Trajectory - breakdown - malfunction - structural damage (Full Version)

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



Message


asgrrr -> Trajectory - breakdown - malfunction - structural damage (9/25/2001 4:02:00 AM)

A few suggestions for increased realism:
1. Each weapon to have a number to indicate the curvature of the trajectory. This then affects the chance for a top hit. Also, for weapons with a high trajectory, it is more likely to hit sloped armour plates than vertical ones. The actual trajectory may also vary with range. I am sure I am not the only one that has been baffled in the past by indirect fire repeatedly hitting front hull etc. Candidates for weapons with high trajectory would be mortars and howitzers (hardly a surprise) but also grenades, satchel charges, molotovs and flamethrowers. Why flamethrowers? Well, the liquid hits the vehicle, then seeps downwards into cracks and slits. It is hardly the thickness of the armor that is being tested, and as top armour varies less, it may be a better way to look at the problem. 2. Each vehicle and weapon to have a number indicating the likelihood of malfunction/breakdown. This would add a very relevant dimension to the game, reliability of equipment. I will take the example of The Kingtiger to illustrate:
This is probably the most overrated vehicle of WW2. In short, this vehicle could not be counted on to make more than a few kilometres drive without maintenance, and in a fluid battle it was therefore almost worthless. Many were abandoned and captured intact, see the following articles, btw from a very interesting website:
http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons7.html
http://history.vif2.ru/library/battles/battle16.html
The presence of such units in the game, without taking account of reliability, skews the realism of the game in a major way. The same applies to weapons, though perhaps in a smaller and/or different way. With emphasis on small arms, the relibility of weapons varies (the US Reising SMG was a signal failure f.ex.), and for the purposes of the game, some weapons do not malfunction at all, like handgrenades. 3. Include temporary malfunction of weapons, esp. small arms, in that a single shot may be lost. This kind of malfunction may apply to grenade type weapons, including loss of ammo in such a case. #2 applies to this feature too. 4. When vehicles are hit by large HE shells, the may be damaged or destroyed through structural failure rather than conventional penetration. So, increase the likelyhood of vulnerable location for such hits.




Paul Vebber -> (9/25/2001 4:06:00 AM)

Sounds like Combat Leader will be right up your ally!




orsha -> (9/25/2001 5:20:00 AM)

see the following articles, btw from a very interesting website:
http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons7.html
" target="_blank">http://history.vif2.ru/library/battles/battle16.html[/B] A German army ordnance report, which I copied from microfilm, US National Archives, dated 15 March 1945 shows that
Tiger II operational status was at 59%.
Pz IV at 62%,and the Panther V at only 48%.
The Pz V was less reliable than the Tiger II. After the teething problems were sorted out the tiger II proved quite reliable by the end of 44. Another problem is you are basing the assumptions of the Tiger II from soviet sources and soviet perspectives only.
An impartial view is need with different many different sources.
German data, UK and US refute the soviet sources, the German report is the primary source, which the German army used. Also I have read many posts in Valera’s forum that subject the validity of the testing of the Tiger II as shown on Valera's web-site. Many have claimed it is of dubious nature and objectivity in how the testing was carried out. Using post-war ammo from point blank ranges, continually weakening the armour resistance.




asgrrr -> (9/25/2001 6:34:00 AM)

Well sir, at the end of 1944 most of the interesting actions are over. I will not dispute that mechanical promblems of this vehicle were partially solved in due course, but for the most important part of its operational history this vehicle was far from sufficiently battleworthy. And this can surely be traced to the poor design of the tank, in that it was too heavy to be carried by its constituent parts, previously used on lighter vehicles.
In any case this is not quite the point of my message, and I would prefer to discuss more relevant parts thereof.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.984375