H2H - Wishlist

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 8:11 pm

Soooo...back from Italy

Lot's of good comments sofar, some short notes:

- the rifle grenades could need some testing, found them very inaccurate, indeed...

- tank suppression by rifle fire will drop a little automatically by increasing the morale across the board as planned...

- I can't do anything about campaign issues, casualties on carried troops and immobilization stuff (would need recoding), sorry

- crews will be reworked, making them less effective as "adhoc infantry"

- the pricing issue: at the moment I prefer to lower infantry costs in general, but due to the problem with the true troop costs routine, I cannot tweak much on balancing issues, as any tweak here, will cause a new error there...

- the whole AT-rocket thing is causing several confusions, so a bit deeper here:

As far as I can tell, all tests show that an Inf-AT team like a two men M9 Bazooka unit behaves very realistic and pretty much the way it was intented to do...that means the reliability of hitting armor is somewhere around 100-150m and everything beyond is pure luck...houses and emplacements can be attacked up to 500m, modelling this weapon very close to it's historical performence and use (this is the same for PIAT, PzSchreck and the like)...
BUT, the problem is now: if such a weapon is used in an infantry squad, like the US Airborne. Now the Bazooka gets the bonus of the squads fire control (usually pretty high in these elite formations) and increases by this it's effective range, leading to unwanted and unrealistic hit chances at longer distances...

It is not possible to tweak these weapons to make them behave like the Inf-AT units and there're three options to adress this problem:

1) Take AT-rockets away from infantry squads and isolate them as Inf-AT teams in platoon or company formations, e.g.

2) Create a "squad AT-rocket" like the M9, that has a range of only 3 when used in a Airborne squad, thus taking away it's long range ability to fire at houses and emplacements

3) Keep it as is

Please check out, if your comments made about high accuracy and the like refer to squads using rockets, or Inf-AT teams...

BTW, the PzFausts have correct ranges in H2H - they were almost never used at ranges of 100-150m, even if the later models could travle close to that...

All other OOB related errors mentioned will be kept track of and corrected, if found to be "errors" (like the Japaneese field gun)

Redleg · Post by **Redleg** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 2:27 am

I thought of two important (at least I think so) items:

1. Please more of the bunkers with the rotating turrets. They are great!

2. The poor Finn OOB is in sad shape. They need more Sisu. What they need more than anything is some type of elite unit besides those stupid bicycle units. Perhaps a bit more F/C if nothing else.

The Finns used to be so much fun to use. Now they are really pretty pathetic. As they are, they do not take op fire as they should and they are very quick to retreat.

Almost all Nations that use LMG squads..... all of these I have used and tested are pretty sad. They need more punch.

I would like to see the light mortars 49-60mm take op fire better.
Now they sit there and wait to be destroyed. Very cooperative!

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 3:50 am

The US 76mm AT gun has a lower PEN than the 3" AT gun. It is listed at 124, I believe it was supposed to read 144.

Goblin

Galka · Post by **Galka** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 4:37 am

Originally posted by Panzer Leo

So this kind of pricing overlaps will happen all the time (take a four barreled AA gun...it is the top notch of small AA guns and costs more then many light tanks...makes no sense in terms of material, costs, how usefull it is a.s.o. - but there's no other way to work within the 255 limit)...
So if there's no solution for an overall revolution in the pricing system, it makes no sense to alter a few specific ones...
An across the board lowering of all infantry related units is such a radical way...and a pretty complex one...have to think it over...

Have you thought of this. A complete set of OOBs for different periods of the war. i.e. PzKw IVe against infantry in 1941 is far more effective than the same weapon in 1944 when infantry is equipped with infantry AT weapons of significance.

A barbarossa OOB set could allow balancing of forces up until the introduction of Tiger's at the astronomical cost of 255 pts.

The next series of OOB which pitted the Tiger against more effective weapons post '43 could have the figures balanced with out sacrificing the effectiveness of the weapon in order to compensate for playability.

With the proliferation of hard drive space one can now afford to have several versions of different time spans or make use of an OOB manager to facilitate.

I think it's time to get beyond the 255pt barrier.

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 6:08 am

perhaps a way to make troops not retreating in the wrong direction, say towards the enemy ?

M4Jess · Post by **M4Jess** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 9:31 pm

Hey Leo!

can you put one of these on my M4s?????:rolleyes:

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Sun Jan 05, 2003 9:34 pm

Why not! They tried everything else in the turret to make it a real tank!

Goblin:p

Alby · Post by **Alby** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 4:21 am

Originally posted by Panzer Leo

- the whole AT-rocket thing is causing several confusions, so a bit deeper here:

As far as I can tell, all tests show that an Inf-AT team like a two men M9 Bazooka unit behaves very realistic and pretty much the way it was intented to do...that means the reliability of hitting armor is somewhere around 100-150m and everything beyond is pure luck...houses and emplacements can be attacked up to 500m, modelling this weapon very close to it's historical performence and use (this is the same for PIAT, PzSchreck and the like)...
BUT, the problem is now: if such a weapon is used in an infantry squad, like the US Airborne. Now the Bazooka gets the bonus of the squads fire control (usually pretty high in these elite formations) and increases by this it's effective range, leading to unwanted and unrealistic hit chances at longer distances...

It is not possible to tweak these weapons to make them behave like the Inf-AT units and there're three options to adress this problem:

1) Take AT-rockets away from infantry squads and isolate them as Inf-AT teams in platoon or company formations, e.g.

2) Create a "squad AT-rocket" like the M9, that has a range of only 3 when used in a Airborne squad, thus taking away it's long range ability to fire at houses and emplacements

3) Keep it as is

Please check out, if your comments made about high accuracy and the like refer to squads using rockets, or Inf-AT teams...

[/B]

I vote for suggestion number 1.
this would keep the squads and platoons WITH an AT weapon, but not actually in the squad per say..
Rifle grnades would be a good replacement within the squad I think.
I dont care for suggestion #2 , inventing some fantasy weapon that never really existed? nahhhh

Keep up the good work LEO!!
Alby

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Mon Jan 06, 2003 10:08 am

I think #2 is realistic if you keep in mind that no squad would take a shot at a tank with a bazooka that is 500 yards away. They would have absolutely no chance of hitting it. So by forcing the squad with an M9 to only shoot at a target that it realistically had a chance to hit it makes the game more realistic. I don't see it as a fantasy weapon, I see it as taking the fantasy out of the game.

I read the PIAT website that Golbin posted and it explained how 115 yards was the longest shot the team would take at a tank with the PIAT, but they would take a 350 yard shot at a house. How often does anyone actually shoot at a house in this game compared to shooting at tanks well beyond the realistic range for the AT weapon? I think Leo's option #2 makes perfect sense.

Goblin · Post by **Goblin** » Tue Jan 07, 2003 12:39 am

I agree. Set the ranges at effective, i.e. back to the originals.

Goblin

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Tue Jan 07, 2003 12:58 am

I'd vote for the original ranges too. Even if it has no chance of hitting, a bazooka round is often enough to pin/button anything inside the hex.

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:16 am

What I want to know is how the heck does a spring loaded PIAT (no more that a combination crossbow/pogo stick contraption) shoot 350 yards and yet the Germans couldn't get a shoulder mounted rocket (panzerfaust 30/60/100) to go more than 30, 60 or 100 yards!

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Tue Jan 07, 2003 2:28 am

Originally posted by rbrunsman
What I want to know is how the heck does a spring loaded PIAT (no more that a combination crossbow/pogo stick contraption) shoot 350 yards and yet the Germans couldn't get a shoulder mounted rocket (panzerfaust 30/60/100) to go more than 30, 60 or 100 yards!

The PIAT round had also a propellant charge, it was not only accelerated by the spring...the charge was also supposed to push back the spring so you don't need to do that manually to fire a second shot...it is really a strange design, but the round could travel up to 700m...

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:16 pm

Another thing, that came to my mind while playing PBEMs...in earlier days the guns used to have at least one carbine or rifle to defend themselves at closte range...why were they taken away ?
Now a mortar team or AT-gun is just sitting there, waiting to get knocked out one by one from an infantry unit nearby...

What do you think ?... should they get some firepower back, or is there a reason why they shouldn't pick up a rifle to defend the gun (historically or technically in the game) ?

Belisarius · Post by **Belisarius** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:46 pm

Originally posted by Panzer Leo
Another thing, that came to my mind while playing PBEMs...in earlier days the guns used to have at least one carbine or rifle to defend themselves at closte range...why were they taken away ?
Now a mortar team or AT-gun is just sitting there, waiting to get knocked out one by one from an infantry unit nearby...

What do you think ?... should they get some firepower back, or is there a reason why they shouldn't pick up a rifle to defend the gun (historically or technically in the game) ?

Good question! I think that AT guns are hard enough to knock out as it is, but that's only because you can't hit the gun itself - which is stupid, IMO. I don't buy that cr*p saying that 'ofcourse you have to kill the crew in order to disable the gun'...na-ah! If that's the case, why was the common doctrine (although different from the practice employed) that armor had AT guns as primary targets and vice versa. I mean, if the primary ATG busters where the AFVs and not the infantry, it points to the importance of destroying the piece itself. :rolleyes:

Anyhoo... close-range defence could be a nice touch. :p 2 rifles and some grenades a piece, perhaps? Is there a way to limit the maximum range? I don't want to see ATG crews firing away the rifles at 10 hexes, 3 hexes should be a definite limit.

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 8:12 pm

Originally posted by Belisarius

Anyhoo... close-range defence could be a nice touch. :p 2 rifles and some grenades a piece, perhaps? Is there a way to limit the maximum range? I don't want to see ATG crews firing away the rifles at 10 hexes, 3 hexes should be a definite limit.

IIRC, the argument in a long-ago thread was that they wouldn't be able to fire other weapons and service the ATG; it must have been convincing because the slot-2 weapons were removed in the following version. Seems like they should have some sort of close-in defense though (SMG, pistol).

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 9:26 pm

In Band of Brothers, when the Rangers attacked that battery of 105mm arty, I don't remember seeing a bunch of German crewmen just sitting on their hands hoping their infantry support would protect them. I think SMGs and grenades would be best to include. It keeps the range down to 3 for close in defense and it would surely make any infantry unit think twice about just walking up and executing the crew. And, certainly AT gun crews expected to have to face enemy infantry at some point. They were on the front lines after all. If I were a crewman and wasn't issued a gun, I'd sure try to round one up once I was deployed.

Irinami · Post by **Irinami** » Thu Jan 09, 2003 9:53 pm

Okay mates, here's a suggestion:

Give gun crews their historical armament, be it carbine, SMG, rifle, whatever. If the crews carried grenades (de facto or otherwise), then so be it. Ammo is probably going to be very low. Now, how to keep that crew from firing their personal arms after they've fired the main gun? Well... couldn't you give that sidearm a lower amount of shots per turn? o.O

Panzer Leo · Post by **Panzer Leo** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 12:51 am

Originally posted by Irinami
Okay mates, here's a suggestion:

Give gun crews their historical armament, be it carbine, SMG, rifle, whatever. If the crews carried grenades (de facto or otherwise), then so be it. Ammo is probably going to be very low. Now, how to keep that crew from firing their personal arms after they've fired the main gun? Well... couldn't you give that sidearm a lower amount of shots per turn? o.O

Nope, I can't give it fewer shots per turn...the common weapon would be a carbine or rifle, SMGs are pretty unlikely to be standard issue...
As suggested, I can reduce however the range...like a Karabiner 98 firing only up to 4 hexes for close defense...this would mean these weapons will usually not be fired with the main weapon (most shots of AT guns and the like should happen at longer ranges in the average...)...two or three grenades could be added, but I'm not sure how common it was...some ideas ?

rbrunsman · Post by **rbrunsman** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:04 am

The grenades may not be historical, but it would help reduce the number of times players use the ahistorical tactic of riding up next to an AT gun and dropping their own grenades on the crew without fear of a defense. Any short range defense that provides a small counter to an ahistorical and gamey tactic should be considered IMHO.

As for worrying about the second weapon firing after the first, I always turn off my secondary weapons in situations where that ineffective second weapon's shot may give away my position (e.g. AT-rifle team in v7.1). When I get in close quarters and my unit has already been spotted then I turn it back on. So, I don't think the second weapon for an AT Gun crew will cause problems for anyone that can't be addressed "in the game."