Ver 7.0 is a Fairy Tale... (Full Version)

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



Message

Mikimoto -> Ver 7.0 is a Fairy Tale... (12/17/2001 10:31:00 PM)

It is weird and incorrect, ahistorical and unfair: First, some US stuff: The two main guns of the war:
US 002: 75mm M3 AP ............. pen 91 from the Sherman
US 061: 76mm M1A1c Gun ......... pen 144 from later Shermans Second, some Soviet stuff: Sov 050: 76.2mm L-11 gun ....... pen 75 from T-34 m40
Sov 051: 76.2mm F-34 gun ....... pen 80 from T-34 m41 and m43
sov 090: 85mm .................. pen 139 from T.34 85 And last, some German stuff: Ger 025: 50L42 ................. pen 77 from earlier/mid PzIII
Ger 026: 50L60 ................. pen 97 from later PzIII
Ger 046: 75L43 ................. pen 133 first 75 long
Ger 047: 75L48 ................. pen 135 PzIV longs, Stugs, etc..
Ger 048: 75L70 ................. pen 188 from Panthers
Ger 060: 88 from Tiger ......... pen 162 from Tiger I As you can see, the Soviet 76.2mm gun is, now, a gunshit. This is the gun that knocked ALL allied tanks in North Afrika, when in German hands... this is the gun that winned Kursk in AT and Tank roles... the gun that defeated the German armour all along the War. And the Sherman "fires like a Ronson" has better gun, now. I will burn all my Osprey Collection, my Command magazine issues, they are an inmense error... All my life reading the best medium tank of the war was the T-34... and not, NOW it is the Sherman: False and ugly. And I have not seen the armour values still... And the Final Fantasy is the enormous punch of the German 50mm guns: The 50L60 better than sov 76.2mm. The US 76mm is better than the Sov 85mm... haahahahaha, INCREDIBLE. Why? What are you doing with this wargame? Who wins with this? Simulation or Fairy tale?



Paul Vebber -> (12/17/2001 11:29:00 PM)

Did you read Lorrin bird and Robert Livingston book on WWII Ballistics. Do you read the Russian Armor page data? Go to http://history.vif2.ru/guns/defin_4.html A very "pro Soviet" site (in verbage) but one with a fair hand in its statistics. It gives the Certified Penetration of the F-34 at 100m at 80 with BR-350A round. There other factors involved when putting specific country test data on a level playfield. It gives the L-11 gun 61mm at 500m. The 85mm pen is given 105 CP at 500m for the BR 365 round. THESE ARE NUMBERS FROM A RUSSINA SITE!! Did you know the Geramns created its own ammunition for teh captured 76.2 russian gun and modified it substantially? The gun that "knocked out all Allied tanks in North Africa...PUH_LEASE Show the data for THAT "Fairy Tale"... Its some of the "comventional wisdom" that is a "fairy tale". Do some research and learn the facts! T-34s had a lot of good aspects, but they were not perfect. How did so many of them get knocked out? Alot by those 50mmPAKs... Shermans got a lot of bad press because of bad doctrine for their use and poor employment resulting as much as because of their technical deficiencies. Read Hunnicutt's "Sherman" What data do you present to dispute the game values other than they are "unfair"... [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



amatteucci -> (12/18/2001 12:09:00 AM)

Miki,
I can understand your disappointment but conside that it's not, per se, an argument againts the v7.0 OOB changes.
Regarding the book "WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery" I own a copy and I can assure you it's a very well researched work. Paul already addressed a few points I'd like to point out that: 1. the short 76mm on the T-34s and KVs was in fact a bit worse than the short 75mm on the Sherman
2. the Soviet 76mm gun mounted on Marders that wiped the desert of Allied armour was a longer barrelled divisional gun (not the same of the T-34) and, as said, used german made APCBC rounds
3. the values are adjusted also to take into consideration armour and ammunition quality, moreover against face hardened plates (found on many earlier german tanks) the US APC rounds fared better than soviet uncapped AP rounds, hence the little higher US performance. Summing up, it may be that SPWaW 7.0 has still a few mistakes in its OOBs but as far I can tell, the new OOBs pushed the existing system to the best it could obtain regarding gunnery and armour ratings.
I myself play almost always the Red Army, so belive me, I'm not supporting the new changes just because I'm glad to have some new Ueberpanzer to go rolling in.
Probably the only nice addition would be to consider also later Soviet blunt nose 122mm APBC ammo for the IS-2/ISU-122, but, again, this would be an addition and not a correction since the present values are perfectly adequate to represent the early 122mm AP round. Regards, Amedeo



Paul Vebber -> (12/18/2001 1:39:00 AM)

In the Soviet Weapons listing (slot 206) there is a "Modernized" D-25T"M" whose penetration is a bit over the standard blunt - nosed 122, but not by a lot. Do you have any mas and velocity numbers or penetration data on the late war blunt nose types? For the time being those that want a "hot" SOviet 122 round can use that weapon in place of teh standard D-25 versions. Thanks for your input Amedeo!



Tannethal -> (12/18/2001 1:59:00 AM)

Hi there, either i did something wrong or I saw no change to the german OOB in V7.0?



Paul Vebber -> (12/18/2001 2:23:00 AM)

What is teh date on your OOB files? Do you get Version 7.0 on your game screen? There is a bug that affects some users that misdirects the patch to a sub-folder nested in the main folder. The new OOB files have DEC 2001 time stamps



Mikimoto -> (12/18/2001 3:14:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Did you read Lorrin bird and Robert Livingston book on WWII Ballistics. Do you read the Russian Armor page data? Go to http://history.vif2.ru/guns/defin_4.html A very "pro Soviet" site (in verbage) but one with a fair hand in its statistics. It gives the Certified Penetration of the F-34 at 100m at 80 with BR-350A round. There other factors involved when putting specific country test data on a level playfield. It gives the L-11 gun 61mm at 500m. The 85mm pen is given 105 CP at 500m for the BR 365 round. THESE ARE NUMBERS FROM A RUSSINA SITE!! Did you know the Geramns created its own ammunition for teh captured 76.2 russian gun and modified it substantially? The gun that "knocked out all Allied tanks in North Africa...PUH_LEASE Show the data for THAT "Fairy Tale"... Its some of the "comventional wisdom" that is a "fairy tale". Do some research and learn the facts! T-34s had a lot of good aspects, but they were not perfect. How did so many of them get knocked out? Alot by those 50mmPAKs... Shermans got a lot of bad press because of bad doctrine for their use and poor employment resulting as much as because of their technical deficiencies. Read Hunnicutt's "Sherman" What data do you present to dispute the game values other than they are "unfair"... [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]
Hello. No, I have not readed Lorrin's book... Are you saying it is the definitive work about WWII logistics? and before it, then all are wrong? Input from a Russina site, now definitive? Nor Lorrin? Osprey books about WWII are all wrong? American Historians and wargame designers from Command Magazine all wrong? Spaniard Military Historians all wrong? Germans created munition and replacement parts for thousands of pieces captured equipment, not only the 76 AT... Yes I know, and included some captured stuff in the production lines, too. You are not saying nothing against my tesis. I am 38 old and playing wargames since I was 12, more than 25 years loving this hobby and learning all the time. I have learned a lot in this forum, too. And I will learn in the future, I hope. T-34 main failure was tank commander was too gun loader. It implies germans fired first almost all the time, cause they had more eyes watching targets... Apart of this, it was a wonderful tank.
A lot of them were knocked by 50mm guns, yes. I agree with you. But at point blank fire. And too by AT-mines not represented never in the game (no Inf-AT with AT-mines in Ger OOb). Perhaps Lorrin dont contemplate them... Shermans main virtue was mechanical fiability. The short barrelled gun was a poor gun. Great tank for breakthrough and pursues... but it is beyond the code of this game. Not designed for Tank vs Tank fighting but had to do the job more often than wanted by the crews... And what about some historical stuff: Why not represent "combat fatigue" ratios from US soldiers or "Tiger Panic" from US tankers or the fatal Replacement system against the quality of US veteran divisions... I have not the Absolute Truth but here in Matrix you can defend All you make, and tomorrow you make something absolutely different, and defend it with opposite arguments, and still want to have the truth...



Nikademus -> (12/18/2001 3:33:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto:
It is weird and incorrect, ahistorical and unfair: First, some US stuff: The two main guns of the war:
US 002: 75mm M3 AP ............. pen 91 from the Sherman
US 061: 76mm M1A1c Gun ......... pen 144 from later Shermans Second, some Soviet stuff: Sov 050: 76.2mm L-11 gun ....... pen 75 from T-34 m40
Sov 051: 76.2mm F-34 gun ....... pen 80 from T-34 m41 and m43
sov 090: 85mm .................. pen 139 from T.34 85 And last, some German stuff: Ger 025: 50L42 ................. pen 77 from earlier/mid PzIII
Ger 026: 50L60 ................. pen 97 from later PzIII
Ger 046: 75L43 ................. pen 133 first 75 long
Ger 047: 75L48 ................. pen 135 PzIV longs, Stugs, etc..
Ger 048: 75L70 ................. pen 188 from Panthers
Ger 060: 88 from Tiger ......... pen 162 from Tiger I As you can see, the Soviet 76.2mm gun is, now, a gunshit. This is the gun that knocked ALL allied tanks in North Afrika, when in German hands... this is the gun that winned Kursk in AT and Tank roles... the gun that defeated the German armour all along the War. And the Sherman "fires like a Ronson" has better gun, now. I will burn all my Osprey Collection, my Command magazine issues, they are an inmense error... All my life reading the best medium tank of the war was the T-34... and not, NOW it is the Sherman: False and ugly. And I have not seen the armour values still... And the Final Fantasy is the enormous punch of the German 50mm guns: The 50L60 better than sov 76.2mm. The US 76mm is better than the Sov 85mm... haahahahaha, INCREDIBLE. Why? What are you doing with this wargame? Who wins with this? Simulation or Fairy tale?
I can understand your feelings a little bit Mika but it is true what Paul's been saying about recent info on Russian armor. I have a few reservations of my own though. Paul, i realize you've explained that the SP code only allows a either or type scenerio, my hesitation on the new armor ratings is that there appears to have been alot of varience in the quality of Russian armor seen on the Eastern front, some good some bad so i'm a little leary of the new downgraded stats for the Russian. In regards to the T-34 specifically, its actually not as bad as some people are thinking, i did some play testing last night and found that, like with Penetrator's tests, that there were still plenty of bounces even with the lowered armor and higher german ratings. The tipper so to speak may be the Tungsten cored ammo. It makes even the short barreld 50 a formidable weapon. My one concern here is, did'nt Lorrin's work reveal a tendancy for this ammo to glance off the sloped sides of the tanks they faced? I did see some ricoshays so this may have been accounted for. Am a little concerned over the lowered Russian ratings for the 76mm. I've seen the Russian military zone figures, and unfort there was another site that had its own data but appears to be down now. But in playtesting, without APCR, even at 200 yards the gun cannot penetrate the Mark IV H varient, making it a mini Tiger. I've not seen this mentioned in any battle history, was this simply because the Tiger and Panther always grabbed the limelight when Russian gun woes were mentioned? Also, why were the pen ratings for the German 50's raised? was this due to the recent book again? Dont see a problem with the 50L60, it was supposed to be marginally to moderately effective against the T-34 out to 400 yards if i'm recalling my old wargame data from pre-SP days correctly. You made a good point touching on how were the Germans able to hold their own if the T-34 was such an uberweapon? Alot can be explained by poor Russian tactical deployment before 44...and the fact even in 42 the T-34 and KV only made up part of the available tankage, the rest filled out with light tanks and even lend lease. The before mentioned Russian Military zone clarified that point that the T-34 did'nt become the primary battle tank till 43 by which time it had lost it's edge against the latest German tanks and the upgunned/uparmored Pz IV. One possible concern though. Like the field gun version of the 76.2mm gun that Mika mentioned, did'nt the PAK50 fire a more powerful round vs the tank version too? Then again, most tank casualties are caused not by other tanks but my other means, mainly AT guns and infantry. hard to say at times but in the absence of data from where i'm posting, i can only go by analogies. I remember playing Kampgruppe in the early war periods 41 and mid 42 and finding it virtually impossible for tanks to fight T-34 and KV making myself wonder how the hell the Germans got as far as they did? The real losers in this revision are the IS-2 and IS-3 tanks. They're ratings took a dive. Did the quality of Russian armor remain poor even at this late stage of things? last querry. I understand the upgunning of the front armor ratings of the German Mark III, IV and VI given the face hardened issue. But what about the flanks? they were not face hardened. a minor issue to be sure as that 6mm bonus is not going to help much against the 76. i lied.....this is the last querry. Lorrin's book mentioned that early US tank armor suffered from defects, yet the Sherman has not had it's armor ratings lowered as the T-34's were. Why was this?



Paul Vebber -> (12/18/2001 4:19:00 AM)

(responding to Mikimoto) Yes, as war as WWII Ballistics goes (not logisitcs) Lorrin and Robert's book is the best single reference source I have fouond in 5+ years of researching armor and penetration data. Now one never wants to rely on a single source, but there is such a thing as a "best compilation of current knowledge" Not perfect, but Lorrin has been posting his furhter research here and other places on the web. Osprey books are good, some are very good, some are not exactly models of historical research...
If you have data that conflicts with the OOBs, on penetration, then post it and it will be considered. But you need to construct a reasoned argument for your point of view. I have posted sources for the numbers the game uses that show I did not pull them out of thin air. You attack them based on nothing but vague references to Osprey books, command magazine and Spanish Historians. What do these sources specifically site that is in contradiction to the numbers given? What exactly is your thesis, other than the numbers in the game are "ahistorical and unfair" - based on what,specifically? What do you think they should be changed to? I learn a lot from the forum too, but you need to share information along with opinion if you want to get your point of view accepted. FOr its time, the T-34 was far superior to the PzIII models it faced early, but by teh time the long barrelled 75 PZIVs came on the scene, it was a much closer deal. Ask a Panther commander which he feared most, a T-34 or a Firefly... There are scout infantry with AT-Mines...you have not looked carefully There are some adverse morale effects on US troops when playing with National characteristics on. Though there is evidence that "Combat Fatigue" was not necessarily higher in US combat units, just that such affected troops were sent back to the front typically in other armies where they typically were at best combat ineffective. Read van Creveld's "Fighting Power" or "The Sharp End"). If we add "Tiger panic", do we add "JABO panic". The game has tank panic in general...Lots of things could be added, but its a game and can not be made "real" in any case. We make no pretense that it is anything like "real" or "Absolute truth". We have severe limits on what we can do in SP:WaW, what is wrong with argueing that the best solution possible in a 5+ year old game is implemented, but that a better solution is possible from a clean slate? Get your facts together, post what your solution is and we all learn. Posting unsubstantiated opinion and derrogetory labels because your favorite tank is not given values you think it should is not going to achieve learning or the values you want for your favorite tank... [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Paul Vebber -> (12/18/2001 4:56:00 AM)

(responding to Nik...i cant keep up with you guys!) The opening portion of Lorrin and Roberts WWII BAllistics Book has a summary of armor quality by the major combatants. I used the data there for the "bins" by thickness and averaged over the years if multiple years data was given (its just not possible in SP:WaW to consider that armor quality varies over time). SO each country has a "profile" of multipliers for each range bin that the armor ratings were "processed through" in a spreadsheet. I tried to sort by name and type so captured vehicels were processed with their "country of origin". Minor country's mostly use the country of origin. I did not consider specific examples of quality problems for certain vehicles as I don't think enough data is in (Lorrin continues to research this as he has posted since his books publication). THese modifiers reflect the state of the country's armor quality in general, specific variations obvioulsy occured, just as armor quality and thickness varied substanially vehicle to vehicle. The mods are based on general quality of armor, not face hardening specifically. That is why we have added an armor type category for Combat Leader. Since face hardening affected different round types differently, it requires a different armor system to account for properly. But like the incusion of T/d and ricochet, and other effects that have been included as the game has developed, each gives the game a step up in fidelity. Perfect? No, Combat Leader won't be either, but it will be another leap ahead. Each has been greeted by its shar of jeers, but when the dust settles, the game mves forward and folks learn something new about the situation their historical counterparts faced. [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Nikademus -> (12/18/2001 5:26:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
(responding to Nik...i cant keep up with you guys!) The opening portion of Lorrin and Roberts WWII BAllistics Book has a summary of armor quality by the major combatants. I used the data there for the "bins" by thickness and averaged over the years if multiple years data was given (its just not possible in SP:WaW to consider that armor quality varies over time). SO each country has a "profile" of multipliers for each range bin that the armor ratings were "processed through" in a spreadsheet. I tried to sort by name and type so captured vehicels were processed with their "country of origin". Minor country's mostly use the country of origin. I did not consider specific examples of quality problems for certain vehicles as I don't think enough data is in (Lorrin continues to research this as he has posted since his books publication). THese modifiers reflect the state of the country's armor quality in general, specific variations obvioulsy occured, just as armor quality and thickness varied substanially vehicle to vehicle. The mods are based on general quality of armor, not face hardening specifically. That is why we have added an armor type category for Combat Leader. Since face hardening affected different round types differently, it requires a different armor system to account for properly. But like the incusion of T/d and ricochet, and other effects that have been included as the game has developed, each gives the game a step up in fidelity. Perfect? No, Combat Leader won't be either, but it will be another leap ahead. Each has been greeted by its shar of jeers, but when the dust settles, the game mves forward and folks learn something new about the situation their historical counterparts faced. [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]
This probably belongs more on the Combat Leader forum but since it's also a SP issue in terms of familiarity and the er, "controversies" over the 7.0 OOBs i'll post it here. What further refinements can be 'safely' incorporated into the CL engine besides (obivously) specific armor quality stats for various AFV models? I think SP:WAW already does a good job taking away the sometimes unhistorical "absoluteness" of armor vs pen interactions by incorporating for one, the "vulnerable location" check and such. Coupled with the APCR ammo of the Germans, it had already taught me to respect even the ubiquitious mid-war Pz-III's and not just glide in too close only to find a round sitting in my gunner's lap. My only fears here is that the future game might beget a feeling of too much randomness on a per hit basis. Lorrin's disertations on the "Shatter Gap" principle, while facinating made me particularily leary about trying to incorporate such a lurking form of complication to the age old issue of armor vs pen in a wargame. I could just imagine the crys of "FOUL!!!" and "UNFAIR!" on trying to implement such a feature Thanks for the paitient and quick replies btw. Forging ahead on the path of revisionism is always tough and i'll admit that i myself have some weighty years of perceptions to overcome but i'm giving V70 a chance. The logic tracks at least in that we oft forget that the T-34 is really an early war contemporary of other early-midwar vehicles like the Pz-IIIg and Pz-IVe too which the tank was totally superior too except in optical equipment and their three man turrets.
War quickly makes most vehicles obsolete within a couple years at best so considering that the t-34 debuted (in small numbers) as early as 1940, it should be no suprise that by 1943, the tank had been "caught up too" in most respects and in others, exceeded (like in the case of the 76.2mm F34 gun) Hence the need for the 34 to upgrade just as the Pz III and IV did, as well as the Sherm. For an "old" tank, the T-34/85 varient sure breathed new vitality into it. Still wondering about the up'd German ammo figures though. Is this due to the quality issue? and if Lorrin is around, did this quality make them exempt for the "Shatter gap" syndrome? After all the Germans were kings of the overpenetrating weapon yet they seem to not have suffered this problem much at all!



Cirrus -> (12/18/2001 6:05:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Maj. Tannethal:
Hi there, either i did something wrong or I saw no change to the german OOB in V7.0?
I don't remember who brought this up here in forums, but it seems that if you have modfied your oobs the 7.0 upgrade doesn't replace those oobs. That was the case with me too.



Mikimoto -> (12/18/2001 6:10:00 AM)

No, Paul, I can't agree. I am begining to be tired of this... Do you recall a post in the oob forum when you defended a range of seven for Thompsons? You and other experts gave me tons of data defending that... irrefutable data dont you remember? It is the same old story. You ever have good data to defend your thesis, even absurde ones. I dont wanna play your game as you want: When it is in your interest, you claim "historical accuracy" as the main reason, the backbone of your point of view (see armour quality for Germans). If historical accuracy goes against you, then you speak of "play balance" cause somebody has the "wrong" and "unplayable" data (see experience, morale and Leader ratings for the US)... And it is EVER this way. And if all of this fails, the Ultimate Reason is: This Old Code can't be implemented this way, wait for Combat Leader... Yesterday one "Oob authority" said in the forum that BARs were better than MG42 and Brents... and a lot of people agreeing with that barbarity, "oh, you another time putting the point... Oh, how accurate, You are a great authority, etc.."... Is this the Brainwashing way you want for Matrix fans? Scouts with 2 mines are not Inf-AT equipped with mines. Scouts are for... scouting. Inf-AT wreck armour... different classes and abilities. Sorry, not the same. By the way, Paul, my favourite tanks are long barrelled PzIV's... I hate to play with the Sovs.



Paul Vebber -> (12/18/2001 6:53:00 AM)

Umm...an interesting example. In that thread about the Thompson I acknowledged by the end of it I was wrong and if you noticed, the value has been corrected... I argue what I feel is correct until proven otherwise. When I am wrong I readily admit it and correct it, but I demand data and facts before I change my mind. You on the other hand are by definition correct? Without need of facts or research... You argue if there is a "truth" one must know before having an opinion, NONE of us (even you) are correct about everything, but the only way to LEARN is to compare FACTS. Remeber the hundreds of posts about MGs? THere IS NO TRUTH just sitting out there to be put in a game, its all a matter of research and enterpretation. GUESS WHAT, as new data is brought to our attention, WE CHANGE OUR MIND...yet that is "the game" I make teh game so I choose teh rules. Like a judge I weigh the evidence and make a decision, how else can one do it. If later teh case is made again and the evidence is different, I'll change my mind. In most quarters that is called progress... IF you don't want to presnt evidence, but just drone on about how biased everything is, then on basis do you expect me to overturn a precendent. Just because you don't like it? Then what if AmmoSGT doesn't like it. Sorry but you seem to live in a black and white dreamworld... How many hundreds of things have we changed in teh game becasue of info presented here? If we are as closed minded as you imply, we would have stopped at version 1.0... When you seem interested in trying to back up your arguments with anything, I'm more than happy to listen.



AmmoSgt -> (12/18/2001 7:32:00 AM)

WELL!!!! If i don't like it and I want something changed I at least try and find a refernce .. well ok lately .. anyway I am Hurt and I am going to go eat worms until I get my way pout PS I never said the BAR was better than an MG-42 .. I said it was more controlable in full auto fire .. But please I didn't mean to interupt .. continue with your rant



Don Doom -> (12/18/2001 8:03:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
TO ALL NIT-PICKERS: Play the game and enjoy it, or find another game. Better yet, start another Forum where you can argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, which is at least as important as the niggling points you argue here. [ December 17, 2001: Message edited by: Warrior ]
Here Here, This post is getting a little silly! This just splitting hairs! If you have a beef with the oob's 1.]Either edit it to your liking or 2.]Come up with two to thre crediable sources & not some polictal correct site but hard facts!
That is all! Now let loose the dogs of war!



Mikimoto -> (12/18/2001 8:17:00 AM)

Hello. I tried to say that these changes in gun penetration are unfair: German and US win a lot of punch in the "hard" early years. PzIII tactics are not yet realistical, now have equal or superior cannon than Russians (Tested, and some weird results against KV's and T34s at medium range) Sherman short cannon can deal now frontally, without problems, without flank tactics, against German PzIV, I have not tested yet against Panthers... so much time translating... and the 75 long had, Hope you agree, more punch. Progress... yes, the game has progressed so much till version 1.0... I feel most for better, but I feel there is some flaws/errors too. I am not saying all is a flaw, but what I think are new flaws, unbalances heavily the game. AmmoSgt, You are not fair: You could reply me in the Bar-Rifle post and you didn't... Warrior, your agressivity is caused cause you are defending "your" creature? I am not against you, and I am not black and white minded, but these changes go against all I have learned about WWII. And first testing show me strange things too. You need data? well, from Osprey: "The international brigades in Spain 1936-1939", "The Spanish Civil War 1936-39", "Germany Spanish Volunteers 1941-1945", "The paras British Airborne Forces 1940-1984", "France 1940", "Normandy 1944, Allied landings and breakout", "Arnherm 1944", "Ardennes 1944", "Ardennes 1944, Peiper & Skorzeny", "Kursk 1943", those four about German equipment (in a friends home), and other hundred Osprey books about diverses eras, themes, armies, etc..
From Timelife, three books covering the SS... Vae Victis magazine (French) about 30 issues, Command Magazine (US) about 40 issues, Strategy & Tactics, perhaps 30 issues (they are at my mother's home)... Alea magazine (Spain) perhaps 10 issues, Historia y Vida (Spain) 40 issues, Serga magazine (Spain), perhaps 6 issues (this is a very new magazine by Spanish Professional Militars)... some memory books by German soldiers (mother's home too), Otto Skorzeny memories... Some wargames about the subject... only ones that I have at hand and at home... PanzerGrenadier, Piercing the Reich, Ardennes, Lost Victory, 1940 Victory in the west, Air bridge to victory, GD 40, Stalingrad Pocket, Panzer Blitz, Matanikau. Another time, some lost in my mother home. PC games like Steel Panthers Arsenal (the three jewels), the Panzer General saga, East Front II, and some old stuff (DDay for example). Not much, but it is what I actually own. And in all this works you never found those new features. Perhaps I need recycling...



Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (12/18/2001 9:03:00 AM)

Dang it Warrior got his comment in before mine. Oh well. Paul the game is bloody great. I have all manner of "facts" that prove the world was created in 7 days. Dont sweat the "facts" Paul. Thanks for a great game.



Don Doom -> (12/18/2001 9:07:00 AM)

you forgot: Encyclopedia of German tanks of WWII by Chamberlain, Doyle and Jentz. I have others, That I will have to dig out and post tomarrow. I also have most of the old ospry books But I found some of the writers suffer what is called victoryitis or we won the war so we will tell you what the true history is and don't believe what the other side says!



Cona -> (12/18/2001 9:29:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
TO ALL NIT-PICKERS: Play the game and enjoy it, or find another game.
Tsk, tsk ... you know well we all play the game, some from the very begining ... and that many people here play "the other game" too ... and many others.
quote:

Originally posted by Warrior:
Better yet, start another Forum where you can argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, which is at least as important as the niggling points you argue here.
No, no no ... this is the forum for SPWaW and it's really important to see if the new OOBs are unbalancing the game. This is the forum for those who went to hell, not for angels.
I want to see if Miki can prove their points. For a better gaming experience. If not, then we already have the best gaming experience. Saludos a todos,
Cona.



Tombstone -> (12/18/2001 10:32:00 AM)

I wouldn't say all the magazines are wrong, but the classical assumptions are partially based in relative strengths rather than absolute truths. If you ran a panzer regiment and had eaten through hundreds of t-26's and bt-7's wouldn't you get freaked out by a t-34?? Also, Sherman's kicked ass when they were first introduced into the desert against Rommel. Just like how the M3 Lee's made a big impression on the Germans at first. Once a Panzer division has a battalion of panthers though, all the sudden Sherman's suck. The historical view is the product of relative perceptions and what the larger body of experience was like. So what if Sherman's ruled the battlefield for a few months, when they were torn up a lot for a few years? People remember and talk about the few years. T-34's are regarded so highly cause they were used throughout the war, and cause they spooked the crap outta the germans in 41. The soviets still lost way more tanks than is rational (Or the germans destroyed more than is rational). Granted, the soviets misused tanks a great deal over the course of the war. And that confounds the assertion that their tanks weren't quite as awesome as history makes them out to be. They're still awesome tanks, even in SPWAW. Tomo



BryanMelvin -> (12/18/2001 10:36:00 AM)

Mikimoto: Please try the Kursk Tourney scenario offered at the SP Arsenal on Military Gamer. Must Try it as a PBEM with someone and see how good These guns are! You'll have to get in close to take out Panzers but such was the life of a a Soviet Tank crew! Paul did an outstanding job here on Balistics



amatteucci -> (12/18/2001 6:23:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Do you have any mas and velocity numbers or penetration data on the late war blunt nose types? For the time being those that want a "hot" SOviet 122 round can use that weapon in place of teh standard D-25 versions.
Paul,
you can directly use the figures present in Lorrin's book (the ones expressly about 122mm APBC). But what would be actually interesting should be to revise the slope modifiers calculated by the game using the more favourable ones for blunt nose APBC rounds (that you might found also in Lorrin's Book).
I know that some compromises should be made because the SP engine couldn't cope with all the minutiae relevant to armour penetration physics, anyway you could consider to assign a different slope multiplier to all Soviet 'AP' rounds, since APBC rounds for practically every kind of gun were in widespread use. This will also require to tewak the code but it would be, possibly, simpler to do. Anyway you could think about this for your upcoming new tactical games for the eastern front. I agree that a Tiger should be able to blow a T-34 at the first blow or so at 1200m (as Soviet reports implies) but also an IS-2 with APBC ammo should be likewise able to punch a Panther's glacis at 1500+m (as opposed to 500-700m for plain AP ammo, as curretly represented in SPWaW).
Speaking of Soviet armour, you're right about the generally inferior armour resistance due to high hardness, but notice that the KV variants had normal hardness plates 200-300BNH, so maybe their deserve a little higher ratings (however I must confess I still have to check the values for the KVs in v7.0. Best regards, Amedeo



Svennemir -> (12/18/2001 8:51:00 PM)

I don't know much about penetration values for guns, but I would think to know something about battlefield performance of certain tanks. As far as I know, the Germans really didn't have any AT guns capable of penetrating the armor of the KV-1 in 1941. There are numerous examples of the 50mm rounds failing to penetrate even at point blank range. I can try to find some stuff if needed.(?) I found something (somewhere) at the history.vif2.ru site. But in 7.0, I see Pz3's regularly penetrating the front hulls of KV (m.41 and KV-2) tanks with their "APCR" rounds with 130mm penetration. I have seen quite a few examples of this happening even at about 400 metres range! As soon as they run out of the "killer ammunition", they do need a vulnerable loc. hit to penetrate, which seems fair enough to me. But... 400 metres!! It's great to have some historically correct data for penetration and armor, but as long as it seems to defy actual battlefield experiences, I would prefer sticking to the old models. Removal of the APCR ammo would certainly be a step forward here, unless someone can post examples of 50mm guns busting KV's @ ½ kilometer range. Last, I'm writing this to improve the game, not because I feel a need to complain. We can all agree that this is a great game, but after doing that it must still be "legal" to say a word. Thanks.



Svennemir -> (12/18/2001 8:56:00 PM)

Oh yes, perhaps I should underline my main point: even if the OOB armor/pen values may differ from real world data, it is much more important that the *in-game* battlefield experiences correspond to the real-world ones.



Charles2222 -> (12/18/2001 9:11:00 PM)

Mikimoto: Look at even the 75mm guns within the German Army itself. The Panther 75 was far better than the PZIVH, because it was high velocity (and a longer length barral for accuracy). The PZIVH's 75 was far better than the PZIVE's 75. There's no way the same size shell is the same across tha board, because not only are the shells made differently that are fired, but also the barrels and gunpowder and such are different.



ruxius -> (12/18/2001 10:43:00 PM)

I am sorry Mikimoto but I can't understand why you try to explain your point of view starting with a mood that is more oriented towards ridiculizing rather than discussing seriously the point..that way it seems you are not really interested in showing your point...
Matrix obviously tends to offer some replies...it's not easy changing things continuosly , and also corrections should be prooved in some way more than on e time... Balancing all the endlessly details of such a game , you know is not easy...especially if this balancing relies on sources found through the web..
You know everyone can write everything that he likes..so reporting one,two or more sources is not definitive..
Also in history , you know how many FACTS can be judged differently according to the person who is speaking... If you understand this why attacking Matrix like saying they are trying to unbalance the game with some fault ? They prooved more than one time that they listen to us in their way...and this way at least is free from any political interest.. I really think it's clear Matrix is more interested in a balanced simulation than in any other purpose... If you answer that you noticed they tipically use the same approach to any remark I can answer that
it may be possible , but I can't see a strategy behind this ..it's only that your reasons were maybe not recognized ..just explain it again...
Very often , I know , good ideas maybe refused...I accepted this obviously..I think you can not pretend any idea to be approved at once ! I am sorry that HERE your way can be considered the last resource to advertise your own impression about some features ! I hope we can go back to each polite discussing we had till now !
Bye



AmmoSgt -> (12/18/2001 11:15:00 PM)

Mikimoto says I am unfair..Pout Ok to be fair ...I get into this game ..I love this game .. and I have made the same kinda of Impassioned Intemperate Unwise Unreasoned kind Posts a s this thread ...I'm No Novice to History , To the Military , or To Wargaming..and I Got Opinions ..Prejudices and Passions ..
There aren't many regs that post to this forum that I haven't seen make a post like the opening one of this thread. And I have seen the developers post just as passionately and emotionally ( albeit usually in their own defense from one of these kinda Posts) ..
We are just Humans and we love this game and we get a little lost sometimes in our passions ..
Come on guys .. you know if you have done this same thing.. post here and fess up.. The Games the Thing .. but the community is important too.
This in no way excuses my conduct at times .. but I'll be darned if I will condemn somebody or judge them harshly for the same stuff I have done .. meaning well while i was doing it .
I do bet Mikimoto feels a little embarassed by now ...I know I usually did after I made a post like this.



Gallo Rojo -> (12/19/2001 5:14:00 AM)

Greetings all I have been following this discussion carefully.
I would like to write some thing longer but I have my hands full working (and playing SPWaW), so I will post a single short comment at this moment. Miki is evidently angry because he considers that some soviet equipment in unfairly represented in v7.0 (his main point is that T-34 is undervalued compared with PzIII).
Let me said that I know Miki by play pbem and chat many times and his is (or use to be) an big and enthusiastic SPWaW fan. And he is a German side player. Some of you have give explanations saying that T-34 is not unfairly treated. I agree with some of these explanations and disagree about others (as I am very busy I can't go deeper about this now). Just please let me highlight the following: I assume that we all agree that in 1941 T-34 tank was superior to any German tank. I was probably the best tank in the world. General F.W. Mellenthin, HQ of XLVIII Panzer Korps said about T-34: "We have not have any thing comparable"
Field Marshal Ewald von Kleist, commander of 1st Panzer Army said that T-34 was "The best tank in the world" And those men really knows what German Panzer force was capable to do and what they were facing. So I assume that we all have to agree that T-34 was superior to Pz III.
Matrix staff must agree that because in v7.0 T-34 cost more battle points than Pz III.
And as equipment cost in SPWaW is based on its fight capacity ergo a more expensive tank have to be better than a cheaper one. And Pz III h costs 78 battle points while T-34m41 costs 87. Any way. I did the following experiment:
Battle in 1941
Player 1:
Germans:
1 PzIIIh plt (5 tanks) + 1 Pz IIIj Plt (5 tanks) Player 2:
A German OOB also, but I wen to NATION, chose USSR and pick:
T-34m41 x 8 + T-34m40 x 6 I turn both players to be controlled by the AI. Battle result was the following: Player 1 German:
Points: 2767
AVF lost: 4
Minor victory Player 2 Red (German crews driving T-34)
Points: 809
AVF lost: 11
(5 T-34m40 destroyed and 6 T-34m41destroyed -to be perfectly honest two T-34 wasn't destroyed but they were abandoned. They appear as destroyed at the end of the game because Player 1 won the game -I guess. Any way: ratio was 4 Pz III lost against 9 T-34) I highlight that this was not because of the poor Soviet crews experience or moral: both sides were Germans. I invite to all of you to perform the same experiment. I also offer to send my test game files to anyone that want to see it. My conclusion is: If T-34 (which as I already said I assume that we all agree that was better than Pz III) can not defeat Pz III even when driven by German crews ... well, there have to be something wrong in v7.0. I don't know if it is the new armor system, soviet 76mm gun performance, 50mmL42 gun improved, or what. But there IS something WRONG (I use big letters just to highlight not to be rude). Best regards and happy holidays. PS: I performed a similar experiment using Pz III and KV-1 and 50mmL42 can easily take a KV by the side at ranges of 10 to 4 hex. I do not think that this is historically accurate.



Nikademus -> (12/19/2001 5:39:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Gallo Rojo:
Greetings all I have been following this discussion carefully.
I would like to write some thing longer but I have my hands full working (and playing SPWaW), so I will post a single short comment at this moment. Miki is evidently angry because he considers that some soviet equipment in unfairly represented in v7.0 (his main point is that T-34 is undervalued compared with PzIII).
Let me said that I know Miki by play pbem and chat many times and his is (or use to be) an big and enthusiastic SPWaW fan. And he is a German side player. Some of you have give explanations saying that T-34 is not unfairly treated. I agree with some of these explanations and disagree about others (as I am very busy I can't go deeper about this now). Just please let me highlight the following: I assume that we all agree that in 1941 T-34 tank was superior to any German tank. I was probably the best tank in the world. General F.W. Mellenthin, HQ of XLVIII Panzer Korps said about T-34: "We have not have any thing comparable"
Field Marshal Ewald von Kleist, commander of 1st Panzer Army said that T-34 was "The best tank in the world" And those men really knows what German Panzer force was capable to do and what they were facing. So I assume that we all have to agree that T-34 was superior to Pz III.
Matrix staff must agree that because in v7.0 T-34 cost more battle points than Pz III.
And as equipment cost in SPWaW is based on its fight capacity ergo a more expensive tank have to be better than a cheaper one. And Pz III h costs 78 battle points while T-34m41 costs 87. Any way. I did the following experiment:
Battle in 1941
Player 1:
Germans:
1 PzIIIh plt (5 tanks) + 1 Pz IIIj Plt (5 tanks) Player 2:
A German OOB also, but I wen to NATION, chose USSR and pick:
T-34m41 x 8 + T-34m40 x 6 I turn both players to be controlled by the AI. Battle result was the following: Player 1 German:
Points: 2767
AVF lost: 4
Minor victory Player 2 Red (German crews driving T-34)
Points: 809
AVF lost: 11
(5 T-34m40 destroyed and 6 T-34m41destroyed -to be perfectly honest two T-34 wasn't destroyed but they were abandoned. They appear as destroyed at the end of the game because Player 1 won the game -I guess. Any way: ratio was 4 Pz III lost against 9 T-34) I highlight that this was not because of the poor Soviet crews experience or moral: both sides were Germans. I invite to all of you to perform the same experiment. I also offer to send my test game files to anyone that want to see it. My conclusion is: If T-34 (which as I already said I assume that we all agree that was better than Pz III) can not defeat Pz III even when driven by German crews ... well, there have to be something wrong in v7.0. I don't know if it is the new armor system, soviet 76mm gun performance, 50mmL42 gun improved, or what. But there IS something WRONG (I use big letters just to highlight not to be rude). Best regards and happy holidays. PS: I performed a similar experiment using Pz III and KV-1 and 50mmL42 can easily take a KV by the side at ranges of 10 to 4 hex. I do not think that this is historically accurate.
I believe there's one flaw in your test Gallo, apart from the obvious point others will make that a single small engagement does not a defining make as Paul has said over and over. When you change nations even within a single player's deployment, you are not just getting the alt nation's tank, you get their crews as well. Those wer'nt Germans in those T-34's but Russians, just like when you build a African scenerio and wish to have a mixed nationality force of Italians and Germans. IIRC, that is what the Nation button feature is for. In order to remove the crew experience factor from your tests, turn country training off, then rechoose your units and make sure they all have the same or near same exp and morale (and more importantly, LEADERSHIP ratings) Further suggestion, dont set the AI loose, play both sides and set em up like a Virtual Kublinka (aka, a miliary field testing site with tanks facing each other at set ranges and set angles. Raise hitting chances to maximum in the preferences to insure hits, this eliminates the "crew" and even the fire control factor and allows basic armor vs pen to be examined ,which is where the heart of the conflict resides since the issue at stake is the lowered gun rates of the 76mm and the lowered armor stats for the Russian OOB. (and the raised German stats) the crew and FC differences are static and hav'nt changed of course



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.109375