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]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 3/23/2001 1:40:00 AM

Paul Lakowski

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Vancouver Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: Thanks! That compares pretty well with the function I have in v5 As usually the Ogorkiewicz style formula is a bit under at the low end and high at the upper end [PRE] T/D .2:1 .25:1 .23:1 (ave of Paul L data) 10 1.014 1.015 1.04 20 1.053 1.056 1.075 30 1.120 1.128 1.1 45 1.292 1.312 1.18 60 1.603 1.651 1.585 70 1.844 2.041 80 2.351 2.556 [/PRE] All within ~3% of your values so I think THis new version is on track! THe 45 case is an exception and seems low in your progression. My value is about 10% higher...interesting ! I wonder why? Thanks!

Well the thrust of the research was to assess nose shape performance at angle and the sharpest rod was a hemispherical tip, when most projectiles are more pointed than a hemisphere. Thus more 'turning forces' in general...for some reason most projectiles suffer more at 45� than 60�. Take modern APFSDS , against 60� thin plate it might be ~ 90% of the LOS due to the 'turning ' but at 45� the same rod is 103-105% of LOS.

_____________________________

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 31

- 3/23/2001 4:44:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

quote:

Thus more 'turning forces' in general...for some reason most projectiles suffer more at 45� than 60�.

YEs, in this case though the effect doesn't seem to kick in to at least 0 and at 45 the projectile seems not to suffer as much as I've seen in some of the other studies. The flat tipped data is especiallyinteresting - some interesting things going on there around 45 degrees - is the scale backwards there? ie .45 indicating that it penetrated only .45 the thickness as at 0? (ie 2.22 times LOS effective tickness) IF so this is another case of 45degrees being more effective than 60 degrees! Thanks again for this sort of data! It helps folks understand how really complicated this penetration stuff is and even as much as we try to take into account, how much there still is to understand!

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 32

- 3/23/2001 6:06:00 AM

john g

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by David Heath: Hi Guys We have updated the feature list for SPWaW v5.0 Rev7. Please give it a look and lets hear some of your feedback. You can find the features page here. http://www.matrixgames.com/games/sp-worldatwar/features.asp

How about disallowing a nice trick I made use of in my current British campaign. The first two chances to upgrade resulted in all 2 and 3in mortars belonging to infantry platoons being converted to 25lbers. They are now fast response artillery, with far greater range, hitting power and have radios, so they now can sit at the back of the map, and fire in support of their platoon with short delay, or can be called in by any other unit for a longer delay. It's just too bad that the British never deployed an on map 150mm+ artillery unit. Those platoons with generally worthless organic mortars can all be upgraded in this way. The important part of the upgrade is the addition of a radio without losing the fast response notation. thanks, John.

_____________________________

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 33

- 3/23/2001 6:23:00 AM

john g

Posts: 984
Joined: 10/6/2000
From: college station, tx usa
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Fabs: The list of improvements/fixes is truly impressive, and I look forward to being able to download the patch, as well as ordering the Mega Campaign. I did not find a mention about the problem in solitaire Assault/defend games where the defending AI units take leave of their senses around turns 5 - 7 and "Banzai" charge out of their positions into the attacker's fire. This bug has seriously damaged playability of solitaire scenarios. I have been told that "it should work better in v.5", but it's not listed. Any news on this?

I don't consider this a bug. I am however still running ver 4.3b, so your milage may vary. Just ask my British core that had to surrender to an Italian rush. I had an assault battle, with my core that started at 2000 pts in 9/39 plus 800 or so support points, perhaps 3200 points total after upgrades and experiance. Defending were 6 italian infantry companies, 3 batteries of 305 mm naval guns, 2 batteries of 100mm artillery, 2 platoons of l3-35 tanks and 6 sections of 20 mm aa and 47m at guns. By the time the 305mm guns had finished wracking my infantry, my matilda II's had run out of mg ammo with italian infantry swarming all over them. This was the 12/41 battle as I recall so the British still didn't have paras, most of my support points were tied up in a commando company that infiltrated to take the rear two victory clusters and then move forward to help with the taking of the forward center cluster. I had taken all but the center forward cluster, but with no ammo for the tanks, and no infanty support and continued fire from those 305's I finally just punched out with a surrender, I didn't want to have to play out retreating away from the two forward flank victory clusters and having the commados try to hold out beyond the reach of the releaving armor like the 1st Airborne at Arnhem. The Italian swarming forward like they did, instead of meekly dieing like they normally do was a shock to me, I have never had so much respect for the Italian forces as I did after that battle. thanks, John.

_____________________________

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 34

- 3/23/2001 9:22:00 AM

Paul Lakowski

Posts: 55
Joined: 10/9/2000
From: Vancouver Canada
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: YEs, in this case though the effect doesn't seem to kick in to at least 0 and at 45 the projectile seems not to suffer as much as I've seen in some of the other studies.

Yes well a part of the study was to assess what they called 'rupture speed ' of the metal...essentially at what impact velocity do these plates tare. This alowed the projectile to 'turn' sharply and reduced the effect of slope. To put it in the context of something relevant consider sharply sloped thin 10 mm Aluminum armor as in the BMP-3 glacis , if struck by a large overmatching shell [ 30-40mm AP] it would turn into the slope with greater ease and there for greater kill %.

quote:

The flat tipped data is especiallyinteresting - some interesting things going on there around 45 degrees - is the scale backwards there? ie .45 indicating that it penetrated only .45 the thickness as at 0? (ie 2.22 times LOS effective tickness) IF so this is another case of 45degrees being more effective than 60 degrees!

Flat tip penetrators tend to penetrate more slanted armor or are less effected ...less than the LOS thickness suggest. With the short rods it penetrates more at 35-50�. But with long rods at APFSDS speeds this has the opposite effect. To be far the short rod test is with shots that badly overmatch the plate , were as in the APFSDS the plate had a t/d of 3:1. But yes 45� does seem to be a better bet if you plan to present the hardest armor to overcome.....with WW-II 60� offered a real chance of ricochet and that clearly explains the Russian thinking in the T-34. For example a RPG type warhead [PzFaust] has a 50% ricochet chance at ~ 30-40� impact angle

quote:

Thanks again for this sort of data! It helps folks understand how really complicated this penetration stuff is and even as much as we try to take into account, how much there still is to understand!

_____________________________

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 35

- 3/23/2001 9:25:00 AM

rfox

Posts: 43
Joined: 1/14/2001
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

#60 and #104 are dreams come true. I am interested to see #104 in action. This will make the long campaign so much more engaging. I very much look forwaard to the AI improvements as well. The improvements to the armor penetration models are very much appreciated as well. Thanks again, guys, for all of your hard work.

_____________________________

Rob

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 36

- 3/23/2001 9:49:00 AM

ectizen

Posts: 139
Joined: 2/24/2001
From: melbourne, australia
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by David Heath: The scenarios are a little different. You will need to load them in the new editor and save them. This still may not fully fix a scenario if units in the scenario were moved or deleted.

Hmm... As someone who has just spent a large chunk of the past week reverse-engineering the scenario file format (to bring the world a better Map Thing :D), I was wondering if you'd be able to point out which sections of the file have changed? The sections I'm using for the improved Map Thing are 8, 9, 37 to 39, 46 & 47. Alternatively, a 5.0 compatible version of the tutorial scenario in my mailbox would be much appreciated! :) Thanks! ectizen (who just finished figuring out the scenario file structure, and took a break to read the forum, and found this comment! :))

_____________________________

ectizen's SP:WaW Tools - Map Thing (1.0a), Scenario W

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 37

- 3/23/2001 7:07:00 PM

O de B

Posts: 136
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: France, Paris
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: The rarity randomness is meant for initial purchase of units, in the battle generator in particular. I don't think it will change the availability of units to upgrade to.

Oh please do it :) ! I'm mostly a long campaign player and it bugs me to be able to have all my units be rare stuff. Usually i try to refrain and upgrade to just a couple of each but if hard coded it would be so much a prize. Also maybe repairs could be triggered the same way. I mean, if i have a couple of Jadgtigers, fixing a track should not be a problem, but if one is completely burnt it sould not be fixed so easily... probably would require to buy a complete new tank... and if unavailable then you have to change to a more common unit.

_____________________________

(in reply to David Heath)

Post #: 38