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 > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 5/16/2000 9:18:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Took a look at three more last night. Canada The Rolls and AEC armored cars have a picture of a Panhard There are 2 17pdr. guns. The only difference I could see was that one cost a point more. I probably missed some ammo thing here. The White scout car has a halftrack picture The Ford C11 AS/DF has a gun in the icon, but only lists a rifle. The Morris 15cwt has a CMG. If it does have an MG, shouldn't it be an AAMG 3in 20CWT truck has a Type 97 MG The Ford Canada 40 has a gun in the icon, but none listed. The Lynx F/O has the wrong picture. The C-47 is one size bigger than the DC-3. Why is that? The Spitfire IX has a picture of a Typhoon. The Mustang 3 has 16 MG's. The Typhoon shouldn't have MG's. The Ammo Truck icon is some sort of SP Gun truck. Coastal guns one and two have Japanese MG's and thus perhaps the wrong gun as well. India The Valentine III CS has a 45mm gun. There are 2 Churchill IV's and one has the bow MG moved to the bottom of the list, but no other difference. The Humber Mk. II has a quad AAMG The Indians probably had no ship with a 6 in., and certainly no 8 in. support. The Spitfire Mk. IIE should be a Hurricane Mk. IIE. The Beaufighter Mk. X should only have 4 cannon. The Hurricane IV has 8 cannon. The 7.7mm Lewis AAMG is actually a 3 in. gun. All of the Marmon-Herringtons have a Ba-64 picture. The Lynx has armor ranging from 100 to 144. Should probably be 10-14. The Spitfire Mk. VIII has 21 MG's and the Hurricane picture and icon. The Vultee has a Hurricane icon. The A-20 has a C-47 icon. Italy The panzerfaust team has a picture of an ATR. The M.C. 202 has 30 MG's. The Ba. 65, Re. 2001, and Re. 2002 have 40 MG's. The Re. 2002 has a picture of the Romanian armored car. The Stuka has 0 of everything. The Spitfire VB has 6 cannon and 5 MG's and a picture of a Hurricane. The Wagon has a bunker icon. It would be nice to get the encyclopedia text. Often I'm not sure what something's supposed to be, so I skip it or maybe get confused and say something's wrong when it's not.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 61

- 5/16/2000 9:48:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

You've been busy Seth, do you have time to play the game at all?

Those multiple-gunned aircraft are easy to fix, fire up the editor and look at the particular unit's weapon list. Aircraft gun's HE value is it's ammo load and AP value is the number of the guns. Those multigunned ac are just a result of forgotten AP value and the game then seems to take the HE amount as the amount of the guns. But this may be a plot to increase the effect of air attacks? An aircraft strafing with 40 mg's should be deadly

Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 62

- 5/16/2000 10:39:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Actually, I don't have much time to play, what with work, and moving, and a friend's wedding, etc. I play little scenarios now and then. I'd love to do a campaign, but the WWII one keeps crashing my computer. I would really be interested to see what those planes do to infantry. Must be kind of sick. As far as fixing them goes, sure I could do it myself, but other people might not know the right number of guns, and it should get fixed for the CD version.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 63

- 5/16/2000 11:23:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Actually, I don't have much time to play, what with work, and moving, and a friend's wedding, etc. I play little scenarios now and then. I'd love to do a campaign, but the WWII one keeps crashing my computer.

I started a generic campaign but then I read about the multiplying crews and didn't continue..guess I should end the first battle and see what happens.

quote:

I would really be interested to see what those planes do to infantry. Must be kind of sick. As far as fixing them goes, sure I could do it myself, but other people might not know the right number of guns, and it should get fixed for the CD version.

*nod* I pointed out the way to fix as the oob editor is somewhat lacking helpwise. For those who want to fix it before an official patch. I remember when I did my first version of the SP1 Finnish ob with a dos based editor. It was very much trial and error in the beginning. Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 64

- 5/16/2000 11:36:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

I actually haven't tried to fix anything with the OOBEd, so it was good that you pointed out what was happening. Now that I get it, I just have to remember whether the Mustang had 4 guns with more ammo than the other two, or vice versa.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 65

- 5/16/2000 11:39:00 PM

Blubbs!

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: Leeds, England
Status: offline

I dont know if anyone has picked up on this but when upgrading mg units ie mg34 to mg42 in the various company packages cost stays the same. So why have mg34's when it costs the same for mg42's.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 66

- 5/17/2000 12:10:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Hadn't noticed that, but I did notice when trying to do a British campaign that a few of the transport options cost the same. Not really a problem, but you wonder why you should take the one that's even a tiny bit worse.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 67

- 5/17/2000 12:33:00 AM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Blubbs!: I dont know if anyone has picked up on this but when upgrading mg units ie mg34 to mg42 in the various company packages cost stays the same. So why have mg34's when it costs the same for mg42's.

Historical reasons? MG34 is a fine weapon even on today's standards but it had similar problems like the Finnish Lahti LMG, pre-war design that was too expensive and unnecessarily precisely crafted. So an easier to build MG42 was created. But of course the MG34's stayd in the inventory thus they are both available until 49. Btw, both guns are great to shoot and the MG34 on a pedestal with optical sights is really something

If you want to nitpick the MG42 should be cheaper..it should be possible to dig out even the exact values in ReichsMarks... Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 68

- 5/17/2000 9:29:00 AM

Leo

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: ann arbor,mi,usa
Status: offline

I'm working on the German OOB and have a problem with the lbm files. When I download a jpg from the net and want it to become a lbm to fit into the game, what do I have to do ??? My somewhat clumsy tries sofar ended most often in no "picture available" or a crash. My sources for editing the German OOB are mainly "Handbook on German Military Forces (WWII)", published by the U.S. War Department, the website "Panzerfaust" and my nationality (german)...if you're interested, I can send you the whole package (my edited file), as soon, as I'm done...by the way...why did you try to press the German OOB into one file? Your job on the vehicles seems to be excellent, but when I see the limited number of infantry units, my old Jaeger heart bleeds...there seems to be no way around two files for Germany: the German Army (Heer)and div. German Field Units (SS/ Luftwaffen FJ/ Volksgrenadiere/ Volkssturm/ and maybe some foreign troops serving next to german troops, as I read in a note today (I defenitely need help on these!)...)...

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 69

- 5/17/2000 4:06:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Leo: I'm working on the German OOB and have a problem with the lbm files. When I download a jpg from the net and want it to become a lbm to fit into the game, what do I have to do ??? My somewhat clumsy tries sofar ended most often in no "picture available" or a crash.

What you need is a PaintShop Pro. I think an evaluation version is available for free, check www.winfiles.com for example. Then load the jpg, resize it to the correct size (don't recall the size but load one lbm and check from it). Then you need to copy the colour palette from the lbm you loaded to check the size

and apply that palette to your jpg. At least in SP1 you had to do this otherwise you got funnily coloured pics. Then save the picture to the .lbm format as Pxxxx.lbm (4 numbers in place of x's), copy it to the pic folder and use the oob editor to link it to an unit file. It should work this way, but i'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 70

- 5/17/2000 4:12:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

I have a question about rifle-grenades. Just about every army seems to use them especially during early years and I feel they are a bit too effective in the anti-tank role. Now I wonder how widely rifle-grenades were _really_ used? I've been under the impression that they were disliked because you needed usually a special adapter and had to load a blank round to fire them. If you didn't and shot a live round thru the grenade...well you get the picture. Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 71

- 5/18/2000 3:12:00 AM

jmo1

Posts: 16
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

I guess this is bug... Belgian rifle squads are called sections in SPWAW.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 72

- 5/18/2000 3:18:00 AM

jmo1

Posts: 16
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Belgian infantry platoon has only one squad and infantry company looks too small also.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 73

- 5/18/2000 4:22:00 AM

Desert Fox

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline

Here is a pretty big oob mistake. The US Army forces do not get Garand equipped troops until 1942. The Marines don't get them until 1943. These dates are definitely incorrect. The Garand was standard issue for US troops after January 1936. It became standard issue for the Marines in November 1940. Either way, the point is that the Garand had replaced the 1903 Springfield before the war even started for the US. The Springfield was still in limited use with both the Army and Marines, but it was not standard issue.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 74

- 5/18/2000 4:29:00 AM

Jon Grasham

Posts: 70
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: St.Louis, MO, US
Status: offline

not an expert, but you must remember, Though the Army OF 1940 may have been totally re-equipped, it numbered what, 100,000 men? (from all branches). Due to the puckered up budget of the army, they probably did not have massive stockpiled of "extra" weapons either. Thus, when units mobilized, they took anything they could get their hands on. Now true, it seems the Garand was in use by the majority of units once in combat, I imagine the Marines went without some, since they always got 2nd pick for gear. (Got fewer, older tanks, etc.) Again, this is just my guess, so take it only as that. :-)

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 75

- 5/18/2000 4:50:00 AM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

And interestingly enough, the M1903A3 rifle was adopted into use in 1942, and almost a million such rifles were made. Apparently the army saw some use for it. I guess they could have ordered M1's as easily back then? Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 76

- 5/18/2000 5:24:00 AM

Leo

Posts: 2
Joined: 5/16/2000
From: ann arbor,mi,usa
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: Now I wonder how widely rifle-grenades were _really_ used? I've been under the impression that they were disliked because you needed usually a special adapter and had to load a blank round to fire them. If you didn't and shot a live round thru the grenade...well you get the picture. Voriax

German troops used about 18 million riflegrenades during the war. The adapter was called Schiessbecher and even the MP44 was designed to wear this device. The AT-role however seems to be of importence for the first war years, being the only common hollow charge available, till this role was taken over first by special mines and later the Panzerfaust. Although due to it's size it was never a real thread to even earlier main battle tanks, it proved quite effective against armored cars and APCs. The only US type I know, is genrally of a larger design and less accurate, but more effectful (the bazooka rocket is based on this grenade). But when the US entered the european war it soon became obsolete by first bazookas issued in Africa. The HE role was commonly that of a light mortar...get infantry behind obstecles and the like... Leo

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 77

- 5/18/2000 6:07:00 AM

Dave R

Posts: 128
Joined: 10/7/2001
From: England
Status: offline

This is more of a request then a comment. Is there any chance of putting in some static versions of aircraft! I've a plan to try and put together some senarios based on the British Long Range Desert Group, and it would be nice to have some 'parked' aircraft to be used as objectives.

_____________________________

In times of war we see the worst that man has to offer. But we also see the best that man has to offer.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 78

- 5/18/2000 6:55:00 AM

Jon Grasham

Posts: 70
Joined: 5/8/2000
From: St.Louis, MO, US
Status: offline

you can build them in the oob, but IIRC, you would have to have the player D/load that OOB as well. (Make a truck or something, rename it, and give it 0 speed, and the desired aircrafts SHP). Oh, and no weapons, or else it will be like a turret, idle, but 360 degree fire arc with all it's guns! (OR guns an no ammo).

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 79

- 5/18/2000 10:39:00 AM

Desert Fox

Posts: 171
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Ohio, that is all I can say.
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Voriax: And interestingly enough, the M1903A3 rifle was adopted into use in 1942, and almost a million such rifles were made. Apparently the army saw some use for it. I guess they could have ordered M1's as easily back then? Voriax

Yes, 1903s were put into production because they were simple to make and there was a shortage of Garands. However, considering that Garands had been in production for 5 years already, I think that army units should get the garands by the time the war starts. I don't know how many the Marines had at that time, so it may be that there really were not enough for the Marines to be put into combat service. However, the point is that they were in service and in production for quite a while before the war, and because of that, they should be in the units much earlier. Tigers were put into production in July of '42, and we get them in August '42 in the game. How many were really made in 1 month and shipped to the front? Probably not many, but in the same vein, Garands may not have been abundant, but they were there, so the units should be equipped with them. Obviously, to represent history, the 1903s should still have a place in units at the same time that the Garands do for the first year of the war.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 80

- 5/19/2000 12:03:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Looked at three more countries last night. France The Char B1 should have a short 47mm. At least in the first Infantry squad on the list, the MAS 36 is available from 1/30. 37mm mle 16 has a picture of the 25mm ATG. The 25mm ATG appears twice, with no difference that I could find. All of the AMR's should be listed as recon vehicles. The Coastal Gun is available 6/44-42. The LeO. 451 has a picture of a Blenheim and shouldn't have the 20 mm cannon. The MS. 406 has 4 cannon and a Hurricane picture. The Daimler SC has the wrong picture. The AMD50 has a picture of a Panhard. The third listing for the Char D1B says it's a flame tank, but it has no f/t. The Potez 63.11 is called an observation helicopter, and is equipped with the camAra, not camEra. The C-K P 17 has a picture of an M3. The Renault UE was not an APC, and the picture looks like a doctored one of an AMR. No French flamethrowers? Only the British-equipped engineers have one. Japan I assume that Stuart is captured? The Type 91 105mm and Type 4 152mm are only available from 12/49. The Type 3 AAMG has a picture of a tank. The 20mm AT/AA is only the 6.5mm AAMG. 75mm and 88mm AA have a picture of the German 88. The A6M2 only has 1 cannon. Maybe the Australians stole the other one for their rearmament program ;-) The Ki. 45 only has 1 20mm. The Ki. 27 is only available from 7/40. Should be from the late thirties sometime. The A5M4 has no cannon. The 152mm Type 4 battery is available from 1/36. The 70mm Type 90IG is a 70mm Type 92IG. All Type 97 150mm mortars are available from 1/34. The 90mm Type 97 battery is available from 1935. The Bergmann SMG seems to have a range of 12. Hungary The first Schwarzlose MG has a picture of a Hotchkiss. The second is actually the 43M MG. Maybe Schwarzlose made them too, but I thought they were WWI MG's. The Panzerfaust 100 team has a Soviet ATR picture. The Sniper picture seems to be the Polish ATR. The 14aM 100mm is available from 1/49, as is the 122mm M-30. The Nimrod AA and TD are the same vehicle. Maybe the ammo load is different. I thought they were only TD's in emergencies. The C.R. 42 should have 2 .50cal. MG's. The 37M 105mm and 31M 150mm are available from 1/49.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 81

- 5/19/2000 5:45:00 AM

Joel

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/18/2000
From: France
Status: offline

Hi Seth, Thank you for your notes about the French OOB (and about the other ones as well!) Some explanations: The pictures problems are known, I will propose new ones to the lbm team, I have first to clear up any copyright problem. Sometimes we had to use available classes (Flame-tanks and APC-tracked for instance) to allow separate formations to use specific vehicles, either because of multiple political factions in the same OOB (1940 Army, then Vichy and Free French for this one, hence the use or Flame-Tanks and Airborne-IFV classes for regular tanks) or because of movement types (Renault UE was not an APC -that's why it can carry only 4 passengers in SPWAW- but it was a tracked vehicle and so must be listed as such to share the movement costs associated to tracked movement). The Potez 63.11 is a leftover of the observation plane class that was abandoned during the development of SPWAW. It is not used in SPWAW (not listed in any formation) I can't find any reference about flamethrowers in the French Army of 1940 (in regular units anyway). Of course I welcome any documented correction...

Thanks again, Jo�l

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 82

- 5/19/2000 7:26:00 AM

Spunkgibbon

Posts: 69
Joined: 5/8/2000
Status: offline

Someone's bound to have mentioned this before but how about fixing the German file so that Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers are listed with those names. Pz-VIb doesn't inspire the same kind of pant-wetting fear as King Tiger. I'd do this with the editor but I'm concerned it might mess up e-mail games. BTW, after quite a bit of playing I wanna say thanks for giving us this totally fantastic game. My Steel Panthers II CD is coming up to it's honourable discharge. SPW@W is a brilliant successor to the old master. Cheers to everyone involved.

_____________________________

------------------------- "There is nothing more exhilarating than being shot at without result" - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 83

- 5/20/2000 12:38:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Joel, If you say there weren't any French flamethrowers, then I believe you, but it is surprising. The French Army was one of the best equipped in the world, it's performance notwithstanding. Also, they had been around since WWI, and if anyone was ready to refight that war...

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 84

- 5/20/2000 2:22:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

I have a question about the GE amphibious and mine clearing tanks. I know some were built but I've been unable to determine how widely availible they were. Were they like the Maus or the King Tiger? The former wasn't fielded while the latter was fielded and used but held in special Army-level units and would not be found at the divisional level. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 85

- 5/20/2000 2:40:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

As far as identifying problems with the pictures, should I just skip this? Have you guys already ID'ed all the problem units? Would save me time too. Doing that last set of countries took me about 1:10.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 86

- 5/20/2000 2:37:00 PM

Joel

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/18/2000
From: France
Status: offline

Seth, I didn't mean to be sarcastic or ironic, I'm sincerely sorry if it sounded so. To clarify things, I can't certify there was no FT in French use, I just didn't find any documented evidence for it in the numerous books I have on the subject, among them the most useful "France 1940, l'armement terrestre" that lists everything from handguns to heavy arty. Of course, there is always the possibility for mistakes (either from erroneous sources -or lack thereof- or human error), that's why contributions like yours are much valued. My comment about pictures was for the French OOB only (that was the core of my very short and late contribution to SPWAW, with 1 campaign, 1 scenario, and some testing), I don't know about others... Thanks again for your comments.

Jo�l

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 87

- 5/20/2000 11:32:00 PM

jmo1

Posts: 16
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

Dutch bunkers looks like half track vechile and dutch motorcycles costs 1 point in game.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 88

- 5/21/2000 12:51:00 AM

troopie

Posts: 996
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Status: offline

Not wanting to be churlish but, the Italian bicycle units are fortresses, and all the Filipinos have Chinese names. And was there a conscious decision to eliminate the leg arty observers? I miss them. troopie

_____________________________

Pamwe Chete

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 89

- 5/21/2000 8:04:00 AM

pvi215

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/14/2000
From: Harrisburg, PA, USA
Status: offline

Keep in mind that 1st MARDIV carried M1903's at Guadalcanal. The Americal Division, which reinforced/replaced them did carry the M1. It would be interesting to know what the total production numbers were for the M1 from 1936-1941. It is hardly unusual that newly mobilized American formations went to war with the last generation's weapons. The limited availablity of the M1855/M1861 rifle-musket in the initial year of the Civil War is an analigous situation.

_____________________________

(in reply to Paul Vebber)

Post #: 90