New OOB topic (Full Version)

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



Message

Paul Vebber -> New OOB topic (6/24/2000 3:26:00 AM)

I've closed the old OOB topic. Unfortunately time and technical difficulties prevented a lot of OOB enhancements I wanted, but we will try again:-) IF you are not on the OOB update mailing list and want to participate in the process, drop me an email. There are limits to what can be done! But if you want to participate in the process and help doing the editing, drop me a note.



Umberto -> (6/24/2000 1:35:00 PM)

Well I do believe you have read some of my objections and suggestions. ---------------------------------------------But if you want to participate in the process and help doing the editing, drop me a note. --------------------------------------------- here is my note let me know ciao ------------------ Best Regards Umberto



Exnur -> (6/26/2000 2:06:00 PM)

I'll take this opportunity to give my thanks for a great patch to you guys! I hope you know we appreciate all the hard work. The picture for the Daimler Benz G5 truck is a pack AT gun Thanks again Exnur



Mark_Ezra -> (6/26/2000 5:14:00 PM)

Hi Paul I want to say thanks to you, David, WB and ALL the folks at Matrix who contributed to this wonderful project. I haven't really given it the attention I want as Life does get in the way of wargaming (!) But I did go to my favorite OOB...USA circa Nov '42....I really liked the new Mech Company format...Thanks again



Exnur -> (6/26/2000 10:27:00 PM)

Here are a few problems I've noticed are still in v2.0 that no one covered in the old OOB section: The British Stuart V has a penetration of 14 for the 37 mm Gun. I believe it should be 4. The Centurion tanks seem hard to select in the purchasing section. I tried a battle on June 1949, but could only get the Centurion I in the Centurion section, when version II and III should be available. The other armor sections will either have the I and/or II, when all three should probably be there. The Polish 37mm wz 36 ATG has 0 penetration. The German 122mm Capt. FH is available only in Dec 49, while the 122mm Capt. Bat is available in Jan 42. Shouldn't the Matilda II have armored skirts? Exnur



Alastair Anderson -> (6/27/2000 5:10:00 AM)

Paul, Only had 10 mins to browse it through last night, but the Ktiger has rightly had its front hull armour upgraded, but not so the hapless Jagdtiger which is still set at 100. Cheers Al



victorhauser -> (6/27/2000 5:56:00 AM)

Regarding the IS-3... After some preliminary checking, I was surprised to discover that Paul's armor ratings for the IS-3 was very close to the values given at the Russian Military website provided by ASDN. My surprise wasn't due to an implied lack of skill on Paul's part, but rather an imbedded belief I'd had for years regarding the armor of the IS-3. At this point, my only quibbles are that I would increase the slope of the front turret armor to 39 degrees (instead of 28 degrees) and increase the slope of the side hull to 45 degrees (instead of 42 degrees). All the other values look good. I'm going to do some more checking around, but that Russian Military website seemed pretty definitive. --Victor



talon -> (6/27/2000 7:05:00 AM)

Good work on the new Version . One Question on the number of Poles in one group . Are 19 men correct ? This would mean a platoon had 76 men . And I noticed that the German Spec Ops still has the LMG 42 in 1938 . I still say this is wrong because parts of this MG were copies from things captured in poland the year after ! The polish 75mm AA gun still needs to be changed . Range by far to high for direct fire and cost to low if considered the poles only had 156 of these .



Omar.N.Bradley -> (6/27/2000 11:35:00 AM)

Hi, The Tiger 1 or Pzkpfw VIe has to much armor in the front turret. Now it has 200mm it should be more like 100mm What about that, i have also seen some more stuff that is way of the mark. Like M10 Wolverine coming September 1942 when it should come March 1943. Well i hope that this is going to be fixed. Omar.N.bradley ------------------



Voriax -> (6/27/2000 12:23:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Omar.N.Bradley: Hi, The Tiger 1 or Pzkpfw VIe has to much armor in the front turret. Now it has 200mm it should be more like 100mm
Isn't this figure actually correct? 100mm for the real turret front plus another 100mm for the gun mantle, which happens to be just about the same size than turret front. Talon, Omar, there wasn't that much done to correct the OOB's. That'll wait for the v. 3.0 which will come out one day or another in the future. Voriax



Scipio Africanus -> (6/27/2000 12:37:00 PM)

Nice job on the patch, clearly a tremendous amount of work has gone into this game. I have just a quick question. I noticed that the German 75mm L70 gun has a penetration of 185 while the 88mm L56 has a penetration of 163. I would have thought that the 88mm L56 would be closer to the American 90mm L50 in performance, with the 75 somewhat less effective. Is this an error in the OoB? (perhaps the numbers were reversed between the 75 and 88). This is simply an enquiry, I have no knowledge of how these guns actually performed. Thanks for the game and please keep up the good work.



Charles22 -> (6/27/2000 2:25:00 AM)

If I recall some of the prior SP type games, the 75L70 is the Panther gun, which is rated with a higher penetration rating, however, the Tiger's 88L56 has a larger shell rating (of 5, compared to the 75L70's 4).



Voriax -> (6/27/2000 2:36:00 AM)

Scipio, a good site for info about German armour is http://www.achtungpanzer.com Also http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/index.htm (On Armour) has some very interesting tables about armour thickness and gun performance. Voriax



Alastair Anderson -> (6/27/2000 6:05:00 AM)

Paul, French off map ship support is extremely expensive, at least in 1937 anyway. Also the French Renault APCs seem to only carry 4 men which makes them a strange match up for the 12 man infantry squads in a mechanized platoon. Holland?? The oob for Holland in 1937 is almost non existent. Surely the poor old Dutch had more to choose from than that?? Any country that can play football like they do are surely deserving of a few more bits and pieces... [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Cheers Al



Charles22 -> (6/27/2000 7:53:00 PM)

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the Polish 75mm AA (wz36?) needs the range corrected (248 at present), and the first two sets of Polish infantry need their number od men adjusted from the current 19.



PR^Spanjab -> (6/27/2000 7:58:00 PM)

The VC Firefly looks too expensive to me. It cost quite a bit more than a Tiger and I think it is considerably weaker. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Seth -> (6/27/2000 8:37:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Scipio Africanus: [B]Nice job on the patch, clearly a tremendous amount of work has gone into this game. I have just a quick question. I noticed that the German 75mm L70 gun has a penetration of 185 while the 88mm L56 has a penetration of 163.
The 75/L70 actually did have better penetration than the 88/L56. Barrel length is important. The later long 88 has even better performance.



talon -> (6/27/2000 9:35:00 PM)

I think the German PSW should get Recon Unit because that is what they are . Psw maens Panzerspähwagen !! They German halftracks should lose recon . The 251HT is a APC .



dufrasnes -> (6/28/2000 4:46:00 AM)

I would like to suggest some new Russian units. - Iag 10 truck with 76,2 mm AA gun. - Gaz MM with DsHk AA Mg. - Gaz MM with a 25 mm AA Gun. These units were in low numbers but still more than the Maus. - Tractors like the S80 were also used in WWII to tow medium and Heavy guns, just like the S60, S65, Kommintern and Vorochilovet. In fact they were the the only way. - the M31 rocket laucher on wood frame used from 1942 ( I have to check the month ). - 203 mm B4 how. - 203 mm B4 on map, (just remember the pictures of these monsters firing in Berlin in direct fire). - captured Panthers tanks ( at least one Bn used them fron late 44 ). - KV tank could also have an AA DT Mg. - Lend Lease american trucks like the GMC, Studbacker,... - T80 ( T70 with a 2 men turret). About the BA6, I think it should have the same 45 mm gun as the BA10. Some other tanks only reach the front line units in very few number, like the IS1, T43 ( one proto ) and T62. The T40b ( with a 20 mm gun ) was called T30. The Russian OOB is very goob, it's nice to see some exotic units. The Russian army is my favorite modelling subject and I have an extensive collection of books and pictures.



victorhauser -> (6/29/2000 7:44:00 PM)

Some AFV Comparisons in Version 2.1... Tiger I cost = 117 Tiger II cost = 188 PantherG cost = 125 T-34/85 cost = 120 IS-2 cost = 139 IS-3 cost = 194 I never liked ASL much for many reasons, but one thing that game did do that I liked was to multiply the "base cost" of AFVs by a "rarity factor" to produce a modifed cost for that AFV--thus "encouraging" players to purchase AFVs somewhat in keeping with historical production rates. In any event, the sample of AFV costs I listed above seems to noticeably favor the Germans. Have the new, improved Tiger turret thicknesses been accounted for in the v2.1 point costs? And More Regarding the IS-3... My friend John simply won't give up his fixation regarding what he believes are low armor values for the IS-3. This is very surprising to me since he is your stereotypical Germanophile. Anyway, I finally have him convinced that the IS-3's v2.1 front hull rating is pretty darned close, but he still disagrees about the IS-3's front turret rating. And I finally think he has a valid argument. While he does not dispute the given thickness for the IS-3 "front turret" of 145 (he believes the angle should be 39 rather than 28 as I do), he points out that a visual inspection of the IS-3's front-turret cross-sectional area reveals that less than 50% of the actual front turret area is that which v2.1 assigns to the entire "front turret" rating. The remainder of the actual front-turret cross-sectional area (when faced head on) is the same heavy, tapering armor found on the rest of the rounded, cup-shaped turret, yet at an even more extreme angle due to the forward projection of the gun. He finally has me convinced. My suggestion is to turn the current 145 @ 28 into 145 @ 39. That's step 1. Step 2 is to give that 145 @ 39 a portion of 50% of the entire front turret rating. Step 3 is to take the 165 @ 35 and increase the 35 slope to 60 to account for the more extreme front protrusion angle, yielding 165 @ 60. Step 4 is to assign that 165 @ 60 a portion of 50% of the entire front turret rating. Step 5 is to combine the two portions into a single "averaged" whole. This yields 155 @ 49 which I now believe is a more accurate representation of the IS-3's front-turret armor. I think this also "tastes better". It always seemed disturbing to me that the IS-3 front turret value should be less effective than the side and rear turret values. It also didn't seem to make logical sense--the Russians by that stage of the war knew as much as anybody how to build formidable tanks. My friend John's bulldogged persistence finally showed me (at least) what I hadn't been taking into account. (The one good thing about having a Germanophile as a friend is that I always have a ready opponent when I want to play against the Germans, which is almost all the time! [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]) Mighty Maus?... The Maus is listed in the v2.1 OOB as having a front turret armor of 240 thick @ 90 slope. I suspect a typo here as a slope of 90 is highly unlikely (to say the least [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]).



Charles22 -> (6/29/2000 8:30:00 PM)

Looking over Victor's comments, I don't understand his idea that the German tanks are too inexpensive in comparison to the Russian ones. Is the idea to cost based on how easy a nation could produce it or on how many were produced? It's not exactly the same thing you know. What I mean by the former, is if a neutral nation with a random amount of supplies started building all of the tanks in SPWAW, what tanks would require more "material", whether you have the material or nor is another matter completely. I look at us, playing the game, sometimes as this neutral nation. We pick a nation's forces to play, and the cost is relatively what my somewhat endless supply would cost me in materials. Anyway, perhaps to put this on another level, I look at the relative comparison. The Tiger in some ways is the T34/85 equivalent, and it's only 3 points cheaper so I don't see the problem. Also, the King Tiger and IS2 are comparable (while the IS2 has a fairly rare shell, even in Russia), but it's the IS2, which is much cheaper. If we get into shell comparison for the Tiger and T34/85, we once more see that the Tiger's shell has been made far longer than the 85mm for the Russian. Also, I don't know if I would go messing with Russian slope angles on tanks, because if you compare German tank destroyers to Russian ones, despite that they look quite similar in slope (from the front is what I'm talking about), the Russian ones have HUGE advantages, or maybe the Germans HUGE disadvantages.



thor -> (6/29/2000 8:35:00 PM)

AT guns costs are very sporadic! An American 37mm has a cost of only 7, strange considering it has HE ammo in addition to comparible PEN to the British 2lber (approx 40mm).The British ATG weighs in at a cost of 17. Less for more??



victorhauser -> (6/29/2000 10:07:00 PM)

Failure to Communicate... I guess I wasn't clear enough and ended up distracting instead of illuminating. Perhaps Strother Martin should use his cane on me ("What we have here... Is a failure to communicate!" WHACK!). [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Let me rephrase... 1. My comment about "rarity factors" was meant only to indicate a possible way to limit campaign "abuses" where players purchase dozens of "rare and fabulous" items. 2. My real question concerning the current points cost comparison was, "Have the new turret armor thicknesses been factored into the costs listed for the Tiger I and Tiger II?" As to the debate of relative value, I'll be happy to take 20 Tiger Is and give Charles 20 T-34/85s and see if he *really* believes that the T-34/85s are the functional equivalent. Indeed, given the current armor ratings, I'll be happy to do the same thing where I'll take 20 Tiger IIs and give Charles 20 IS-3s. (In both cases, note that I'm giving Charles the more expensive, i.e., "better" AFVS). We can let Paul and Wild Bill moderate the battle and post the results. 3. My comments and discussion about the IS-3 is a plea for somebody at Matrix to re-evaluate its front turret armor rating. I've been re-convinced that this needs to be done (in much the same manner as the Tigers were re-evaluated, not "messed" with). 4. The front turret slope of the Maus is 90 degrees in the OOB, which produces "infinite" thicknesses for penetration calculations and is therefore probably a typo.



Charles22 -> (6/29/2000 10:30:00 PM)

One needn't get into a direct battle to see the similarities for the functions. BTW, I wasn't going as far as the IS3, which came too late to be a factor, rather, I was talking about the similarity in function between the IS2 and King Tiger. If I'm not mistaken, while the IS2 has better armor, and perhaps less size than the King Tiger, it does have a harder hitting shell, though the KT is probably more accurate. Seems as though the IS2 definitely has less rounds as well. My main point is that their isn't a large difference between any of medium tanks mentioned, nor the large ones, and the cost probably shouldn't reflect a large difference either. If we're talking in terms of numbers produced, in all the tanks listed, then the Russians almost always win hands down, and so does America, but from the way it appears to me, we aren't attempting to make a strategic statement with tactical forces, rather, it would seem as though the costs are being reflected on a "material" basis (How much material it took to manufacture said design?). The rarity factor is being played out in the force selection for the AI, while it would appear as though the costs aren't meant to reflect rarity, but material instead. Needless to say, when a tank such as the PZIV series stayed around so long (not mass numbers, but length of design) it complicates the "material" approach, because though it takes the same amount of material, it was easier to build because of similarity of parts.



victorhauser -> (6/29/2000 10:36:00 PM)

Postscript... As I recall, SP3 priced the T-34/85 at 30pts, the IS-2 at 60pts and the IS-3 at 70pts. The Tiger I was 75pts and the Tiger II was 100pts. In that game I felt that the T-34/85 was the best AFV point-for-point in all of SP3. Are the SPWAW point costs more reasonable? Only time and a lot of battle testing will tell for sure, but as of now I suspect (as I said in my earlier post) that the Soviet AFVs are in general overpriced compared to their German counterparts.



victorhauser -> (6/29/2000 11:22:00 PM)

An Open Invitation... I believe that the best way to see if a unit is priced "correctly" is to see what the players are actually buying in head-to-head games. Players tend to buy units that they think are bargains and avoid units that they think are overpriced. Is there anybody out there willing to fight my 20 Tiger Is with their 20 T-34/85s? Or my 20 Tiger IIs with their 20 IS-3s as they are currently listed in the v2.1 OOBs? (That is, does anybody out there believe that these Soviet AFVs are a fair and even match for the Tigers?) This is not intended as a test of egos, but rather as a test moderated by Paul and/or Wild Bill as a "combat evaluation" for purposes of determining the relative worth of these AFVs. I'm perfectly willing to let Paul and/or Wild Bill set up the initial playing conditions. And we can report the results to the rest of the SPWAW community.



Charles22 -> (6/30/2000 12:02:00 AM)

Victor: I don't know why you think that the cost of a unit is related to that unit's performance, relative to other nations. You want to draw up a contest to prove an invalid point, from where I stand. Let's exaggerate your contest a bit. You say the Soviet tanks are overpriced, basing again on performance not material. If performance were the key, and T34/85 too overpriced, then on the same comparative basis, Gerry should be getting PZIIL's for free. Why? Because you could put 10 T34/85's against 200 PZIIL's and the T34/85's will win, probably without a loss. It just doesn't work that way. I know the cost difference in the games must be maddening, but then perhaps the question should have been asked back then, and probably was, that why are the Soviet designs so cheap (in the old games)? As for the ego thing, as far as I'm concerned, I stopped playing against human opponents a long time ago because of that very thing, assurances only make me the more suspicious (and I've certainly never played via the internet yet [and probably never will]). Some form of cooperative play is much more interesting (back in the old days I campaigned Panzer Strike all the way through with a friend of mine, cooperatively. I commanded 1/2 of the core points and bought units I wanted and he did the same). Besides, in my case anyway, I don't like the contest you propose, for I don't think cost has the least thing to do with performance. If it were a statement of performance, I would think it would be for the performance of a given nation to produce said design, which was probably where a previous SP was operating from, in relation to cheaper Soviet tanks. Frankly, if they operated comparitively between German and Russian in it's truest sense, you would probably be seeing Soviet tanks, in general, being 20% or less than those of Gerry. I don't know of anyone would want to play a games that inbalanced, for we fight tacticually and have no control to better strategic planning. [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-29-2000).]



Charles22 -> (6/30/2000 12:20:00 AM)

Bottom line Victor, I don't know what system the designers have used to determine unit cost, but my exaggerated PZIIL example would show that it cannot be based on effectiveness. As for your question regarding up-armoring of the King Tiger to whther that should up the cost, there must be only the consideration of whether the former armor were consdiered as basis of cost to some degree or not. Even from a "material" basis, one could ask the same question you are asking (more armor=more expense), so that we are only left with whether the designer considered the 100 rating as a case for a signifigant discount to cost. Even if that were so, what is a mere frontal armor addition going to cost in comparison to the whole tank? What, maybe 10 more points? If that's the case, it's scarcely worth the bother.



Seth -> (6/30/2000 1:59:00 AM)

So, at the risk of revealing horrible geekiness, Charles seems to be thinking of point values in a Star Fleet Battles sort of way, where such-and-such a gun is so many points, and each point of fire control is so many points, etc. Victor seems to be thinking of them in terms of an indicator not only of performance, but of quantity available. Right? So, using Charles' method, certain units become unfairly equivalent. That is to say, players can buy clearly superior equipment on nearly a one-to-one basis with the enemy. Buuuuuuuuut! (Before I get flamed [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img] ) Using Victor's method, we will be forced to watch as our nifty expensive unit is swamped and destroyed. Obviously you can't satisfy both the need of some to have historically accurate force ratios, and the need of some to enjoy the game throught the use of lots of the coolest units. Err..not to say that plenty of gamers don't get their fun from a historically accurate challenge, but a lot of people feel cheated if they have to go through 1945 with Pz. IV's. Now, something they've both forgotten. At least in generated battles, countries like Germany tend to get many fewer points than countries like the USSR, thus making point costs actually much higher for Germany, proportionally speaking. I think this holds true in campaigns, etc., but let me know if I'm wrong.



Tombstone -> (6/30/2000 2:32:00 AM)

This is getting silly. The cost of units is CERTAINLY related to battlefield effectiveness. Units cost more or less depending on their usefulness. PZII's have a certain value... they are cheaper than PzVI's but not valueless. SPWAW is a game, therefore it is a requirement that 'points', which are a made-up game element to balance play, are used to rate performance. I think that there are other factors involved in the SPWAW teams assignment of point values to units but for the most part they are there to make it so that us players can think in terms of points equalling usefulness on the battlefield. I don't think anyone needs to have it proven to them that T-34-85's aren't as powerful as PzVI's. To be perfectly honest I never found IS-II/III's to be very effective at all. They are certainly hard to destroy, but that rate of fire thing does a lot toward ruining their effectiveness. I always felt that purchasing them over T-34's was only warranted if you intended to use them as bait because everyone knows they're so valuable. (BTW Vic, I would NEVER take 20 T34-85's against 20 PzVI's unless I was trying to embarrass the other player) SPWAW has TONS of units... so its no easy task balancing all their point values. Charles, I really like playing PBEM games. Its one of the most fufilling things I do in my life that doesn't involve the people I love (not to leave all my opponents out). I think you're really missing out by not playing against the thinking and planning of another human. It makes the game really shine. Anyways, I think it boils down to the fact that SPWAW is a game and needs to adhere to the basic principles of a game... Tomo



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75