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 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 8/13/2003 1:26:23 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

Uhm, not to flog the poor horse anymore, but the Jerries did use their tanks for indirect artillery support, being their intended for it or not. I guess this was a stopgap measure when real artillery was in extremely short supply and/or too far away, like in the desert battles.

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 31

- 8/13/2003 2:11:12 PM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

Belisarius .. do you have any links , battle reports, book titles , battle names where this happened .. it would help, the more evidence the better, this is just something Paul has absolutely been against anytime it has come up.. Any Tank with the sights should have the ability regardless of nation. But as it stands even US Armor who's primary function and designed intention to be indirect fire support like Scotts and Amtracs can't get it.

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 32

- 8/13/2003 2:30:24 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

I'll try to see if I can find it. I think it's mentioned by Liddell-Hart (at least) concerning the battles in Egypt, due to the artillery lagging really far behind in the race for the Nile. I'm not sure if I have read about it being used in France as well, but that may just have been the AA.

In any case, that must have been cases of just lobbing shells in the general direction and having FO's zeroing in. I know some US tanks have instruments for setting indirect fire, but with the overwhelming artillery advantage, I wonder if it was used much except for very local support like river crossings and such?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 33

- 8/13/2003 3:46:37 PM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

LOL Belisarius .. Actually Indirect fire for US tanks was more of a make work detail .. US never had any problem overdoing firepower, and the concept of "too much Artillery" wasn't in the US Play Book .. It was more a matter of giving all those extra Tanks sitting around something to do when terrain or other conditions limited the number of tanks you could cram up at the front. US was very much an Infantry ( albeit Mech Infantry) and Arty kinda Army . Well just look at the examples I posted from the 100th Inf Div .. Typical Inf Div + 2 Attached TD Bn's and an Attached Tank Bn and a Mobile AAA Bn , and in the AAA Bn's Combat History you see they set up to defend the Divisions organic 4 Artillery Bn's . Think about it for a minute Typically a Division is what ? 9 -12 Bn's .. here you already have 8 Bn's that aren't Infantry either in or attached to the Division. Thats about average attachmentwise usually an At/TD , A Tank and a AAA Bn and an entire regiment of Arty were attached to Infantry ( and other) Divisions's when they were on the line. As I am so fond of pointing out, the US Army in the ETO had more Arty Bn's in Theater than Tank Bn's . A fair Portion of the Div's attached Armor was Typically held in reserve ( notice it's the TD Bn's that kept getting the indirect fire mission much more than the tanks proper, Tanks were probably in direct support of any Inf Bn's in contact.. and as long as you are in the area and not in contact .. why not use them as Arty .. otherwise they just sleep and eat.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 34

- 8/13/2003 4:59:53 PM

Belisarius

Posts: 4041
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline

Haha, touch�. It didn't quite cross my mind that tankers would have had problems finding something to do. :D It certainly wasn't the case for the Other Side, but I can see that Allied armored units would have such occasions. Impassable terrain or just way too many units cramped into one place... :p so yeah, why not use the weapons if the enemy is in range anyway?

_____________________________

Got StuG?

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 35

- 8/13/2003 6:02:08 PM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

the links ammo posted are good:

esp. we find here good examples of too trigger happy american pilots:
( "friendly fire" )

http://www.100thww2.org/support/898/898combat.html

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 36

- 8/13/2003 9:01:00 PM

Voriax

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt
[B]I love the high , but nonhistorical, Rate of fire on a Sturmtiger. I real life maybe once every 12 minutes , muzzle loaded from outside the vehicle with a crane .. in SPWAW loads from inside and fires every 2 minutes. Oh those clever Germans , But hey it is "Fair and Balanced" [/B][/QUOTE]

*Yawn* Breech-loaded. From inside the vehicle. That crane often visible in photos was used when restocking the ammo supply inside the turret. Though there probable were hoists of some sort for moving the round from rack into the loading tray.

At least if you believe achtung panzer.

Voriax

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 37

- 8/13/2003 11:34:46 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belisarius
[B]I'll try to see if I can find it. I think it's mentioned by Liddell-Hart (at least) concerning the battles in Egypt, due to the artillery lagging really far behind in the race for the Nile. I'm not sure if I have read about it being used in France as well, but that may just have been the AA.

In any case, that must have been cases of just lobbing shells in the general direction and having FO's zeroing in. I know some US tanks have instruments for setting indirect fire, but with the overwhelming artillery advantage, I wonder if it was used much except for very local support like river crossings and such? [/B][/QUOTE]

I dont have the source(s) handy but i can at least 2nd Belisarius in that i've read of it being done by the Germans, actually quite frequently during the early days when the Pz-IV was a true "support tank" armed with it's short 75mm howitzer. Accounts from both sides described on this vehicle's versitility and that it was often employed as a mobile artillery platform.

Given all the arguments that have raged for years on what constitutes the "true" effectiveness of artillery in this game i can understand Matrix's position to not invest in such a code change.

:eek:

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 38

- 8/14/2003 12:52:35 AM

Toontje

Posts: 345
Joined: 10/9/2002
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline

If the early types PzIV were used in this way, you can bet your behinds the StuG B and E, equiped with the same cannon IIRC, did the same.

And it's nice and so it was, but:
1/ chances of hits are small, as we've seen in arty. 7.5cm saturation does not result in casualties.
2/ would it improve playability?

especially with number 2 I say screw history. Nice if everything is arty or armoured arty, as seen by others who did unlimited arty, it's no fun.

IF anything is to be rectified, it's flametrowers.

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 39

- 8/14/2003 1:36:12 AM

VikingNo2

Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline

Whats wrong with flametrowers:confused:

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 40

- 8/14/2003 1:51:25 AM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt
[B] .. took 10 minutes or more to load a round .. in the game it gets two shots a turn .. and I complain about little details ... about monir overratings of German Gear .. yeah right[/B][/QUOTE]

No need to inflate the facts...if my English is good enough, the article says that it can take up to 10 min.
If you go carefully through the process, you will find that the loading time differs in time mainly because of the position of the round inside the tank. If you load the first shots, you should get times around 5-6 min as max with a trained crew, going as high as 10 min, if you load the ones stored in the far most corner.
But as I said before, you don't need to convince me, that the rate of fire is too high in the game. 2 shots in 3 turns would be the best to model it, I think.
If you had pointed me to this one before the last H2H release, it sure would have made it in...I was simply not aware of it.
And yes, I still think you complain about little details...the Sturmtiger is a little detail in my eyes...a nice little feature, but completely unimportant.

[QUOTE][B]
In this article they call the loading crane an " overhead trolley"
[/B][/QUOTE]

Don't mix it up...these are two different things...the overhead trolley is installed inside under the roof to load the gun and the crane mounted on top of the roof outside to load the rounds into the interior.

But as I said, who really cares about this fancy "what-if" stuff, if some general things are so much off the line...in favour of the US.

I know you don't really care for H2H, but if you would take a look at it, you would see that I even banned all this strange German stuff from the normal OOB, because I think it has only a place in agreed "what-if" battles or for scenario designers. So I actually do not care for things like Sturmtiger...it's other things that I find much more worthy to worry about.
BTW, it might surprise you, but in H2H the US have a stronger arty arm then in 7.1.

You sure do have some valid points, but nevertheless it's like the rich boy crying for more money...

P.S. thanks for the link...I have looked for something like this for quite some time...you sure didn't get it from me...

I always find it very hard to get good data on US ordnance. What I almost never find are production and load figures.
The manual tells me, that there was actually a 4lb mortar round M56. But how likely was it to have these rounds. Were they as common as the M43, or would you find only 1 M56 for every 10 M43 ?
For all the German stuff I have exact production numbers, but the US is always a mistery...
What if the M56 was actually rare ? Then it would be a big mistake to give US mortars a higher HE kill...

_____________________________

[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 PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 41

- 8/14/2003 2:00:35 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]I dont have the source(s) handy but i can at least 2nd Belisarius in that i've read of it being done by the Germans, actually quite frequently during the early days when the Pz-IV was a true "support tank" armed with it's short 75mm howitzer. Accounts from both sides described on this vehicle's versitility and that it was often employed as a mobile artillery platform.

Given all the arguments that have raged for years on what constitutes the "true" effectiveness of artillery in this game i can understand Matrix's position to not invest in such a code change.

:eek: [/B][/QUOTE]

First .. it 's not a code change for the Units I am talking about .. ScoTTs and Amtracs with 75 mm Hows .. they were designed as indirect fire support vehicles and it is a simple class change ..
Second Not Fun?? Not Fun for who ??? I think it would be great fun to be able to actually use actual US tactics in this game , but that means having actual US Arty , not cloned european arty , in the game.
While I am not actually trying to get every vehicle that could actually indirect fire that ability , just the Scotts and Amtracs , I support the idea that all units should be modeled as accurately as possible regardless of nation and regardless of player politics and regardless if you think the way I play is fun or not . I don't get how folks , even Matrix Honchos can think they can tell other players what is fun , or what is the only fun way to play this game ... and I sure don't see how anybody playing the Germans can take any pride in any victory the way the game is slanted to beef up the German stuff and dumb down the US Stuff .

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 42

- 8/14/2003 2:06:51 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

OOps quoted the wrong Post .. Vor this is for you last post ...

Vor keep up , read all the posts .. I delberately misstated the muzzel loading just to show how quickly folks respond to any incorrect statement about a German piece of equipment .. Now that you bit the bait .. did you see I posted that loading sequence for the SturmTiger and that it took 10 minutes to load and fire a round ?? How come everybody is jumping on the muzzelloading incorrect statement ( which was deliberate) , but nobody is commenting on the 10 minute reload time while the Strumi get 2 shots a turn in the game ..
Muzzle or breach doesn't effect the game modeling accuracy either way firing 10 shots in 10 minutes v 1 shots in Ten minutes does .. and nobody seems upset about that little inaccuracy .... Kind of reveals folks principles doesn't it .

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 43

- 8/14/2003 2:08:19 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I have not seen this alleged bias vs the US and leave it at that.

I dont recall mentioning the word "Not Fun". I meerly pointed to the general issue or perhaps more accurately, "Fire storm" that has raged around Artillery in SP since well, since 1995.

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 44

- 8/14/2003 2:24:45 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]No need to inflate the facts...if my English is good enough, the article says that it can take up to 10 min.
If you go carefully through the process, you will find that the loading time differs in time mainly because of the position of the round inside the tank. If you load the first shots, you should get times around 5-6 min as max with a trained crew, going as high as 10 min, if you load the ones stored in the far most corner.
But as I said before, you don't need to convince me, that the rate of fire is too high in the game. 2 shots in 3 turns would be the best to model it, I think.
If you had pointed me to this one before the last H2H release, it sure would have made it in...I was simply not aware of it.
And yes, I still think you complain about little details...the Sturmtiger is a little detail in my eyes...a nice little feature, but completely unimportant.

Don't mix it up...these are two different things...the overhead trolley is installed inside under the roof to load the gun and the crane mounted on top of the roof outside to load the rounds into the interior.

But as I said, who really cares about this fancy "what-if" stuff, if some general things are so much off the line...in favour of the US.

I know you don't really care for H2H, but if you would take a look at it, you would see that I even banned all this strange German stuff from the normal OOB, because I think it has only a place in agreed "what-if" battles or for scenario designers. So I actually do not care for things like Sturmtiger...it's other things that I find much more worthy to worry about.
BTW, it might surprise you, but in H2H the US have a stronger arty arm then in 7.1.

You sure do have some valid points, but nevertheless it's like the rich boy crying for more money...

P.S. thanks for the link...I have looked for something like this for quite some time...you sure didn't get it from me...

I always find it very hard to get good data on US ordnance. What I almost never find are production and load figures.
The manual tells me, that there was actually a 4lb mortar round M56. But how likely was it to have these rounds. Were they as common as the M43, or would you find only 1 M56 for every 10 M43 ?
For all the German stuff I have exact production numbers, but the US is always a mistery...
What if the M56 was actually rare ? Then it would be a big mistake to give US mortars a higher HE kill... [/B][/QUOTE]

Leo it is not that I do not Care for H2H .. that is not the way I feel .. YOU did that work .. YOU deserve the respect of having that your way without folks nagging you .. so I do not ever direct my complaints to H2H and I have looked at it :)
SPWAW is the flagship of Matrix and the philosphies and inaccuracies in it and it susceptability to TigerKiddies politics and it numbing dumbing averageing of arty really hurts in even being able to model US and sometimes even British tactics .. and some of the TigerKiddiers take the performance as gospel and History and can't figure out how Germany lost and think there are tanks in every battle..
As far as the Mortar Shells ..which was more common .. well The game has always had US Mortars set for the Heavier Shell in range .. Think like an American Ordnance type for just a minute .. which would you order the most of produced ? I suspect both were plentiful with the Longer Ranged available for the much more rare long range shot from Bn level assets .. US did not lack for long range arty in support .. but I have not yet located actual production figures, but i suspect from US Doctrine the heavier shell would be the first choice is supply and use .. How often would a Infantry Bn need the extra range ? .. ideally folks should be able to buy from the menu two seperate 81's a normal ranged with heavy shell or a long range with a lighter shell .. I really don't care which is modeled in the game as long as the one in the game is not the worst of both shorter ranged and lighter shell like it is now .. personally I would prefer the heavier shell at the current range as it is totally sufficent to safely counter battery actual German 80mm mortars if they were given their correct 44 hex range .

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 45

- 8/14/2003 2:27:27 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]I have not seen this alleged bias vs the US and leave it at that.

I dont recall mentioning the word "Not Fun". I meerly pointed to the general issue or perhaps more accurately, "Fire storm" that has raged around Artillery in SP since well, since 1995. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nick I apologize I clicked on the wrong quote button I was addressing : Toontje when he said
"If the early types PzIV were used in this way, you can bet your behinds the StuG B and E, equiped with the same cannon IIRC, did the same.

And it's nice and so it was, but:
1/ chances of hits are small, as we've seen in arty. 7.5cm saturation does not result in casualties.
2/ would it improve playability?

especially with number 2 I say screw history. Nice if everything is arty or armoured arty, as seen by others who did unlimited arty, it's no fun.

IF anything is to be rectified, it's flametrowers."

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 46

- 8/14/2003 2:48:12 AM

Voriax

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

Ammo, I do have tendency to skip posts, especially after they crop up after few days absence...

Yep, the sturmtiger site...had it bookmarked years ago :)

And the 10 minutes seems to be the worst case scenario. ("as much as...") I guess it depends of the location of the next round to be loaded.

Best you could do is to reduce the firing rate to 1..zero is obviously impossible. with one turn being an undefined amount of minutes 1 wouldn't be far off...right?

Btw Ammo, shouldn't you concentrate on CL to get the values right? Flogging of a dead horse comes to mind...

Voriax

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 47

- 8/14/2003 3:01:18 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

Vor pretty much given up on CL .. gonna have the same philosophy no arty spotter planes same dumbed down arty same inability to use US Tactics , because Matrix doesn't think they are fun .. and first mod out of the box is russian german no interest in that and you have to buy them all to play the later mods ... can you imagine what an abortion modern is going to be if they try to be "fair and balanced" with T-72's and M-1 Abrahms ..because just walking over opponents is not fun .. heck they probably think the VC won half the battles in Veitnam.. No, 200 bucks for 4 mods to get to west front for more tigerkiddie Carp is just out of the question

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 48

- 8/14/2003 3:08:19 AM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

if i recall correcly the game is called "steel PANTHERS" so of course it�s a game which deals with tanks....and german tanks were the best. so it�s quite understandable that there are much fans of tigers and panthers out there ( so called tpger kiddies ? :D ). i must say i myself don�t find tigers that cool, too slow for my taste. panthers are great, but US M18 hellcat is a great vehcicle, too ( at least in the game ) :)

ps: perhaps we can rename the game to " steel sherman " or better " steel - US arty " :D :D

PS: viking: i agree w/ flame tanks and such need overhaul and hope they are better modelled in the new game !

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 49

- 8/14/2003 3:10:09 AM

AmmoSgt

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline

Vor I can hear the Tigerkiddies crying now if you reduce the Sturmi to even 1 or increase the US mortars or even give a 60mm mortar smoke.. The data is there on bazookas on US 105's on strumis on mortars on scotts and amtracs on VT fuzes on spotter planes . on commo and everything else .. SPWAW is becoming a first person shooter for TigerKiddies because that is where the market is ... most kids think Germany won WW2 and won't buy games where they are portrayed as loser and war criminals and US Tactics are to complex for most folks to get .. I remember the replys I got when I posted "Combined Arms" is a formal doctrine of C^2 and not just having some of everything on the map .. the Tigerkiddies argued with me .. to them Blitzkrieg is Combined Arms .. they are that stupid .. and they don't want to know the difference , they just want the Germans to win the battle and they won't buy games where that doesn't happen and Matrix knows it . If ya got a Tiger Tank Gott is mit Sie and you can't lose.. it is pathetic

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 50

- 8/14/2003 3:10:44 AM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

>>> it might surprise you, but in H2H the US have a stronger arty arm then in 7.1.

can you explain, leo ?

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 51

- 8/14/2003 3:14:04 AM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AmmoSgt
[B]... and I sure don't see how anybody playing the Germans can take any pride in any victory the way the game is slanted to beef up the German stuff and dumb down the US Stuff . [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, once and for all:

YES, you are right, the US artillery is not modeled as it should be, it was actually stronger then in 7.1

BUT, here is what inflates the US and is completely ahistorical:

The whole late war tank combat is disrupted.

Reason1:
An extreme overload on APCR ammo for US tanks combined with too early availability dates.
This causes US tanks to be able to kill German tanks up front, they were in history never able to.
As this is the case for most German tanks encountered late war, a major influence on balance is caused by this.

Exapmle1: M4A3E8 HVSS, available Oct. '44

APCR shots: 16
penetration with AP: max 144
penetration with APCR: max 196
Panther glacis with slope effect: around 165

Result:
Panther front penetrated up to several hundred meters by APCR

History: APCR (HVAP) was issued beginning in August '44, first exclusively for TDs. Later 76mm equipped tanks got them as well.
Typical load for a 76mm tank in March '45 in the 2nd armored Division: 4 rounds for a campaign

Example2: M4A3 (76) W, available May '44

APCR shots: 8 (look at the availability date :eek: )

Reason2:

Sherman glacis plate inflated by around 8-10mm extra armor. No evidence was found to justify a 72mm front plate (or 79mm on Easy). The plate was 64mm and sides 38, not 51 (the extra plates welded on given as justification do not even cover 1/2 of the sides...not valid)

Example: M4A3E8 HVSS

Front Hull: 79mm
Side Hull: 51mm

Result:
combined with the slope the effective armor raises by more then 20mm. This causes the effective range for the most common German gun 75L48 to drop by several hundred meters.

US infantry is inflated in effectiveness against tanks.

Reason1:
The Bazooka has too high hit chances (Panzerschreck also). Also the penetration is too high at 115mm (was at 105 with M6A3 round - 120mm in real life minus the SPWAW HEAT % that is applied to all HEAT rounds).

Result:
Too many hits and the raised penetration is just enough to get over the most common German armor plates, what causes kills that were not achieved in history (like Panther glacis penetrations)

Reason2:
US infantry has Bazookas as squad weapons. Due to the game engine, the Fire Control of the squad is added to all weapons hit chances in the squad. This gives Bazookas in extreme cases 20-25% more to hit chance (10% is the lowest bonus).

Result:
Combined with the range of 300m, Bazookas especially in elite squads are much more lethal then in history and get kills on higher ranges then it actually was the case.
Also the in-squad Bazooka give an enormeous cost advantage.
A 2 man Bazooka team costs 20 pts.
A squad with a Bazooka costs 9pts more then a squad without it.
The Bazooka in the squad is superior to the individual one (although it cannot move independently), because it gets the squads Fire Control bonus and is much more durable, as the squad has to go below 3 men for it to become inactive.

Reason3:
The original TO&E for US infantry are inflated by extra Bazookas. This would in some cases be right (the US had enough Bazookas to overequip it's troops), but due to the insquad weapons, the US side does not pay enough purchase points for this advantage.

Result:
The US gets more bang for the bug.

US air support gets kills 10x or higher then in history.

Reason1:
Rockets are too accurate, because the Fire Control of the plane is added to it's hit chances.

Result:
As the US is the only major user of air to surface rockets and the numbers of hits are way too high, they get a major advantage in AT-warfare by airsupport.

Reason2:
Rockets are fired one at the time. A WWII rocket could not be fired, checked if it hit and if not a second was released.
They were fired in volleys.

Result:
As above, the US as major user of rockets gets too many runs for it's planes to attack tanks with rockets. Combined with the too high accuracy, these weapon system are completely ahistorical and unbalance the game.

These are the most important issues I have, giving the US an unhistorical advantage.
The whole sum of it and the fact that all examples above are for standard equipement, shows very clearly (IMHO), that the US is much stronger in 7.1 concerning the complete field of AT-warfare, then it was in real life.
Despite the fact, that the arty is underpowered, the game is unbalanced in favour of the US side.

Because I see things this way, you might imagine how rediculous I find your complains about US arty... :o

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 52

cut/paste from another post - 8/14/2003 3:24:32 AM

tmac

Posts: 160
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Syracuse (Home of 2003 NCAA Basketball Champs) NY
Status: offline

At the risk of repeating myself:

"Ignorant question

from someone who's only played the "stock" game and megas so far.

Isn't this whole basic argument a moot point?

Isn't one of the great features of this game that you can modify an OOB to reflect exactly what you want or desire unit characteristics to be, and then play against like minded or adventurous folks with it? I realize the mods can only go so far, but most things seem to be modifiable. Most of the percieved deficiencies could be addressed this way, and then those that want could have the game reflect what they consider a more accurate historical model, and those that like the so called "more balanced" approach of the stock game could enjoy that version too?

It just seems this seems to get close to flaming or more adult versions of the school yard retort 'Oh yeah?, Jo mama!".

Leo sets a fine example with his work, he's made huge changes in stock oob's etc. If you don't like whats supplied free, why not put a little sweat equity in and try to come up with something different. If it's better, then you'll win converts (or even if it's different people will likely try it). It might get farther than complaining endlessly.

Just my $.02

Tim"

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 53

- 8/14/2003 3:28:20 AM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Frank W.
[B]>>> it might surprise you, but in H2H the US have a stronger arty arm then in 7.1.

can you explain, leo ? [/B][/QUOTE]

I use a different pricing system in H2H, to lure players into historical formation built up.

There're some nations, that simply get an advantage over others, when they buy specific weapons.

Russians get the best bang for the bug when they buy T-34s instead of KV-1, e.g.

The Germans are pretty much the center in terms of costs...they most of the time pay for what it's worth.

The US gets much better arty for its purchase pts.
A 155mm battery does cost 20pts less then a German 150mm.
It has 10 rounds more per gun, HE kill is a point higher and range and accuracy are superior....so all in all the better system for less pts.
Also the Germans only have three different batteries available 105er, 105er K and 150er. Combine this with rarity ON and you will find, that the US player can almost always get sufficiant arty, the German not...

If you play US and don't base your tactics on arty, you should have a good reason why you go with other weapons...

That is why US arty is stronger in H2H then in 7.1, e.g.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 54

- 8/14/2003 3:39:55 AM

Frank W.

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline

thx leo !

haven�t played enough H2H too notice all that difference.

but i indeed noticed that germam OB arty is more expensive now and the russian T34 quite cheap. okay changes i must say :)

the M9 isn�t anymore that powerful as in 7.1 that�s okay, too even if i liked these weapons very much because they are so deadly in 7.1 :D

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 55

- 8/14/2003 3:52:19 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
[B]I use a different pricing system in H2H, to lure players into historical formation built up.

There're some nations, that simply get an advantage over others, when they buy specific weapons.

Russians get the best bang for the bug when they buy T-34s instead of KV-1, e.g.

The Germans are pretty much the center in terms of costs...they most of the time pay for what it's worth.

The US gets much better arty for its purchase pts.
A 155mm battery does cost 20pts less then a German 150mm.
It has 10 rounds more per gun, HE kill is a point higher and range and accuracy are superior....so all in all the better system for less pts.
Also the Germans only have three different batteries available 105er, 105er K and 150er. Combine this with rarity ON and you will find, that the US player can almost always get sufficiant arty, the German not...

If you play US and don't base your tactics on arty, you should have a good reason why you go with other weapons...

That is why US arty is stronger in H2H then in 7.1, e.g. [/B][/QUOTE]

Sounds similar to how it was done in the orig SP. To represent the superior logistical situation for the US, both availability was more widespread and the cost was lower. Russian had a similar situation....tanks, even "superior" tanks (like T-34 early on) were cheaper to buy on average and much cheaper than premium and more rare tanks like Tiger and Panther.

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 56

- 8/14/2003 4:07:01 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Hey Leo. Some questions since I have both H2H and WAW (but can never fully decide which version to play!!!! :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Panzer Leo
Well, once and for all:

YES, you are right, the US artillery is not modeled as it should be, it was actually stronger then in 7.1

BUT, here is what inflates the US and is completely ahistorical:

The whole late war tank combat is disrupted.

Reason2:

Sherman glacis plate inflated by around 8-10mm extra armor. No evidence was found to justify a 72mm front plate (or 79mm on Easy). The plate was 64mm and sides 38, not 51 (the extra plates welded on given as justification do not even cover 1/2 of the sides...not valid)

IIRC......wasn't the reason for this to represent the usual field mods that often added armor to the front (but at the cost of some slope)

ug.....brings back old memories. Havn't been much on this forum since UV came out and then started beta testing WitP, but i remember trying to make sense out of all the varying armor ratings for the various marks of Shermans for all the different nations. major headache.

on the APCR issue. SP:WW2 is even worse about it......gobs and gobs of APCR all over the place.

quote:

Reason3:
The original TO&E for US infantry are inflated by extra Bazookas. This would in some cases be right (the US had enough Bazookas to overequip it's troops), but due to the insquad weapons, the US side does not pay enough purchase points for this advantage.

Result:
The US gets more bang for the bug.

I think again, IIRC...that this is an issue for more than just the US OOB. Dont all the nations tend to get a full loadout of weapons even in cases where they might not? I remember scrutinizing the Italian OOB once, their soldiers often described as "poorly armed" yet they too seem to have the usual rifle/LMG/grenade etc that all the other nations too. Another example of Play balance over history? Like the country training issue, it seems that everyone gets a fairly standard set of inf weapons

quote:

Reason1:
Rockets are too accurate, because the Fire Control of the plane is added to it's hit chances.

Result:
As the US is the only major user of air to surface rockets and the numbers of hits are way too high, they get a major advantage in AT-warfare by airsupport.

Reason2:
Rockets are fired one at the time. A WWII rocket could not be fired, checked if it hit and if not a second was released.
They were fired in volleys.

Result:
As above, the US as major user of rockets gets too many runs for it's planes to attack tanks with rockets. Combined with the too high accuracy, these weapon system are completely ahistorical and unbalance the game.

Doh! :D you know, that thought never occured to me.....yes indeed, the rockets were fired in salvoes. When you did the H2H mod, were you able touch upon the 'armor only' fixation of aircraft or was it strictly a database mod only?

btw, i agree.....rockets do seem painfully accurate. Forget artillery.......:)

quote:

These are the most important issues I have, giving the US an unhistorical advantage.
The whole sum of it and the fact that all examples above are for standard equipement, shows very clearly (IMHO), that the US is much stronger in 7.1 concerning the complete field of AT-warfare, then it was in real life.
Despite the fact, that the arty is underpowered, the game is unbalanced in favour of the US side.

Because I see things this way, you might imagine how rediculous I find your complains about US arty... :o [/B][/QUOTE]

The only odd thing i've ever really noticed about the US OOB (besides the very generous starting exp levels that is) is the almost uncanny ability for units, even greener ones to score with infantry weapons. **** peculiar. The stats for the weapons dont seem to give a clear answer as to why, nor do the FC ratings.

How many of these issues got incorporated into H2H?

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 57

- 8/14/2003 4:14:15 AM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Sounds similar to how it was done in the orig SP. To represent the superior logistical situation for the US, both availability was more widespread and the cost was lower. Russian had a similar situation....tanks, even "superior" tanks (like T-34 early on) were cheaper to buy on average and much cheaper than premium and more rare tanks like Tiger and Panther. [/B][/QUOTE]

You're right. I always thought of SPWAW being technically the by far best SP game, having a superior engine and just stunning realistic battle routines, thanks to the efforts of Paul and many other guys. But I also had always the feeling, that the spirit of the old SP1 got lost (something that SPWW2 from the Camo Group still had).
With H2H I wanted to lay a bridge between this old spirit, the best engine and the highest possible historical accuracy...I failed in many individual aspects (yep, Ammo...I also do have the bad modeled 81mm mortars...I just didn't knew it better then:rolleyes: ), but taken the whole picture I think I reached my goal... :)

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 58

- 8/14/2003 4:30:29 AM

VikingNo2

Posts: 2918
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline

Ok nobody answered the question, what is wrong with the flame throwers ?

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 59

- 8/14/2003 4:31:11 AM

Panzer Leo

Posts: 526
Joined: 6/13/2001
From: Braunschweig/Germany
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Hey Leo. Some questions since I have both H2H and WAW (but can never fully decide which version to play!!!! :D

IIRC......wasn't the reason for this to represent the usual field mods that often added armor to the front (but at the cost of some slope)

ug.....brings back old memories. Havn't been much on this forum since UV came out and then started beta testing WitP, but i remember trying to make sense out of all the varying armor ratings for the various marks of Shermans for all the different nations. major headache.

on the APCR issue. SP:WW2 is even worse about it......gobs and gobs of APCR all over the place.

.

Reason3:
The original TO&E for US infantry are inflated by extra Bazookas. This would in some cases be right (the US had enough Bazookas to overequip it's troops), but due to the insquad weapons, the US side does not pay enough purchase points for this advantage.

Result:
The US gets more bang for the bug.

The only odd thing i've ever really noticed about the US OOB (besides the very generous starting exp levels that is) is the almost uncanny ability for units, even greener ones to score with infantry weapons. **** peculiar. The stats for the weapons dont seem to give a clear answer as to why, nor do the FC ratings.

How many of these issues got incorporated into H2H? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, the given reason was a field kit applied to the armor. Up to today nobody could give a source where this kit is described. I asked several times on this and other Forums.
Even if this kit existed, it is very doubtfull, that all late war Shermans had it applied. Technically you can buy a Sherman without it in 7.1, but nobody does. That makes it ahistorical.

H2H has a Sherman version with some sort of field kit to upgrade the armor. Also included is the improvised HEAT protection by sandbags and stuff in the H2H OOBs. But not as standard !

US Marines get a bonus to hit for their small arms. This bonus cannot be seen in any values, it just is hardcoded. The bonus equals 1 or 2 pts of FC (I'm not aware of the exact amount).
I don't think US Army gets it also.

Yep, a lot of nations have Bazookas or PIATs as in-squad weapons in 7.1
Not in H2H...only Allied elite formation have long range AT-weapons in some squads (but range at max effective AT-combat range of 4hex).

All of the mentioned issues got adressed in H2H

There are alot more things, that were not correct concerning the US (other OOBs ofcourse, too)...I just mentioned the ones that have the biggest impact. Others are .50 cal MGs, national exp/mor ratings as you mentioned, wrong equipped armored infantry a.s.o.

_____________________________

(in reply to PzV im Einsatz!)

Post #: 60