Priest Anti-Soft Value? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

HansBolter -> Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 12:08:57 AM)

Can anyone hazard an explanation for why the Priest SP Artillery unit has an Anti-Soft value so much lower than a standard towed 105mm artillery piece?

The AS value of 16 is one point LOWER than 3.7" Mountain, Para and Jungle guns.

Were Priests really this ineffective?


This is a modded scenario so I can't vouch for what AS value Priests may have in stock.

If no one can provide a good explanation for why it is so nerfed I will most likely upgrade it for my next game.

[image]local://upfiles/21458/59124F55743B4B0DBD28713B04B217EC.jpg[/image]



Nomad -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 12:34:02 AM)

The only thing that I can think of is maybe it is to model a more limited ammo supply?



RangerJoe -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 12:50:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only thing that I can think of is maybe it is to model a more limited ammo supply?


Probably correct. My turn is running so I can't check my game.



HansBolter -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 1:01:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only thing that I can think of is maybe it is to model a more limited ammo supply?



Arrived at that same conclusion upon further consideration, but it still irks me that it is lower than mountain guns.

18-20 seems like a more reasonable nerf to me.



RangerJoe -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 1:25:00 AM)

That looks right for the artillery priest but look at the vehicle priest and you will see different numbers, including a load cost of 26.



Ian R -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 4:44:01 AM)

The M7 Priest AFV may been depowered in the scenario in use.

In vanilla scenario 1, device #1186, the "M7 Priest SP Arty" (classed as an AFV) has a-arm/a-soft of 60/26, and load cost 26. Range 12,Accuracy 6, penetration 60, effect 35, armor 35.

In iron man, device #1186, the "M7 Priest SP Arty" (classed as an AFV) has a-arm/a-soft of 41/26, and load cost 26. Range 12,Accuracy 6, penetration 41, effect 35, armor 35.

In iron man, device #1098, the "Priest SP Arty" (classed as a 'army weapon', i.e artillery) has a-arm/a-soft of 35/16, and load cost 26. Other numbers: Range 13,Accuracy 5, penetration 60, effect 35, armor 35.

In the vanilla scenario the numbers for device #1098 are the same, except it only has a load cost of 11.

The 18th SP FA Rgt uses device #1098.

Edit: I am not sure if any other unit uses it.



Leandros -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 9:26:34 AM)

Sorry, my mix-up.

Fred



HansBolter -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 11:33:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

The M7 Priest AFV may been depowered in the scenario in use.

In vanilla scenario 1, device #1186, the "M7 Priest SP Arty" (classed as an AFV) has a-arm/a-soft of 60/26, and load cost 26. Range 12,Accuracy 6, penetration 60, effect 35, armor 35.

In iron man, device #1186, the "M7 Priest SP Arty" (classed as an AFV) has a-arm/a-soft of 41/26, and load cost 26. Range 12,Accuracy 6, penetration 41, effect 35, armor 35.

In iron man, device #1098, the "Priest SP Arty" (classed as a 'army weapon', i.e artillery) has a-arm/a-soft of 35/16, and load cost 26. Other numbers: Range 13,Accuracy 5, penetration 60, effect 35, armor 35.

In the vanilla scenario the numbers for device #1098 are the same, except it only has a load cost of 11.

The 18th SP FA Rgt uses device #1098.

Edit: I am not sure if any other unit uses it.



Thanks for the detailed run down.

I recall having them in my last game (scen 40), but don't recall the unit name.

The values I clipped a screen shot of are from your Long Road to Tokyo scenario.

I tweaked a few things to make the scenario my own, but did not adjust the Priests.

I'm enjoying it immensely btw.


Have a question for you. I was concerned about your combining some units in conglomerates, which I presume was done to keep the total unit count manageable.

IIRC your scenario notes mentioned that you were unsure of what effect it might have.
I spent considerable time editing all of the conglomerate LST units back to individual ship types but the scenario would not load after doing so. I then spent considerable time editing them all back to the conglomerate units.

My concern and question is will the game engine treat a conglomerate 6 ship LST unit as a single ship for combat purposes?
If one Betty can sink 6 LSTs with one torpedo the Allied fleet will be under considerably more strain in Kamikaze country.



BBfanboy -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 2:40:52 PM)

There is also the unit "Provisional GMC" in the Philippines that has the forerunner to the Priest - same chassis I think but only a 75mm gun. Not sure how that one would be modeled in Ironman - could they have called it a Priest but left it with the 75mm gun? That would put the values somewhere around the mountain gun values. During modding it might show incorrectly as 105mm?



Leandros -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 3:41:01 PM)

I believe the GMC (Gun Motor Carriage) is half-track.

Fred



BBfanboy -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 4:47:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

I believe the GMC (Gun Motor Carriage) is half-track.

Fred

Ah - right you are! I thought the Priest was too but I see on looking it up it is full tracked. Respective designations M3 and M7.



RangerJoe -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 5:19:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros

I believe the GMC (Gun Motor Carriage) is half-track.

Fred

Ah - right you are! I thought the Priest was too but I see on looking it up it is full tracked. Respective designations M3 and M7.


The GMC is the tank destroyer that was used early in the war. I do not believe that it had indirect fire capabilities.



fcooke -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 7:30:26 PM)

I think the Priest was based on an M3 or maybe even M4 chassis. That said, those GMCs and the light tank units in the PI can really mess up the IJA if the IJA gets sloppy. I think there were also a couple of GMCs on Wake but I cannot remember how they did. I wonder how much more trouble the Wildcats could have caused if so many of them were not caught on the ground on the first day. I guess ditto for the AAF in the PI.



fcooke -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 7:32:10 PM)

I just looked it up, M7 was built on an M3 chassis.



BBfanboy -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 8:32:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

I just looked it up, M7 was built on an M3 chassis.


That is contrary to my look-up on google images which labeled the Provisional GMC halftrack as the M3 while the full tracked Priest was labeled M7. Perhaps the chassis of the halftrack was easily converted to full track and used on the Priest? You never know with these modders ... [:D]



RangerJoe -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 8:36:02 PM)

It later used the M4 chassis when the M3 was phased out.

The British Priest may have lower numbers because of the different than Commonwealth standard ammunition and the resulting supply issues.



RangerJoe -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 8:40:48 PM)

There was the M3 halftrack which was based upon the White M3 scout car besides the M3 medium tank which was the Grant/Lee not to mention the M3 Stuart tank. [&:]

This is besides the M3 Grease Gun which did not lubricate vehicles but rather fired the .45 ACP round. [sm=00000106.gif]



HansBolter -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/17/2021 9:09:12 PM)

Yes the multiple M3s are confusing, but the M7 Priest was built on the M3 and M4 Tank chassis.

I believe the Canadians used ones with the howitzer removed as APCs in Normandy. It was called a Defrocked Priest.

[image]local://upfiles/21458/32F964E6AE124B5DBB55FE6869D6F392.jpg[/image]



fcooke -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/18/2021 1:24:55 AM)

Weren't they called Grizzlys as well?



Reg -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/18/2021 4:31:10 AM)


Wikipedia: Kangaroo (armoured personnel carrier)




[image]local://upfiles/446/B19AD30957A84488BDAF902A1CD6B144.jpg[/image]



Reg -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/18/2021 4:43:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Weren't they called Grizzlys as well?


Grizzly's were Canadian built M4A1(75) Shermans.


Sextons were the Commonwealth equivalent to the M7 Priest but mounted a 25lb gun. They were also built in Canada and looked very similar but were based on the M3 (Ram) and later the M4 (Grizzly) chassis and can be be identified (apart from the gun) by the presence of battery boxes on the rear deck.





Alpha77 -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/18/2021 12:21:02 PM)

Some land unit values are "all over the place" also arrival dates wrong, most glaring examples M10, M18 and M38 TDs.. those were first send to Europe. Units in the pacific had to keep their AT GUNS (not SP) for longer before they got SPs. And M36 should perhaps arrive late 44 or early 45. Look at the date in game..except Axis in Europe would be beaten in 44 already which then frees M18/M36 for the pacific (alternate history?)

For Priest, this should be simple same value as the howitzer, except perhaps add some anti soft for the MG, ofc has armor value for chasis same as M3 but should be lower as M3 (open topped, no turret). With chasis I mean the lower part of the tank, (I forgot the English word I hope chasis can stil be understood what I mean?), if you look at Priest the upper part is quite thin armor, so there needs to be a compromise value I think. [:)]

Would be cool if some kind of project could be made going over many of these cases and a consenus could be reached in the community so all this could be corrected once and for all.
I mean plane and ships data is much better in general...probably cause the land war in this game is more rudimentary.



Alpha77 -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/18/2021 12:29:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only thing that I can think of is maybe it is to model a more limited ammo supply?


1st off Priest had quite high ammo load and 2nd units with priests have motor transport attached which represent also ammo carriers. Priest should have same or even slighly higher ammo has the normal howitzer imho



Ian R -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/18/2021 12:49:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter





Have a question for you. I was concerned about your combining some units in conglomerates, which I presume was done to keep the total unit count manageable.


Yes - two reasons:

1- to make game play simpler and quicker; and

2- different people with different machines had, or did not have, problems getting a clean load of the scenario. Computer capability wasn't the only issue, and restraining the size of the data base seemed to help.

quote:

IIRC your scenario notes mentioned that you were unsure of what effect it might have.
I spent considerable time editing all of the conglomerate LST units back to individual ship types but the scenario would not load after doing so. I then spent considerable time editing them all back to the conglomerate units.


Negative effects include -

1- they are more vulnerable (albeit they pack a arsenal of AAA); and

2- they take longer to unload.

Personally I think that the simplification of task force assembly, and the ability to load a larger landing force (along with the reduced keying time, and risk of carpal tunnel syndrome) are enough to overcome the negatives, but some posters have been unhappy with the increased unload times.


quote:

My concern and question is will the game engine treat a conglomerate 6 ship LST unit as a single ship for combat purposes?
If one Betty can sink 6 LSTs with one torpedo the Allied fleet will be under considerably more strain in Kamikaze country.


The brief answer is yes.

However, apart from increasing the displacement and carrying capacity, I also increased durability from 5 to 30. having regard to something Alfred said about durability on the forum, that may make them more resilient to damage.

Overall, there are pros and cons. I prefer the multi-ship depiction, but can understand if someone wants to break them down to individual units. The ironic thing is that 30 years ago the dos game had multi-ship units, and "step reduction" by numbers of vessels. It is not something that survived into WITP/AE, but it does make game play faster.



RangerJoe -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/18/2021 1:03:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The only thing that I can think of is maybe it is to model a more limited ammo supply?


1st off Priest had quite high ammo load and 2nd units with priests have motor transport attached which represent also ammo carriers. Priest should have same or even slighly higher ammo has the normal howitzer imho


Motorized support is shown in the game if it is available. The Prime movers of the towed artillery could also carry ammo plus the dedicated ammo haulers. Not to mention the fact that the prime mover, once the gun was in place, could also go back for more ammo.



RangerJoe -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/18/2021 1:07:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

Some land unit values are "all over the place" also arrival dates wrong, most glaring examples M10, M18 and M38 TDs.. those were first send to Europe. Units in the pacific had to keep their AT GUNS (not SP) for longer before they got SPs. And M36 should perhaps arrive late 44 or early 45. Look at the date in game..except Axis in Europe would be beaten in 44 already which then frees M18/M36 for the pacific (alternate history?)

For Priest, this should be simple same value as the howitzer, except perhaps add some anti soft for the MG, ofc has armor value for chasis same as M3 but should be lower as M3 (open topped, no turret). With chasis I mean the lower part of the tank, (I forgot the English word I hope chasis can stil be understood what I mean?), if you look at Priest the upper part is quite thin armor, so there needs to be a compromise value I think. [:)]

Would be cool if some kind of project could be made going over many of these cases and a consenus could be reached in the community so all this could be corrected once and for all.
I mean plane and ships data is much better in general...probably cause the land war in this game is more rudimentary.


The lower part of the chassis would be the "hull" but I also understood what you meant when you used the term chassis.

In Europe, the Axis was not beaten in 1944, consider the Ardennes Offensive in December 1944 that was commonly referred to as the Battle Of The Bulge.

That battle is not to be confused with any attempt to lose weight around the mid section of the human body.



HansBolter -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/19/2021 11:38:19 AM)

IanR,

Thanks again for the detailed explanation on your mod design decisions.

For the longest time I was unable to get the scenario to load because I was using a minimal platform.

About six years ago I spent a considerable sum building a meg-platform that crashed and burned shortly after the build.
I was so excited about building it that I heavily advertised the effort in an OT thread here.
Following the build I had one lock-up problem after another and became so frustrated I stuck the machine in a store room and let it sit for almost three years while I lived with a minimal off the shelf machine that would not load the scenario.

I later changed jobs just a year and a half prior to retiring, going to work for a friend who builds his own platforms and swears by liquid cooling, that he custom builds. He pointed out that my issue with the mega-platform was likely overheating that could be solved by swapping out the large heat pipe radiator with an off the shelf closed loop liquid cooler.

Sure enough, that was the problem and it was solved. I had failed to do the proper research on the AMD 8-core CPU, learning later that it is extremely heat sensitive. The platform, while a bit dated now with DDR3 ram, is still a monster performer and it was easily able to load the scenario. However, after editing all of the conglomerate ship types back to individual ships, even this platform with 4.7ghz 8-core CPU, 32gbs of DDR3 ram and a 6gb graphics card, would not load it.

The guy I worked for built the most awesome machine I have ever seen to be dedicated to crunching numbers to create animated videos of building designs. It had a 32-core AMD processor, 128gbs of DDR4 ram and a 32gb graphics card. It has an external radiator for the liquid cooling system. Just awesome.



Ian R -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/20/2021 1:22:53 AM)

How fast does it process a turn?

I'm running on an Intel 1.8 Ghz CPU, with 7.4Gb of usable RAM, and only basic graphics - although I replaced the hard drive with a 1Tb Samsung SSD, which improved performance overall. It now processes a 1 day turn (in 1944, including some multi unit city fights) in less than 3 minutes.



HansBolter -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/20/2021 9:33:06 AM)

I'm running an SSD as well, but I watch combat animations so it takes considerably longer then 3 minutes.

When the altered scenario, with the conglomerate ship types converted back to individual ships, failed to load I wondered if it might be hanging due to an insufficient number of commanders to be randomly assigned to so many ships and not a lack of processing power to be able to handle the database, but it wasn't an issue I wanted to even try investigating, let alone correct.
It was at that point that I re-edited the ships back into conglomerates.

I'm still a fledgling with the editor.



Ian R -> RE: Priest Anti-Soft Value? (5/20/2021 1:18:44 PM)

I understood the exe could create more officers with randomised values if needed. I once had an RN chap appear with an air rating of 90. I forget the name, but he wasn't in the scenario database.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125