Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 1/4/2003 10:11:46 PM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Soooo...back from Italy :D

Lot's of good comments sofar, some short notes:

- the rifle grenades could need some testing, found them very inaccurate, indeed...

- tank suppression by rifle fire will drop a little automatically by increasing the morale across the board as planned...

- I can't do anything about campaign issues, casualties on carried troops and immobilization stuff (would need recoding), sorry

- crews will be reworked, making them less effective as "adhoc infantry"

- the pricing issue: at the moment I prefer to lower infantry costs in general, but due to the problem with the true troop costs routine, I cannot tweak much on balancing issues, as any tweak here, will cause a new error there...

- the whole AT-rocket thing is causing several confusions, so a bit deeper here:

As far as I can tell, all tests show that an Inf-AT team like a two men M9 Bazooka unit behaves very realistic and pretty much the way it was intented to do...that means the reliability of hitting armor is somewhere around 100-150m and everything beyond is pure luck...houses and emplacements can be attacked up to 500m, modelling this weapon very close to it's historical performence and use (this is the same for PIAT, PzSchreck and the like)...
BUT, the problem is now: if such a weapon is used in an infantry squad, like the US Airborne. Now the Bazooka gets the bonus of the squads fire control (usually pretty high in these elite formations) and increases by this it's effective range, leading to unwanted and unrealistic hit chances at longer distances...

It is not possible to tweak these weapons to make them behave like the Inf-AT units and there're three options to adress this problem:

1) Take AT-rockets away from infantry squads and isolate them as Inf-AT teams in platoon or company formations, e.g.

2) Create a "squad AT-rocket" like the M9, that has a range of only 3 when used in a Airborne squad, thus taking away it's long range ability to fire at houses and emplacements

3) Keep it as is

Please check out, if your comments made about high accuracy and the like refer to squads using rockets, or Inf-AT teams...

BTW, the PzFausts have correct ranges in H2H - they were almost never used at ranges of 100-150m, even if the later models could travle close to that...

All other OOB related errors mentioned will be kept track of and corrected, if found to be "errors" (like the Japaneese field gun)

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 61
- 1/5/2003 4:27:20 AM   
Redleg


Posts: 1805
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline 		I thought of two important (at least I think so) items:

1. Please more of the bunkers with the rotating turrets. They are great!

2. The poor Finn OOB is in sad shape. They need more Sisu. What they need more than anything is some type of elite unit besides those stupid bicycle units. Perhaps a bit more F/C if nothing else.

The Finns used to be so much fun to use. Now they are really pretty pathetic. As they are, they do not take op fire as they should and they are very quick to retreat.

Almost all Nations that use LMG squads..... all of these I have used and tested are pretty sad. They need more punch.

I would like to see the light mortars 49-60mm take op fire better.
Now they sit there and wait to be destroyed. Very cooperative!

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 62
- 1/5/2003 5:50:07 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		The US 76mm AT gun has a lower PEN than the 3" AT gun. It is listed at 124, I believe it was supposed to read 144.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 63
- 1/5/2003 6:37:19 AM   
Galka

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]
So this kind of pricing overlaps will happen all the time (take a four barreled AA gun...it is the top notch of small AA guns and costs more then many light tanks...makes no sense in terms of material, costs, how usefull it is a.s.o. - but there's no other way to work within the 255 limit)...
So if there's no solution for an overall revolution in the pricing system, it makes no sense to alter a few specific ones...
An across the board lowering of all infantry related units is such a radical way...and a pretty complex one...have to think it over...

[/B][/QUOTE]

Have you thought of this. A complete set of OOBs for different periods of the war. i.e. PzKw IVe against infantry in 1941 is far more effective than the same weapon in 1944 when infantry is equipped with infantry AT weapons of significance.

A barbarossa OOB set could allow balancing of forces up until the introduction of Tiger's at the astronomical cost of 255 pts.

The next series of OOB which pitted the Tiger against more effective weapons post '43 could have the figures balanced with out sacrificing the effectiveness of the weapon in order to compensate for playability.

With the proliferation of hard drive space one can now afford to have several versions of different time spans or make use of an OOB manager to facilitate.

I think it's time to get beyond the 255pt barrier.

_____________________________

"In light of my experience, I consider that your conclusion that the attacker needs a three to one superiority is under the mark, rather than over it. I would say that, for success, the attacker needs six to one or seven to one against a well-knit defence

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 64
- 1/5/2003 8:08:30 AM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline 		perhaps a way to make troops not retreating in the wrong direction, say towards the enemy ?

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 65
- 1/5/2003 11:31:02 PM   
M4Jess


Posts: 5140
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: DC
Status: offline 		Hey Leo!

can you put one of these on my M4s?????:rolleyes:



[IMG]http://www.ordmusfound.org/images/16ingun.jpg[/IMG]

_____________________________



Im making war, not trouble~


(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 66
- 1/5/2003 11:34:03 PM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		Why not! They tried everything else in the turret to make it a real tank!

Goblin:p

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 67
- 1/6/2003 6:21:52 AM   
Alby


Posts: 4855
Joined: 4/29/2000
From: Greenwood, Indiana
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo


- the whole AT-rocket thing is causing several confusions, so a bit deeper here:

As far as I can tell, all tests show that an Inf-AT team like a two men M9 Bazooka unit behaves very realistic and pretty much the way it was intented to do...that means the reliability of hitting armor is somewhere around 100-150m and everything beyond is pure luck...houses and emplacements can be attacked up to 500m, modelling this weapon very close to it's historical performence and use (this is the same for PIAT, PzSchreck and the like)...
BUT, the problem is now: if such a weapon is used in an infantry squad, like the US Airborne. Now the Bazooka gets the bonus of the squads fire control (usually pretty high in these elite formations) and increases by this it's effective range, leading to unwanted and unrealistic hit chances at longer distances...

It is not possible to tweak these weapons to make them behave like the Inf-AT units and there're three options to adress this problem:

1) Take AT-rockets away from infantry squads and isolate them as Inf-AT teams in platoon or company formations, e.g.

2) Create a "squad AT-rocket" like the M9, that has a range of only 3 when used in a Airborne squad, thus taking away it's long range ability to fire at houses and emplacements

3) Keep it as is

Please check out, if your comments made about high accuracy and the like refer to squads using rockets, or Inf-AT teams...

[/B][/QUOTE]

I vote for suggestion number 1.
this would keep the squads and platoons WITH an AT weapon, but not actually in the squad per say..
Rifle grnades would be a good replacement within the squad I think.
I dont care for suggestion #2 , inventing some fantasy weapon that never really existed? nahhhh :)
Keep up the good work LEO!!
Alby

_____________________________



(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 68
- 1/6/2003 12:08:27 PM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		I think #2 is realistic if you keep in mind that no squad would take a shot at a tank with a bazooka that is 500 yards away. They would have absolutely no chance of hitting it. So by forcing the squad with an M9 to only shoot at a target that it realistically had a chance to hit it makes the game more realistic. I don't see it as a fantasy weapon, I see it as taking the fantasy out of the game.

I read the PIAT website that Golbin posted and it explained how 115 yards was the longest shot the team would take at a tank with the PIAT, but they would take a 350 yard shot at a house. How often does anyone actually shoot at a house in this game compared to shooting at tanks well beyond the realistic range for the AT weapon? I think Leo's option #2 makes perfect sense.

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 69
- 1/7/2003 2:39:21 AM   
Goblin


Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline 		I agree. Set the ranges at effective, i.e. back to the originals.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 70
- 1/7/2003 2:58:05 AM   
tracer


Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline 		I'd vote for the original ranges too. Even if it has no chance of hitting, a bazooka round is often enough to pin/button anything inside the hex.

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 71
- 1/7/2003 4:16:21 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		What I want to know is how the heck does a spring loaded PIAT (no more that a combination crossbow/pogo stick contraption) shoot 350 yards and yet the Germans couldn't get a shoulder mounted rocket (panzerfaust 30/60/100) to go more than 30, 60 or 100 yards!:confused: :confused:

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 72
- 1/7/2003 4:28:15 AM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by rbrunsman
[B]What I want to know is how the heck does a spring loaded PIAT (no more that a combination crossbow/pogo stick contraption) shoot 350 yards and yet the Germans couldn't get a shoulder mounted rocket (panzerfaust 30/60/100) to go more than 30, 60 or 100 yards!:confused: :confused: [/B][/QUOTE]

The PIAT round had also a propellant charge, it was not only accelerated by the spring...the charge was also supposed to push back the spring so you don't need to do that manually to fire a second shot...it is really a strange design, but the round could travel up to 700m...

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 73
- 1/9/2003 9:16:16 PM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		Another thing, that came to my mind while playing PBEMs...in earlier days the guns used to have at least one carbine or rifle to defend themselves at closte range...why were they taken away ?
Now a mortar team or AT-gun is just sitting there, waiting to get knocked out one by one from an infantry unit nearby...:(

What do you think ?... should they get some firepower back, or is there a reason why they shouldn't pick up a rifle to defend the gun (historically or technically in the game) ?

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 74
- 1/9/2003 9:46:06 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]Another thing, that came to my mind while playing PBEMs...in earlier days the guns used to have at least one carbine or rifle to defend themselves at closte range...why were they taken away ?
Now a mortar team or AT-gun is just sitting there, waiting to get knocked out one by one from an infantry unit nearby...:(

What do you think ?... should they get some firepower back, or is there a reason why they shouldn't pick up a rifle to defend the gun (historically or technically in the game) ? [/B][/QUOTE]

Good question! I think that AT guns are hard enough to knock out as it is, but that's only because you can't hit the gun itself - which is stupid, IMO. I don't buy that cr*p saying that 'ofcourse you have to kill the crew in order to disable the gun'...na-ah! If that's the case, why was the common doctrine (although different from the practice employed) that [B]armor had AT guns as primary targets and vice versa[/B]. I mean, if the primary ATG busters where the AFVs and not the infantry, it points to the importance of destroying the piece itself. :rolleyes:

Anyhoo... close-range defence could be a nice touch. :p 2 rifles and some grenades a piece, perhaps? Is there a way to limit the maximum range? I don't want to see ATG crews firing away the rifles at 10 hexes, 3 hexes should be a definite limit.

_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 75
- 1/9/2003 10:12:05 PM   
tracer


Posts: 1865
Joined: 11/22/2000
From: New Smyrna Beach, FL USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]
Anyhoo... close-range defence could be a nice touch. :p 2 rifles and some grenades a piece, perhaps? Is there a way to limit the maximum range? I don't want to see ATG crews firing away the rifles at 10 hexes, 3 hexes should be a definite limit. [/B][/QUOTE]

IIRC, the argument in a long-ago thread was that they wouldn't be able to fire other weapons [I]and[/I] service the ATG; it must have been convincing because the slot-2 weapons were removed in the following version. Seems like they should have [I]some[/I] sort of close-in defense though (SMG, pistol).

_____________________________

Jim NSB

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 76
- 1/9/2003 11:26:29 PM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		In Band of Brothers, when the Rangers attacked that battery of 105mm arty, I don't remember seeing a bunch of German crewmen just sitting on their hands hoping their infantry support would protect them. I think SMGs and grenades would be best to include. It keeps the range down to 3 for close in defense and it would surely make any infantry unit think twice about just walking up and executing the crew. And, certainly AT gun crews expected to have to face enemy infantry at some point. They were on the front lines after all. If I were a crewman and wasn't issued a gun, I'd sure try to round one up once I was deployed.

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 77
- 1/9/2003 11:53:29 PM   
Irinami

 

Posts: 746
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline 		Okay mates, here's a suggestion:

Give gun crews their historical armament, be it carbine, SMG, rifle, whatever. If the crews carried grenades (de facto or otherwise), then so be it. Ammo is probably going to be very low. Now, how to keep that crew from firing their personal arms after they've fired the main gun? Well... couldn't you give that sidearm a lower amount of shots per turn? o.O

_____________________________



Newbies!!
Wild Bill's Tanks at Munda Mini-Campaign. The training campaign for comb

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 78
- 1/10/2003 2:51:23 AM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Irinami
[B]Okay mates, here's a suggestion:

Give gun crews their historical armament, be it carbine, SMG, rifle, whatever. If the crews carried grenades (de facto or otherwise), then so be it. Ammo is probably going to be very low. Now, how to keep that crew from firing their personal arms after they've fired the main gun? Well... couldn't you give that sidearm a lower amount of shots per turn? o.O [/B][/QUOTE]

Nope, I can't give it fewer shots per turn...the common weapon would be a carbine or rifle, SMGs are pretty unlikely to be standard issue...
As suggested, I can reduce however the range...like a Karabiner 98 firing only up to 4 hexes for close defense...this would mean these weapons will usually not be fired with the main weapon (most shots of AT guns and the like should happen at longer ranges in the average...)...two or three grenades could be added, but I'm not sure how common it was...some ideas ?

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 79
- 1/10/2003 3:04:50 AM   
rbrunsman


Posts: 1837
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline 		The grenades may not be historical, but it would help reduce the number of times players use the ahistorical tactic of riding up next to an AT gun and dropping their own grenades on the crew without fear of a defense. Any short range defense that provides a small counter to an ahistorical and gamey tactic should be considered IMHO.

As for worrying about the second weapon firing after the first, I always turn off my secondary weapons in situations where that ineffective second weapon's shot may give away my position (e.g. AT-rifle team in v7.1). When I get in close quarters and my unit has already been spotted then I turn it back on. So, I don't think the second weapon for an AT Gun crew will cause problems for anyone that can't be addressed "in the game."

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 80
- 1/10/2003 3:40:43 AM   
Svennemir

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		There is one error which is particularly important for ATGs with secondary weapons (and tanks with machine guns):

If ROF(rifle)>>ROF(cannon) then
The cannon will be used only the for first approximately 2-5 OpFire shots depending on actual ROF of the cannon.

Subsequent shots will only feature small arms/MG fire.

This is why e.g. T-34 or IS-2 OpFire is so NOT deadly, while the Panther can just continue firing. Most T-34 models with low cannon ROF, and all IS-tanks, will eventually fire only their MGs in OpFire.

If ROF(rifle)~ROF(cannon) (most German Panzers except with 88+ caliber) they'll fire their main guns each time they OpFire even though they OpFire many times per turn.

This effect, which was particularly visible in 7.1, was reduced in H2H since an overall increase in tank gun ROFs was implemented, especially aiding those which had slow ROF.

You may want to consider this before thinking about ATGs with small arms.

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 81
- 1/10/2003 3:47:52 AM   
Svennemir

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		By the way I don't think Mortars or other indirect-fire onboard artillery behave "normally" with regards to OpFire. I'm not quite sure about their ability or lack hereof to OpFire, but it seems they are extremely reluctant to actually open fire. Thus, it wouldn't help them that much to have small arms unless I'm mistaken here.

It might be that "Misc. small arms" should be improved, so a crew would actually be able to defend itself. But the misc arms are not that bad, are they?

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 82
- 1/10/2003 3:53:23 AM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Svennemir
[B]There is one error which is particularly important for ATGs with secondary weapons (and tanks with machine guns):

If ROF(rifle)>>ROF(cannon) then
The cannon will be used only the for first approximately 2-5 OpFire shots depending on actual ROF of the cannon.

Subsequent shots will only feature small arms/MG fire.

This is why e.g. T-34 or IS-2 OpFire is so NOT deadly, while the Panther can just continue firing. Most T-34 models with low cannon ROF, and all IS-tanks, will eventually fire only their MGs in OpFire.

If ROF(rifle)~ROF(cannon) (most German Panzers except with 88+ caliber) they'll fire their main guns each time they OpFire even though they OpFire many times per turn.

This effect, which was particularly visible in 7.1, was partially in H2H since an overall increase in tank gun ROFs was implemented, especially aiding those which had slow ROF.

You may want to consider this before thinking about ATGs with small arms. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ahh, thanks...but my question is, does a second weapon actually reduce the amount of OPFire a gun is getting, or is it simply, that the second weapon fires even if the first one is not allowed any longer ? In the second case it wouldn't have a negative effect...

BTW, you will like this one Svennemir: I'm slow, but sometimes it get's done nevertheless...I limited the Russian T-34s to only one uparmored model...I needed the slots for the first T-34/85 version that was not in the game and a regular T-34m42 model to get the better BR-354B rounds in :D

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 83
regarding ATG/Field Guns/Mort. Secodary Weapon - 1/10/2003 4:13:26 AM   
Gallo Rojo


Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline 		I don’t think that adding defensive weapons to field guns and ATG is a good idea.

Reasons are those given in the thread mentioned by Tracer (namely, crews can’t fire weapons and service the gun at the same time).

If you want some protection against infantry for your ATG I think that the best solution is to buy a MMG and place it in the same hex than the ATG (or the mortar/field gun).
In H2H, you have those MMG with a bipod (not a tripod), which are fairly cheap and you can use them to protect your mortar/ATG/field guns.
In fact, German’s arty plts come with an Arty Plt chief, a couple of tubes (75mm guns) and a bipod MMG.

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 84
3 thinks I would like to see in future H2H versions - 1/10/2003 4:14:35 AM   
Gallo Rojo


Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline 		- I would like that tanks bee more difficult to spot when they move slowly. What I mean is that I would like that Tanks in SPH2H behave more like they do in SPWW2. In SPWW2, if you move a tank slowly and then you live it without moving it for one or two turns it is very difficult to being spotted (specially if they are in a wood). In SPWAW/H2H tanks are difficult to spot only if they are un-moved from the beginning of the battle. But if you move them, they become easy to spot even if you leave them without moving from a couple of turns, making ambushing with a tank almost impossible in anything that wasn’t a delay/defense.

- I remember that in SP I when an infantry squad had lost more than a half of their men it suffered a suppression penalization (something like that it had 10 suppression points that were impossible to abate). I would like to see this in SPH2H –I think that this same stuff is in SPWW2.

- Add the ATR 12th men Squad to Soviet OOB (just like it is in SPWAW).

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 85
Re: 3 thinks I would like to see in future H2H versions - 1/10/2003 6:07:03 PM   
Panzer Leo

 

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gallo Rojo
[B]- I would like that tanks bee more difficult to spot when they move slowly. What I mean is that I would like that Tanks in SPH2H behave more like they do in SPWW2. In SPWW2, if you move a tank slowly and then you live it without moving it for one or two turns it is very difficult to being spotted (specially if they are in a wood). In SPWAW/H2H tanks are difficult to spot only if they are un-moved from the beginning of the battle. But if you move them, they become easy to spot even if you leave them without moving from a couple of turns, making ambushing with a tank almost impossible in anything that wasn’t a delay/defense.

- I remember that in SP I when an infantry squad had lost more than a half of their men it suffered a suppression penalization (something like that it had 10 suppression points that were impossible to abate). I would like to see this in SPH2H –I think that this same stuff is in SPWW2.

- Add the ATR 12th men Squad to Soviet OOB (just like it is in SPWAW). [/B][/QUOTE]

H2H will behave in general a bit closer to SPWW2...that means infantry is tougher (not tougher to kill, but harder to spot and stiffer in defense) and tanks will also be not as easy to spot...this is due to a general reduction of searching chances...I'm running tests right now and the whole spotting thing becomes very entertaining (and more realistic, I think)...
I can't do anything about suppression routines itself, needs coding :(
Didn't even knew the 12 men AT squad existed till you pointed it out :D
Hmmm...it looks a bit strange...what are these twelve men for ? A AT-Rifle takes two men to operate, makes 6 plus one with the PPsH...and the other 5 guys ? Hmmm...not sure about this one (and the Russian OOB is full)...

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/spwaw_h2h_modrework.php] [IMG]http://www.theblitz.org/member_sites/panzer_leo_spw@w/PzLeos-H2H-Title-1.jpg[/IMG] [/URL]

Mir nach, ich folge euch !

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 86
- 1/10/2003 9:47:04 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		I believe the Soviet 122mm ATG and 152mm ATG should only have a rof of "2"..These were both loaded in 2 parts,(projectile being seperate from the charge!).This is mentioned in the book "Panzer Aces"by Franz Kurowski(currently available by Ballantine Books in paperback/America..

_____________________________




(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 87
Re: Re: 3 thinks I would like to see in future H2H vers... - 1/10/2003 9:57:54 PM   
Gallo Rojo


Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]H2H will behave in general a bit closer to SPWW2...that means infantry is tougher (not tougher to kill, but harder to spot and stiffer in defense) and tanks will also be not as easy to spot...this is due to a general reduction of searching chances...I'm running tests right now and the whole spotting thing becomes very entertaining (and more realistic, I think)...[/B][/QUOTE]

You have made a kid (me) happy :D
And I know a lot of spanish speakers players that will be very happy of when they knew this (I'm going to our forum to tell them right now :) )


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]
I can't do anything about suppression routines itself, needs coding :( [/B][/QUOTE]

:(

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]
Didn't even knew the 12 men AT squad existed till you pointed it out :D
Hmmm...it looks a bit strange...what are these twelve men for ? A AT-Rifle takes two men to operate, makes 6 plus one with the PPsH...and the other 5 guys ? Hmmm...not sure about this one (and the Russian OOB is full)... [/B][/QUOTE]

Those are heavy AT squads for concentrated fire. Red Army employed squads armed only with ATR since mid '41 (I guess, I mean, I'm not sure about this ... any way, they surely employed them in Kursk).
In SPWaW 7.1 this unit is a little bit "hidden": it's placed in with "MIXED" units (you know, where truks, mines, etc. are).
In SPWAW this unit is a 12 men squad armed with 4 weapons: 3 ATR + 1 SMG. You can take a look. :)

I know a lot of friends (spanish speakers) that miss this unit in H2H -It was one reason for complaining about H2H at discussions in our forum.

I think that you can may be eliminate one ATR Team and replacing it with those 12 Men ATR Sqd.

Best,

Gallo

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 88
- 1/10/2003 11:31:11 PM   
Svennemir

 

Posts: 542
Joined: 11/2/2001
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		It is not possible to do model 12 men with ATRs in one squad this in SPWAW. The ATR is not a primary infantry weapon, so they will only get one per weapon slot.

Of course one could make a squad with e.g. rifle as primary, then three ATRs in the other slots. Just one possibility.

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 89
- 1/10/2003 11:42:50 PM   
Gallo Rojo


Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Svennemir
[B]It is not possible to do model 12 men with ATRs in one squad this in SPWAW. The ATR is not a primary infantry weapon, so they will only get one per weapon slot.

Of course one could make a squad with e.g. rifle as primary, then three ATRs in the other slots. Just one possibility. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well ... may be it's impossible, but it exist! :)
Go to USSR in SPWaW 7.1, see under MIX and you will find it!
You can buy either a plt or a company of them.

May be you're right about that this unit has 1 ATR as a primary weapon and then the other three (two ATR and one SMG) are secondary weapons ... I don't know.

But this ATR Sqd. DOES exist in SPWaW 7.1, therefore it have to be possible to make the same in SPH2H!

best.

Gallo

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to Panzer Leo)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
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

3.609