This is a GREAT job - few questions about infantry speed and Anti-tank guns (Full Version)

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



Message

lithium01 -> This is a GREAT job - few questions about infantry speed and Anti-tank guns (7/28/2001 3:00:00 PM)

First off - This was very well thought out and SO much better than any of the previous incarnations of steel panthers, I cannot imagine how I liked them before. There are a few things I'd like to bring to your attention. When Infantry move, they always register as 2 MPH, regardless of how many squares they moved. I have noticed that the machine gun teams are quite leathal even to slow-moving infantry (1 hex)...the machine is registering 1 hex movers going the same speed as 3 hexers, is it making the same calculations concerning hits? Anti-Tank Guns and Anti-Aircraft guns...are extremly robust and are far superior to fortifications and tank destroyers because the attacking units aim for the hard to hit infantry instead of the relativly easier to hit gun. I understand that in prepared positions these were very well concealed and thus difficult to hit, but an 88 was an extremly large gun and very stationary [and very dead if advancing in the desert] so should a tanks main gun aim for this instead of the infantry which it cannot hit? Large caliber rounds should have a chance of knocking out or disabling these large guns...especially if the rounds are aimed at it and not the crew taking cover. This is somewhat frustrating. I have read some grumblings about flamethrowers. These are fine and well represented. It is true that not all engineers units had them, but by the same token, some army units DID have them so they are not over-represented. As far as their lethality, what I have seen is about right. Using them offensivly is difficult, especially in open terrain. Flamethrower units that were not suppressed that faced routed/heavily suppressed units more often than not inflicted HEAVY casualties. Flamethrowers need not be accurate to do this. Those that were not cinged in the flamethrower's large coverage succumbed to aphixiation. The trick, of course, is getting your engineer unit 1 square away from an enemy stronghold in a position to fight. If an enemy engineer unit is able to do this, I would think the defender's concerns should lay elsewhere...not an accurate representation of real life when his squad/tank gets cooked. I am curious about one other thing. Tanks have a carrying capacity of 8 and squads are typically 10/12. Playing the Russians this is quite annoying. As I understand, because the Red Army lacked mechanized transports, many of their units were "tank riders" and dismounted when in position. Would it not make sense to have the squad size commensurate with what the tank could carry? Could tanks really only carry 8? If I were Zhukov, I'd either assign the taller guys to auxillery duties, reduce the squad size to 8, or inform the squads that not being the 9th and 10th guy to squeeze on the T34 was considered "sabatoge and aiding a enemy of the state" and all the nicities that accompanied such a position. Didn't squads fit in the older versions? Thanks for a great rework!



Dedas -> (7/28/2001 5:08:00 PM)

Hi, I know what you are talking about when you say that AT:s are hard to hit :mad: They aren't hard, they are extremly hard to blow to tiny pieces...mmh. I have read in a book (Panzer commander Michael Wittman) that he and his squad of TigersI:s took out say 10-20 AT:s a day, and this was made with one shot per AT. They didn't aim at the crew of course, who would!? 1. They are harder to hit than the gun. 2. If you hit the gun, very common that you do because of its size, the ammo lying about will often explode also killing the crew etc. (This was often the case, stated Wittman) 3. Why in gods name do you have to kill the poor crew... it is the gun that is threatening your tanks isn't it?????!!! My solution to this problem: Treat the AT:s as tanks with soldiers around them, there is a chance that you hit both, and if you hit the AT with large enough shell, it will be obliterated!! (with some chance of blowing up the ammo (some chance of killing crew, add ammo depo blowing up animation)) Couldn't be simpler could it?! ;) Of course was Wittman's tank a TigerI with a 88mm cannon, but you could count that in also because the AT:s should have had armour values! This is all something that I am dreaming about of course, don't take it seriously... (you know best, experience, age etc etc.) :D



Lars Remmen -> (7/28/2001 5:38:00 PM)

Hello, About AT guns, supress them and overrun them. CRUNCH! Much easier than hitting the bugger. Regards, Lars



Gen. Maczek -> (7/28/2001 6:21:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by lithium01: I am curious about one other thing. Tanks have a carrying capacity of 8 and squads are typically 10/12. Playing the Russians this is quite annoying. As I understand, because the Red Army lacked mechanized transports, many of their units were "tank riders" and dismounted when in position. Would it not make sense to have the squad size commensurate with what the tank could carry? Could tanks really only carry 8? If I were Zhukov, I'd either assign the taller guys to auxillery duties, reduce the squad size to 8, or inform the squads that not being the 9th and 10th guy to squeeze on the T34 was considered "sabatoge and aiding a enemy of the state" and all the nicities that accompanied such a position. Didn't squads fit in the older versions?
Such a unit is represented in the game under the name of "Tankodesantniki". It is a lightly armed squad (PPSh-41 SMG, Molotovs and Grenades) of 8 men, idealy suited for 'tank riding' providing infantry support for tank exploitation. Regards Gen. Maczek



Jaques Rico -> (7/29/2001 12:08:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Dedas: 12. If you hit the gun, very common that you do because of its size, the ammo lying about will often explode also killing the crew etc.
Not completely true, often the ammunition wasnt stored exactly by the gun but some metres behind. And if the crew had some time to prepare, they often digged some holes to put dangerous parts like ammunition deeper, to make it harder to hit them. But that depended on how many crew members the AT-Gun and on the decision of the commander. If he had enough men he could let them build a chain to bring the ammunition to the gun, if not he had to place his ammo depot near his gun. However if a hit was able to penetrate the amour plate of an AT-Gun (and even sometimes when the round wasnt able to do so) or if it hit an AT-Gun without an amour-plate that gun was out of commission, because the sliding system of the barrel (the catch (?), dont know the english term, sorry) was twisted and the gun no longer usable. That is clearly not correct handled in SPWAW. Greetings JR



Dedas -> (7/29/2001 6:17:00 AM)

I know what you mean Rico about AT:s not being correct in SPWAW, and I think something should be done about it. It's very frustating taking out AT:s with tanks (even with infantry!!), if not impossible! A tank shell hitting a AT would likely smash it to pieces or twist it around making it not functional! This is not the case, you can pounder a AT with tank shells for years and it won't smash, the crew would likely be running though to the suppression! I don't know how hard it would be changing the AT to tank (bunker??) class but it would greatly improve the realism!!! :D



lithium01 -> (7/29/2001 1:10:00 PM)

Lars - Easier said than done. If an 88 - or even more annoying a 40mm AA gun - is sniping tanks from a range of 25 hexes, then there isn't much one can do. HE rounds and MG that miss the infantry are shrugged off. Any suppression resulting from artillery will be rallied. I find smoke and a flamethrower unit to be the best remedy, but options would be nice. Armored brigades should not cower from 40mm AA guns. If a tank is brave (stupid?) enough to take on a Anti-tank gun, it should have a chance to hit the gun and put it out of action, not futily try to hit the crew.



Lars Remmen -> (7/29/2001 1:27:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by lithium01: Lars - Easier said than done.
Hello, I didn't say it was easy. But I frequently do it. Mortars are great for suppression. I remember something about a Danish 37mm AT gun in action on April 9th 1940. It engaged German armour and the enitre crew was killed or wounded before the German tanks finally overran and crushed the gun. The gun shield was shot through several times but the gun continued to function. I'll have to look up the details as I don't have that particular book.



Paul Vebber -> (7/29/2001 11:27:00 PM)

Firing HE at a target on the ground is a difficult thing. IF you do the math, fringin from a tank at an AT gun at the same level form 500m away, the shallow angle and typical round dispersion make it quite difficult From WW2 Ballistics (Bird and Livingston) Low velocity gun 68% of rounds land within 72m band (and 32% land FARTHER away) High velocity gun suffers moreband is nearly 100m This assmes the gun is 2m above ther target height. so unless you are are firing down on a target from fairly high above, its harder than it seems to get an HE round on a small target like an AT gun unless you are VERY close



Kluckenbill -> (7/30/2001 7:23:00 AM)

I think that the way AT guns are handled in 6.1 is a huge improvement over earlier versions. They used to be almost useless, getting destroyed as soon as they shot. Now they are hard enough to hit and to kill that they have a chance to take a few tanks with them. Also they are hard enough to spot that they have a chance at a successful ambush. WW2 AT guns, even the medium calibers, were quite small. If you have a chance to visit Aberdeen Proving Grounds, its a great place to see a lot of these guns on display. My only gripe is that the light AA guns are too hard to spot and hit. The 37mm and 40mm AA guns have a size of 1, the same as the small AT guns. I think they should be at least a 2. FWIW the Russian 76.2 and 88 mm AA guns are 2's and the German 88 is a 3. I've found that early in the game, those damn 37's and 40's are the deadliest weapon in the Allied arsenal.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.40625