(Full Version)

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

Message

gorgias96 -> (12/21/2001 7:37:00 AM)
Sorry but it“s only for Miki ----------------------- Bueno ya parece que se han calmado algo. Al menos se han dado cuenta que no tienen a todo el mundo consigo. A poco que les sigas suministrando algunos testimonios historicos tendran que contradecirse. Jejeje sigue tocandole los webos... Lo ke mįs me cansa no es su actitud sino los peassso de post ke ponen joder jejeje no he podido terminar apenas ninguno, me estaba kedando ya vizco..... Lo mismo estan tan susceptibles porque no las tienen todas consigo. Por lo pronto en el post ke yo puese a hora de hoy son mayoria los ke parecen preferir la v6.1. Por cierto lee el post de la pįgina de Sebas. Tengo todo un proyecto para hacerles la "competencia" a los de Matrix jeje (soy malvado) Lo siento mucho y me disculpo ante los que no comprendan el "roman paladino". Pero bueno chicos nunca es tarde para aprender........... jejejeje

Mikimoto -> (12/21/2001 7:44:00 AM)
Hello. I am not condemning the entire system, only version 7. You must read again my first post another time. If you don't want to understand me, I am sorry for you. After all I am tired of saying I love this game. What I dont love is the v7 and his weird combat behavior... and overreactions. Something is wrong with v 7. German armor/gun/ammo are upgraded when others, see Russia, are downgraded. Those two factors make this wargame innacurate and ahistorical. Playability gains? its possible. But historical feel is lost... Do you find fine to kill a T-34 with even a PzII? And we can find more surprises if we try another modified countries. You name other games, good. Now I feel free to name Spww2, the other great wargame based on SP (it was named by other poster, after all). In Spww2 v5 you can find PzIII with APCR ammo too. But if you test the game as I have tested spwaw v7, you will find very radical and different outcomes. What in spwaw 6.1 and spww2 v5 is a rare event, in v7 is the rule... And I have played both games in pbem battles, not only AI vs AI testing... I can compare, and the results of v7 are the wrong thing. You can try to ridiculize me. What I posted was from American magazine Command, not mine. At the bottom were the authors names. Again, you are not reading what I write. The same occurs with balistics: I am not an expert, but you don't want to speak of another thing. You have recommended Lorrin book so many times that I fear you are interested in the sales... and you demand facts, also. Facts are the v7 dont work in a historical way. I can not believe you have not played it yet. Now I will play v6.1, or v7 with 6.1 oobs... I have no problem, I can live with that. We are making a group to modify the 6.1 oobs. So dont worry more about me. But other players will play the game and will find the same weird things I discovered... and what then, You will demand facts to them, too? Bye. PD: Thank you very much for this quote, Paul. It is the more contradictory and funny thing I have readed since this topic started... quote: Originally posted by Paul Vebber: You take broad operational statements about "trouble stopping T-34s" - but with what? IT fails to mention if this is trouble stopping them with Ps38ts or what? The entire geramn army was not PzIIIh's with APCR...A tank which by the way had a T-34 like reputation on the Desert front...

Alby -> (12/21/2001 7:58:00 AM)
quote: Originally posted by Charles_22: Alby: I wasn't picking on you. I reread the post you must've referred to (as what you quoted here wasn't my quote but yours) and I can't figure out why I quoted you and then wasn't more direct to what I quoted. I think I was trying to say that many of these tests are bogus anyway, because though it sounds fair to turn the AI loose, people don't play that way, and there are other factors which if one is just sitting back and letting it rip, they will not notice that there's some definite skewing taking place even so. [ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ] I know, I was just razzin you! havnt rattled your chain for awhile hehehe. My tests were against myself BTW not turning the AI loose C ya!!

BryanMelvin -> (12/21/2001 8:21:00 AM)
I'll chime in again: There are several factors for Ballistics’ that I do not recall being mentioned. Quality of Metal used in Warhead, Type of Propellant used, Velocity, Size-range-speed (of) to Target and then Optics used on WWII weapons. Advanced Squad Leader over simplified these be having nations use the Red To Hit Tables plus tons of Modifiers. Simplistic - yes - but it worked. I suggest we all go out side and Look at how far 800 yards is, or Meters, by picking out a vehicle at that distance. Small - isn't it? Now Imagine using an AT Gun - on a Battlefield - and trying to hit a moving target with Ordnance from a country that uses - weak Metal for its warhead, not the greatest Propellant charge, WWII Optics, and at a small moving Target. I think you can get the picture. The Too Hit in SPwaw 7.0 does capture this effect very well. Gone are the days of taking out BT Tanks with a 30mm ATG at 10+ hexes! Now, as was in real life, you'll have to let armor get in close and sweat it out! Happy Holiday's Guys -- Enjoy SPWAW!!

Alby -> (12/21/2001 8:24:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Alby: [QB] IN a Reply to charles 22 I stated: "The apcr is makin the difference here i think, not the gun or armor changes is all I think I was saying In Another post Paul Vebber said: (after I corrected his spelling heheh) "Are the right units available with the right ammunition in the correct timeframes. Where I think the changes needed should be focused... APCR in particular seems to be the cause of most fo the fracus...restricting the models that have APCR to later introduction is somethin I wish to hear form you on." I told you All! In Just a few tests, Its the APCR!! not the other changes! I think your on the right Track here Paul! C ya!

Charles2222 -> (12/21/2001 8:51:00 AM)
Paul Vebber: quote: While the information that lead to the armor changes in v7 came while researching CL, don't read too much into the specific data becasue CL's OOB format changes many things. Like 20 armor locations instead of 6 (well 7 counting the top) so not so much "fudging" is necessary. And armor quality is a unit characteristic, so it can be "fine tuned" more (though a lot will still have to come from "rules of thumb" and generalization). Specific armor values for vehicels will be "diced for" individually so if armor is flawed, you might get some that are perfectly fine and a few that are pre-disposed to a bad fate... It is really an apples to oranges comparison. Now I have asked all week for SPECIFIC suggestions on what folks think are wrong and mostly I get telegrams to teh Fuhrer saying "T-34s are tough to deal with" What does that mean to the issue at hand, if I am in a PzIIIG with no APCR they certainly are! You know, I've been battling a number of ideas I've had today, this board and stuff at work; it's been a tad unusual. In any case what you said about multiple plates did occur to me after the prior post, which 'could' readjust things, but there is the factor of trends, and as I'm sure you're aware, once somebody departs from a previously held belief (let's say Tiger FT 176 in this case) it's very rare they return to it. This should be needless to say, but one lousy tank getting the short end of the stick doesn't concern me, it's when A LOT of stuff is changed, and then I've copied a new version over, with the old version no longer about (so I can compare), them there is a MAJOR problem. The MG ratings changing too, was hopefully, in a sense, more than just slicing the MG42, which of course means wholesale changes if one wants to play a new version and reset OOBs. On these specific issues you wish data for: Needless to say some of us understand these mathmatical formulas and some of us get lost. I don't have definitive APCR data, and I was glad to mention earlier where I found a good source to at least make major headway into ascertaining just what each AFVs RL dimensions are, but as I'm neither keen on math, and haven't run across reliable APCR data regarding time of release and amounts, I cannot help in that. I would like you to consider something however. Consider math for a moment. Let's say Mikimoto and I are real dullards at math. In such a position we can only argue from what we know. I think what Miki was trying to say earlier about "that's your job to get it right", is that if your data, no matter how clever, contradicts or is likely to contradict from general things we know (such as early T34s being a major fit for Gerry, and maybe PZIIIHs using APCR as the only mobile tank effective at short range, and the rework of strategy that caused, was a major fit) then it should be looked at again. In other words, the larger picture has to be considered. I'm not saying you don't do that, but sometimes it may be too easy to go with some new data and loose the big picture. If you were to believe, for example, that what we often hear that Shermans had to get side-shots on Tigers to destroy them, and the Shermans can destroy them from the front, APCR or otherwise, then obviously something is incorrect. As you see with that big picture, it's similar to the PZIII/T34 thing, but it's more specific, for this talks not of T34s destructable only at close range, but Tigers from THE SIDE (I suppose that might exempt 17pdrs?). That big picture, isn't saying the data is wrong because it's different from a previous version, but because a fundamental reality well known has been changed. I realize that having multiple plate ratings could still be consistent in CL with that particular big picture and still have a plate with a fairly low armor rating if it is an almost impossible place to hit, but the concern CL-wise is more oriented towards trends, by seeing what happened in 7.0. Finally, if you want specifics, I think the MGs should be back where they were and that the Tiger FT should be back to 176 (but then I have voiced that before, it was just rejected). No Masters in ballistics to back it up, just seeing those things as backing up the big picture I have.

Charles2222 -> (12/21/2001 9:02:00 AM)
Alby quote: I know, I was just razzin you! havnt rattled your chain for awhile hehehe. My tests were against myself BTW not turning the AI loose C ya!! Why you savage brute! Okey-doke.

Paul Vebber -> (12/21/2001 9:40:00 AM)
All I can say is if providing the feedback people expect regardless of evidence to the contrary, is what people want then I suggest that Matrix products are not for you. Why bother doing any research, attempt any innovation or advance the state of knowledge...folks minds are made up. If you go against their sensibility, regardless the evidence to the contray, you get ridiculed (in multiple languages thank you very much). Well the evidence (or lack there of) has been spoken and I will work on a tweak in the next week of so. Have fun playing v6.1, if you think it best, well you can still get it and nothing forces you to upgrade. Time and knowledge march ahead, in fits and starts, but ahead! For those of you who have sent me specifc information, Thank you very much. For those that want to test a copy of the 7.1 OOBs email me and I will send you a copy next week some time when I am done. Everybody have a Merry Christmas and Happy New year. Thats all you'll hear from me on this...I'm OUT.

AmmoSgt -> (12/21/2001 10:01:00 AM)
Paul ..I have been meaning to stay out of this ..because it is all and only about pen and armor .. But I think I found at least part of the problem ...I think there may have been an oversight in the Targeting Rating ... Currently the Rating for the T-34 is 1 .. I know the optics are not the Greatest ..and I know it's Turret was short a man ..But it was undisputedly a Fast Tanks and had good cross country peformance..and it is that speed and manueverablity that I think rates it higher than a 1...If the other values are correct ..and I am sold on them being so .. then this single factor could account for a fair portion of the descrpency of the actual performance in testing. I would say a 3 the PZIII is a 3 ..slower no doubt extra man in the turret and probably better turret speed ..but still only a little over half as fast as a T-34..something to consider ,if as some say, if the numbers are right the perforance is wrong . Couple this with the correct dates for the tungsten ..and I think performance should start to meet the interpetations presented. [ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: AmmoSgt ]

JYGamer -> (12/21/2001 10:42:00 AM)
First, I think that SPW@W is a great game. I trust Mr. Vebber and Matrix Games to come up with the most realistic oob's possible. I mentioned SPWW2 because it is a good game. (overall I like SPW@W better, but play both) In it and SP1, the T-34 was always a match for PzIIIs with the 50L42 gun, but not the PzIIIs with the 50L60. Same was true of the Sherman models with the 75L38 gun. In previous versions of SPW@W the T-34 and Shermans seemed to do better against the PzIIIs with the 50L60. I always thought that the 50L60 gun was better than a lot of the 75mm guns carried by the PzIV series. But this is just based on experience playing scenarios as USSR vs. AI German. I always that this was due to the lower muzzle velocity of the 76mm carried by the T-34, the 75mm carried by the Early Shermans and some PzIVs as compared to the 50L60, which was a high velocity gun. But I do not know ballistics etc. I will go with whatever Matrix Games feels best.

Truckeye -> (12/21/2001 11:22:00 AM)
Paul, i appreciate your quest for accurate data and your more than generous replies to some rather rude and ignorant posts (not all were). they want you to research the data, you do, then they complain. my opinion is its your game, they are here because there is a demand for it, there is nothing like it or as good available. you ask for alternate data, and get nothing for replies but "its not like it was". i say stick to your guns, they want 6.1 let them use it. spend your time on CL and the other fine games you offer. if other data is available, then perhaps there can be a tweak, but the editors still work in my game im pretty sure. i think those saying the apcr and its availabilty are on to something, but i dont know if that can be fixed with a random rareness in the limits of the game you are dealing with. none the less, i still say i would have been happy if you had stopped at ver x.o and gone on to CL. thanks for all the research, programming, and board monitoring you do. Merry Christmas to ALL

swagman -> (12/21/2001 1:12:00 PM)
I haven't even looked at V7...I have downloaded it but the zip file is sitting waiting...not that it needs to. I have two installs of SPWAW...one as 6.1 and the other to be updated to 7.0. There are a number of other fans who have the same configuration... so we can enjoy the features of either version of the game. After all, that is all it is. A game. And calling it fantasy is probably close to the point. The "reality" is merely the fantasy of a bunch of grown men wanting to fantasise about playing war. There is nothing "real" in SPWAW except the electrons flying around the processor and the desire of the men to pretend the game they are playing approximates "reality". I have read posts by others far wiser and more qualified than me (the honourable Wild Bill himself as I recall)...to the effect (sorry if I misquote) that most battles are fought by infantry who spend most of their time cowering in cover, and that the armoured battle as portrayed in SPWAW was rare beast indeed. Wasn't it described as 99% boredom and 1% pure terror. If advocates want reality, they should probably sit infront of their PC's for a day moving a single unit around a super large map, then go stand in the middle of an expressway for 5 minutes. If you prefer the dynamics of 6.1, then play that. By the posts there are obviously enough to find an opponent. It wouldn't surpriseme that if asked the guys at matrix would set-up a league for for 6.1 and one for 7.x. If you want reality, then you will never get it in a game. How many people crying "reality" play with force thick with Pz4's or Tigers or with their RocketUnits fed by ammodumps or with an unrealistic mass of artillery. The reality at Normandy was that all the armour the germans had to throw at the beaches was a company of Pz38t's armed with 37mm, which got chopped up by a battery of 17lber TD's. Reality is unimportant to me. SPWAW is a game, and what matters is that it has balance of game play...the recommended force ratio in 6.1 is 2:1/3:1 for advance elay/assault efend...I never use these because I find the result is unbalanced...I always give the defender extra purchase points, and penalise the german some as well. In 7.x it will be no difference...if the armour/weapons rating have changed, I will simply need to revise the force ratio relationship...the trick is to keep the game balanced and playable. The problem as I see is that everyone has there own opinion of history...I know I have my favourites such as the T34. It is impossible to keep all of the people happy all of the time...but Matrix have given us a tool(for free) that allows us to have fun playing a wargame...if they try to make it so that it suits all comers, there will be 10,000 different builds. Let's just keep it to one, and if someone has a personal preference, let them set that up using the editor. Thanks to all the guys at Matrix. You are heroes... particularly putting up with the badgering from so many (disappointed) people, who fail to appreciate what a fantastic game they have. Compare SPWAW to Gary Grigsby's Kamphgruppe on the Commodore 64...that was the birthplace of SPWAW and look how far it has come. Thankyou Matrix (and Gary and SSI).

Galka -> (12/21/2001 3:44:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by swagman: If you want reality, then you will never get it in a game. How many people crying "reality" play with force thick with Pz4's or Tigers or with their RocketUnits fed by ammodumps or with an unrealistic mass of artillery. The reality at Normandy was that all the armour the germans had to throw at the beaches was a company of Pz38t's armed with 37mm, which got chopped up by a battery of 17lber TD's. I'm afraid these are bad examples of reality. Normandy was more than a battle for beaches. Most of the fighting took place at Caen where the germans held off the allies for weeks. During one point engaged in fighting within 20kms of Caen were elements of 2nd Pz, Pz Lehr, 2nd SS Pz, 10th SS Pz, 12th SS Pz, 1st SS Pz, and 27th Pz. These divisions were not equipped with the Pz 38t. (Carell, Invasion! they're coming!). The MKIV was a common German tank throughout WW2. Germany had 2 Brigades of Nebelwerfers assigned to the western front alone. Each Brigade had at least 324 tubes.(Nafziger, German OOB Panzer and Artillery). This does not take into consideration Nebelwerfers attached to infantry divisions, or engineer battalions(Wurfrahmen). I've seldom read a personal account without mention made of the 'moaning minnie'. whether psycological or not, it was common. With the new cost of ammo dumps and the slow resupply don't you think werfers are more a liability now than an asset? Wanna hear about an unrealistic mass of artillery? On 11 May 1942 the Russian 9th Army had an average of 11-12 guns and mortars per kilometer of front. Thats more than one for every second hex from top to bottom of your map! (Glantz, Kharkov 1942.) Sorry to pick on your point, but I'm just tired of hearing the refrain, 'If you want reality you'd have the german infantry fighting with no tanks at all'. Reality is, Panzers were in the thick of it, more often then not, were shuttled around like fire brigades, and it's quite easy to play nothing but panzer battles with the scale of SPWAW yet play a reality combat simulation game. As you mention however, you are not interested in the reality of the game, so I shaln't try and sway your view.

Fredde -> (12/21/2001 3:52:00 PM)
Indeed. I have heard these figures and there are other examples, from the later war, of much higher "tube concentration" as well. However, what you have to consider is also what these guns are used for. Not all guns were directly supporting your tactical force in the front line. Many were used for harassment fire further back etc etc. To take a gun tube concentration per front kilometre and apply it straight away on the front line force is as unrealistic quote: Originally posted by Galka: Wanna hear about an unrealistic mass of artillery? On 11 May 1942 the Russian 9th Army had an average of 11-12 guns and mortars per kilometer of front. Thats more than one for every second hex from top to bottom of your map! (Glantz, Kharkov 1942.)

Fredde -> (12/21/2001 4:10:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Mikimoto: You name other games, good. Now I feel free to name Spww2, the other great wargame based on SP (it was named by other poster, after all). In Spww2 v5 you can find PzIII with APCR ammo too. But if you test the game as I have tested spwaw v7, you will find very radical and different outcomes. What in spwaw 6.1 and spww2 v5 is a rare event, in v7 is the rule... And I have played both games in pbem battles, not only AI vs AI testing... I can compare, and the results of v7 are the wrong thing. Because SPWW2 has the system according to your thinking it doesn't mean that it absolutely has to be right and correct. However, if you find this system according to what you feel is historical and enjoy, the logical suggestion would be to move on to that game. Another option is to keep on using the 6.1 OOB's. Yet another would be to make your own version of the 7.0 OOB's. quote: Originally posted by Mikimoto: You can try to ridiculize me. What I posted was from American magazine Command, not mine. At the bottom were the authors names. Again, you are not reading what I write. The same occurs with balistics: I am not an expert, but you don't want to speak of another thing. You have recommended Lorrin book so many times that I fear you are interested in the sales... and you demand facts, also. As a researcher I know that what is written is not always true, or more or less true. There is also the possibility that you could find several accounts, stating different facts about the same occurance. Actually this is what makes research go forward. However, when you are using the research practically you need to consider many sources, pick the one you feel is most reliable (or alternatively, good things from many sources). If Paul V and others found Lorrin more reliable than the Command magazine, and OOB figures come from that source, fine. That is their opinion. You have your opinion. A nice debate is always welcome, but to go to the verge of not respecting others opinions is not. quote: Originally posted by Mikimoto: Facts are the v7 dont work in a historical way. I can not believe you have not played it yet. Actually, I have found quite the contrary. The game results in 7.0 more closely approaches history as I know it, when it comes to how the different forces play. The losses, kill ratios etc. also seem to approach the historical results. I have used 7.0 for quite some time now, and I really feel this version is the best yet (nothing that can't be made better though). quote: Originally posted by Mikimoto: Now I will play v6.1, or v7 with 6.1 oobs... I have no problem, I can live with that. We are making a group to modify the 6.1 oobs. A constructive solution. Go ahead. I think we all would like to see the results from your OOB work as well. Taken from other sources it could well look different. quote: Originally posted by Mikimoto: So dont worry more about me. But other players will play the game and will find the same weird things I discovered... and what then, You will demand facts to them, too? Now you are saying that you speak for other players as well. Let them form their own opinion without any "help" on their way. There will always be differing opinions. Even if all started from the original t-34 blueprint, I am quite confident that there will be a great debate on how effective that armour really is etc. Demanding facts? If you put forward a very strong criticism, demanding facts to prove your statements is not strange at all. Emotionally grounded criticism has to be respected also.. but in the end.. logical, well-grounded facts is what makes it all work. [ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Fredde ]

Galka -> (12/21/2001 4:26:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by Fredde: Indeed. I have heard these figures and there are other examples, from the later war, of much higher "tube concentration" as well. However, what you have to consider is also what these guns are used for. Not all guns were directly supporting your tactical force in the front line. Many were used for harassment fire further back etc etc. To take a gun tube concentration per front kilometre and apply it straight away on the front line force is as unrealistic You may apply your concentrated artillery anywhere on the battle map or as counter battery as far as I'm concerned Point is concentrated artillery is not unrealistic or rare. The example was from the first page of the book where i opened it. The germans even had a name for it: Schwerpunkt e.g. The battalion was a general support unit and was used to create an artillery Schwerpunkt (point of main effort) in offensive and defensive operations. (Mcguirl: God, Honor, Fatherland) [ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Galka ]

Charles2222 -> (12/21/2001 8:57:00 PM)
quote: Wasn't it described as 99% boredom and 1% pure terror. Yeah, that's been said, only problem is when SP was released, they believed in modeling the 1%. If one wants to pretend the other 99% then one can put on operational or strategic overlay. [ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

Scorpion_sk -> (12/21/2001 9:21:00 PM)
About this realism issue: No, the game isn“t totally realistic. No game is. However, it“s not a question of being realistic/not being realistic at all . See, there are varying levels of realism. Closer to the other end we have games where entire tank factories just pop up in the desert in a minute, and begin spawning double-barreled 150-ton tanks at a rate of 2 a minute. What I want from SPW@W, is to be as close as possible to the other end of the spectrum. Like I said, I passionately dislike the argument "It“s just a game, who cares what it“s like?" Anyways we“ve reached some sort of a conclusion, the APCR ammunition issue will be looked into, as well as the armor values of the tanks in question. For that, I thank Paul. Hope it doesn“t take too much of your valuable time on CL.

Warrior -> (12/21/2001 10:36:00 PM)
quote: Originally posted by swagman: If advocates want reality, they should probably sit infront of their PC's for a day moving a single unit around a super large map, then go stand in the middle of an expressway for 5 minutes. ROTFLMAO! Thanks, I needed that! [ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Warrior ]

lnp4668 -> (12/22/2001 2:39:00 AM)
I just post another test results between IIIG and T 34m40 here: http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=007812 The results may surprise you.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.890625