Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

British armour in Battleaxe

 
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.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Conquest of the Aegean >> British armour in Battleaxe Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
British armour in Battleaxe - 5/20/2010 8:49:59 PM   
OlegHasky

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Hamburg
Status: offline 		I am looking at the scenario, and I am bit concern about proportion of Alied movement rates.
Armour: especially the proportion of Matildas to Cruiser tanks and other vechicles.

Matilda there, have a 40 movement rate. (Well know snail among the tanks 16/9 mph on/off road ,and only 6 mph on the desert terrain)

Crusader variant (variant that had sacrifised its armour for the speed, was designed to be the fast tank have 26/15 ) have only 10+ in , with proportion to Matilda.
And I could took it (reason that +10 is enough in game engine matters), but Cruiser Mk IVs (even bit faster tanks than the Crusaders) have the same 40 Matilda rate

I do not really get the idea here.

Looks like rather the Matildas schould have its movement reduced (even hard - if to include, and reflect its serious steering problems.. )
Or the Cruisers and Crusaders movement schould poup up. To make them real. As the warfare with them relyed high on manovers - catching German tanks from sides to make their guns effective.

Does the scenario design does not reflect that, or am I mistaking..
What is the idea in the movement here.
Marmon Herringhtons cars (50/mph) have also 40 movement rate.




(I also see HE shells within Matildas, though from I remember - there were not in use by those tanks).

< Message edited by OlegHasky -- 5/20/2010 8:54:12 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/23/2010 7:23:38 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline 		Hi OlegHasky,

I suspect that this is some sort of transcription error. If you check the estabs/equipment for the different Allied tanks included in Battleaxe, you'll see that those values are completely different than the ones are displayed under the GENERAL tab for each type. In fact, I did a test to demonstrate the movement capabilities of the different types. Below, I'll post a JPG that shows the starting lineup for a race of sorts:





From left to right the squadrons are made up of the following type of tank:

A9 MkI
A13 MkVI
A10 MkII
A15 MkVI
A12 MkII

I'm going to give each of these vehicles an order to move 5km cross-country, and see who wins. Each vehicle will be given orders to move straight/fast.

Can you feel the tension building?


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 5/23/2010 7:24:40 PM >

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to OlegHasky)
Post #: 2
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/23/2010 7:30:04 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline 		And the results:

As you can see, the Matilda and A10 squadrons get left behind. Had the test been road-bound, rather than cross-country, we have to assume that the results would have been even more dramatic.




The A10 really wasn't a cruiser in terms of performance, but rather in terms of its armour. The A9's maximum armour was 13mm, making it extremely vulnerable to anything with an AP value. The apparent answer was to upgrade the plate to 30mm, but the power-plant and drive-train wasn't upgraded in the process, making the A10 a real dog in terms of speed. Eventually, the hull would be modified and used for the Valentine infantry tank.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 5/23/2010 7:33:25 PM >

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 3
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/23/2010 7:55:54 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
Now, a couple of particulars...

quote:

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

I am looking at the scenario, and I am bit concern about proportion of Alied movement rates.
Armour: especially the proportion of Matildas to Cruiser tanks and other vechicles.

Matilda there, have a 40 movement rate. (Well know snail among the tanks 16/9 mph on/off road ,and only 6 mph on the desert terrain)


Here are the estab values for the different AFV that participated in my race above, road/cross-country, in kph:

A9 - 40/24
A13 - 48/22
A10 - 26/13
A12 - 24/15
A15 - 43/25


quote:

Crusader variant (variant that had sacrifised its armour for the speed, was designed to be the fast tank have 26/15 ) have only 10+ in , with proportion to Matilda.
And I could took it (reason that +10 is enough in game engine matters), but Cruiser Mk IVs (even bit faster tanks than the Crusaders) have the same 40 Matilda rate

I do not really get the idea here.


Is it possible that in using term "Crusader" variant that you mean "Cruiser?" I ask because four of the five vehicles that I list above were classified as cruisers. The A9 was indeed under-armored for speed. The A13 was indeed the fastest, and all but the A10 were significantly faster than the Matilda (A12).

quote:

Looks like rather the Matildas schould have its movement reduced (even hard - if to include, and reflect its serious steering problems.. )
Or the Cruisers and Crusaders movement schould poup up. To make them real. As the warfare with them relyed high on manovers - catching German tanks from sides to make their guns effective.

Does the scenario design does not reflect that, or am I mistaking..
What is the idea in the movement here.
Marmon Herringhtons cars (50/mph) have also 40 movement rate.


Sorry, but we can't do anything about values with which we disagree. And I have to note that there are several errors involving unit values in the game that actually do effect unit performance. When you come across that you'd like to see remedied, there's a running list being kept here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2074026

quote:

(I also see HE shells within Matildas, though from I remember - there were not in use by those tanks).


Just about every model of British tank developed during this period had a CS variant. They were equipped with a 3-inch howitzer for firing smoke. CS stood for "close support.


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to OlegHasky)
Post #: 4
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/23/2010 8:09:23 PM   
OlegHasky

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Hamburg
Status: offline 		Allright.. This lullabying me ..

The concern was heavy. But the test seem to ilustrate, that indeed evrythings fine. Like Youve said ..a transcription error (very missleading).
I did investigate estabs before Ive build my concerns, The data there, next to "description" of the machine had no real chance to become a technical value for the engine with hard 40s picking my eyes in the game itselsf.

Thanks for all here.
I am very glad that the movements allright.

The post will be the footnote for the potential future spooters of the error.

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 5
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/23/2010 8:25:59 PM   
OlegHasky

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Hamburg
Status: offline
quote:

Is it possible that in using term "Crusader" variant that you mean "Cruiser?"


Yes, Crusader as one of the variant of Cruiser tanks (I ment the Crusaders from 6th RTR here)

quote:

Looks like rather the Matildas schould have its movement reduced (even hard - if to include, and reflect its serious steering problems.. )
Or the Cruisers and Crusaders movement schould poup up. To make them real. As the warfare with them relyed high on manovers - catching German tanks from sides to make their guns effective.


quote:

Sorry, but we can't do anything about values with which we disagree. And I have to note that there are several errors involving unit values in the game that actually do effect unit performance


From what You have said, theres no more need for a change. The values are closed (and working) in resonable frames. Im good with that.

(in reply to OlegHasky)
Post #: 6
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/23/2010 9:31:31 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

Matilda there, have a 40 movement rate.
I do not really get the idea here.

Marmon Herringhtons cars (50/mph) have also 40 movement rate.


For posterity, I looked into this more closely and discovered that the movement value that's depicted on the GENERAL tab, in-game, is for the TERRAIN that the unit is in. For motorized units on this map, the value for clear terrain is 40%.


_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to OlegHasky)
Post #: 7
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/24/2010 6:07:54 AM   
OlegHasky

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Hamburg
Status: offline 		Ok, the one 6RTR standing on the "track" have 50, so yes.. It is the terrain % value that is schown in general tab.
very misleading..

As said, I am very glad that the movements fine.

But with HE shells I still have a reason to be standing at the point.
The capability was manufactured within Matildas, but was not in use in real life. (At least from I was able to gather)

< Message edited by OlegHasky -- 5/24/2010 9:42:02 AM >

(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 8
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/24/2010 3:30:12 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2459
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OlegHasky

But with HE shells I still have a reason to be standing at the point.
The capability was manufactured within Matildas, but was not in use in real life. (At least from I was able to gather)


I dunno OlegHaskey.

This is the weapon that was mounted on the Matilda II CS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_3_inch_howitzer

The article cites an HE round.

I'm not sure how this is handled in other games, but we could take a look at Combat Mission.

Could you be confusing the 2-pounder equipped vehicles (that had no HE-round), with the CS-versions?

< Message edited by Prince of Eckmühl -- 5/24/2010 4:00:30 PM >

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to OlegHasky)
Post #: 9
RE: British armour in Battleaxe - 5/24/2010 4:08:04 PM   
OlegHasky

 

Posts: 149
Joined: 9/7/2009
From: Hamburg
Status: offline 		On the same wiki you can read straight up:

"..Another problem was the lack of a high-explosive capability (the appropriate shell existed but was not issued)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II
with the tab pointing cold on 93 APs as the primary armament.

From the other source:

"..The Matilda’s 2 pdr. gun was already obsolete at the beginning de la guerre, but it had sufficient armour penetration capability to deal avec the flimsy chars italiens encountered en Afrique du Nord. Although designated as an char d’assaut, the 2 pdr. gun could not fire high-explosive shells which might have been useful in defeating enemy infantry positions."

quote:

Could you be confusing the 2-pounder equipped vehicles (that had no HE-round), with the CS-versions?

Sure had to be confusing.


(in reply to Prince of Eckmühl)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Conquest of the Aegean >> British armour in Battleaxe Page: [1]
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

0.875