Ok guys need some opinions

[PimpYourAFV]

Thanks m10bob, I was hoping someone with army experience would argue for more effective arty and bombing.

[264rifle]

Most WWII aerial bombs of the GP (general purpose) type cantained about 50% explosive by weight. Large size artillery shells seem to carry 14-18% explosive by weight. Examples are the the US 155 M107 shell 43.5kg with 6.6kg/TNT and the US M106 shell for 8in How 90.7 with 16.5kg/TNT.

I do agree that something needs to be fixed but i am not sure how to do it. Tales of fire support from 37mm gun tanks when in the game the co-ax gun is much more effective???? Unless you are shooting at infantry or a tank in the same hex as one of your own units. (One hex = 1/2 of a football field) in which case you always seem to miss the enemy but hit your own troops[X(] even from the next hex (other half of football feild[:@])
I have heard of friendly fire but come on!!

While I do appreciate combat experience (I have none) were there any changes in mortars or rifle grenades from 1940-45 to 1965-75??? Like more pointed noses, more streamline bodies, different fin designs or more precision manufacture of body and tail fin parts that might have some affect on accuracy??? Not saying that game is 100% right but making game conform to weapon performance that is 20-25 years newer might not be 100% right either.

[bud]

after going over and over this 8.403 artillery situation off Alby`s 1/27/06 post -- and playing a online game the other nite and seeing my 8'' OFF/b artillery come down on Albys tank, ( i have given up on 155`s) -- it just fire at me and moved away in its turn - ( i wont say what Alby`s remarks where -- jejeje -- oops ) --- then i see ON/b artillery doing some real damage now --( and yes we have been tweaking the % to hit hard and soft ) -- now i know Mike said he may change the splash in the future -- ( and thank YOU for your long time support Mike ) --but did his changes in 8.403 change allllllll artillery ?? --- are the same changes that where done affect -- ON/B ,OFF/B artillery and PLANES ALL the same ---- did it effect caliber size ( war head ) all the same too --- i must say that theres a differents when big artillery hits a unit and its splash damage and a plane drops med bombs ??? --- so after seeing a few more posts about artillery , i keep asking myself my it changed -- so when i posted that question i was reminded by my pal Ably - ( maybe ex pal after this post -- lol - ) that there some players complaining about artillery to Mike and more to the point about splash damage ----but were they the few or the majority of players here ??? --- so why not open a post and have a vote ( perhaps by someone known to many ) -- and ask -- 1 -- i would like to go back to the 8.4 artillery -- 2 -- i like the 8.403 artillery -- 3 -- i would like to change the following in artillery -- plz be specific -- just to tast the waters --- thz Bud (aka ICED )

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: bud
so why not open a post and have a vote ( perhaps by someone known to many ) -- and ask -- 1 -- i would like to go back to the 8.4 artillery -- 2 -- i like the 8.403 artillery -- 3 -- i would like to change the following in artillery -- plz be specific -- just to tast the waters --- thz Bud (aka ICED )

Thats why this thread was started
[:)]

[JEB Davis]

IMHO, both artillery and HE direct fire effectiveness vs. infantry needs to be bumped up in the hex it hits. BUT splash in an adjacent hex should NOT be increased - remember a hex is 1/2 a football field.

Suppression should be bumped up also.

Please don't overdo it, though. Let's avoid wild pendulum swings.

[bud]

ok then -- my vote --- return to 8.4 artillery --- bud ( aka ICED ) -- if the less of the majority feels the artillery needs adjustment -- then let them fool with this dam tweaking artillery %

[soldier]

The only problem i noticed with splash damage in previous versions was that direct large calibre gun fire (150mm SIG especially) would often kill more enemies in adjacent hexes than the target hex. Actually you could get more casualties by deliberatley firing wide next to your enemy than right at him. Never did get too many targetted kills (as Goblin noted). Preferred the old damage systems when it comes to indirect artillery and bombs.

[m10bob]

The only problem i noticed with splash damage in previous versions was that direct large calibre gun fire (150mm SIG especially) would often kill more enemies in adjacent hexes than the target hex. Actually you could get more casualties by deliberatley firing wide next to your enemy than right at him. Never did get too many targetted kills (as Goblin noted). Preferred the old damage systems when it comes to indirect artillery and bombs.

I agree with soldier on this. Direct fire should not splatter across a 50 yard/metre(?) area like this. Heavy arty, however might, depending on both the calibre and the hardness of the target it hits.
(Bricks and built up areas would become shrapnel as well. Don't know how this would be simulated, (how to limit the extra spatter just to built up areas.)
Of course, shrapnel plays hell in forested ares and tree splinters add to the problem.
(This latter is NOT something I have observed, except in "Band Of Brothers", like you guys).

[Colonel von Blitz]

I've been playing with version 8.4 only, just starting some games with 8.403.

In my opinion, it's only good if splash damage has been reduced, because 152/155mm barrage caused too much casualties in 8.4. Especially, if your troops were entrenched, the barrage that hits adjacent hexes (50-100 meters away), caused frequently 1 or 2 casualties.

BUT, what I didn't like, was the lack of effectivness when the shells hit target hexes right on. Too often there would be no damage at all [&:] This is emphasized by the fact that when firing direct support with heavy guns, it's ALWAYS more wise to use area fire than targetting enemy squads...[:@] and way too often there still would not be a single casualty, or maybe just one (and that would be from adjacent squad, not from the squad that is in targeted hex).

So, as a summary, I'd say that reduced splash damage is OK. But something should be done to this routine that controls casualties when big shells hit an occupied hex, no matter if it was indirect or direct fire! Also, maybe there should be more 'cover' for entrenched units and more penalties (more casualties) for moving units, if they're caught by a barrage? This leads to cranking up the arty, of course, so in order to balance the game, the price of indirect weapons should be increased.

Or maybe...I don't know...this is delicate issue, and too big a change could ruin everything. These changes are eternal swings of a pendulum, iterating itself to a static state as time goes by...but shall this SPWaW community ever find this 'static state', I doubt that because we all have different opinions about the effectivity of unit/unit class X [:D]

-Colonel von Blitz-

[azraelck]

I was watching a thing on military Channel not long ago, and they were talking about the Battle of Iwo Jima. They talked about the Japanese mortars, I think 150mm but I may be wrong; it's too early in the morning. Anyways, one man said he saw an officer get hit by that mortar. He was just... gone.

In my DAR with the USMC; my line has been pounded with 75mm howitzers and 81mm and 105mm mortar fire... with no casualties. While I understand that artillery is meant to suppress enemy positions; they should cause some casualties. I am in open ground, and yet not one man has died due to a direct hit from a mortar. If artillery actualy did anything; I would have lost the battle by now, or at least it would be far more difficult. That's mostly whats wrong with defend and delay missions IMO. They can pound and pound, but nothing ever happens. You might collapse a building, set some trees on fire, but no one dies.

Also, regarding those fires. It's FIRE. Troops should not willingly sit in a hex that's burning, nor should they rush into one that's burning. Yet both my units and Japanese units treat flaming hexes ike they would a sunny, grassy field. At least give a chance for casualties while occupying a burning hex.

[m10bob]

I believe most of WWII's 75's were based on the very successful French 75. That piece showed its' effectiveness.
One might guage how all those armies might want to copy such a marvel, and then wonder at how the 75 is treated in Steel Panthers.
Like a prior poster noted, units have retreated *into* the beaten zone, and instead of thinking this is a "game flaw", maybe we should see this as an example that the infantry in this game might know something some of us refuse to accept ?

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I believe most of WWII's 75's were based on the very successful French 75. That piece showed its' effectiveness.
One might guage how all those armies might want to copy such a marvel, and then wonder at how the 75 is treated in Steel Panthers.
Like a prior poster noted, units have retreated *into* the beaten zone, and instead of thinking this is a "game flaw", maybe we should see this as an example that the infantry in this game might know something some of us refuse to accept ?

THIS is where the new national leader/exp ratings come into effect. Some nations' infantry are more likely to withstand bombardment, while others may have a propensity to break. Breaking the enemy's will to fight is better than having to kill him, isn't it?

[azraelck]

Then you have either POWs to bother with, or men who'll come back to fight again, next time with greater resolve. Better to lay 'em low, and toss 'em in a hole.

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: azraelck

Then you have either POWs to bother with, or men who'll come back to fight again, next time with greater resolve. Better to lay 'em low, and toss 'em in a hole.

In game terms, they earn victory points for you, regardless of their fate.

[KG Erwin]

OK, bumping this back to the top.

On nation ratings, check out the WW2 Stat txt file in the SPWaW/Chlanda folder. These were ratings established for a very early incarnation of the game, and I think most of them are pretty good.

However, if the median level is 50 for all values, the low end of the spectrum for the minors' experience levels would fall in the 40-50 range. The high end is "the big boys", like the Germans, Japanese and the 1944-45 USMC. Some of these are too high, IMHO, so what happened in 8.3 was a narrowing of the gap, at least in the case of the Marines.

Mike expanded the gap in 8.4, and no one seems to like it.

So, what do you guys want? A level playing field for everyone? Who's to say what the "correct" values are? There is no such thing.

One of Mike's long-term goals is to make these values part of the user-edit routine. That seems to be the only solution, as everyone has different ideas on what they should be.

In the meantime, we have what we have.

[KG Erwin]

Moving along now -- the issue of snipers having radios.

We DID succeed in removing the snipers' ability to close assault, which helped.

Now, can the ability for snipers to call in arty and air strikes be removed?

[azraelck]

Is there a way to always have a sniper out of contact? At least flag it as always being out of radio contact, even if they automatically gain a radio.

A user-edit feature for the various values would probably cause some problems in PBEM and online games, but for SP it would be great. Then all you'd have to say when somebody complains of some such value being too low/high is "then edit it". At least an option to have a static level playing field; which would help online/PBEM somewhat. One button to ensure than all similarly classed units from all nations have equal values would make for reasonably fair multiplayer.

To be honest, I haven't really felt anything is wrong with the current values, but then I never played any version prior to what I have. I also have limited experience with anything outside of the major 6 nations. I've fought against french, polish, and romanian forces, but only in minor battles. Not in multiple campaigns like the others. So I wouldn't take anything I say with regards to those values too much.

[VikingNo2]

How is 50 average when the scale is from 0-140 ?

[Colonel von Blitz]

ORIGINAL: VikingNo2
How is 50 average when the scale is from 0-140 ?

The values that are actually used by any country in the game range from 25-75, although the possible range is 0-140. Anyway, 50 is in the middle of that 25-75 range.

-Colonel von Blitz-

[VikingNo2]

We have some values at 20 currently, when the manual discussed what numbers represent what I think it stated 60 was a average joe troop, changes at the low end have much more of a drastic effect than on the high. I like the programmers conventions as far as the effect on FC, but if you have values on tanks of 30 they get one shot period, maybe zero if they where near a arty hit. Or hit by a MG.

50 is green raw troop, not average I guess thats my point I'm trying to make, poorly make that is LOL