Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

My, my, my, the groaners and complainers are out in force tonight. Not one of you have even seen any of the changed OOBs, have you? Not a single one of you.
On what do you base your criticisms, then? Ideas that have been bandied about by players? My comments? My comments are based on preliminary experiments, which are not necessarily representative of the final product.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BruceAZ

The OOB is showing July 41 for the 76mm AT gun and this is a change from 7.0. Also the availability date for the 75mmLG40 RCL was May 1941. These dates don't look correct.

Recon
Semper Fi

Well, who would have guessed

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar



There is to be no spamming, trolling, personal insults, vulgarity, bigotry, profanity or porn. Inappropriate language or conduct can lead to a short vacation or outright dismissal from Matrix. All topics and behavior that is deemed unsuitable or improper will be locked with an explanation given as to why.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)

So is it Winter 1942 or Spring 1942?

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Bryan will be addressing the changes we made very soon. The team exchanged a voluminous amount of research & test material, and we're close to submitting the final results to Matrix.
There is much more involved in the 8.2 patch, but I'm not at liberty to discuss that at present.
However, despite all the criticisms, justified or not, the suggestions, which we listened to, and the database errors, which we corrected, I will give a kudos to every member of the team. For long-time and new fans of SPWaW, this will indeed be the best OOB set ever offered, naysayers be damned. We will stand by our work, and will respond to your comments once they are publically released.

Okay. I have been quiet for some time now. Please do an experiment. Take the 7.1 or 7.11 oobs and compare AP pen rates with 8.1 oobs or even the 8.0 oobs. You will discover an odd fact, approx 96 % of the Pen rates for all guns used in new oobs are the same as 7.11 oobs.

Here is another little quip - do not jump the gun and pass judgment without knowing the facts.

Yes, there was bug inside the Mech/exe and not the oobs that caused the MGs to disable a tank in 8.0 oobs. It does not matter what number you use inside the HE and or AP rates - this will happen -it is a Mech.exe bug and it will happen even in a 7.1 build. I sent out an oob fix for this with two purposes in mind: One - to fix this and Two - to gain your help in fixing the oobs as this was part of a larger plan to involve players to have a voice in this project.

Just because you are all part of test crew does not mean that everything you want will be in upcoming oobs. Somethings will not work and others will. Here are some examples: We cannot add new units to Germany oob because all the slots are used up. To do so would ruin every Campaign designed that used this oob. We cannot drastically adjust unit cost as that would alter every Campaign designed with certian core force purchase point. Some unit’s cost can be adjusted without negative effects to other people's spwaw work regarding campaigns etc.. but this may affect pbem games - what is the lesser of two evils? Assigning purchase points amounts for either side use could fix this for pbem but that is up to you - the players to decide before you begin a game.

Next, we are working under the confines of existing spwaw scenarios, campaigns, Mega Campaigns and the hard coded data that crosses over from one oob to a new one that a scenario contains. This is not an easy task. Somethings foreseen were fixed while others - unforeseen were not and have been discover by you. That is why I offered to hear gamer’s views and findings and data. We are diligently fixing what we can. Hindsight is always better than foresight and it is far easier to gripe and complain with hindsight behind you than help out with foresight. Why, because no one can with any certainties can predict the future.

I apologies for the MG bug.

The reason for attempting to place a Pen rate for HMGs was to help the AAA MGs shoot down Aircraft and to have these match the data found in numerous sources regarding HMG pen rates vs armor and to name one - PanzerTroopen, Jentz, Vol 2 Appendix D page 296. MG34 using smk ammo could penetrate 3mm of armor at 500 meters at 30 degrees and 8 mm at 100 meters. Please email Thomas L. Jentz with your comments regarding this and not me. Thank you. When there is bug in the Main exe one has to consider from a business standpoint - is it worth to fix or not? Fixing the main exe is not my decision to make. Any major code adjustments made inside the main exe file causes long term testing and other things unforeseen.

As I stated before, the majority of Gun pen data rates were not adjusted and remain the same as 7.11 and 7.1 oobs. The ones that were adjusted had minor number problems such as the wrong settings or someone forgot to add a digit and had a gun read a HE pen rate of 1 instead of the intended 18 or some were set to read at 500 yards from the first hex. They’re not many of these. I went over every gun used in the game and recalculated the effective armor rate formula and the majority of guns never needed an adjustment and remain the same. I apologize for making it sound like I changed every penetration rate but with all the verbal hate tossed at me - I backed off and let the S--T fly till things cooled down. That is, if it will ever.

In the 8.1 patch, I sent a fix for several pen rate issues but not all and even these may need an adjustment in the final release based on you comments and not biased predetermined complaints as there is a difference between the two.

As stated before, we need your help as no one person can do everything. There are not enough hours in a day for this but if everyone helps out, it can get done. I am not being paid for this, nor is anyone else working on oobs. We have real jobs and families to support. The time we spend on this project is all volunteer. If you are of the class of person who hates 8.0 era changes then please go back and play using the 7.11 oobs and mech.exe as you have already pre-determined that this project is a failure and no amount of improvements to 8.0 would deter your wrath. You have that right to do so. Remember:

Hindsight is always better than foresight and it is far easier to gripe and complain with hindsight behind you than help out with foresight.

_____________________________

MarauderMel

http://www.wargamer.com/hosted/Steelpanthers/index.asp

(in reply to harlekwin)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)

So is it Winter 1942 or Spring 1942?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BryanMelvin

Please do an experiment. Take the 7.1 or 7.11 oobs and compare AP pen rates with 8.1 oobs or even the 8.0 oobs. You will discover an odd fact, approx 96 % of the Pen rates for all guns used in new oobs are the same as 7.11 oobs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BryanMelvin
Here is another little quip - do not jump the gun and pass judgment without knowing the facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BryanMelvin
The reason for attempting to place a Pen rate for HMGs was to help the AAA MGs shoot down Aircraft and to have these match the data found in numerous sources regarding HMG pen rates vs armor and to name one - PanzerTroopen, Jentz, Vol 2 Appendix D page 296. MG34 using smk ammo could penetrate 3mm of armor at 500 meters at 30 degrees and 8 mm at 100 meters. Please email Thomas L. Jentz with your comments regarding this and not me. Thank you. When there is bug in the Main exe one has to consider from a business standpoint - is it worth to fix or not? Fixing the main exe is not my decision to make. Any major code adjustments made inside the main exe file causes long term testing and other things unforeseen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BryanMelvin
As I stated before, the majority of Gun pen data rates were not adjusted and remain the same as 7.11 and 7.1 oobs. The ones that were adjusted had minor number problems such as the wrong settings or someone forgot to add a digit and had a gun read a HE pen rate of 1 instead of the intended 18 or some were set to read at 500 yards from the first hex. They’re not many of these. I went over every gun used in the game and recalculated the effective armor rate formula and the majority of guns never needed an adjustment and remain the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)

So is it Winter 1942 or Spring 1942?

It is currently July '41 for Germans to have already improved ammo as compared to the Soviet model. Yes during the initial run up to Barbarossa those wacky Germans took ammo with them because they had pre-knowledge that the soviets had batch problems with their ammo. It is a good thing that sometime between 1939 and 1943 the German crystal ball broke yes otherwise they might still have exhibited such prescience.


Also the keebler elves must have been the German frontline field expedient gunsmith fairies because the German OOB 76.2 has an acc of 13 while the Soviet one has an acc of 9. THIS is what led me to ask what exactly captures are modeling. This is why I lament the fact that the stats for cross OOB gear are not standardized and that a good focus on proofing is the main thrust.

regards,
sven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

quote:

ORIGINAL: VicKevlar



There is to be no spamming, trolling, personal insults, vulgarity, bigotry, profanity or porn. Inappropriate language or conduct can lead to a short vacation or outright dismissal from Matrix. All topics and behavior that is deemed unsuitable or improper will be locked with an explanation given as to why.

Thank you.

now this thread contains 4 pages of spam. Delete it so those of us who are trying to get some work done can do it without having to wade through all this nonsense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

That was better, harlekwin, but I think the Germans employed "Krupp" elves.
"Hammer of the Mods"

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)

So is it Winter 1942 or Spring 1942?

It is currently July '41 for Germans to have already improved ammo as compared to the Soviet model. Yes during the initial run up to Barbarossa those wacky Germans took ammo with them because they had pre-knowledge that the soviets had batch problems with their ammo. It is a good thing that sometime between 1939 and 1943 the German crystal ball broke yes otherwise they might still have exhibited such prescience.


Also the keebler elves must have been the German frontline field expedient gunsmith fairies because the German OOB 76.2 has an acc of 13 while the Soviet one has an acc of 9. THIS is what led me to ask what exactly captures are modeling. This is why I lament the fact that the stats for cross OOB gear are not standardized and that a good focus on proofing is the main thrust.

regards,
sven

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

That was better, harlekwin, but I think the Germans employed "Krupp" elves.
"Hammer of the Mods"

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)

So is it Winter 1942 or Spring 1942?

It is currently July '41 for Germans to have already improved ammo as compared to the Soviet model. Yes during the initial run up to Barbarossa those wacky Germans took ammo with them because they had pre-knowledge that the soviets had batch problems with their ammo. It is a good thing that sometime between 1939 and 1943 the German crystal ball broke yes otherwise they might still have exhibited such prescience.


Also the keebler elves must have been the German frontline field expedient gunsmith fairies because the German OOB 76.2 has an acc of 13 while the Soviet one has an acc of 9. THIS is what led me to ask what exactly captures are modeling. This is why I lament the fact that the stats for cross OOB gear are not standardized and that a good focus on proofing is the main thrust.

regards,
sven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

Indeed. But if you would be so kind as to explain the discrepancy between the two values. And why the soviet 76.2 mm Field Gun available from Jan 42 has an ACC of 14, yet the german gun (7/41) has an ACC of 13
to the equivalent soviet guns (76.2mm ATG) 9?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

That was better, harlekwin, but I think the Germans employed "Krupp" elves.
"Hammer of the Mods"

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Major Destruction

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


Which is why the germans started deploying the 76.2mm from the winter/spring 42 onwards, when they had had a chance to set up a production line for ammuntion and/or rechamber/bore the guns. And of course also to mount them on various gunchassis (The Marder types of vehicles primarily)

So is it Winter 1942 or Spring 1942?

It is currently July '41 for Germans to have already improved ammo as compared to the Soviet model. Yes during the initial run up to Barbarossa those wacky Germans took ammo with them because they had pre-knowledge that the soviets had batch problems with their ammo. It is a good thing that sometime between 1939 and 1943 the German crystal ball broke yes otherwise they might still have exhibited such prescience.


Also the keebler elves must have been the German frontline field expedient gunsmith fairies because the German OOB 76.2 has an acc of 13 while the Soviet one has an acc of 9. THIS is what led me to ask what exactly captures are modeling. This is why I lament the fact that the stats for cross OOB gear are not standardized and that a good focus on proofing is the main thrust.

regards,
sven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke
Now we have odd increse of penetration there, accuracy here etc. which doesn't make any sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I think OOB 70 unit 123 (the 76 ATG) has a simple typo in the availability date. Would everyone agree that a beginning date of July 1942 would be more appropriate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skotty702

Is the aircraft gun issue still an issue?
P-39: 10 37mm guns
P-38J: 15 20mm guns
P-51B: 10 .50cal guns
P-51D: 10 .50cal guns
F-80: 10 .50cal guns
P-51H: 10 .50cal guns
P-38F: 15 20mm guns
P-38L: 15 20mm guns
B-25H: TEN 75mm cannons!!!!!!!!!!!

This is just the US OOB. I know there are more OOB's that have funky
gun counts. Is this an error or part of the aircraft "improvement" idea.

Thanks
Scott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen
(Deleted an inappropriate comment)

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I think OOB 70 unit 123 (the 76 ATG) has a simple typo in the availability date. Would everyone agree that a beginning date of July 1942 would be more appropriate?

Then why is this SAME gun available from january 42 on one vehicle and from april on a lot of other SPATGs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

Why are all of saturday's posts suddenly gone from this and the "what is happening to this forum" thread?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I think OOB 70 unit 123 (the 76 ATG) has a simple typo in the availability date. Would everyone agree that a beginning date of July 1942 would be more appropriate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Igor

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I think OOB 70 unit 123 (the 76 ATG) has a simple typo in the availability date. Would everyone agree that a beginning date of July 1942 would be more appropriate?

Why not have two guns? One available in August of 1941; with the same values for accuracy and penetration as the Soviet 76.2 field gun, a rarity of one, and a mediocre ammo supply. The second available in July 1942; with a rarity of zero, better accuracy and penetration, and a decent ammo load (for more purchase points, of course). This way the captured crash-booms pressed into service against the T-34s are there (sometimes) if you want them; but the sights and better ammo don't show up until they more reasonably should.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

I suggest eliminating some of the 3 or 4 different types of wagon teams to free up some room