(Full Version)

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

Message

troopie -> (5/21/2000 9:37:00 AM)
I was wrong, the leg arty observers are there. troopie

Desert Fox -> (5/21/2000 10:16:00 PM)
I got a question/suggestion for the Marine oob. Do they get some kind of special artillery bonus to reflect their use of Navajo code talkers? If not, maybe they should. From what I know, the Japs could not make sense of these codes, nor could they impersonate the code talkers because they could not possibly learn the Navajo language. I believe that because of this, the Marines always enjoyed faster artillery support since there were never any code books to crack open or secret passwords to mess up or even a possibility that the enemy was calling in artillery on friendly units. If this isn't in the game, I think it should be, in the form of even faster artillery from Marine FO units or something like that.

Warhorse -> (5/21/2000 11:00:00 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Larry Holt: [B]I have a question about the GE amphibious and mine clearing tanks. I know some were built but I've been unable to determine how widely availible they were. Were they like the Maus or the King Tiger? Larry, according to my sources, here goes; PzII Schwimmkorper-Developed for the invasion of England in late '40. Used as regular light tanks by 18th Pz Regt formed Oct. '40, used in central Russian front from June '41. Pz III Tauchpanzer-mid '40 as above, Sea Lion.Most modified for use in fording rivers. July '40 4 sections trained on island of Sylt,3 sections attached to 18th Pz Div.,rest went to 6th Pz Div.. June 22, '41 18th Pz vehicles crossed River Bug at Patulin. Pz III Minenraumpanzer- Prototype Pz IV Tauchpanzer-42 converted from July '40, bulk went again to the 18th Pz Div, rest to the 6th. Crossed River Bug same as above. Pz IV minenrollern-Prototype. Hope this helps, Warhorse

Mark_Ezra -> (5/22/2000 12:15:00 AM)
Hi Paul: I've been tinkering with the editor to place an M3 GMC 75mm M2 in the TD slot for 1942. The goal I had was to start with the M3 and later to have the M 10. Can't seem to get it to do it, but I think I know why. The M-10 has a turret, the M3, does not. Because of the work done to make TD turrets move That has become a hard copy feature of the TD designation. If this is so, it's a fine solution and I understand the work-around you used to get the M3 TD in the game. I guess I just want to know if my thinking on this is correct.

Dice4Eyes -> (5/22/2000 1:06:00 AM)
I haven't seen any command tanks(Panzer Befehlswagen)either for the allies or axis, i think they are important. I would like to se them included. If i can remember correctly they were identical to the normal panzer 1-6 but with more radios and a dummy main gun. If it is possible to make some radios better then other, then the command tanks with their better radios would enhance the C3 aspect of the game. Spelling error in german Oob, wagon should be wagen. The german captured T-34 is identical to the russian T-34's. The germans installed radios, added schurtzen protection and a commanders cupola taken from scrapped panzer 3-4's. I would guess they installd better optics to. The refitting was done in Germany and in Riga i think. So i would suggest adding radios (maybe thats already been done, can't remember), szhurtzen protection and increasing fire control. And Norway need som coastal artillery. Wasn't the Mp-44 better known as the sturmgewher-44 (Stg-44),The name Mp-44 was a way to fool Hitler i think because Hitler had decided to halt development of new rifles, but he found out about the weapon anyway and liked it and changed the name to sturmgehwer-44. I hope this help's the continued evolution of this great game. As i dont have my books to read from at the moment, feel free to correct my mistakes. The hazard of moving to many time's in to short a time. You get realy sick of carrying boxes with books. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] ------------------ Mvh Daniel E.

Paul Vebber -> (5/22/2000 4:00:00 AM)
I'm not sure Mark...There are two Tank Destroyer classes, turreted and non-turreted. The two are seperate and since teh formations are build of like classed units there is no way to make a formation that "crosses the class boundary" . You have to make two different formations and turn one "off" at the end of a year and turn teh other "on" the following year. [This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited 05-21-2000).]

Paul Vebber -> (5/22/2000 4:04:00 AM)
"Command tanks" as you refer to them are not really represented within the limited C2 model of SP:WaW. "Command Tanks" in the game are used for US and British platoons that mixed tank types in PLatoons (usually a Firefly or 76 gun with "regular" Shermans. Field modification of tanks leads one down a path that the limited number of unit types right now can't support. I've seen photos of Captured T-34s both ith and without field mods. Feel free to add them in the editor if you wish! That is why we put it in there :-)

Alastair Anderson -> (5/22/2000 7:02:00 AM)
Hi Been playing as the 1944 Rumanians and found that the TACAM TDs are equipped with APCR but that in the penetration table within the unit stats APCR is not listed. Instead HEAT is listed, but none of the vehicles are equipped with it. Possible error?? Cheers Al

troopie -> (5/22/2000 10:57:00 AM)
The Nationalist Spain victory hexes give the Chinese Communist flag(Franco must be spinning in his tomb) You can't buy Italian bicycle units. But I loved the 400 tonne launch in the Japanese OOB. It's the one they used to support landings. I've never heard of it in any other wargame. troopie

kkrull -> (5/22/2000 1:52:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Paul Vebber: "Command tanks" as you refer to them are not really represented within the limited C2 model of SP:WaW. "Command Tanks" in the game are used for US and British platoons that mixed tank types in PLatoons (usually a Firefly or 76 gun with "regular" Shermans. Field modification of tanks leads one down a path that the limited number of unit types right now can't support. I've seen photos of Captured T-34s both ith and without field mods. Feel free to add them in the editor if you wish! That is why we put it in there :-) If using C&C, might be nice to get a few more command points for the Company comander, or a higher chance or remaing in contact over further distances.

Arralen -> (5/22/2000 2:35:00 PM)
UK #100 BR Rifle Squad* I don't know the historical correct values, but I feel that those have too much rifle-grenades with them (10 for 10 men) Furthermore the grenades #93 are listed with Pen He 44 and Pen HEAT (!!!) 70 ... again I'm not shure about history .. ..but I constantly see my Japs tanks taken out by these - in fact, Jap. armor around in '42/'43 has little chance against these, so things are way to easy for the british side IMHO. Maybe this is correct, but I feel that history tells another story about the british performance at that stage of the war ? Arralen

Dave R -> (5/22/2000 8:59:00 PM)
Would there be any chance of at least putting in the option of forcing realistic OB's. I've just been creamed as the Germans in 1940 against the French. Because I was hit by masses and masses of French armour. Now as I understand my history, this is unrealistic, even to the point of saying that the French may have lost the Battle of France because they insisted on fielding their armour in penny packets and only on one occasion did they field them in en-mass, and even then they didn't achieve a total victory because of their antiquated comms system

Arralen -> (5/22/2000 10:31:00 PM)
Sorry if the following has been posted before, but I've to pay for my online-time so I can't really read through all posts :-( Germany Weapon #87 should be "Stielhandgranate" not "Steilhandgranate" ... Japan Tank #31 Typ91 Heavy carries 40 rounds of AP ammo - but the #219 75mm FH hasn't AP ability (PenAP 0) ... Howitzer #83 75mm Type38 HW carries NO AP/APCR/HEAT ammo, weapon #33 says PenAP69, PenHE23, PenHEAT 78 Knee Mortar Squads #175 / #176 use Rifle x5 (#214 Type38 / #243 Type99) with HEkillfactor of 5, while the standard infantery goes with HEkillfactor 1 .. makes them real killers, but what is the use of these Rifle x5 weapons?? ..besides, #176 reads "Riflex5", not "Rilfe x5". greetings, Arralen [This message has been edited by Arralen (edited 05-22-2000).]

Larry Holt -> (5/22/2000 10:52:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Warhorse: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Larry Holt: [B][snip] Larry, according to my sources, here goes; [snip] Hope this helps, Warhorse Thanks, it helps. May I ask what your source is? ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one.

Mosquito -> (5/23/2000 2:15:00 AM)
Finnish OOB is missing several airplanes but probably the most important one that is missing is the legendary Stuka used by FAF in the Continuation War. Anyway this is fantastic game. Great work guys!

Paul Vebber -> (5/23/2000 3:39:00 AM)
We are woring some of the "endemic" OOB problems, butthe biggest one from the point of view of "realistic" OOBs is the problem with making the AI adept at using them. The other problem is that the game was orignally limted to only a relatively few units, and the "scaling" of teh game to depict large battles suffers a bit when playing the AI. We will continue to work on that, but it is one of the toughest to solve! In teh near term teh most promising solution is to implement internet play so teh Ai is not an issue and you can force composition restrictions can be hammered out between the players. There is some movement ahead on the internet front we hope, nothing for certain yet, but we hope to be able to report good news in tehnear future :-)

Desert Fox -> (5/24/2000 6:23:00 AM)
Anyone else notice that in the US Army oob, the M4 shermans are available in sept. 42, while the M4A1, A2, and A3 are available in April, June, and August 42, respectively? Personally, I don't see a reason to buy M4s when I already have M4A3s. Obviously a slight error. I don't know for sure, but I think the AX models are supposed to be available in 43 not 42.

Spunkgibbon -> (5/25/2000 1:52:00 AM)
Some of the points costs seem a little excessive for the British. I don't know about the other Allied sides, I've mainly played the British so I can't comment on the others. For example the Firefly costs more points than both Panthers and Tigers and not much less than the King Tiger. I realise that from a historical perspective the Firefly might not have been as widely used as Tigers and Panthers but in terms of game balance they're no match for either of these German tanks. It may have a big gun but it's armour is pretty feeble by comparison. Similarly other British tanks seem to be over priced compared to their German counterparts especially in the later years of the war. Given that from around '43-'45 Germany was suffering a mounting fuel shortage and were committed to feeding production against the inexorable Soviet advance it seems a bit tight to pay more for inferior British armour. Especially as much of that armour was easily replaced. I know these operational factors are out of the scope of SPW@W but maybe they should be considered in the points costs for all sides. If they aren't already that is. Cheers Spunkgibbon

talon -> (5/25/2000 2:03:00 AM)
I don�t know if anyone has noticed it but the German Spec Force Sqd has a MG42 LMG and is available from 1938 . This is obviously wrong

Voriax -> (5/25/2000 2:04:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Mosquito: Finnish OOB is missing several airplanes but probably the most important one that is missing is the legendary Stuka used by FAF in the Continuation War. It might also be said that the Finnish OOB has too many planes, as it was actually forbidden to perform any ground attack missions during most of the war. This was to protect the few ac from heavy flak and let them concentrate shooting down bombers. And remember that the Stukas were not FAF planes, but part of the German FlugGeshwader Kuhlmey that was on 'loan' for couple months during 1944. Voriax

Alastair at Work -> (5/26/2000 4:07:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Spunkgibbon: Some of the points costs seem a little excessive for the British. I don't know about the other Allied sides, I've mainly played the British so I can't comment on the others. For example the Firefly costs more points than both Panthers and Tigers and not much less than the King Tiger. I realise that from a historical perspective the Firefly might not have been as widely used as Tigers and Panthers but in terms of game balance they're no match for either of these German tanks. It may have a big gun but it's armour is pretty feeble by comparison. Similarly other British tanks seem to be over priced compared to their German counterparts especially in the later years of the war. Given that from around '43-'45 Germany was suffering a mounting fuel shortage and were committed to feeding production against the inexorable Soviet advance it seems a bit tight to pay more for inferior British armour. Especially as much of that armour was easily replaced. I know these operational factors are out of the scope of SPW@W but maybe they should be considered in the points costs for all sides. If they aren't already that is. Cheers Spunkgibbon Steve, I agree, and I find it even more odd that the values for tanks in the ANZAC oob is so different compared to the British. An ANZAC firefly is substantially cheaper thana British one, yet some tanks are more expensive. I do not really understand why this is the case. Cheers Al

Paul Vebber -> (5/26/2000 7:30:00 PM)
That is simply a case of yours truely running out of time to fully reconcile everything. I focused on the major powers for this release and unfortunately many minor powers are still incinsistant. We are fixing that and will be about 4-6 weeks before all the required crosschecks are complete. Again a trade-off beteween the game being "good enough" to start to get enjoyment out of vs fixing things that could delay the thing almost indefinately :-)

Seth -> (5/27/2000 12:30:00 AM)
Oh God, work is hell today, but here's some more OOB's. Belgium T. 13/15 have wrong pictures ACG 1 should have a 7.5 mm CMG Renault AGR2 only becomes available in 7/40, seems odd because it's French. FN Browning MG has a picture of a Hotchkiss Did the Belgians really use German grenades? The Belgian engineers have a flammenwerfer. The Gladiator should have 4 MG's and has a Blenheim icon. Belgian Hurricanes had no 7.7mm MG's. I am pretty sure that the R-31 only had one MG for the observer, thus disarming it for game purposes. The gun on the Cam de mit 75 should be a VickerS, and I'm curious about the designation. Mit is usually an abbreviation of mitrailleuse, or MG, should it maybe be Camion de canon, or something? I know the Belgian M3/M5 German 37mm gun has been mentioned, but I forget if they also noticed that the Grant has it. Did the Belgians really have Lahti tractors? I assume this is the Finnish Lahti. USSR The BA-20 is shown with an open topped turret. The ZSU 37-1 has an SU-76 icon. KomsomoletEs, should be Komsomolets. The PaK 36 is available from 1/31. The 160mm mortar is available from 12/49. Should the RPG-3 really be available from 10/41? I may be thinking of something else here, but I thought the RPG series was developed from Panzerfausts. The Cossacks get PPsh's from 1/30. The Soviet sniper is one of the few with a non-generic 'sniper rifle'. This is GOOD! There are multiple incarnations of what appear to be exactly the same tank. Sometimes the availabilty dates are different. What gives? I'm sure I missed something here. Romania Flag appears to have commie coat of arms. I thought the Romanian armor was all green. Is this not true of their German tanks, which are grey here? The TNSPE had no BMG, and was actually a riot-control vehicle. Maybe you could give it the water cannon, and freeze Russians in the winter. The 60mm mle. 35 is available from 1/30. The Panzerfaust AT team has a picture of a PTRD. The M13/34 100mm is available from 1/49. The G10/30 has the same problem. It is my understanding that the third MG in the OA vz. 30 was carried as a spare, and pictures do only show 2. The M36 105mm is available from 1/49. Weren't the Potez bombers bought before the war? Did the Romanians actually buy any 63.11's? The M10/30 122 battery is available from 1/44. If the Romanians are getting these from the Soviets, they should be available later, and if they're captured, then earlier. Is this the same as the G10/30 122? Artillery may be my weakest point. I haven't really been adressing units that I think it would be nice to add, but I may start doing that separately. Why are turret-mounted MG's sometimes CMG's, even when they're the only ones? Paul-I still can't post to the OOB group. I can now see the mail. I'd like to be helping out there. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited 05-26-2000).]

Paul Vebber -> (5/27/2000 12:28:00 PM)
I sent you am email to the TGN email, please contact me

cracou -> (5/27/2000 7:40:00 PM)
Another OOB comment about Maginot Forts: the specific ability of these forst was to have fully rotative turrets. I can simulate them by using a heavy art class and giving it some armor. the problem is that guns in these forts were expected to have a VERY high rate of fire: 30/mn in emergency and 20/mn in sustained. It makes a LOT of shells, and the effect isn't well shown on the map. I can give you pore precise specifications if you want (and, to my surprise, they are extremelly powerfull: in one case a 420mm shell landed 45cm from a tape entry and the crew even didn't notice).

Fabio Prado -> (5/29/2000 4:10:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by troopie: Just what Are the countries represented? And does anyone know of a good book about Brazil in WW2? Yes, they joined the Allies in 1942 and sent an expeditionary force to Italy. I know only two things about it. The soldiers complained constantly about the cold of the Italian winter, and they had to be frequently reminded that they COULD take prisoners. troopie Brazil originally intended to commit three divisions to the Brazilian Expeditionary Force, but only the Brazilian 1st Infantry Division actually materialized in Europe. It was created specifically for service with the Allies and organized with the TO&E of a US division. The division sailed to Italy in five echelons. The first, comprising 6th Infantry Regiment, arrived in Naples 16 July 1944. The second and third echelons, with 1st and 11th Infantry Regiments and the balance of the division�s combat arms, both arrived 6 October 1944. The fourth and fifth echelons, comprising replacements and service personnel, arrived in December 1944 and February 1945 respectively. Following a brief period of training, 6th Infantry Regiment was committed to the Serchio Valley north of Pisa in September 1944 under US 5th Army. Remaining elements began deploying at the front in November, and the division was virtually complete by the end of the month. The division suffered setbacks common to green troops newly entering the line, and it was never assigned critical tasks, but all in all the Brazilians acquitted themselves fairly well. Organization in Italy, December 1944: 1st �Sampaio� Infantry Regiment 6th Infantry Regiment 11th Infantry Regiment 9th Engineer Battalion 1st Recon Squadron 1st Artillery Battalion 2nd Artillery Battalion 3rd Artillery Battalion 4th Artillery Battalion And oh, we DID have a memory problem when it came to taking prisioners... [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] Fabio Prado

Fabio Prado -> (5/29/2000 11:54:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by troopie: Just what Are the countries represented? And does anyone know of a good book about Brazil in WW2? Yes, they joined the Allies in 1942 and sent an expeditionary force to Italy. I know only two things about it. The soldiers complained constantly about the cold of the Italian winter, and they had to be frequently reminded that they COULD take prisoners. troopie Brazil originally intended to commit three divisions to the Brazilian Expeditionary Force, but only the Brazilian 1st Infantry Division actually materialized in Europe. It was created specifically for service with the Allies and organized with the TO&E of a US division. The division sailed to Italy in five echelons. The first, comprising 6th Infantry Regiment, arrived in Naples 16 July 1944. The second and third echelons, with 1st and 11th Infantry Regiments and the balance of the division�s combat arms, both arrived 6 October 1944. The fourth and fifth echelons, comprising replacements and service personnel, arrived in December 1944 and February 1945 respectively. Following a brief period of training, 6th Infantry Regiment was committed to the Serchio Valley north of Pisa in September 1944 under US 5th Army. Remaining elements began deploying at the front in November, and the division was virtually complete by the end of the month. The division suffered setbacks common to green troops newly entering the line, and it was never assigned critical tasks, but all in all the Brazilians acquitted themselves fairly well. Organization in Italy, December 1944: 1st �Sampaio� Infantry Regiment 6th Infantry Regiment 11th Infantry Regiment 9th Engineer Battalion 1st Recon Squadron 1st Artillery Battalion 2nd Artillery Battalion 3rd Artillery Battalion 4th Artillery Battalion (Saved from http://209.204.134.2/cgi-bin/foxweb.exe/armies/unithist?BZ101) The only books I know about Brazil in WW2 are in Portuguese(BR). I'll take a look, however, and if I find anything interesting I'll let you know. Best regards, Fabio Prado.

Fabio Prado -> (5/29/2000 12:40:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Use this thread for OOB comments. Some Notes About the Tigers: I would like to suggest slightly altered values for the Tiger I and II armor and inclination angles. First, some considerations about the Tiger I Front Turret Armor. The Tiger I Mantlet was about 120mm thick, and was backed up by another plate that was 100mm inclined 10 degrees (100@10). That makes the Tiger I front armor something in the vicinity of 200mm. This fact is always ignored by wargame designers. I think that in order to avoid much discussion, a value of 120@0 would settle things reasonably. Second, the side hull armor of the Tiger I. The superstructure side armor was 80mm@0 and the hull indeed was 60mm@0, but this plate was behind the interleaved roadweels, and this makes the side hull armor alot more than the 60@0. I suggest using 80mm@0 as the side hull armor values. So much for the Tiger I. Let's talk about the Tiger II. The game uses 100@50 as the front hull armor. Well, the glacis of the Koenigstiger was 150@50 and I believe there is little doubt what armor plate receives more hits. So, I suggest 150@50 as the front hull armor for the Tiger II. I would suggest the following scheme for the Tiger II: Front Hull: 150@50 Side Hull: 80@25 Rear Hull: 80@30 Front Turret: 180@10 Side Turret: 80@21 Rear Turret: 80@21 Top armor: 40 As from where I found this figures please go to my Tiger pages: Tiger I: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm Tiger II: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm There you'll find all I know about the Tigers and the sources used are also listed. I hope that in this way my contribution will be a little part of the wonderful job you've done with this wargame. Your friend, Fabio Prado.

troopie -> (5/29/2000 1:03:00 PM)
Baie Dankie, Fabio, for the info on Brasil in WW2. troopie

Arralen -> (5/29/2000 4:02:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Use this thread for OOB comments. As you wish ... Is it correct that the Grant has AP ammo for his 75mm gun? I always thought that this was a anti-infantry gun (HW ?) and that the turret-mounted 37mm was aimed against armored targets? Wonder especially as I found the 75mm gun a real good Tiger-Killer ... Arralen

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.078125