RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger (Full Version)

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



Message


VikingNo2 -> RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger (3/13/2004 1:14:03 AM)

Daa dhey mak hat sizez dat big[8|][8|][8|]






[:D]




mine_field -> RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger (3/13/2004 3:45:52 AM)

Ahh I knew there was something I didn't know regarding the weapons. Thanks AmmoSgt. Thanks doubly for the information regarding SturmTigers.




AmmoSgt -> RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger (3/13/2004 7:52:41 AM)

would i be pushing my luck if i suggested that you add a 4.2 " mortar by copying the current 4.2 to the duplcate M2 60mm in the US OOB and then changing the new 4.2 weapons class to napalm up the HE kill a point and the warhead size by 2 . the all you have to do is create a WP 4.2 Mortar section in the TO&E with the same avilability dates and it will appear on the player buy list as an option.




Alby -> RE: MG42 sound, YaG-6, Sturmtiger (3/13/2004 2:46:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmmoSgt

would i be pushing my luck if i suggested that you add a 4.2 " mortar by copying the current 4.2 to the duplcate M2 60mm in the US OOB and then changing the new 4.2 weapons class to napalm up the HE kill a point and the warhead size by 2 . the all you have to do is create a WP 4.2 Mortar section in the TO&E with the same avilability dates and it will appear on the player buy list as an option.


Cool Idea




Veroporo -> Pz Sf Iva (3/15/2004 5:30:06 PM)

German 105mm Pz Sf Iva / unit 151 has no formation for dec 49 and thus can't be bought. I know it's a rare unit only two bying built so no matter if it's moved to some other oob too. 8)




rbrunsman -> RE: Pz Sf Iva (3/16/2004 3:42:56 AM)

I don't know if this has been mentioned or not, but:

The Japanese 70mm FH has a listed weight of 104 and a listed carry capacity of 8. Clearly this is a typo. I even tried to load a unit one the FH and it wouldn't load but you can see these stats in the unit buy roster.

Bob




Frank W. -> RE: Pz Sf Iva (3/18/2004 2:00:18 AM)

btw: i made 4.2 inch WP mortar sections and did some tests.

works fine, makes nice fires around the map, but seems a bit
to deadly against tanks. in 2 rounds shooting with 3 WP mortars
on 2 dig in panther g´s i have killed both [X(]




RockinHarry -> RE: Pz Sf Iva (3/19/2004 7:22:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

btw: i made 4.2 inch WP mortar sections and did some tests.

works fine, makes nice fires around the map, but seems a bit
to deadly against tanks. in 2 rounds shooting with 3 WP mortars
on 2 dig in panther g´s i have killed both [X(]


yes, the main problem is that a single round of "napalm" sets a whole 50 yards hex on fire, no matter if its a zook round or a big 15.5![;)]

However, Ammo Sgt will be pleased about some new stuff in V8.2.[:D]




AmmoSgt -> RE: The new improved 8.1 oob thread (3/20/2004 8:10:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Voriax

Some weapon hit probability and penetration tables...first I though to post these urls to the Pz-IVc thread but they may be more useful here.

Weapon effectiveness (81 pages)
http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile/WW2eff14May02.PDF

Hit probability (13 pages)
http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile/WW2hit14May02.PDF

Penetration values (75 pages)
http://www.britwar.co.uk/files/phatfile/WW2pen14May02.PDF

Okay, this may be adding fuel to the flames but enjoy


[sm=00000016.gif]

Voriax


well if ya look in the weapons effectiveness tables above I think you're gonna fine that a 4.2 WP round spreads the WP out to cover about a 40 yard diameter .. which is pretty much a whole hex. one if the reasons it was so effective is good coverage, and very incinderary. I didn;t really think it would get in the game as powerful as it is .




Major Destruction -> RE: WP mortar rounds (3/21/2004 2:57:47 AM)

Have you tried reclassing the weapon as a cluster bomb?
Would that make it more or less realistic/playable?




AmmoSgt -> RE: WP mortar rounds (3/21/2004 3:43:37 AM)

Major , the problem is WP is just to dang effective in real life, as well as in the game. The problem is NOT the modeling , it models fine as naplam. Read some of the refferences above, I already dumbed it down by leaving the values close to regular HE. Brit tests figured if 100 Brit 3" HE mortar were droped into a 100 yard square box on entrenched infantry you had a 60% chance of causeing 4% casuality , if you used the same number of WP you get 40% casulities on dug in troops , if you switch to 4.2" WP you only need about half the number of rounds ( 50 mortar shells ) for dug in troops to create a high probablity of 40% casulties. 4.2 has aproxomately a 40 yard burst diameter with WP , for troops in the open on the same 100 yard square you only need about 20 rounds for 40& casulties. Tanks, trucks , whatever, if it can burn or be put out of action by fire has a high chance of catching fire , especially from plunging fire , like a mortar.
The only question is can folks deal with the facts about WP and handle the US having it in the game even in the dumbed down slightly better than HE mortar round form with the added smoke and fire effects ? If you understand that most the casulties are going tobe not dead but wounded , the frags from WP are not usually outright killers , but are very painful because they usually very small but continue to burn under the skin for about 15-30 minutes they burn very hot , in open air they burn out in less then 5 minutes , but once a frag either pentrates or burns thru clothing and get in contact with the skin it burns in thru the skin and smolders, still very hot but chances are a fair sized chunk will still be burning for sometime until it is litterally cut out by a surgeon.
Bottom line is a 4.2 WP mortar round will produce about 20 times the casulties of a 3"/81mm HE round , a single 4.2" WP mortar round has an area of effect for smoke and fire of just slighly smaller than one full hex ( 40 yards v 50 yards) . Five 4.2" WP rounds will on average ( about 60% of the time) ,ale casulities of about half ( 40%) of DUG IN Infantry in a 50 yard target hex in real life. The way I suggested it be modeled in the game it is much less of a casulity producer than in real life the fact it smokes and burn a full hex is about right , especially compared to flame throwers and other flame weapons that effect a much smaller portion of a hex in real life , the 4.2" WP round's problem is not that it is modeled wrong, but that folks just aren't used to it , if you attemped to model in US VT fuseing on regular HE Arty , you would have the same problems , players sinply are not used to the power of some of the Allied weapons because they have been left out of the game so long and folks are simply not used to the power of some of them. The problem is not one of modeling, it is wether or not the players and OOB team is simply willing to let a few of the Allied weapon that were seriously powerful and exteremely common ( 4.2" WP was the most common 42" mortar round used in WW2) into the game. Same issues with US/Brit arty after sept '44 lethality should in fact be 5 times higher than before sept'44 due to VT fuzing. If the players can't hamdle it for whatever reason , or the OOB's guys think it might unbalance the game , then don't put it in , but just be honest about why it isn't in the game. It models just fine, and it works just fine , and it is as common as dirt for the US to have WP , and after sept "44 for the US/Brits to have VT fuzing on almost all HE Arty 90mm and larger making it 5 times as lethal. There is a lot that will work and can be modeled correctly in US ? allied arty that has been left out of the game , I usually get some really lame BS answers that are simply not true from folks who have other real reasons they don't have the guts to admit. Well here is the big chance , I don't much care if it gets in the game or not , I do care that the guys who make the call one way or the other be honest about why it does or doesn't get in the game . You have all the refferences about the weapons performance above you now know it works within the game engine. Now you have to decide what to do .




AmmoSgt -> RE: WP mortar rounds (3/21/2004 3:59:51 AM)

Oh and just so ou know on theVT fusing issue , the VT fusing was used by the US Navy starting about mid '43, the decision to not use it over land was for security reasons , we ( the US) had plenty of VT fuses . They decide to use them in AAA against V-1's in sept '44 and then imediately decided that since that would mean use over land in Belgium that they might as well go ahead and release the VT fuses to regular Arty. Just so I am clear on the point that sept"44 is an across the board full scale almost instant change to a fuze that revolutionized arty effectiveness. No testing period , no availability lag, all that was worked out in the Pacfic Theater by the US Navy using it for AAA fire. Uping US and Brit arty to reflect this historical fact, it is another "political" call by the folks who control the game OOB's . Put them in or don't , the info is in the above references , no "game engine " issues , no it won't work in the game issues. If the OOB guys think they are just flat out to unbalancing in the game or would upset some folks to much, just have the guts to say so. Time for a little Honesty.




JJKettunen -> RE: WP mortar rounds (3/21/2004 4:30:51 AM)

There would be no balance problems with WPs or VTs if they were priced according to their overall capability...like every unit in the game should...




Kevin E. Duguay -> RE: WP mortar rounds (3/21/2004 6:00:19 PM)

AmmoSgt,

Were VT fuses also issued to Free French, Polish, Australian and other allied Nations Durring this time period?




AmmoSgt -> RE: WP mortar rounds (3/21/2004 8:12:17 PM)

VT fuses were US/Brit only , they were a highly classified technology , jointly developed by US and Brit scientists in the US as one of those "special relationship " items much like the Manhatten project. WP was almost exclusively US during WW2, the Brits getting some small quanities later in the war as far as i know.

PS: as always on subjects like this, for folks who think the modeling might be wrong, or the unit is "too powerful" , I would love to see your refferences that you used to come to your conculsions.




AmmoSgt -> RE: WP mortar rounds (3/21/2004 8:22:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

There would be no balance problems with WPs or VTs if they were priced according to their overall capability...like every unit in the game should...


LOL Keke , yes that is one way of doing these things , but if we are pricing by rarity the WP 4.2" would have to be cheaper than the regular HE version since WP was the most common 4.2" round fired [:D][:D].
But I do happened to support the concept of strictly pricing by utility, so I think they should run maybe double the cost in the some what watered down version I have suggested. If the OOB gurus want to properly represent them in their full times 10 casulity producing version then priced even higher. But the values I have suggested are mostly to represent the persistent extermely dense smoke screen with some casulity producing features just slightly more powerful than regular HE but producing much more suppresion , due to the "terror factor" .




Major_Johnson -> Crews and popping smoke (3/23/2004 5:21:48 PM)

Well I must say I found all this information very interesting. I'm always impressed by the detail.

Anyway, my subject pales in comparision, and I'm not even sure if this is the right thread to post it in, but here goes. I mentioned in another thread about crews (tank crews specifically) not popping smoke in v8 even though the option is active. One person said that it was that way for some sort of cheating reason, which really didn't make any sense to me. And the reason being is that the crews did pop smoke if directed to do so by the AI. For example, I have a crew that bails out of a tank, so I want to pop some smoke to buy them some time. No smoke pops but it does draw more enemy fire. So I don't do anything. Then when I watch the replay of my opponents turn, and he of course starts firing away at the crew to kill them off and then retreat and pop smoke! So it appears to me to be a bug (yes, that nasty word! [:)]) Any info on this being addressed?? Thanks.




VikingNo2 -> RE: Crews and popping smoke (3/23/2004 7:50:08 PM)

The thing about the crews popping smoke an it being a bending the rules tactic refers to have a crew bail and pop smoke to cover a tank that does not have smoke. It goes like this place a couple of tanks in you rear area bail there crews pop smoke. It now looks like arty is firing the crew gets back in the next turn and the crew drives off. Or a tank is moving up but not to the battle front yet, its "willy meter" goes off. So the crew bails and pops smoke. Also in cheap vehicle like that German car race it up front bail the crew and assaults your oppenent becuase even a 1% chance of assault piles of loads of suppression. So basiclly now you have a 3pts vehicle that can assault a tank. IMHO make the crew SKI class infantry(cant assault) with one smoke grenade, one regular grenade and pistols range of one. I think that would make most happy. my .02




Veroporo -> RE: Crews and popping smoke (3/23/2004 7:58:52 PM)

The smoke's were denied from crews because of this. (And if they got one smoke popper, they could do bail out many times and have one smoke granade all the times :/ )




Major_Johnson -> RE: Crews and popping smoke (3/23/2004 11:13:22 PM)

Now I'll tell ya, I never even thought of bailing a crew just to pop smoke. I mean, you can't be sure that they are going to get back in by the next turn, and then they're dead meat and you've lost a tank. I guest it's just one of those grey areas.




Veroporo -> RE: Crews and popping smoke (3/23/2004 11:27:37 PM)

In fact, I haven't seen them not taking their seats back if not bombed or shot. And nobody will shoot them if they haven't been seen.




VikingNo2 -> RE: Crews and popping smoke (3/24/2004 12:21:06 AM)

MJ, I don't do it either but I have played a few where it is a common tactic, not to mention using the crews as recon, since in 7.1 they fought just as good as most recon and cost nothing,

If they have one smoke, does that meen they get the smoke every time they bail ?




Major_Johnson -> RE: Crews and popping smoke (3/24/2004 2:42:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veroporo

In fact, I haven't seen them not taking their seats back if not bombed or shot. And nobody will shoot them if they haven't been seen.



Well a smart player will know that the tank is there, and that the crew has bailed out, and if a fast response artillery is available, like a 60mm mortar squad for instance, will pound that area to keep them suppressed until other units could move into place to take them out. Might not be the case every time, but you know, it is possible.




AmmoSgt -> RE: Crews and popping smoke (3/24/2004 3:55:57 AM)

Not to take sides is the smoke grenade debate , but if anybody would look at the ammo load outs on US Army Armored vechicles in the US Army Standard Ordnance catalog, you would find that the typical loadout for a US halftrack or tank or TD was about a dozen smoke grenades 4 to 6 smoke pots , thermite and WP grenades as well as frags or some combination of the above. Amother small detail that is often missed is that US Tanks had Smoke and WP main gun ammo in many cases , which is why they didn't have smoke launchers mounted on the tank. Germans had trouble with smoke launchers to some extent and switched to that Neblethingy which is counted as a weapon in the game despite the lack of any real documnetation of it ever being used as such, and it certainly didn't throw a 3 hex smoke screen( see the great concern about the 4.2" WP mortar not filling the whole hex , but only 80% of a hex above). Different armies depolyed smoke thru different means, seems odd to me that only the method of mounted smoke launchers ( that never really worked well , and had to be removed from many tanks due to being hazarious to the crews) are the only ones represented in the game. However annoying your opponent using smoke might prove to be , and however folks might feel about folks using smoke being a "cheat" , the simple fact is that , at least for US tanks and other AFV , hand thrown grenades are perfectly historically and technically correct. The fact that in the GAME folks have to dismount to use them is not correct, they were actually thrown out of the hatches/ over the side of halftracks ect.. While we are discusing smoke launchers I would point out that many US and Brit Sherman types mounted a 50mm Brit type smoke mortar/launcher , usually mounted firing out of the loaders hatch, details on that piece of ordnance is also in the catalog.
So if we are talking technical/ historical correct modeling on this issue , the whole smoke thing really needs to be looked at, and fixed.




o4r -> RE: Crews and popping smoke (3/28/2004 12:39:05 PM)

GE Special Ops Sqd had a MG42 in 1939.

GE Rifle Sqd in 1935 had the text of an Sdkf 10/4




Kevin E. Duguay -> GE Special Ops Sqd (3/28/2004 7:13:09 PM)

As you may know the German OOB is filled to capacity. So as of right now there is only one type of Spec. Ops. Sqd In the German OOB. It could be armed with a MG34 but they decided on a MG42. If it were up to me, this unit would be armed with a MG34 for the simple reason that it was a more accurate, reliable and versitile weapon.

As far as the GE Rifle Sqd with SdKfz 10/4 stats, I could not find it!! Could you be more specific. Give us the unit number. The only Squad I could find in the German OOB with a 1935 date looked fine.[:)]




Steve Wilcox -> RE: GE Special Ops Sqd (3/28/2004 10:21:34 PM)

It's not the stats, it's the text number (112). Unit 152 German Rifle Sqd has the text number for Unit 079 SdKfz-10/4. I just checked in the encyclopedia. [:)]

PS It's been like this for quite a while, i.e. pre-version 8 (I checked some old version 7.x OOBs from 2002). I hadn't noticed until o4r pointed it out, though.[:)]




KG Erwin -> RE: GE Special Ops Sqd (3/28/2004 10:52:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Steve Wilcox

It's not the stats, it's the text number (112). Unit 152 German Rifle Sqd has the text number for Unit 079 SdKfz-10/4. I just checked in the encyclopedia. [:)]

PS It's been like this for quite a while, i.e. pre-version 8 (I checked some old version 7.x OOBs from 2002). I hadn't noticed until o4r pointed it out, though.[:)]


Yep, the text error slipped through 8.2. Steve, you can make the change yourself, if you wish, but this doesn't affect gameplay at all. The encyclopedia text changes were not essential to gameplay, so these can be addressed as "icing on the cake" at a later date.




Steve Wilcox -> RE: GE Special Ops Sqd (3/29/2004 6:17:12 PM)

Cool. I just added some detail to what o4r said because Kevin wanted more specific information, not because the text error bothered me or anything.[:)]




Renaud -> RE: GE Special Ops Sqd (3/30/2004 10:55:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

As you may know the German OOB is filled to capacity.


What about creating a 2 German OOB's, say one for 1930-41 and the other for 1942-49 ? It could work just in the same way as the French OOB and it would solve so many problems...




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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.218002