More on OOB accuracy

hammerhead · Post by **hammerhead** » Thu Oct 12, 2000 10:45 am

Bill and Voriax and Arralen and others who might be following this thread:

I must say again that it was not my intent to start fires on this board. A am sorry. So chill.
Futhermore, I have little grasp of the limitations of the Matrix Games editor. And just yesterday my very excited friends and I, having just gotten the editor , realized that certain significant changes to the OOB's would blow through(impact) many of the old scenarios. This would mean that many, if not all, of the great scenarios already produced for Matrix Games would be nullified.
THIS MUST NOT HAPPEN! ( IMHO)

(Indeed in the somewhat distant past, my earlier attempts at scenarios for SP turned into hours of work and lots of frustrations because it seemed whenever I ( very slowly but accurately )got them ready for review, SSI would come out with a revision which in some cases obviated my work (made it useless). I would not want this to happen to the Matrix scenarios...nor its designers!

But my brief look at the Matrix Games editor seems also to show that there are both slots available in the matrices as well as the ability to change ranges, sizes, capacities, and much more, without disturbing the integrity of either the unit matrices, or the formation matrices.

So I feel that there is not really a valid argument for just leaving the stuff the way it is. Indeed, the most glaring errors I saw in my (confessed) perhaps too quick look at the data, can be easily fixed. Example: I was just play testing my Hill 122 US '44 St Lo scenario and found that the M15a1 AA HT shows the range of the 50 cal AA MGs to be only 20 hexs!! That is only 1km if I am not mistaken. On a gun which has a very effective range at 3000 meters. Such errors as this are very important to me. I do not think such errors are tollerated in Nazi weapons. HMMM?

I do not wish to design scenarios with such technical errors. ( Yes I know you have not seen any of my earlier scenarios...But for various reasons I have been distributing them to a small circle of friends.)

I would like to design US scenarios for the Gamers folks but will be hard pressed to spend my limited time to do so without some assurance that I can be sure of the tools I am using. My name goes on my work.

Therefore..I do not want the OOB's to be so modified that I cannot be assured that they will make my work unusable ( ie stepping on the matices ...requiring all new scenarios)
Conversely, I do not want to work on a design which has little historical accuracy in the OOB-TOE arena ...while I am struggling to make the maps and the OOA and unit names accurate.
If this becomes the case, I will simply go back to my "locals only" designs.

I realize that the Nazi weapons systems had litteraly hundreds of different types of weapons and almost as many different types of formations, ( indeed, this was a major reason for their defeat). But the US weapons and formations were far fewer in type and variation. Their structure and specifications are not a hazy subject, nor a matter of someone's opinion. They are a matter of fact. And these facts are easily accessible to anyone who wants to know and has the ability to procure or to check out from the library the relatively few books which are needed. And they are the only nation of which I claim to have any authority.

Again...I am sorry if I am fanning some apparently old flames for you 'veterans'. But perhaps I have spoken for some of the others who follow this game's development and earnestly hope for as accurate a gameset as is practable.

From what I have seen of the excellent work from you guys, your love of these games seems to ensure such an approach.

------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Thu Oct 12, 2000 1:59 pm

Hammerhead,

The usual policy is, if the OOB you are using differs from the standard, to post the OOB. I have not posted SPWAW scenarios, but I have posted SP2 and SPww2 scenarios. In only two cases did I use the standard OOBs. The rest of the time I used edited OOBs abd posted them.

troopie

------------------
Pamwe Chete

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Thu Oct 12, 2000 10:40 pm

Hammerhead, an occasional flamefight does spice things a bit...

First of all I doubt that the Nazi's get any more special treatment than the Yanks. The accuracy of the oob largely depends of the accuracy of the people who are doing the oob.

As for the 50cal..it already has one strange advantage. While all other tank mg's fire at the long range (as secondary weapons) only if the crew passes an experience check, the 50cal AAMG always fires, and it has nothing to do with the oob as far as I can tell.

Also the ranges...I'm not aware of all the thoughts behind the initial decisions concerning these ranges, but in many cases they are adjusted to the game. While the bullet from 50cal will fly 3000m I seriously doubt you will hit into anything at that range nor would you even try to fire at that range. Ditto to most weapons...

If I'd put the range of 50cal to 60 hexes, then I'd have to increase the range of just about every gun, creating a situation where gun ranges are 'across the map'. I don't think we'd want that.

Also if you look around the oob you'll notice that AA mg's tend to have shorter range than normal ones. I think this is too a game decision to avoid wide range aamg fire. The 50cal hmg has a range of 35 hexes, 1750 metres.

And to confuse things even more, the 50cal aircraft weapon has range of 6 hexes.

So what I'm grasping at is that sometimes playability steps over reality. In such cases it's best to ensure that all oob's are 'in line' relative to similar weapons in other oobs.

My opinions only, Paul and rest of Matrix Gurus may have other thoughts.

Voriax

------------------
OOB-Wan Kenobi

RUsco · Post by **RUsco** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 1:10 am

In responce to the effective range of the .50 cal Browning Heavy MG.
Sgt Heathcock, USMC Sniper (Most confirmed kills) Killed a Viet Cong at a range of 2500 Meters With a M-2 Browning MG. 1 shot.
This is documented in a book writen abouit him. I loaned my copy to my brother a while back and haven't seen it since.

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 1:42 am

In looking at the OOB one must consider the limitations of the simulation. Since this is not real life certain compromises must be made. For instance an Amerincan Inf. Company, the HQ Platoon was not 12 men, it was not intended as a fighting unit. I contained, clerks, runners, cooks, and other administrative types. Do you count these men (I believe the actual number number of men was something like 30) as fighting units? This is a decision that the creator of the OOB has to make. Personally I feel that this platoon is over rated. Each Army handled their HQ units differently so there is a wide variation between 'fighting ability' and actual number of men on the line. If I remember correctly a German Division actually had an extra Regiment that was for supplying replacements, this unit often became an front line unit. Also Company administration was handled at the Batalion level thus reducing the number of none combatants in at the Company level. So what you are trying to simulate is the determining factor in the size and make up of a unit. These are just a couple of examples of compromises that have to be made in a simulation. Overall the effect and balance of the different units (comparing each army to each other army) is excellent. There are even more compromises that need to be made in weapons performance, not to mention doctoren of use, ie: British 3.7" AA were never used as AT guns, you know it just not 'proper' eh wat.

So in my continuing quest for perfection I have modified my OOB (German only so far) to include a 'supply mule' class ammo carrier.

I do have a small question, all of the slots for German units are used is there anyway to get more slots without deleting an existing unit?

Boy do I need a spell checker.

Major Destruction · Post by **Major Destruction** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 4:12 am

[QUOTE]

I do have a small question, all of the slots for German units are used is there anyway to get more slots without deleting an existing unit?

Not in the Germany list. You could place your new unit into an unused slot of a different Nation.

But if you want to create a unit for a scenario, you can create pretty much anything you like via the scenario editor but limited only by the available icons and the weapon list.

hammerhead · Post by **hammerhead** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 4:20 am

Thanks to all for your calm replies! As I wrote this thread starter at 2 am last, and as I am a retread ( new ) recruit...I was happy to see lots of tolerance out there for my forewardness in critizing those who work so well and hard at getting this stuff out there for us to play.

PBEAR's remark:
>In only two cases did I use the standard OOBs. The rest of the time I used edited OOBs abd posted them.<
...may be closer to reality for most scenario designers ... but I wish it were not so. The job is hard enough already. But I will accept that as a better solution than my own ( design for locals only play ) and will modify the OOBs if I cannot convince those in charge to take a closer look at some of their work.

I had thought that using the 50 cal MG example would be understood as only an example of what I perceive as some major problems with the US TOE OOB setup.

Shorting plt's of squads, late introduction of crucial weapons, inaccurate; ranges, carrying capacities, and other capabilities shows a clear bias to the undue advantage of the Axis forces. If there is indeed so much modification needed for 'gaming' reasons, I am suprised at how little these reasons have been employed for German units and weapons. The 88 still carries it phenomanal range and accuracy, as many other Nazi weapons do. And the Germans seem to get every weapons listed and employed...to the point where the sniper gets to carry grenades ( Still ? ) While any experienced sniper who went to work would likely take some such protection along for close order security..... Well I have said me piece...for now. The US OOB/TOE setup needs a bath.

------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"

Major Ed · Post by **Major Ed** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 4:37 am

Speaking on the range of the .50 cal, when I went through the Infantry Officers Basic Course (to many years ago to count)and for several years of serivce in mech inf units we used "Ma Deuce" extensively. We (plt ldrs and co. CO's) were told to use 1000-1500 meters as its "effective" range, since this was the tracer burn-out range. You can use it at greater distances, but with less accuracy. If you aren't a sniper with the training and steady support (we fired from flexible mounts on top of M-113's) you definitely have a hard time getting to 2000 meters.

It may be that the programmers used the published "max effective ranges" in the game design. Unless they got familiar with all the weapons used during WW II it may have been the best compromise to equalize each weapons effectiveness.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 6:14 am

Originally posted by RUsco:
In responce to the effective range of the .50 cal Browning Heavy MG.
Sgt Heathcock, USMC Sniper (Most confirmed kills) Killed a Viet Cong at a range of 2500 Meters With a M-2 Browning MG. 1 shot.
This is documented in a book writen abouit him. I loaned my copy to my brother a while back and haven't seen it since.

I guessed this will come up

His weapon was equipped with a scope, not a standard equipment on ww2 50cal's.

And you can find similar one-shot long range kills done with just about any weapon.

Voriax

------------------
OOB-Wan Kenobi

BA Evans · Post by **BA Evans** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 2:02 pm

Hey Hammer,

If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.)

This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret."

I think that you will have more success with this tactic. By giving us detailed information we will be able to examine the specific game mechanics involved. After consulting the available sources, we can probably do a good job representing the unit in question.

BA Evans

RUsco · Post by **RUsco** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 2:05 pm

Still, scope or not, It does portray the accuraccy of the .50 cal. MG. Its still a hell of a shot.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 2:34 pm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BA Evans:
Hey Hammer,

If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.)

This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret."

Have to agree here, especially when such heavily weighted ordinances such as suggestions/accusations of 'bias towards Nazi weapons' is being tossed around.

Nothing wrong with constructive critisism, but in order to address an issue, specific info is needed. Personally i dont see the US OOB as being terribly off base though i will admit that my expertise lies more with AFV's and related vehicles vs. the myrid of small arms weapons of which Steel Panther's abounds.

Only thing on the US OOB i still question are the varying armor stats for the various marks of Sherman, though it has been much improved.

If it seems like more tweaking is being devoted to the German OOB, well this may very well be true, but not because of any real 'bias' but more so because the German tends to be one of the more popular choices for campaign play from what i've observed down the years. That combined with the greater # of years that they were involved in the war (and on so many various fronts), with so many different weapons and subvarients of weapons tends to absorb alot of attention.

PS...about that front turret rating for the Tiger I......(kidding!)

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 2:58 pm

Thank you, from what you are saying there is no restriction on which OOB you use to create a unit such that the Italian OOB could be used to make new German units. Correct?

Originally posted by Major Destruction:

I do have a small question, all of the slots for German units are used is there anyway to get more slots without deleting an existing unit?

Not in the Germany list. You could place your new unit into an unused slot of a different Nation.

But if you want to create a unit for a scenario, you can create pretty much anything you like via the scenario editor but limited only by the available icons and the weapon list.

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 4:30 pm

I find it fascinating how frequently the Gerry OOBs come across as 'unfair' or 'too unrealistic', are the same people who are playing the US forces. The 88 has too far a range? It was an heavy AA gun for crying out loud, which could shoot (straight up) to 32,000 ft. For the US players who feel this way, realise that the visibility in this game is never over 45, therefore an 88 cannot fire on a Sherman without the possibility of return fire. In other words, the 88's extensive range is all but useless over the field, with the exception of how a longer range will help it's accuracy effectiveness.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Fri Oct 13, 2000 5:40 pm

Originally posted by RUsco:
Still, scope or not, It does portray the accuraccy of the .50 cal. MG. Its still a hell of a shot.

Only if he did it repeatedly! If he managed to get just one long range kill I can call it an accident

Voriax

------------------
OOB-Wan Kenobi

hammerhead · Post by **hammerhead** » Sun Oct 15, 2000 9:15 am

Originally posted by BA Evans:
Hey Hammer,

If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.)

This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret."

I think that you will have more success with this tactic. By giving us detailed information we will be able to examine the specific game mechanics involved. After consulting the available sources, we can probably do a good job representing the unit in question.

BA Evans

Originally posted by Nikademus:

Originally posted by BA Evans:
Hey Hammer,

If you want to help with the OOB 'clean-up' process, become familar with the way the OOB works (stats., formations, unit type, etc.)

This way you can offer 'improvements' instead of 'critisisms.' Instead of saying that the Tiger tank's armor is wrong, tell us how how it is wrong (be specific) and tell us exactly which game stats. to affect. Something like, "The Tiger tank's front turret armor should be increased to 176 @ 12% slope because such and such source states that the armor mantle covered the entire front of the turret."

Have to agree here, especially when such heavily weighted ordinances such as suggestions/accusations of 'bias towards Nazi weapons' is being tossed around.

Nothing wrong with constructive critisism, but in order to address an issue, specific info is needed. Personally i dont see the US OOB as being terribly off base though i will admit that my expertise lies more with AFV's and related vehicles vs. the myrid of small arms weapons of which Steel Panther's abounds.

Only thing on the US OOB i still question are the varying armor stats for the various marks of Sherman, though it has been much improved.

If it seems like more tweaking is being devoted to the German OOB, well this may very well be true, but not because of any real 'bias' but more so because the German tends to be one of the more popular choices for campaign play from what i've observed down the years. That combined with the greater # of years that they were involved in the war (and on so many various fronts), with so many different weapons and subvarients of weapons tends to absorb alot of attention.

PS...about that front turret rating for the Tiger I......(kidding!)

I will be most happy to provide my input (constructive ) rather than my criticism. I shall post the info to this forum so that all who are interested can have a go at it (and me) if they like. If this is not acceptable please advise.

Regarding the input that the 88 is a "heavy AA gun for gosh sakes" and shoots 32k feet straight up, it makes my point perfectly. The US 90 mm AA gun is ALSO a heavy AA gun but someone has chosen to limit its range to 56? hexes ( 2800 meters ) allowing it to fire straight up only some 24000 feet. Whereas in point of fact it was designed and functioned as a high altitude AA gun. And although it was not the largest nor most powerful US AA gun, it did top out at some 36,000 feet.
Perhaps THAT is why most of the complaints about US weapons being disfavored: US weapons are apparently not as well known as German WW II weapons. Perhaps most designers and contributors to these games find US stuff a little boring? Something to do with a lot of real corny American movies about WW2? I do not know ( and in any hobby the German stuff is the most (sadly) admired.)
But by mid '44 the US had a definite leg up on the GErmans, in terms of aricrew competancy, vehicle reliability, artillery skill and artillery weapon and tageting quality. Are all of these aspects reflected in the SP games, or any computer games? No.
Even the old board war games were designed for the stated intent of having the Nazi's given a better chance in battle. The game would be boring otherwise. That is OK with as long as it is clearly noted and known ( especialy by the new or young and impressionable player, as well as those playing what they would like to consider as historically accurate games do not fall to such temptations.

If these games are to teach as well as entertain, then ALL of the facts must be unculcated into the games. If US units are to be ignored, if their capabilities are to be limited for "playability reasons" that is fine, as long as we do not claim or imply that they are otherwise. Example: when it is found that a German fighter which would fly into an area of US armored infantry in clear weather would be cut to shreads because of the large ( HUGE) amounts of AAA ( both in terms of attached AAA units and the 50 cals on almost every vehicle in the American arsenal): In such a situation, it may require that the US AAA should be somehow limited ( so that there can be some reason for using NAzi fighters after mid 44 ...other than to see them becoming holes in the Italian and French countrysides. And for the player on the German side ...even me ...what fun would that be!?

Perhaps rather than trying to minimize the effectiveness of Allied units/weapons, where they do have a clear advantage, the cost of such superior units/weapons should relfect their awsome effect on the battlefield ...just as the usually superior German armor's effect is reflected in the price.

I do know a little about the SP system. I was using Jim Belo's editor back in '96. I am also familiar with OOB's T/O&E's and have an extensive library on both...as well as many books on the German OOB's TOE's and weapons ....and an extensive military history libray.

My father fought as a US AAC in WW2. I have perhaps a little more awe and respect for the sometimes superior US weapons that did exist in WW2. ( HE flew a P38 in the Pacific) And as a result I am always a little disappointed in other Americans who (IMHO) may give the AXIS more of their admiration than I feel is .... appropriate.

I will try to provide as much info on the US weapons/units as I have time, skill, and resources to acquire. If this is acceptable to those in charge, let me know.

------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Sun Oct 15, 2000 9:48 am

This gets interesting...regarding the 88 and the 90mm AA gun, there is *very* little difference between them in the game except in the accuracy of the 88. I don't know why this is so but perhaps this 90mm gun didn't have sights specially made for ground target use?

Then this american lead from 44'...while this has truth in it, it really has nothing to do about the basic quality of German equipment. The Germans had to manufacture their gear in extreme conditions but they still managed to field some rather extraordinary equipment, albeit in small quantities.
And actually there have always been a system of taking into account the strenghtening/weakening of base skills in the armies included in the oob. There exists a base value for morale and experience for each year and for each army. When units are created this value is used as a base. For germans these values decrease towards the end of the war, with allies it increases.
This is from memory..would need a search but I recall Paul? saying that the vehicle break up percentages also vary from year to year and from nation to nation.

Hammerhead, if you want to take time to send oob suggestions they are welcome. If you want to do a complete oob or a list of changes needed you can also mail them to me directly. Just keep in mind deletions from the current oob's will be frowned upon and probably ignored.

------------------
OOB-Wan Kenobi

sven · Post by **sven** » Sun Oct 15, 2000 10:02 am

Hey it's my old friend the .50 cal. You know perhaps recitations of Hathcock's deeds should require the preface:"Do not attempt this shot at this range at home!"

missed you all,
sven

Originally posted by Major Ed:
Speaking on the range of the .50 cal, when I went through the Infantry Officers Basic Course (to many years ago to count)and for several years of serivce in mech inf units we used "Ma Deuce" extensively. We (plt ldrs and co. CO's) were told to use 1000-1500 meters as its "effective" range, since this was the tracer burn-out range. You can use it at greater distances, but with less accuracy. If you aren't a sniper with the training and steady support (we fired from flexible mounts on top of M-113's) you definitely have a hard time getting to 2000 meters.

It may be that the programmers used the published "max effective ranges" in the game design. Unless they got familiar with all the weapons used during WW II it may have been the best compromise to equalize each weapons effectiveness.

sven · Post by **sven** » Sun Oct 15, 2000 10:06 am

This gets interesting...regarding the 88 and the 90mm AA gun, there is *very* little difference between them in the game except in the accuracy of the 88. I don't know why this is so but perhaps this 90mm gun didn't have sights specially made for ground target use?
=============================================
Remember I live next to the Air Defense Schools, and the curator says that the 90mm AA did not have the proper sights. Our doctrine was not as flexible concerning the multiple uses of "heavy" AA. I am sure that there are examples of field expedients, but they were not doctrinally sound(according to Coastal Artillery brass).

sven

------------------
Give all you can all you can give....

[This message has been edited by sven (edited October 15, 2000).]

hammerhead · Post by **hammerhead** » Mon Oct 16, 2000 7:21 am

Originally posted by sven:
This gets interesting...regarding the 88 and the 90mm AA gun, there is *very* little difference between them in the game except in the accuracy of the 88. I don't know why this is so but perhaps this 90mm gun didn't have sights specially made for ground target use?
=============================================
Remember I live next to the Air Defense Schools, and the curator says that the 90mm AA did not have the proper sights. Our doctrine was not as flexible concerning the multiple uses of "heavy" AA. I am sure that there are examples of field expedients, but they were not doctrinally sound(according to Coastal Artillery brass).

sven

OK. I may be confused here but all I could find for the 88 that resembled an AA gun was the 88mm FLAK 18 "AT" ...which has a range of 80 hexes ie 4000 meters ie 2.4 miles ie ~13,000 feet.... and since I could find no other AA gun for the Nazis does not mean there is not one in the OB's...Nevertheless, the US 90 mm AAA gun in comparison has a range of 56 hexes ie 2800 meters ie 1.7 miles ie ~8600 feet...so either I have not found the 88gun you are referring to or NEITHER gun is properly ranged ...In any case the US gun comes out to be a good ( or bad) 33/100 ie one third poorer in range ...I doubt such a claim very much.

As I said (claimed) earlier, Bradley did not like the number of AAA Btns he was being sent to just sit back and guard the Corps artillery against the highly unlikely event of a huge Nazi air attack. He therefor changed "doctrine" and requested (ordered) both light auto-weapons SP AA units (quad.50's, 37mm/duel 50's, and 40 mm units), as well as medium semi-mobile auto-weapons units ( 76mm M1A1 and 90mm) AA guns ( often towed by the lighter AA HT's noted above ) to be deployed in forward and even attacking formations. ( Humerous note [for those not on the other end of these guns ]- the Quad 50 was called the 'chopper' and the 'lawn mower' by the happy infantry whose unit they were fortunately attached to.

But rather than continue to address each of these issues individually, I propose to simply write out a list of my 'constructs' for all to read and heed or read and heave.

------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"