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 >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 12/21/2001 12:27:00 AM   
Fredde

 

Posts: 498
Joined: 6/7/2000
From: Goteborg, Sweden
Status: offline 		Mikimoto. I very much prefer a good tactical game, with a good historical outcome. Why should not the results judge this type of game as they do on the operational level games? The Germans were simply much better off with their tanks than the T-34. If changing the OOB is a good way of making the results more realistic, i'm all for it (not that I have any doubts whatsoever in Paul Vebbers and others knowledge). Crew training, crew quality, better tactics etc. As you stated this gave the Germans a historically proved advantage in the early years. This included very good performance even against "heavier" Russian tanks. With this mind, I really have no problem with German tanks outperforming Soviet ones. Tactics and skill also include "microtactics" modeled in the turn and beyond the players control. Where in the 50 meter hex is the tank located.. how does the commader use it.. when does he shoot.. what occasion etc etc. Perhaps the "effective" penetration value of a gun is much higher than the "theoretical" when used by skilled troops than by non-skilled since they hit better and know where to fire the shot to really hurt the enemy tank. I do not think SPWAW takes it upon itself to be the perfect ballistic simulation. There are much better programs out there for that (usually well-hidden in army training centres or vehicle constructor companies). Rather I see SPWAW as an excellent historical wargame on the tactical level, able to recreate historical results. And.. the program is so great that it even allows you to modify all these debated values and go with your own version (for those who feel they have done a much more extensive and correct research than the OOB creators, and even for those who just want to test it out ).
quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto:
German successes against the T-34 and Russian Heavies were based in crew training and quality, tactics and good use of the mediocre material they had, AS WE ALL KNOW.
If you want to play "results", play OPERATIONAL GAMES, when each playing piece representing a company/batallion, and all the possible events during combat are inserted in the turn, tank combat, infantry and AT-support, CAS, etc..
But if you want to play the "making-off" of the "historical result", then you must play TACTICAL games, as my loved Spwaw is. But I don't like the new making-of I see in v7.


_____________________________

"If infantry is the Queen of the battlefield, artillery is her backbone", Jukka L. Mäkelä about the Finnish victory at Ihantala.

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 31
- 12/21/2001 12:36:00 AM   
asgrrr

 

Posts: 529
Joined: 9/18/2001
From: Iceland
Status: offline 		May I ask everyone to keep this thread as close to topic as possible? There are plenty of threads out there to discuss various aspects of tanks, plates and guns. This is a place for those who choose v6.1 over v7 to make a statement in my opinion. Thank you, and I empasize I am not aiming to stifle discussion by this.

_____________________________

Never hate your enemy.
It clouds your judgement.

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 32
- 12/21/2001 1:01:00 AM   
Figmo

 

Posts: 556
Joined: 5/28/2000
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
FIgmo - the 53@ 12 of the PZ 12 is a "kludge" becasue of the shot traps in its round front and interior matlet. 30/rouond can give an effective armor thickness of between 30 and 70mm. Using the higher "thickness" with te low angle makes it more vulnerable against small caliber weapons than the 30@42 that would correspond to the "regular" rating. Remeber the "6-slab" model makes you have to do some cartwheels sometimes with odd shaped things...
Paul - please try again and explain the numbers - I have a feeling you are saying 53@ 12 is 53mm at 12 degrees and 30@42 is 30mm at 42 Degrees but am not sure so I can't comment on blind numbers - also, where are these angles on the Tank to help more than other countries - aka the Russian tanks have angles too - are they taken into account if not why not.

_____________________________

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, f

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 33
- 12/21/2001 1:38:00 AM   
Paul Vebber


Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline 		YEs the numbers are mm at degrees. The game allows only one "plate" to represent often several on the facing of the real tank. In some cases a "dominant plate" is used when it has most of the exposuer (the Panther upper Glacis for example) but other times many plates must be "averaged" becasue of differeing rientation and curved surfaces. That is why many of the numbers do not match "book value". I recommend teh WWII ballistics book for explanation of the details.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 34
- 12/21/2001 6:22:00 AM   
Figmo

 

Posts: 556
Joined: 5/28/2000
From: Pennsylvania, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
YEs the numbers are mm at degrees. The game allows only one "plate" to represent often several on the facing of the real tank. In some cases a "dominant plate" is used when it has most of the exposuer (the Panther upper Glacis for example) but other times many plates must be "averaged" becasue of differeing rientation and curved surfaces. That is why many of the numbers do not match "book value". I recommend teh WWII ballistics book for explanation of the details.
Then you are telling me I am correct - the raw numbers don't mean so much - it's a feel you have go for. That is my whole point. If numbers meant everything men wouldn't leave a bunker - but they do. If numbers meant everything then Audy Murphy couldn't have stopped 5 tanks and a company of infantry by himself. Not that this happens all the time just once and a while. Like a 50mm ATG taking out a KV - it does happen - but seldom. That is how Ver. 6.1 was working - with Ver. 7 things like this happen too often.

_____________________________

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, f

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 35
- 12/21/2001 6:41:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline 		Wow I remember a lot of resistance to Version 6 too.... coincidence???

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 36
- 12/21/2001 8:33:00 AM   
Matt

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 3/5/2001
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Folks, I have not been on this board for a while, but I have played the SP series for quite a while. I have been reading this series, and have seen quite number of tests for the new armor and penetration values that point either way on this issue. So these inspired me and I thought, I shall throw in with my own results, and I wanted to address this issue most directly, and in the realm of playability. Having never played the Heroes of the Motherland campaign, I tried that. (Normally, I can't tolerate being the Soviets for more than one turn.) Frankly, I didn't have any problem at all with the campaign. I had two platoons of tanks, one of T-34s and one of T-60s, plus two companies of Rifles and some recon and mortars. (I personally like recon and mortars, a lot.) Maybe other people think that this is an easy campaign, but I was continually astonished at how many German armored vehicles kept appearing. I wanted to jump up and call "Foul!", but I kept playing. To shorten a long story, it went ugly early for the Germans in each scenario. (and I play will all the preferences on excepting C&C, which I hate when using trucks). After the first few nail biter turns, each time the Germans were safely sorted out by the tanks I had. I did upgrade the T-60s to T-34s, but still didn't notice any real problems, especially comparing them to other, earlier versions of SPWAW. Thoughts? Matt

_____________________________

IYACYAS

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 37
- 12/21/2001 4:14:00 PM   
Galka

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/30/2000
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Mike Rothery:
It would appear that the basis for the criticism is that folks have a feeling for the T34 being a real shock to the Germans and that the adjustments to the V7 OOb make it a mere mortal. In 1941 when the Germans first encountered the T34 and KV series tanks the 50mm armed Pz III's were a rare item. The bulk of german armour and AT gun units were armed with the 37mm....
This would be a great explaination if it were indeed true. Regretfully according to Jentz' Panzertruppen 1 and this mortal's addition, German panzer units set off to war against Russia with 1021 MK III tanks equipped with the 5 cm gun. Of these 546 were reported to be equipped with the 5 cm lang (long) barrel. 75; 55 to the 6th Panzer and 20 to the 20th Panzer were equipped with the 37mm gun. I cannot dispute the AT, however an interesting note according to Nafziger at the start of Barbarossa, many Infantry PanzerJaeger units had 10 37mm and 2 50mm Pak.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 38
- 12/21/2001 11:56:00 PM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline 		Hello. A friend sended this to me: Some light on the problem of German 5cm guns vs T34 and KV-1 can be shed by data in Jentz:"Panzertruppen vol. 1" p. 231 where combat reports from May 1942 show the following: 5cm L/42 vs T34:
PzGr 40 (APCR) penetrates turret side up to 100 meters. Penetrates lower hull (the vertical armour between the roadwheels) up to 200 meters. PzGr (AP) penetrates lower hull up to 150meters after several hits 5cm L/42 vs KV-1
Penetration impossible 5cm L/60 against T34
PzGr40 not used as the round jams the gun.
PzGr penetrates up to 400 meters at turret and hull sides, up to 300 meters with several hits on the drivers hatch in the front hull 5cm L/60 against KV-1
PzGr40 up to 200 meters on the hull side and rear
PzGr no penetrations

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 39
- 12/22/2001 12:53:00 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline 		Galka:
quote:

This would be a great explaination if it were indeed true. Regretfully according to Jentz' Panzertruppen 1 and this mortal's addition, German panzer units set off to war against Russia with 1021 MK III tanks equipped with the 5 cm gun. Of these 546 were reported to be equipped with the 5 cm lang (long) barrel. 75; 55 to the 6th Panzer and 20 to the 20th Panzer were equipped with the 37mm gun. I cannot dispute the AT, however an interesting note according to Nafziger at the start of Barbarossa, many Infantry PanzerJaeger units had 10 37mm and 2 50mm Pak.
Hmmmm, looks like other people have diffeent big pictures, as I said. I've always heard that rubbish that PZIIIs weren't there in force, but consider something else. One of the big pictures I've heard over the years, adn I'm sure it's reasonably accurate, is that the Wehrmacht had at the start of Barbarossa 3,000 tanks. If 1,000+ PZIII 50mm tanks were there, that is clearly 33% of the force. True, there MAY had been more light tanks than PZIII 50mms, but 1/3 of the ofrce is by no means a rare amount. Compare USSR KVIs and T34/76s to their grand total at that time, and see something that was a lot closer to 'rare' (though I believe they numerically outnumbered 1000, but percent of tank force is the topic). To think that a little better than 17% of the tank force for Gerry was also the 50mm 'longs'.

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 40
- 12/22/2001 2:41:00 AM   
lnp4668

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I just post another test results between IIIG and T 34m40 here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=007812 The results may surprise you.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 41
- 12/22/2001 2:48:00 AM   
Kuad

 

Posts: 9
Joined: 11/23/2001
Status: offline 		Could someone please try to test the PzIII vs. T-34 whilst setting troop quality to be equal? It makes a major, major difference in 1941 with Ger vs. SU. My question is this: I don't feel anything in 7.0 is wildly out of whack. Perhaps a minor trimming to the penetration value of the 50mm gun? The 50L60 should be fine as is, I mean the... Uhmm... Whatsit? L42? That one.

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 42
- 12/22/2001 5:15:00 AM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline 		From Serga magazine.
special issue nr 4 "Operación Barbarroja"
By Carlos Caballero, Dionisio García and Ricardo Sanz. Table nr 1: Feldheer East, 22 june 1941 Panzer I .......... 281
Panzer II ......... 743
Panzer 35 (t)...... 157
Panzer 38 (t)...... 651
Panzer III ........ 979
Panzer IV ......... 444
Armourd Command ... 143
StugIII ........... 250
total.............. 3648 As you can see PzIII represent 25% of the total. It was not a "rare" item.

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 43
- 12/22/2001 5:21:00 AM   
lnp4668

 

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/10/2000
From: Arlington, TX, USA
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Kuad:
Could someone please try to test the PzIII vs. T-34 whilst setting troop quality to be equal? It makes a major, major difference in 1941 with Ger vs. SU. My question is this: I don't feel anything in 7.0 is wildly out of whack. Perhaps a minor trimming to the penetration value of the 50mm gun? The 50L60 should be fine as is, I mean the... Uhmm... Whatsit? L42? That one.

Kuad, I performed such a test on the link I posted above.

_____________________________

"My friends, remember this, that there are no bad herbs, and no bad men; there are only bad cultivators." Les Miserables

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 44
- 12/22/2001 5:54:00 AM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline 		TABLE Nr 3 CONDITION OF SOVIET TANKS IN JUNE, 1941
(Only Western Military Districts) Military........................Little..Great
District..Total Operative Repairs Repairs Rebuild
--------------------------------------------------
Leningrad..1857....7........1536....210....104
Baltic.......1549...378........896....203.....72
Spec.west..2900...470.......1722....385....323
Kiev.........5465..1124.......3644....298....379
Odessa.....1011...178........565....151....117
-------------------------------------------------
Total.....12782...2157......8383....1247...995 From Serga special issue nr 4 "Operación Barbarroja"
By Carlos Caballero, Dionisio García y Ricardo Sanz. [ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Mikimoto ] [ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Mikimoto ]



_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 45
- 12/22/2001 6:07:00 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline 		Looks like the Leningrad District had some explaining to do.

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 46
- 12/22/2001 6:10:00 AM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Looks like the Leningrad District had some explaining to do.
Yes, it wonders me too...

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 47
- 12/22/2001 6:19:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I just did a little experiment where i replaced the OOB-81 (Soviet) from 6.1 into the 7.0 game The results of replaying a matchup of equal T-34's and Pz-III's was a bit more stomach-able shall we say? Even without APCR, the Pz's could get a kill shot on the flanks, but not nearly so easily now and generally needed to be within 200 yards preferably though i got a few minor penetrations out to 450 yards. On the issue of numbers and kill %'s, lets remind ourselves again that the tank kills primarily come from other sources, not other tanks. the RMZ quotes less than 10% of all T-34 casualties to enemy Panzers, but to AT guns and infantry. I've read that the best way KV and even T-34 tanks were dealt with on the Eastern Front was via the German infantry and the jury rigs they came up with to deal with the beasts (like slapping an AT mine under the recess for a KV turret. Zologa in his difinitive work, commented that the Germans were largely able to deal with T34's because the Soviets tended to attack rigidly, and more importantly in the T34's case, in isolated penny packets allowing them to be outflanked and outmassed by the German panzers. As a collaboration of this data, the RMZ points out that even in 42, the T-34 made up at the most only 1/3 of the available Russian tank force, the rest were lend-lease, some heavy KV and a good doseage of light tanks (+ a few suvivors from the 1930's crowd) Russian tank losses were so severe that the brigade became the largest organizational tank unit in the Red Army with their STAVKA reserve measured in "tank brigades" Rudimentory 'tank armies' were attempted but such concentrations were rare outside of the one failed spring offensive in 42. in WAW though, most of the above is bunk in terms of practical application, unless players are seeking aboslute realistic battle scenes. I did a little of this myself in my currrent Sov campaign, usually i go all T-34's and unless my crews are fresh from tank school i can do better than historical, knowing that i've got an inordinate concentration of modern tanks in my core. This time i did the 1/3 to 1/2 option, filling out the rest of my core with light tanks. A much tougher going but the battlefield superiority of the T-34 helps me hold my own. (well that and a brain dead AI) As a German campaigner i used to dread the prospect of going to Russia, knowing that my precious panzer crews would be in for a rough time facing T-34's and KV tanks.....hoping and praying (and more importantly, using tactics on the fly!) to survive long enough for the first long barreled 75 AT guns and Pz-IV equiped units to become available. Long barreled Pz-III's help, but not enough to stave off that longing for 75's. Now? might as well go all T-34 as Soviet because the vunder-tank is appearing more and more as a medicore entry. Still playing with 7.0 but thats my observation as of today. I'm starting to wonder if maybe such 'sweeping' changes might better wait for a game engine that can better handle it like CL is supposed to be. With WAW and it's oft mentioned 6 slab sided armor limitation the tweaks, backed up as they may be by researched test data, might be producing results that might be considered, too extreme?

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 48
- 12/22/2001 7:13:00 AM   
Redleg


Posts: 1805
Joined: 5/23/2000
Status: offline 		I just don't get it! If I liked 6.1 better than 7.0 I would play that. (That is not the case). I might even play 7.0 with 6.1 OOBs.... I might decide to play 6.1 with 7.0 OOBs. Failing that, I might make my own OOBs. Good grief!

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 49
- 12/22/2001 7:44:00 AM   
Nikademus


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

Originally posted by Redleg:
I just don't get it! If I liked 6.1 better than 7.0 I would play that. (That is not the case). I might even play 7.0 with 6.1 OOBs.... I might decide to play 6.1 with 7.0 OOBs. Failing that, I might make my own OOBs. Good grief!
The idea was to see if a compromise between the two versions could be reached or not. I dont hate 7.0, and some of the changes i like, for example i agree with the reducing of Soviet ammo pen rating for the 76.2mm gun, and dont disagree with the raised stats for the German 50mm. but i'm more sangquine about the across the board ding given to Soviet and Soviet armor alone.

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 50
- 12/22/2001 9:05:00 AM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline 		Check this, please: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/ And this: "The Germans were surprised by the Red Army’s equipment, especially the T-34. German 37mm and 50mm guns could not even dent the T-34 sloping frontal armor. Guns of 105mm had to be employed to stop them. As a stopgap measure, the Germans retooled and mounted captured Russian 75mm guns on panzer pzkpfw I chassis." came from: http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/frame1.htm [ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Mikimoto ]



_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 51
- 12/22/2001 9:24:00 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline 		Mikimoto: You have to wonder about that source. I wonder whether they were claiming that 'only' 105mm guns were able to do the trick, or that only large guns in general, because everyone knows it was a piece of cake for the 88flak.

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 52
- 12/22/2001 9:42:00 AM   
sven


Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Mikimoto: You have to wonder about that source. I wonder whether they were claiming that 'only' 105mm guns were able to do the trick, or that only large guns in general, because everyone knows it was a piece of cake for the 88flak.

or the 75mm long barrel on the Panther..... The T34 was not an Abrams, but it was a good tank for its time. Mik I respect where you are coming from, and having not played 7.0 extensively I am hesitant to comment. The data is a bit odd however.

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 53
- 12/22/2001 9:57:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Perhaps the problem is'nt the T-34 at all. Perhaps the problem is the Pz-III, and more specificially, it's gun. There is another tank which has'nt been mentioned that gave the Germans a rough treatment when it first debuted. This particular tank is probably the hands down winner of the butt-ugly contest of the year and would never make the front cover of Popular Mechanics. It was ungainly, had some bad design compromises and as such was more of a stop gap medium if ever there was one. It did have two great facets though that gave it a short battlefield superiority, until the Germans countered by debuting the Mark III and IV "specials" as the long barrelled varients are known. Those two great/good facets were, 1) a heavy 75mm cannon with a good HE and AP ability 2) decent frontal protection with a moderate slope and good thickness. I am of course reffering to the US M3 medium. Rommel himself made depressing comments on the debut of this American nightmare.....nightmare to his Panzers that is. I just played a test desert scenerio pitting two Pz-IIIj (short barreled) platoons vs two platoon of Lee/Grants. Guess who won? The Pz-III platoons by a wide margin. Primary culprit again was APCR ammo.....it allowed the Panzers to take out the Lees frontally out to the maximum APCR range of 500 yards. AP was harder, but a kill was scored nevertheless. I may have to take back what i said about APCR levels being ok. Each Panzer had an average of only 4 rounds, yet the high German exp (and in this case the high target size of the Lees) made that distinction meaningless. So again we see the same paradox only this time with a different theatre and a different enemy. Judging by the results, one suddenly finds it odd that the Germans needed scramble to upgrade their weapons....they seem to be doing a fine job as it is, even against new T-34's, KV's and now we can add M3's to the list as well. To be honest though, i'm not sure if the problem is the representation of Pzgr40 ammo....or of the upgraded penetration characterisics of the more and more uber-looking medium tank gun of the war, the 50L42 KwK comments?

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 54
- 12/22/2001 12:18:00 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline 		Christ almighty, I'm frankly sick to death of these nit-picking arguments on SPWaW OOB values. All you guys should be knowledgeable enough to use the provided game editors. If you don't like thw provided OOBs, you have the power to change them in any way you see fit. If any of you have your own "definitive" SPWaW database, I'm sure we'd love to see it. [ December 22, 2001: Message edited by: KG Erwin ]



_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 55
- 12/22/2001 12:37:00 PM   
Nikademus


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

Originally posted by KG Erwin:
Christ almighty, I'm frankly sick to death of these nit-picking arguments on SPWaW OOB values. All you guys should be knowledgeable enough to use the provided game editors. If you don't like thw provided OOBs, you have the power to change them in any way you see fit. There are plenty of active threads in which to argue the fine points. Use them.

I thought this was one of them? Nitpicking is to be expected from grognard wargamers who want to feel that they are playing the most accurate version possible, as long as it's respectful, i dont see a problem with it. Yes there is the editor, but change to much, too radically on your own and will you feel better? Or will you worry that maybe you are the one who's off? For what it's worth, my suspicions on the mark III gun might be off instead of WAW. Just downloaded the latest SP:WAW ver 5 and set up the same exact scenerio with the Grant tanks that i mentioned above. Guess what? same results, and as Paul has pointed out, tanks in the Cameo version of SP get a hell ova lot more APCR than in WAW. Checked their encyc too....ratings are of course, more generalized using the old SP system but the German gun ratings are very similar for the 50L42 and L60. Ratings differ greatly with the Russian guns and armor ratings. A standard feature of SPWWII though that got me to thinking, and how could it as the scenerio i described was ALOT harder to set up because of it (did'nt use the editor, but the battle builder), was that maybe the problem is being created partially by the small default maps in WAW...they do tend to be close up and personal. In the Cameo version the maps are three times as large making onrushing panzer III's against Grants a more harrowing experience by far. just a thought anyway. Intersting diversion, hav'nt revisited the Cameo version since before WAW first came out. If one accepts that the 50L42 is accurately depicted then the focus should shift towards the downgrading of the Russian tanks. Hardly a minor 'nitpick' since it greatly affects gameplay.

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 56
- 12/22/2001 12:43:00 PM   
Tomanbeg

 

Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000
From: Memphis, Tn, CSA
Status: offline 		Yes we all know about the OOB editor. But for a PEBM gamer what counts is the 'stock' OOB. I havn't got enough games under my belt to have a valid opinion yet. I do have an observation though. WW2 was the start of modern combined arms tactics. Anyone who lines up their tanks and goes toe to toe is missing the whole point.
T.

_____________________________

"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead."
– The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963.
[IMG]http

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 57
- 12/22/2001 7:02:00 PM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Mikimoto: You have to wonder about that source. I wonder whether they were claiming that 'only' 105mm guns were able to do the trick, or that only large guns in general, because everyone knows it was a piece of cake for the 88flak.
Hello Charles22 and Sven. I finded this link in "Spwaw Threas Hall of Fame Forum"... the fact is you can find dozens ow webpages whith lot of information... sometimes contradictory and sometimes weird.
In the Serga magazine there is a photo gallery that shows two or three photos of 10,5 German guns in AT position, and photo text indicates they were used in that role. I liked that link cause it said what I have checked first in the magazine.
In the WWW you can find lot of information... but the point here is they universally (almost) agree in that T-34 and KV's were a rude shock for the Germans. And they tried all they had to stop those tanks, finding that 88's were the most succesful solution (with AT ambushes, infantry assaults, etc), if you want to find a "gun" solution.
By the way, some months ago, all wargamers agreed in that point: T34 and KV's superior to German tanks, 50L42 guns making the hard work only from flank/rear and at point blank, and the 50L60 performing something better, but not much... I recall the tactics were smoke, arty barrage, inf assaults, flanking and 88s, I readed that in the forum continuosly, furiosly, until the vomit. Where are the people that pointed that? But since version 7 it seems History is rewriten in a strange way.

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 58
- 12/22/2001 8:48:00 PM   
Mikimoto

 

Posts: 511
Joined: 11/6/2000
From: Barcelona, Catalunya
Status: offline 		And check this on "real" German tactics in the East Front: http://www.feldgrau.com/pnzfwd.html

_____________________________

Desperta ferro!
Miquel Guasch Aparicio

(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 59
- 12/22/2001 9:02:00 PM   
El Vito

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 3/25/2001
From: Ohio
Status: offline 		I'm not sure but I thought the Soviets usually had an advantage in numbers am I correct? If this is true I don't think meeting engagements are a good measuring stick. I think an evenly matched battle between the Germans v. Soviets would be won by the Germans most times. If the Soviets have numbers then it seems to be more of a match. I've only just begun the switch from 6.whatever to 7.0 I play as the Soviets a lot so I'll have some observations soon.

_____________________________


(in reply to gorgias96)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.672