v7 OOBs (Full Version)

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



Message

asgrrr -> v7 OOBs (12/15/2001 11:05:00 PM)

I haven't begun playing the v7 seriosly, only examining the OOB files. I see that there are several changes that apparently result from my suggestions, and this of course makes me very proud There are also some features, both new and old that raise my curiousity. 1) The Pz3m (two units) is now an amphibious tank. I warned you about this Vebber:| What is the reason for this? 2) This is definitely an old one: When flame tanks have a flamethrower in slot one, shouldn't it have a low ROF value (2?). Those things really can spray... 3) There are still quite a few units with more than one prime infantry weapon (even a new soviet ski SMG with TWO prime SMGs! Boy, I wouldn't like to run into them in a dark alley). Has the system maybe been changed so only one works as prime? 4) The Tiger tanks have armor values above the nominal (ex: side 88, not 80). What is the explanation for this, especially considering the Kingtiger has it too now, and it was constructed of inferior armor (if that has anything to do with it).



Paul Vebber -> (12/16/2001 3:30:00 AM)

1) PzIIIm - The m was an L with deep fording equipment. Unfortuantely the game gives only "amphib" or not. You can delete it and use the IIIL only if you don't like it being amphibious. 2) How do you determine the ROF of a Flame weapon? Why can it only do 2 bursts in several minutes? 3)Only prime weapons in slot one are multiplied by the number of men passing an experience check. The rest are "one offs" 4) Generic multipliers for armor quality IN GENERAL are used to equate teh armor used by different countries in various thickness bins, to US test plate that the penetration values are scaled to. YEs there is evidence that some individual vehicels were provided in SOME CASES with inferior plates, but that was by no means universal. Making EVERY vehicle of a certain type flawed is just as bad as making none flawed. Given the limitations we have in SP:WaW the armor values are now correctly weighted (assuming unflawed armor) to the penetration values. 6 thickness bins were used with a different modifier for each bin. Note that the German heavy armor is NOT given the bonus that lighter armor recieves (turret fronts recieve a benefit to represent the manlet)



asgrrr -> (12/16/2001 4:10:00 AM)

Well, first time I heard this about the Pz3m.
The only reason I mentioned that flame thingy is that flamethrowers never seem to have more than 2 bursts per turn when they are in slots 2-4. I have no idea why that is.
About the armour: I have learned, it seems, that germany suffered an acute shortage of alloys (eg. manganese) for steel production. Test and experience showed that armour on late war german tanks was considerably inferior to earlier examples, especially in regard to brittleness, but also in general resistance to penetration. Shortage of raw materials is a general phenomenon, not a random one. Modeling the factor of german high quality face hardened armour and not the alloy shortage seems to me worse than leaving the whole quality factor out. http://history.vif2.ru/is2_1.html "However, in the summer of 1944, the problem of the poor AP performance disappeared. The performance of the D-25T gun of the JS-2 against the German tanks improved dramatically. The reports from the front described cases where the BR-471 APHE round 122 mm projectile fired from 2500 metres ricocheted off the front armour of a Panther leaving huge holes and cracks in it. This was explained by an interesting change of circumstances in the Summer of 1944. The Germans experienced a shortage of manganese and had to switch to using high-carbon steel alloyed with nickel, which made armour very brittle, especially at the seam welds."



orsha -> (12/16/2001 5:35:00 AM)

The plates on the king tiger were produced 9 months before production started. The first plates were created in the spring of 1943.
The Germans also still had active mines of rare alloys even into 1945, such as the only molybdenum mine in western Europe located in Norway.
No US and UK field test reports have shown King tigers were affected with bad armor issues. The main offender was the panther’s front glacis and this was normally over armoured.
Russian armor was extremely high hardness and the IS-2 and T-34 series used cast armor, not RHA.



Paul Vebber -> (12/16/2001 5:44:00 AM)

AS I said, the time issue can't be dealt with effectively unless you completely overhaul the game. The issue comes down to do you want the penetration numbers to be cocnsitent with the armor numbers IN GENERAL or not. Leaving all armor values at "published thickness" while rating penetrators on a "sliding scale" is wrong too. Do you want an answer that is certainly worng across the board? Or one which moves closer toward correctness for the vast majority of cases? [ December 15, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



asgrrr -> (12/16/2001 8:12:00 AM)

I want a solution that has the smallest root-mean-square divergence from the actual values, as is usually the goal in statistics. As you know this is not the same as being correct in the majority of cases. I maintain that the earlier version was closer to the statistical truth, and generally it is ill advised to apply a statistical modification that is limitied in accuracy and applicability.
Also I regret not having posted this in the OB forum, my ignorance.



Gallo Rojo -> (12/16/2001 9:33:00 PM)

Well, I rally disappointed with these changes. Specially with changes in armor system. One of the best think about SPWaW was its armor system that used real millimeters and armor slope rather abstract values.
This fact was widely exhibited as a triumph on early versions... I do not see how now people is saying that the contrary is good!
I think this is a real step back. And why are German tanks the main beneficiaries of those changes?? This changes and changes in the OOB seem to clear benefit German armor. I like to play at the eastern front... and it seems that now it will be almost impossible to deal with Tigers using T-34m43! This will be frustrating when playing as Soviets and board when playing as Germans. When playing as Germans in 1943 all I will have to do is buy some Tigers and I will have a gang of invincible tanks! What will be the fun with that?



Paul Vebber -> (12/16/2001 10:06:00 PM)

You can believe what you want, but the FACT is that ON AVERAGE German armor was superior to US test Plate. TO quote from World war II Ballistics, the result of DECASED of research by Mr. Bird and Mr. Livingston, and backed up by independant research I have conducted:
quote:

"German armor plate retained a high level of ballistic resistance in hte face of dclining alloy content. Shortages of nickel and molydbenum resulted in steel alloyed with vanadium and chromium, produced in thickness up to 120mm. Nickel was added for thicker armor used on teh heaviest tanks. Carbon content of most German plate exceeded Allied plate making welding extremely diffficult, but adding strain hardeniing propeties which resulted in higher resistenace to penetration."

In addition, German thickness specifications tended to be MINIMUM that were generally exceeded. The book lists 6 instances where measuremets of at least 5 tanks demonstrated actual average thickness to be 5-10% greater than "spec".
I say again, the penetration figures are scaled to a common armor plate definition. IT IS WRONG not to adjust the respective plate thickness to account for teh realities of the composition of those plates. Anecdotal evidence about deficiences in specific lots from specific mills in specific time periods represent STATISITICAL DEVIATIONS FROM THE NORM, and it is simply not know (though Lorrin continues research into the subject as posted on the TOE forum. To assume that because such deviations existed, in unknown quantity in the sample population, to IGNORE the KNOWN statistics about the population is BAD STATISTICS by your own admonition about "limited accuracy and applicability". If you don't have a copy of WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, get one!



Svennemir -> (12/17/2001 6:37:00 AM)

I see now that the changes are probably fair, but I really loved the armour values representing actual millimetres. It seems to me that a good solution would be altering the "tank toughness" of the different nations - of course I don't know whether that factor would apply correctly for armour slope and HEAT/APCR performance. It could, however, easily be changed over the course of time. The only problem here would be that heavy and light armour are affected in the same way.



rexmonday -> (12/20/2001 3:25:00 AM)

Came across something a bit strange the other night in the communist china OOBs - it seems to me that most of the other nations use "ammo carrier" to refer to one of those magical equipment shops of wheels that carry any and all types of ammunition, however in the CC it is used as a label for a mule pack which does not have the resupply ability.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.295898