Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Database review and update

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> Database review and update Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Database review and update - 6/25/2006 5:35:43 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline 		First let me say that this is a great game.

I am wondering if the TOAD team will update the equipment database? Some of the values make no sense, e.g. Cougar WFSV has the same turret as a Scorpion but the AP values are 2 and 11 respectively. Other examples are the AMX30B2 and the AMX10RC which are now able to fire APFSDS ammo. Other equipment items are not relevent, e.g. the LAV-90 and the LAV-HOT were never in service in Canada and I don't think they were ever more than prototypes. Furthermore, there are eqpt types that are missing, e.g. the Stryker series of US vehicles, the latest Leopard 2, the German Spz11 and Spz12 vehicles which predated the Marder.

Ideally it would be great if an equipment editor could be created and made available for download. I think that would really boost interest in TOAW 3.

< Message edited by hueglin -- 6/26/2006 2:42:30 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 5:49:10 PM   
Menschenfresser

 

Posts: 252
Joined: 3/26/2004
From: United States
Status: offline 		1) Anyone who really picks apart the db will find something screwy. I'm not saying yours are, but many points like this are a matter of interpretation.
2) Whether some piece of equipment/type/prototype saw action or not should not exclude it from the database since there are many 'what if' scens out there where they could be used.
3) For Century of Warfare (the TOAW version before TOAWIII), several guys had redone the database for modern combat...called the modern.exe. It adds some of those missing types you mention, I believe.
4) For Century of Warfare, there is the BioEdit, which is a third party piece of software that allows one to edit the database. It probably doesn't work with TOAW3, but the original designer of BioEdit is, hopefully, going to update the software to run with TOAW3. Ideally, Matrix would come out with a dandy little utility, but BioEdit is surprisingly easy to use, so if updated, will fill the gap.

_____________________________

Make wargames, not war.

(in reply to hueglin)
Post #: 2
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 6:24:30 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline 		there are many flaws in the DB, most discussed is the weakness of german guns, for example the german 75mm L/70 AT gun (found in the Panther or Jagdpanzer IV/70 for example) has only an AT rating of 13, while the british 17 pounder (for example in the Firefly) has an AT rating of 17, even thou its really only a 76mm L/55. In most armor penetration tables the german 75mm gun is slighly better than the british 17pounder, makes you wonder why not in TOAW. Oh, even the Sherman M4/76 with 16 AT has a better AT rating in TOAW than a german Panther!

< Message edited by Industrial -- 6/25/2006 6:27:23 PM >

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to Menschenfresser)
Post #: 3
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 7:04:50 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline 		I agree that it can be neat to have eqpt in the database that was only prototype. On the other hand, if there is only a finite amount of room in the database for eqpt, I would rather it be used for eqpt that has actually been in service.

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 4
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 7:11:00 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline 		I think the thing that makes the 17pdr have a higher AP value is that the British developed APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot)ammo for it and that gave the round a better penetration. One thing that is hard to keep track of with tank guns is all of the improvements in AP shell type. Even when everyhting else stays the same on a tank, new ammo can significantly improve armour penetration.
That is why it would be nice to be able to go in and edit the values so you can account for those changes and for `personal interpretations`.

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 5
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 7:22:10 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin

I think the thing that makes the 17pdr have a higher AP value is that the British developed APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot)ammo for it and that gave the round a better penetration.


Sure, but that type of ammunition was only introduced Aug. 1944, and than issued in limited quantities. The most used ammunition was still APCBC, and that had a noticebly worse penetration ability. Otherwise we could also assume that the german Panthers were only using APCR, right?

(in reply to hueglin)
Post #: 6
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 7:22:10 PM   
Menschenfresser

 

Posts: 252
Joined: 3/26/2004
From: United States
Status: offline 		Agreed on the limited equipment point. Over the years, I've never read anything about the decision process as to what equipment went into the db and what was left out.

Back when Century of Warfare was the standard, I recall an on again off again argument about database changes. One side argued that scenarios should try to use the standard database to keep all things equal and interchangeable (there aren't that many scenarios that use modified exes, but there are enough that keeping track of a dozen diffferent versions is a bit of pain). The other side argued that every scenario should have its own modified .exe to account for database quirks needed to correctly model that situation. As you say, ammunition can make a world of a change, so Tank X in battle X may need a different modifier than the same tank in battle Y.

I see no reason to prefer one side over the other. However, with the advent of TOAW3, those designers that opted for the standard database have a leg up until BioEdit3 surfaces. I really hope it does so soon.

_____________________________

Make wargames, not war.

(in reply to hueglin)
Post #: 7
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 9:08:20 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial


quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin

I think the thing that makes the 17pdr have a higher AP value is that the British developed APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot)ammo for it and that gave the round a better penetration.


Sure, but that type of ammunition was only introduced Aug. 1944, and than issued in limited quantities. The most used ammunition was still APCBC, and that had a noticebly worse penetration ability. Otherwise we could also assume that the german Panthers were only using APCR, right?


True. The database really needs to have the flexibility to have multiple versions of the same equipment - with an indication of what type of AP ammo is being used. Then it would be clear what the AT value was based on and you would be able to model different time periods or battles in more detail. Having said that, I know that some people already think the database is too complex. Personally, I enjoy tinkering with the details.

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 8
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 9:18:20 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Menschenfresser

Agreed on the limited equipment point. Over the years, I've never read anything about the decision process as to what equipment went into the db and what was left out.

Back when Century of Warfare was the standard, I recall an on again off again argument about database changes. One side argued that scenarios should try to use the standard database to keep all things equal and interchangeable (there aren't that many scenarios that use modified exes, but there are enough that keeping track of a dozen diffferent versions is a bit of pain). The other side argued that every scenario should have its own modified .exe to account for database quirks needed to correctly model that situation. As you say, ammunition can make a world of a change, so Tank X in battle X may need a different modifier than the same tank in battle Y.

I see no reason to prefer one side over the other. However, with the advent of TOAW3, those designers that opted for the standard database have a leg up until BioEdit3 surfaces. I really hope it does so soon.


I agree that, for the sake of already existing scenarios, the original database needs to be available. But I think the game will get more support if there is more choice. As you say, lets hope an updated editor becomes available.

(in reply to Menschenfresser)
Post #: 9
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 10:27:38 PM   
ioticus

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 6/13/2004
Status: offline 		I seem to remember Norm arguing that the increased rate of fire of the British and American guns accounted for their higher antitank rating.

(in reply to hueglin)
Post #: 10
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 10:39:47 PM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline 		It is my understanding that the AT value roughly represents the ability of equipment xy to penetrate (AT value) cm of reinforced steel at about 1000m, at least most AT values are in about that range. So a higher ROF shouldn't matter, as it wouldn't increase your ability to defeat a target with a yy mm thick armor. Otherwise the Pz II with it's high ROF from it's 20mm cannon needs its AT value greatly increased

Oh, and I don't even want to start arguing how a Sherman with a 17pounder cramped into it should be able to have a higher ROF than a Panther, unless the british were only using midgets in their tank turrets

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to ioticus)
Post #: 11
RE: Database review and update - 6/25/2006 10:58:05 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial

It is my understanding that the AT value roughly represents the ability of equipment xy to penetrate (AT value) cm of reinforced steel at about 1000m, at least most AT values are in about that range. So a higher ROF shouldn't matter, as it wouldn't increase your ability to defeat a target with a yy mm thick armor. Otherwise the Pz II with it's high ROF from it's 20mm cannon needs its AT value greatly increased

Oh, and I don't even want to start arguing how a Sherman with a 17pounder cramped into it should be able to have a higher ROF than a Panther, unless the british were only using midgets in their tank turrets


At least if we knew what the equation used was, e.g. Pen at 1,000m divided by x multiplied by the square root of the ROF (I,m not a mathmetician so this formula may make little sense), then we could remove some of the conjecture. Even with this there would still be lots of room for interpretation as there are so many other variables involved - one of which I have read about is the speed of turret traverse - which would obviously affect some engagement times. I think ROF effects would be better dealt with as a separate modifier (like the targeting modifiers). My original post referred to the Cougar WFSV - in that case the turret, gun, ammo, FCS are all the same as the Scorpion - yet the values are different. I think it is just a simple error that would be nice to get fixed.

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 12
RE: Database review and update - 6/26/2006 12:05:30 AM   
alaric99x

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 5/30/2006
Status: offline 		Hello Kraut,

I see you know your subject very well. I'm curious, where are you located?

Ich bin ein amerikaner der sein Weg verloren hat und in Koblenz gelandet ist.

(in reply to hueglin)
Post #: 13
RE: Database review and update - 6/26/2006 12:48:44 AM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alaric99x

Hello Kraut,

I see you know your subject very well. I'm curious, where are you located?

Ich bin ein amerikaner der sein Weg verloren hat und in Koblenz gelandet ist.


I live in Kingston, ON, Canada.

(in reply to alaric99x)
Post #: 14
RE: Database review and update - 6/26/2006 3:08:35 AM   
Industrial


Posts: 143
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: alaric99x

Hello Kraut,

I see you know your subject very well. I'm curious, where are you located?

Ich bin ein amerikaner der sein Weg verloren hat und in Koblenz gelandet ist.


Germany, living in Lower Saxony at the moment

_____________________________

"The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

Henry Alfred Kissinger

<--- aka: Kraut

(in reply to alaric99x)
Post #: 15
RE: Database review and update - 6/26/2006 3:31:10 AM   
XPav

 

Posts: 550
Joined: 7/10/2002
From: Northern California
Status: offline 		The game really needs the ability to override equipment values in the scenario editor.

Provide 20 or so blank equipment entries, and poof, if you want to simulate Panthers equipped with TOW missiles for your time travel scenario, you're covered!

_____________________________

I love it when a plan comes together.

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 16
RE: Database review and update - 6/28/2006 5:57:20 AM   
tblersch

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 8/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial

It is my understanding that the AT value roughly represents the ability of equipment xy to penetrate (AT value) cm of reinforced steel at about 1000m, at least most AT values are in about that range. So a higher ROF shouldn't matter, as it wouldn't increase your ability to defeat a target with a yy mm thick armor. Otherwise the Pz II with it's high ROF from it's 20mm cannon needs its AT value greatly increased

Oh, and I don't even want to start arguing how a Sherman with a 17pounder cramped into it should be able to have a higher ROF than a Panther, unless the british were only using midgets in their tank turrets


I doubt it's that simple. Don't forget, this is an operational-level game, not a tactical-level game. Tactically, the 75/L70 may have better overall penetrating power than a 17-lbr with APCR. But the Sherman also had a faster turret traverse than the Panther (even the Firefly model), a gun stabilizer (which sometiems even worked), and was more nimble, whereas the Panther had better optics. So even one-on-one, it's not all that clear.

Now put them together into units from company to brigade or division size. Then have the units roam around a map grid sized anywhere from 2.5km to 50km. What's the anti-armor value of a Sherman or a Panther in a 100-sq. mi. hex grid?

If the AT values represent what you just said...they're almost certainly wrong. But I doubt they do...it's just not that simple when you start looking at it at the coarse level that TOAW represents.

(in reply to Industrial)
Post #: 17
RE: Database review and update - 6/28/2006 2:43:01 PM   
hueglin


Posts: 297
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Kingston, ON, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tblersch


quote:

ORIGINAL: Industrial

It is my understanding that the AT value roughly represents the ability of equipment xy to penetrate (AT value) cm of reinforced steel at about 1000m, at least most AT values are in about that range. So a higher ROF shouldn't matter, as it wouldn't increase your ability to defeat a target with a yy mm thick armor. Otherwise the Pz II with it's high ROF from it's 20mm cannon needs its AT value greatly increased

Oh, and I don't even want to start arguing how a Sherman with a 17pounder cramped into it should be able to have a higher ROF than a Panther, unless the british were only using midgets in their tank turrets


I doubt it's that simple. Don't forget, this is an operational-level game, not a tactical-level game. Tactically, the 75/L70 may have better overall penetrating power than a 17-lbr with APCR. But the Sherman also had a faster turret traverse than the Panther (even the Firefly model), a gun stabilizer (which sometiems even worked), and was more nimble, whereas the Panther had better optics. So even one-on-one, it's not all that clear.

Now put them together into units from company to brigade or division size. Then have the units roam around a map grid sized anywhere from 2.5km to 50km. What's the anti-armor value of a Sherman or a Panther in a 100-sq. mi. hex grid?

If the AT values represent what you just said...they're almost certainly wrong. But I doubt they do...it's just not that simple when you start looking at it at the coarse level that TOAW represents.


You make some good points. Yet another factor to consider, not so much with US/British vs German tanks, is the amount of ammo carried. Some Russian tanks/SPGs only carried 20-30 rnds. Considering that a single vehicle vs vehicle engagement could take 5 or more rounds, that would be another factor in overall AT effectiveness. There is a book by Trevor Dupuy called Numbers, Predictions and War that tries to quantify the value of equipment at an operational level - some very heavy math. Unfortunately it does not break down separate values for anti-personel and anti-tank. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it would be best if we all knew how the original calculations for the game were made. I don't know if anyone every asked Norm, or if its a 'black box' secret.

On another note, one thing that adds somewhat to the confusion is the idea of operational vs tactical. While operational art has a variety of definitions - one way to look at it is by command level - decisions involving division to army are operational, decisions involving brigade/regiment and below are tactical (although nowadays the brigade has become an operational level command). If you think about it like this, any TOAW game that has you deciding where coys/bns/regts/bdes are going on the map is tactical. If those games involve enough units to have a divsion or larger force you are also making operational decisions. In my opinion, the only TOAW games that are just operational are ones that have divisions as their smallest base 'unit'. So really, the game is a tactical and operational (and strategic) level simulation that is optimized to simulate the operational level.

Dave

< Message edited by hueglin -- 7/4/2006 3:33:11 AM >

(in reply to tblersch)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> TOAW III Support >> Database review and update Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.898