Thank you!

Comments on operational considerations are well considered.

Are there implications for existing TOAW 4 scenarios ?

An obvious question, but one for which the answer, IMO, is "no".

The "why" of that conclusion is that the designers of scenarios in TOAW used various design tools to craft their scenarios, including decisions made to balance, or otherwise ...

In conclusion, it is clear there is much complexity (and data) behind the antipersonnel ratings given in the TOAW 4 equipment database. But, it is equally clear that, over the course of almost three decades, misguided approaches and a failure to properly integrate and standardize the TOAW 1 and 2 ...

Mortars with a range less then five kilometers

Some observations can be made regarding indirect fire weapons with a range less than five kilometers. In the TOAW equipment databases, the antipersonnel ratings of these weapons are reduced presumably to model that with less firing range, there are ...

Finally, one comes to the question of how to rate the antipersonnel effects of heavy artillery. As mentioned, TOAW 1 employed a calculation based on the bore diameter of the artillery piece. This system was intended to represent (over time) a lesser antipersonnel effect while (using shell weight ...

The misguided use of tactical (or even cyclic) rates of fire was another error introduced into the TOAW 2 equipment database. This affected anti-aircraft guns. Of note is that these rates of fire are used in TOAW for resolution of anti-aircraft fire. But the application of the tactical or cyclic ...

In TOAW 4, the effects of the TOAW 2 method of selecting the most destructive projectiles may be seen in the antipersonnel ratings of tank and other direct fire guns with a bore diameter larger than 76-mm. This has resulted in these guns being wildly overrated. Not only is this potentially a problem ...

But what of the ratings for direct fire equipment ? Put another way, one wonders why a “common equipment” 75-mm gun is rated as “90” for indirect fire but only as “66” for direct fire (AT guns, tanks, etc.). Without knowing the precise formula that was used to rate direct fire pieces, one way to ...

What appears to have been the preferred method of rating artillery antipersonnel effectiveness in TOAW 4 is closely related to the “notional pallet” system occasionally used in TOAW 1. The formula was modified such that the “pallet” is 100 square inches (10 x 10). This is equal to 645.16 square ...

Back to the present: artillery antipersonnel ratings in the TOAW 4 equipment database

I haven’t checked the equipment databases of TOAW COW or TOAW 3, but at some point, a decision was made to multiply the antipersonnel ratings of guns by a factor of eight (as represented in the equipment file ...

This “promotion” was also evident in heavy AA gun antipersonnel ratings. The “common equipment” 90-mm AA gun, for example, had its antipersonnel rating increased by something over four times. A similar increase occurred with the German 88-mm AA gun. As well, selected 155-mm SP artillery equipment ...

Some increase was to be expected. In the latter part of World War II, and continuing on into the years of the Cold War, the effectiveness of antipersonnel munitions increased. However, TOAW versions beyond TOAW 1, in rating the antipersonnel effects of some tank / antitank guns, seem to have sought ...

TOAW 2: Some variation, and some arbitrary changes

Before any commentary regarding antipersonnel ratings used in TOAW 2, it is of importance to note that, as games, TOAW 1 and TOAW 2 existed in distinct parts of the wargaming universe. In other words, the antipersonnel ratings assigned in one of ...

Mortars and infantry guns are rated differently, probably because their range was limited compared to that of regular artillery pieces. However, mortars of a bore diameter of 107-mm or greater were rated like artillery pieces, with a ROF of 0.667.

Of particular note is that multiple rocket ...

The second system requires one to know the weight, in kilograms, of the bursting charge of a given projectile. This seems to have been applied to selected artillery pieces with a bore diameter ranging from 150-mm to 170-mm. In this case, the ROF is determined with the formula:

ROF = 929.03 / ( r ...

How artillery was rated in TOAW 1

Given that TOAW is now in its fourth major iteration, one might wonder what the ratings system of TOAW 1 have to offer. What it offers is insight into the original designer’s intent regarding antipersonnel ratings for indirect fire equipment.

Norm Koger (“Norm ...

The anti shipping values in the case of aircraft are fixed in the code.

This URL discusses their generation. You'll see why so many values are the same.

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... o#p4918399

Some of the text in the game text file appears to be hard coded. Not sure why.

Japanese seem strong for 1945 but maybe makes for a good game.

Definitely more interesting than having US assault forces wiped out before they land.

Well, I've got that one [which is based on the non-fixed 150mm], and this one, which is based on the fixed 150mm:JPG1.png

Which one to use?


Great question. I don't understand why a fixed gun firing the same projectile as a mobile gun, would be more lethal against ships.

Answer is probably to ...