to withstand single indirect fire from a 16" guns, continuous fire from 12" guns, direct fire from 8" guns and 1000kg aerial bombs. The reinforced concrete roof was 210cm thick plus the additional earth cover. Even though the older bunkers were not as sturdy during the winter war such bunkers were destroyed mainly by isolating them and using flamethrowers afterwards. Russians cooked up some stories about 'rubber coated bunkers' that bounce the rounds away as they couldn't knock them out. Voriax



Mac_MatrixForum -> (5/14/2000 5:08:00 PM)

Came up with two small things. -Versions of Panzerkampfwagen III up to Ausf. F had three MG 34 machine guns according to www.achtungpanzer.com. In SPWaW, they seem to have only two. This would only affect the E-variant that is in the game. -Tauchpanzer III comes quite early with 50mm gun. In fact, it has the 50mm gun earlier (January 1940) than normal panzer III (August 1940). Is this intended? ------------------ Markku "Mac" Rontu "Understanding is a three-edged sword, your side, their side and the truth." - Sheridan in B5



amatteucci -> (5/14/2000 6:16:00 PM)

Great game! It was worth a 10 hrs download... Just some (for now) OOB remarks... The frontal glacis of the Tiger II should be 150mm @ 50° (not 100mm @ 50°!) The glacis of the IS-2m was 120mm @ 60° The glacis armour for the IS-2 should be 120mm @ 30° BTW... speaking of Soviet heavy tanks: - The IS-2 was armed with a D-25 gun and had the same ammo load as the IS-2m and should'nt have an higher ROF. The ammo loadout was the same. - Please add the IS-1 (IS-85) and remove the SU-45, such a thing NEVER existed! - Soviet heavy tanks shouldn't have roman numerals: use IS-2, KV-2 instead of IS-II, KV-II Regards, Amedeo



Paul Vebber -> (5/15/2000 12:02:00 AM)

Remember that the front of most tanks are made up of more than one plate. We have attempted to model the 'effective" fornt protection in its entirety, so as the manual explains, some of the armor is not equal to a single plate that is often quoted. THese figures will be refined as we go, but I think there is a good basis here. SU-45s indeed existed, they were Komsomlets tractors with 45mm AT guns mounted. I will see what happened to the IS-1 It most have gotten lost, I thought i added it in with the KV-1e and S... sorry about that!



troopie -> (5/15/2000 12:35:00 AM)

Now I suppose you're going to say, troopie's got a fine right to post, he hasn't even played the blery game yet [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] but one observation and one question. In every SP game I've ever played, it's easy to send Polish infantry and cavalry into retreat. But they don't stay that way. They rally and come back for more. I'm not an expert on the Polish campaign but I believe that was true in fact, they came back for more. The question. Will we see a patch correcting the OOB errors? and when? troopie (who can't wait for next week so he can get his hands on SPWAW)



Paul Vebber -> (5/15/2000 2:39:00 AM)

We need to catch our breath and reintroduce ourselves to our families, but we will have a patch in a few weeks... Ouch! You know how to rub it in :-) IT all depends on wht experiance you give them, the deafults are admittedly a bit wimpy... Constructive contributions like that are always welcome whether you've played or not :-)



Jon Grasham -> (5/15/2000 4:25:00 AM)

Taking a Break?!? :-) A few weeks even seems quick! The way I see it, most companies release a game with a few significant bugs here and there, and they are, in essence, a work in progress, but paid in full for. Fewer companies release a game that more or less is broken, out of the box, and requires significant patching just to be played through. (And then take the consumer for a fool, claiming they had no idea that the game would not start at all, etc.. :-) Still fewer release a game that is perfect, or damn close out of the box, and have a few patches, mostly refining what is, or adding new stuff. And THEN there is you guys... you offer something that took a long time, was far from profitable (other than good reception and building trust) and is works fine, having a few small flukes here and there, but most of the "problems" are with improvements.... (Long campaign points, flying trucks,)and then plan on releasing patches for that, quicker than many "pay to play" games! Guess that means we can't whine and cry. :-)(And should be sending you checks in secret so Matel won't bring out the Attack dogs..err lawyers.) ;-) [This message has been edited by Jon Grasham (edited 05-14-2000).]



amatteucci -> (5/15/2000 4:26:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: [B]Remember that the front of most tanks are made up of more than one plate. We have attempted to model the 'effective" fornt protection in its entirety, so as the manual explains, some of the armor is not equal to a single plate that is often quoted. THese figures will be refined as we go, but I think there is a good basis here. SU-45s indeed existed, they were Komsomlets tractors with 45mm AT guns mounted.
You're right about the need to model the entire front armour of an AFV and not a single section of it but I doubt that 100mm @ 50° is a good simulation of the Tiger II glacis. There was NO confirmed frontal penetration of the King Tiger in combat but with the original OOB data I got creamed in the very first scenario in a firefight at more than 1000m! For what concernes the SU-45 I'm still doubtful, considering that I have never seen a single reference to it in any source (with the exception of the SP series... and consider that the SU-45 photo in SP1 was actually an experimental 37mm TD built on the chassis of a T-37 light tank. Only one prototype was built.) Anyway keep on with this good work! It's the best SP engine I ever saw. Regards, Amedeo



Paul Vebber -> (5/15/2000 4:41:00 AM)

I checked a few sources and the Doyle Chamberlien lists the front superstructure as 150/50 and the front hull as 100/50. Indeed looks like that one may need a bit of beefing up - What creamed you. at 50degrees, the effectis quite pronounced, a 17lber APDS or a Russian 122 is about all that could do such! Any additional details would be appreciated.



pvi215 -> (5/15/2000 9:34:00 AM)

A word of warning: the US Army mech cav and armored infantry are way off the mark: 1. the armored infantry platoon had 5 squads, i.e. 3 rifle, 1 MG and 1 mortar; 1 track for each squad. 2. there was an AT platoon at company level, 3 57mm AT guns w/ M3 tracks as prime movers. 3. there was no organic recon unit at company level. 4. the mech cav platoon consisted of two sections; one of 3 M8 a/c and one of 6 armed jeeps. 5. I have yet to uncover a pure armored car platoon, much less an armored car company in US service. 6. the M8 HMC is SP arty, not an assault gun in the German/Soviet sence. It was primarily used in the indirect fire mode. Reference T/O 17 of 15 Sept 1943. So far the OB editor is my most used portion of SPWAW.



Panther -> (5/15/2000 8:01:00 PM)

The polish bunkers are represented by half traks.



amatteucci -> (5/16/2000 12:11:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: I checked a few sources and the Doyle Chamberlien lists the front superstructure as 150/50 and the front hull as 100/50. Indeed looks like that one may need a bit of beefing up - What creamed you. at 50degrees, the effectis quite pronounced, a 17lber APDS or a Russian 122 is about all that could do such! Any additional details would be appreciated.
I was destroyed by an american 90mm gun! This was very surprising for me so I checked the stats for the KT and found that the OB provided for a 100mm only thick glacis. If you look at the theoretical penetration tables the only weapon that could penetrate frontally a KT was the 17pdr firing an APDS shot (but only the turret!). Soviet 122mm and 100mm guns achieved interesting results in tests held at Kubinka proving grounds but there's no evidence of such a penetration in combat. I've seen lots of photos of destroyed KTs after the battles in Hungary in 1945 and even those with multiple penetration hits showed only side and rear penetrations. Regards, Amedeo



Paul Vebber -> (5/16/2000 12:35:00 AM)

Thanks - The 90mm likely was firing APCR, which technically should be able to penetrate the front of a King Tiger. I am not sure if the two weapons ever faced each other in actual combat? A 17lber could penetrate the fornt of a King Tiger, the odds against it are much less than teh turret, and the geometry would have to be right. IT is very difficult to say that a weapon "can't penetrate" a certain vehicel. Penetration tests are stochastic, so simply comparing a penetration number to an armor value by subtraction, is not an "absolute" method. By the way I did some checking on the "SU-45" and you are correct that the soviets never had a designatin for such a vehicle, it was a Western nomenclature some references use for what appears to be an ad hoc conversion. Mayny contributed to the OOBs, and in many cases there are inconsistencies about what is in or left out. I am putting together a small team of interested folks to help improve the OOBs, if you (or anybody else) are interested in taking part, drop me a note!



talon -> (5/16/2000 6:42:00 PM)

I just have a question on the machinegun in the Yugoslavia rifle squad . Is this a heavy machinegun ? It is just as deadly as any of the other heavy or medium machineguns . Its the deadliest machinegun in any squad . If its a LMG then I think it needs to be changed and if its a heavy MG then the whole squad should be slowed and it should be notet that this is a heavy MG .



Voriax -> (5/16/2000 7:59:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by talon: I just have a question on the machinegun in the Yugoslavia rifle squad . Is this a heavy machinegun ? It is just as deadly as any of the other heavy or medium machineguns . Its the deadliest machinegun in any squad . If its a LMG then I think it needs to be changed and if its a heavy MG then the whole squad should be slowed and it should be notet that this is a heavy MG .
The ZB30J gun? This is actually a LMG so the stats should be changed, might use the same stats as the Bren because both of these weapons have been developed from Czech ZB26 LMG. (source: Small Arms of the World, 12th edition) Voriax



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875