Hello,
I am just wondering about the poor AT capabilities of the French tanks in SPWAW. The best tank AT gun in 1939/1940 on the French battlefield seems to be the German 37mm which is wrong. For many reasons (1-man turret ...) the German tanks might be slightly better but the 47mm guns by themselves are really better on the French side.
In SPWAW the PzIIIe has a MAXIMUM penetration of 64mm and the Somua S-35 only 57mm with the 47mm SA35 L34 (1598mm barrel) which is the best tank gun in 1940 (present on the Somua S-35, the B1bis turret and the AMC-35 for example). It penetrates 40mm /30° at 400m et 60mm /0° at 1000 m. How is then considered the MAX penetration at 1 hex range ?
This gun should not be mixed up with the 47mm SA34 L30 (shorter barrel of 1410mm) present in the turret of the B1 tank for example.
Among infantry weapons the by far best AT gun is the 47mm Mle37 L50 (2350mm barrel). And I am not even talking about the 75mm Mle1897 used in an AT role. The basic artillery Mle1897 was sometimes used but you could also find the 75mm Mle97/33 and Mle97/35 dedicated to the AT role in the BDAC (= Batterie Divisionaire anti-char = AT divisional battery for the protection of an artillery regiment). Many were still in service in the BDACs since there was a lack of 47mm AT guns to equipe all units.
Germans had 1-man turrets for their PzI and PzII (except the late war model (Luchs) with 2 men). The PzIII and PzIV had 3 men in the turret. The British Matilda I also had a 1-man turret.
On the French side all of the tanks and armored cars had a 1-man turret except :
- FCM 2C (11 men with 3 in the front turret and 1 in a rear turret)
- Laffly AM50
- Panhard 165/175
- Panhard 178
- Renault AMC-35
- And actually the SOMUA S-35's APX4CE turret is sometimes described as a "one-and-a-half-man turret", as the enlarged turret ring, compared with the APX1 found on the B1bis, allowed a crew member to provide "some" assistance to the commander/gunner/reloader.
The quality of French tank optics were not at all inferior to the German ones, this is a false statement. In fact they were of similar quality, perhaps a bit more complicated to operate.
Another surprising and common statement is about intrinsec accuracy of French guns versus German ones. Accuracy is not a matter of nationality, but only a matter of ballistics ... and all the ballistics tests I am aware of proved that the guns were very accurate. French tank guns like 47mm SA35 were superior to any German tank armament fielded in 1940. Some French tankers scored very well, others not so well. This was due to training, one-man turret etc. but the guns by themselves were totally good ones.
ANTI-TANK ARMAMENT IN FRENCH TANKS AND ARMORED CARS (all datas with AP shots) :
7.5mm Reibel MAC31
Rate of fire (shots/minute): 750
V° (m/s) : 820
Weight of the AT shell (kg) : -
Penetration : 8mm /15° at 50m
Practical AT range (m) : 50
13.2mm HotchkissM24/26
Rate of fire : 450
V° : 800
Weight of the AT shell : 0.052
Penetration : 25mm /30° at 100m ; 20mm /30° at 200m ; 20mm /0° at 500 m
Practical AT range : 200
25mm SA34 L72
Rate of fire : 30
V° : 918
Weight of the AT shell : 0.320
Penetration : 40mm /30° at 400m
Practical AT range : 800
37mm SA18 L20
Rate of fire : 15-30
V° : 600
Weight of the AT shell : 0.390
Penetration : 18mm /30° at 400m
Practical AT range : 400
37mm SA38 L34
Rate of fire : 15-30
V° : 705
Weight of the AT shell : 0.700
Penetration : 30mm /30° at 400m
Practical AT range : 800
47mm SA34 L30
Rate of fire : 15-30
V° : 450
Weight of the AT shell : 1.480
Penetration : 25mm /30° at 400m
Practical AT range : 400
47mm SA35 L34
Rate of fire : 15-30
V° : 700
Weight of the AT shell : 1.500
Penetration : 40mm /30° at 400m ; 60mm /0° at 1000 m
Practical AT range : 800
75mm SA35 L17 (B1bis hull)
Rate of fire : 15-30
V° : 470
Weight of the AT shell : 6.400
Penetration : 40mm /30° at 400m
Practical AT range : 800
75mm Mle1897
Rate of fire : up to 28
V° : 577
Weight of the AT shell : 6.400
Penetration : 80mm /30° at 500m
Practical AT range : 800
Note : the infantry 25mm Mle34 L72, 47mm Mle37 L50 and 75mm Mle1897 AT guns performances : 72mm /0° at 1000m for the 47mm AT gun, 40mm /30° at 400m for the 25mm AT gun, 80mm /30° at 500m for the 75mm AT gun.
These datas may vary slightly from one source to an other.
Best regards,
David
1939/1940 French tanks AT performance
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
David Lehmann
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: France
1939/1940 French tanks AT performance
"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing in the tempting place."
-
David Lehmann
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: France
For the 47mm AT gun I have an old French official army document about dispersion and ballistics of the 47 mm gun on TEST MOUNTS ...
1) dispersion :
At 500m 10 shots in a square of 55x53 cm
At 200m 15 shots in a square of 10x20 cm
Seems not worse than German tank guns to me.
2) penetration at normal incidence and range = 0m
700 m/s --> 82mm
750 m/s --> 90 mm
800 m/s --> 100 mm
855 m/s --> 110 mm
So questions :
With the 47mm SA35 L34 tank gun, the V° is 700 m/s and the max penetration should then be 82mm (and not 57mm like in the game) ?
With the 47mm Mle37 L50 infantry AT gun, the V° is 855 m/s and the max penetration should be 110 mm (and not 73mm like in the game) ?
Regards,
David
1) dispersion :
At 500m 10 shots in a square of 55x53 cm
At 200m 15 shots in a square of 10x20 cm
Seems not worse than German tank guns to me.
2) penetration at normal incidence and range = 0m
700 m/s --> 82mm
750 m/s --> 90 mm
800 m/s --> 100 mm
855 m/s --> 110 mm
So questions :
With the 47mm SA35 L34 tank gun, the V° is 700 m/s and the max penetration should then be 82mm (and not 57mm like in the game) ?
With the 47mm Mle37 L50 infantry AT gun, the V° is 855 m/s and the max penetration should be 110 mm (and not 73mm like in the game) ?
Regards,
David
"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing in the tempting place."
David, posting actual data is simply not going to help .. German equipment gets an extra bonus performance in Recent versions of SPWAW to please and appease The Pro- German Players .
The specific examples yopu bring up are an excellent example ..
let me give you some specifics
Looking at the 37mm L46.5 as used on the German PzIIIe
in SPWAW V4.5 AP pen was 39 and APCR pen was 58
in SPWAW v7.1 AP Pen is 64 and APCR pen is 94
It seems whenever the German Players , known on the Forums as "Tiger Kitties" can't easily achieve "Historical" results , usually due to a lack of understanding tactics, they politically lobby the OOB creators and managers to punch up the German equipments performance or reduce the performance of the particular Nations equipment that is giving them problems. They have a variet of small a subtle ways of doing this , inflate particulaily annoting units costs thru various means ( they give the US going ashore in Tunisia a Higher experience rating that the Brits who have been fighting for almost 2 years for example) or they dummy up or down the numbers on things like penetration ect .. give german equipment inflated ranges or accuracy like mortars and panzershrecks . sometimes like in this particular case , just plain overrate the german weapons .. folks have been pointing this out for years .. It doesn't do much good .
You will either be told it is to Balance the Game , if Balance, works in the German Players favor, or that is is Historically correct , if History works in The Germans Favor .
In the case of France, and the facts you point out, Germany did win , and in a shockingly short period of time , the game , and it is just a game , can't really reflect that without somehow fudging on the Germans numbers .. the French Players refuse to play without tanks in most battles and refuse to use inappropiate tactics , the German Players refuse to become tactically proficent and since they are playing the Germans , they believe they deserve to win anyway. Consequently you get the German "performance creep" from version to version.
Your best bet is to find an earlier version of the game when units capabilities were more based on actual performance data, and less on "political and marketing" conciderations.
I believe the French weapons penetration haven't really changed from version to version , the German weapons used to fit into some logical continuim with the weapons of other nations , but no longer. However the game is now more "Fair and Balanced" and even total incompetents ( playing as Germans) can win and brag about their victories as is the German Players birthright.
The specific examples yopu bring up are an excellent example ..
let me give you some specifics
Looking at the 37mm L46.5 as used on the German PzIIIe
in SPWAW V4.5 AP pen was 39 and APCR pen was 58
in SPWAW v7.1 AP Pen is 64 and APCR pen is 94
It seems whenever the German Players , known on the Forums as "Tiger Kitties" can't easily achieve "Historical" results , usually due to a lack of understanding tactics, they politically lobby the OOB creators and managers to punch up the German equipments performance or reduce the performance of the particular Nations equipment that is giving them problems. They have a variet of small a subtle ways of doing this , inflate particulaily annoting units costs thru various means ( they give the US going ashore in Tunisia a Higher experience rating that the Brits who have been fighting for almost 2 years for example) or they dummy up or down the numbers on things like penetration ect .. give german equipment inflated ranges or accuracy like mortars and panzershrecks . sometimes like in this particular case , just plain overrate the german weapons .. folks have been pointing this out for years .. It doesn't do much good .
You will either be told it is to Balance the Game , if Balance, works in the German Players favor, or that is is Historically correct , if History works in The Germans Favor .
In the case of France, and the facts you point out, Germany did win , and in a shockingly short period of time , the game , and it is just a game , can't really reflect that without somehow fudging on the Germans numbers .. the French Players refuse to play without tanks in most battles and refuse to use inappropiate tactics , the German Players refuse to become tactically proficent and since they are playing the Germans , they believe they deserve to win anyway. Consequently you get the German "performance creep" from version to version.
Your best bet is to find an earlier version of the game when units capabilities were more based on actual performance data, and less on "political and marketing" conciderations.
I believe the French weapons penetration haven't really changed from version to version , the German weapons used to fit into some logical continuim with the weapons of other nations , but no longer. However the game is now more "Fair and Balanced" and even total incompetents ( playing as Germans) can win and brag about their victories as is the German Players birthright.
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
PS: in earlier version of the game 4.4 and 4.5 the PzIIIe didn't actually get any APCR , which was terribly inconvienent for the German Player , in more recent versions they gave the PzIIIe a couple of rounds of APCR to help'em out a little.
Look at the Pen Numbers for the German versions of the 47mm at gun used on the PzJg 1b ( pen of 87 ) and the Identical gun in Czech service (pen of 70 ), now to be completely truthful and fair , the 47mm PUV gun does get a APCR Pen of 127 in both the Czech and German OOB's . ok so they don't give the Czech Gun any APCR ammo , but if they did it would be the same , the Germans of course do get APCR . The Czechs should count themselves lucky to get a 70 Pen though since most the other 47mm in the world are in the 50's for Pen. Reminding folks that the German 37mm is now up to 64 Pen LOL .
Look at the Pen Numbers for the German versions of the 47mm at gun used on the PzJg 1b ( pen of 87 ) and the Identical gun in Czech service (pen of 70 ), now to be completely truthful and fair , the 47mm PUV gun does get a APCR Pen of 127 in both the Czech and German OOB's . ok so they don't give the Czech Gun any APCR ammo , but if they did it would be the same , the Germans of course do get APCR . The Czechs should count themselves lucky to get a 70 Pen though since most the other 47mm in the world are in the 50's for Pen. Reminding folks that the German 37mm is now up to 64 Pen LOL .
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
David I didn't want to leave you with the impression this might be one of those US v French things .. Russian T-34's M43 get a little boost in Pen when captured by the Germans. Also Germans Get to use captured Russian Gear but the Russian don't get to use Captured German Tanks .. funny how that works.. especially since the German OOB is full to overflowing while the Russian is not quite so full .
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
AmmoSgt, there is no way a newbie is going to beat me even if he has your vaunted Germans and there is no way the German AI is going to beat me in any event. You do injustice to your position with this hyperbole. It simply isn't as bad as you keep espousing.
Everyone is a potential [PBEM] enemy, every place a potential [PBEM] battlefield. --Zensunni Wisdom
rbrunsman .. I notice you do not deny that the numbers I posted are right and that somebody has been increasing German units Pen and other numbers from version to version , and that the German numbers no longer relate to anything "Historical" or are based on any serious data or performance documents . Maybe you can still win against them .. fine . doesn't make it right, Game is being based on internal Matrix Politics and Marketing decsions, not on any factual unit capabilities, plenty of examples of inflated German units, Plenty of examples of dumbed down units from other countries, not just American , just more examples , correct info is readily available on the internet from repuable sources .. care to discuss Actung Panzers data on the Armor thickness and slope on the various Models of the PzIII or why Marders never get the 7.62 (r) or even French 75's and always get the German 75 in the OOB? German 20mm L55 getting higher ratings than 20mm L60 ATR and APCR to boot so they out penetrate 47mm At Guns. This is not about one or two weapons in the German OOB, it is pretty darn consistant.
Not as bad as I say hmmmm , how bad do you think it is ? Why would you be against getting it right, actually reflecting the Germans to the same degree of historical capability as other nation are held to, using the same penetration formulas.
This issue of inflating German 37mm ( I also notice the German 50mm L42 with APCR is no longer having trouble knocking out T-34's , must be nice to know that German weapons development has continued into the 21st century and is being applied retroactively ) and having magical increases on the PzJg 1 pen over the identical gun in other armies is pure and simple intelectual dishonesty.
The arguement against my complaints about the dumbing down of the US ratings has often been " well the German OOB's get alot of attention , and the other countries not so much , so they are more complete , more reflective of a historical accuracy" Simply not so .. German OOB's are replete with errors and they are always in the favor of the German player , just as all "mistakes" in other OOB's underrate other nations equipment.
At some point it is going to start hurting the reputation of the game .. Not me pointing out the errors , the errors themselves , I get a lot on Email from other players who see this as well some who have left the game or play less now as I do , serious players. You compare German ratings in the game against reputable sources , and I admit sources can differ , but not by 10-33 percent. The 47mm is off by over 20% the 37mm has been pumped up over 50% . Have you guys no shame ?
Not as bad as I say hmmmm , how bad do you think it is ? Why would you be against getting it right, actually reflecting the Germans to the same degree of historical capability as other nation are held to, using the same penetration formulas.
This issue of inflating German 37mm ( I also notice the German 50mm L42 with APCR is no longer having trouble knocking out T-34's , must be nice to know that German weapons development has continued into the 21st century and is being applied retroactively ) and having magical increases on the PzJg 1 pen over the identical gun in other armies is pure and simple intelectual dishonesty.
The arguement against my complaints about the dumbing down of the US ratings has often been " well the German OOB's get alot of attention , and the other countries not so much , so they are more complete , more reflective of a historical accuracy" Simply not so .. German OOB's are replete with errors and they are always in the favor of the German player , just as all "mistakes" in other OOB's underrate other nations equipment.
At some point it is going to start hurting the reputation of the game .. Not me pointing out the errors , the errors themselves , I get a lot on Email from other players who see this as well some who have left the game or play less now as I do , serious players. You compare German ratings in the game against reputable sources , and I admit sources can differ , but not by 10-33 percent. The 47mm is off by over 20% the 37mm has been pumped up over 50% . Have you guys no shame ?
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
Goblin anybody CAN use anybodys stuff .. the question is why do the Germans have captured equipment with increased capability in thier OOB T34 M43 Pen of 80 in the Russian OOB Pen of 84 in the German OOB ? what they ram the shell in the gun a little harder giving it more velocity in the German Army?Goblin wrote:The Russians can use captured German stuff. Shouldn't this be in the OOB/Equipment Forums?
Goblin
Goblin all the Version 8.0 OOB stuff is a sticky on this forum , you afraid to many people will see these postings ? figure out what is going on ? hard data bother you ?
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
Ammo SGT,
I hope you don’t mind me pitching my 2 cents in here. I feel as though I would like to address a few things you say, and give you and/or others the opportunity to comment on my observations.
First off, with regard to “technical accuracy”, I think I agree with you on almost all points. I am a stickler for historical accuracy. For example, I think that the difference in penetration values with 76mm AT guns depending upon who’s cocking the gun is ridiculous and it should be corrected. But let’s examine the issue a bit deeper.
Why are they different? Is it an oversight? Was it “tweaked up” after complaints, as you suggest? Or is it an attempt by the designer(s) to illustrate that the Germans were able to utilize the equipment more effectively? I don’t know the answer.
If it was an oversight, fix it. If it was tweaked, that’s wrong, readjust it back. If it was a legitimate attempt to show more adept German usage, I think the PEN values should be equalized and the crew skill levels should be changed instead. Another way to skin that cat, if you will. Bottom line, I’d like to see as close to historical pen/ROF/et al values as possible.
I haven’t seen anyone post that they’re “for” historically inaccurate or biased “tweaking”. I know that part of the appeal of SPWAW is it’s level of historical detail. Discussion based on bettering that is beneficial, and IMO, vital. More accurate detail make a better product for everyone. We all win. If there’s an actual bias for one nation or another, as you accuse, then that’s very, very unfortunate.
Part of the problem we run into however when chasing the brass “accuracy” ring is that of sourcing. Just whose numbers are the right numbers? Just whose accuracy or penetration data is most historically correct? And one other important area to consider would be do those numbers translate into how the systems were actually used in the field? As a politician once said, “statistics can be used to say anything.”
I can’t remember where you stood on the M9 Bazooka for example, IIRC, you felt they weren’t strong enough in 7.1, or that other nation’s LT/M AT weapons were too powerful in comparison. Having played against the US, facing those M9s, I can vouch for the fact that they are over-powered in 7.1. They can take out SS-crewed Panther Gs in single shots, often remaining hidden while doing so, at ranges of 4 hexes or greater, consistently. If they were realistically that effective, we really mis-geared our war production effort. A few hundred thousand M9s and the Axis would have been at its knees in weeks. I exaggerate slightly, to make a point. The balance there was way off IMO, and I believe in many others opinions as well.
Assume a best-case scenario, through debate, trial and error, we finally agree on the best set of numbers for all weapons systems involved throughout the OOBs. Then we get to the question leading us back to the beginning: If all the numbers are historically accurate, but the balance of the game suffers greatly, how is that best remedied?
That’s a very tough question to answer. And we can all Monday-morning QB the designers’ efforts to answer that question. However, we need to keep in mind that they have given us a great product, that will never be perfect. They probably did what they believed was best for all (without bias toward a particular country) at the time of the releases. And in addition, that they have access to other code-related information that may make some of the solutions we might see as obvious impossible to implement.
I have to agree with RB that your tone does more to alienate the undecided and discredit your stance than it does to help. It may help you to vent, and I hate to see that this has gotten you so frustrated if that is indeed the case. This is one of the few games I’ve found out there where there are no “cheat codes”, where little script kiddies and “l33t h4x0rz” gimps proliferate and prosper. It’s a unique community, with a wealth of information represented in its membership. Debate is healthy and essential.
I guess what I’m trying to say to close this is (and if anyone’s hypocritical when giving advice about “tone”, ahem…) that a different tone would convey your message more clearly. I for one happen to agree with what I see as your cause, namely that of historical accuracy.
And what’s there to lose? Even for the “Tiger Kiddies”? If the French do end up having better early-war guns in their OOB, that doesn’t change the historical results. They were still defeated rather handily. This speaks volumes about the quality of the leadership on both sides. The Germans had more experienced (read: Prussian Officers) troops, ergo better tactics/leadership and victory.
I hope 8.0 is as close to a technically accurate representation as we’ve seen to date. It’s only icing on the cake for me however, as I think Panzer Leo’s done an outstanding job with H2H.FR. Thanks again!
I hope you don’t mind me pitching my 2 cents in here. I feel as though I would like to address a few things you say, and give you and/or others the opportunity to comment on my observations.
First off, with regard to “technical accuracy”, I think I agree with you on almost all points. I am a stickler for historical accuracy. For example, I think that the difference in penetration values with 76mm AT guns depending upon who’s cocking the gun is ridiculous and it should be corrected. But let’s examine the issue a bit deeper.
Why are they different? Is it an oversight? Was it “tweaked up” after complaints, as you suggest? Or is it an attempt by the designer(s) to illustrate that the Germans were able to utilize the equipment more effectively? I don’t know the answer.
If it was an oversight, fix it. If it was tweaked, that’s wrong, readjust it back. If it was a legitimate attempt to show more adept German usage, I think the PEN values should be equalized and the crew skill levels should be changed instead. Another way to skin that cat, if you will. Bottom line, I’d like to see as close to historical pen/ROF/et al values as possible.
I haven’t seen anyone post that they’re “for” historically inaccurate or biased “tweaking”. I know that part of the appeal of SPWAW is it’s level of historical detail. Discussion based on bettering that is beneficial, and IMO, vital. More accurate detail make a better product for everyone. We all win. If there’s an actual bias for one nation or another, as you accuse, then that’s very, very unfortunate.
Part of the problem we run into however when chasing the brass “accuracy” ring is that of sourcing. Just whose numbers are the right numbers? Just whose accuracy or penetration data is most historically correct? And one other important area to consider would be do those numbers translate into how the systems were actually used in the field? As a politician once said, “statistics can be used to say anything.”
I can’t remember where you stood on the M9 Bazooka for example, IIRC, you felt they weren’t strong enough in 7.1, or that other nation’s LT/M AT weapons were too powerful in comparison. Having played against the US, facing those M9s, I can vouch for the fact that they are over-powered in 7.1. They can take out SS-crewed Panther Gs in single shots, often remaining hidden while doing so, at ranges of 4 hexes or greater, consistently. If they were realistically that effective, we really mis-geared our war production effort. A few hundred thousand M9s and the Axis would have been at its knees in weeks. I exaggerate slightly, to make a point. The balance there was way off IMO, and I believe in many others opinions as well.
Assume a best-case scenario, through debate, trial and error, we finally agree on the best set of numbers for all weapons systems involved throughout the OOBs. Then we get to the question leading us back to the beginning: If all the numbers are historically accurate, but the balance of the game suffers greatly, how is that best remedied?
That’s a very tough question to answer. And we can all Monday-morning QB the designers’ efforts to answer that question. However, we need to keep in mind that they have given us a great product, that will never be perfect. They probably did what they believed was best for all (without bias toward a particular country) at the time of the releases. And in addition, that they have access to other code-related information that may make some of the solutions we might see as obvious impossible to implement.
I have to agree with RB that your tone does more to alienate the undecided and discredit your stance than it does to help. It may help you to vent, and I hate to see that this has gotten you so frustrated if that is indeed the case. This is one of the few games I’ve found out there where there are no “cheat codes”, where little script kiddies and “l33t h4x0rz” gimps proliferate and prosper. It’s a unique community, with a wealth of information represented in its membership. Debate is healthy and essential.
I guess what I’m trying to say to close this is (and if anyone’s hypocritical when giving advice about “tone”, ahem…) that a different tone would convey your message more clearly. I for one happen to agree with what I see as your cause, namely that of historical accuracy.
And what’s there to lose? Even for the “Tiger Kiddies”? If the French do end up having better early-war guns in their OOB, that doesn’t change the historical results. They were still defeated rather handily. This speaks volumes about the quality of the leadership on both sides. The Germans had more experienced (read: Prussian Officers) troops, ergo better tactics/leadership and victory.
I hope 8.0 is as close to a technically accurate representation as we’ve seen to date. It’s only icing on the cake for me however, as I think Panzer Leo’s done an outstanding job with H2H.FR. Thanks again!
-
Portuguese Mercenary
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2003 1:46 am
Hi guys, my first post here.
I've been a steel panthers fan since since the very first one ( Steel Panthers I), and i've been playing SPWAW for 6 months now. I have to say that i agree with Ammo sgt.
Even SPI had inconsistencies regarding weaponry between the Germans and the French (the most obvious case but not the only one). It seems there is a trend to nerf down the french weapons due to the fact that some peeps, those "Tiger kitties", feel entitled to roll over the french with ease (more even so against the AI). This is because many have an idea that because of the historical result, wich everybody knows, that the french army (not even limiting myself to tanks here) was inferior in all aspects. This was not so, specially regarding to tanks. The french failure was not on equipment, it was on overall employed strategy.
I do know what i'm talking about because i once thought that the germans did had superior equipment. It was only after i played Panzer general that i got curious about french armor (since i had my *** handed out in a couple of scenarios because of their heavy tanks). And the research i made afterwards brought me to the conclusion that the french armor could have put up a fight if the overall mentality was different.
For german army players, it is annoying to see lots of burning hulks in the map when they first thought that "hey! It's the french! they are going to be so easy...". So they whine a little bit (and there are a lot of german players) and the stats suffer some educated (in marketing, not military science) bending.
About this:
"Assume a best-case scenario, through debate, trial and error, we finally agree on the best set of numbers for all weapons systems involved throughout the OOBs. Then we get to the question leading us back to the beginning: If all the numbers are historically accurate, but the balance of the game suffers greatly, how is that best remedied?"
This is a game and there is a need for balance. But it seems that the balance is getting heavier on only one of the sides
I've been a steel panthers fan since since the very first one ( Steel Panthers I), and i've been playing SPWAW for 6 months now. I have to say that i agree with Ammo sgt.
Even SPI had inconsistencies regarding weaponry between the Germans and the French (the most obvious case but not the only one). It seems there is a trend to nerf down the french weapons due to the fact that some peeps, those "Tiger kitties", feel entitled to roll over the french with ease (more even so against the AI). This is because many have an idea that because of the historical result, wich everybody knows, that the french army (not even limiting myself to tanks here) was inferior in all aspects. This was not so, specially regarding to tanks. The french failure was not on equipment, it was on overall employed strategy.
I do know what i'm talking about because i once thought that the germans did had superior equipment. It was only after i played Panzer general that i got curious about french armor (since i had my *** handed out in a couple of scenarios because of their heavy tanks). And the research i made afterwards brought me to the conclusion that the french armor could have put up a fight if the overall mentality was different.
For german army players, it is annoying to see lots of burning hulks in the map when they first thought that "hey! It's the french! they are going to be so easy...". So they whine a little bit (and there are a lot of german players) and the stats suffer some educated (in marketing, not military science) bending.
About this:
"Assume a best-case scenario, through debate, trial and error, we finally agree on the best set of numbers for all weapons systems involved throughout the OOBs. Then we get to the question leading us back to the beginning: If all the numbers are historically accurate, but the balance of the game suffers greatly, how is that best remedied?"
This is a game and there is a need for balance. But it seems that the balance is getting heavier on only one of the sides
Vathailos here is my position on bazookas with hard data straight from US goverment specs and links so you can read for yourself , along with calcualtions and what they are based on http://www.matrixgames.com/default.asp? ... number%3D1.
Yes I am frustrated , comments like yours , about how you "feel" that bazookas are overrated because they do what they are designed to do , in the way they are designed to do them, trump hard data , as in the above thread, everytime. I like how you specify a "SS crewed Panther " as if that should affect the Pen or accuracy on a Bazooka .
I agree on the part of different sources list slightly different penetration factors for the same weapon , but i do not know of a single source anywhere that rates a German 37mm Gun on a PzIIIe at a higher pen than the 37mm on a PZKpfw 38t (e) like it is now in the game ( back in versions prior to 7.0 maybe 6.1 the Pz38 had the better gun , and in all of the tables I can find they indicate a better pen for the Czech gun) . , and while we can differ on the Pen on a T-34, not only should they be the same Pen wether in German or Russian Service , the Russian had a BR354P AP Subcaliber round that is not inculded in the game which would be the Russian Equivalent to the APCR category ammo with about a 30 % increase in pen over the standard AP category round , just about like the German get with thier APCR that is Inculded in the game . The existence of Russian APCR is not in dispute, it's just not in the game ..
These are fact , you don't like my tone , then don't read facts for emotional content . It's not my tone that bothers folks , it is my facts that nobody yet has even attempted to refute with other facts , they just say they don't like my tone or my attitude ..OK, don't like it, I don't care ..if you differ with my facts dispute the facts . attitude or not, the facts are the facts , it ain't about how you "feel" the pen should be or the accuracy should be , it is how the facts, specs, detail, tests ,trials, say they should be . And the German Gear has been inflated and other nations dumbed down in way to many ways for it to be a simple misunderstanding .. the list grows every time somebody doesn't like my tone and has no facts to say I am wrong .. the mistakes are in the game , they have gotten worse as the versions have progressed , they have gotten worse in specific directions for the Germans and in the other Direction for other nations. Common standard within the game mechanics, that the Germans get, like APCR, are denied other nations. WP for the US is totally doable Main ammo for the US 4.2 Mortar .. but can't do flame indirect fire weapons for the US ( to hard to code ) ( it isn't a code problem actually you make a 4.2 Mortar unit that has the same HE Kill and warhead size as a 4.2 HE and you make it a Flame weapon instead of a Hevay mortar on the OOB editor , it's that simple ) but that is only for the germans , only for the Germans , however the German Wulfraum (which is the indirect fire flame weapon in questions) wasn't indirect fire equiped but it gets it anyway while actual indirect fire units like the M8 Scott don't, and actual indirect fire flame weapons like the US 4.2 Mortar which was a WP using weapon can't .. they list grows . Germans get it even if they didn't have it , other nations can't get the same thing even when they did have it .. Guns pentrate better when Germans have them .. not just one, almost every German captured weapon in the game The 37mm on the PzKpfw 38t goes up from 46 in czech service to 56 in German service whats the deal with that ? the 47mm goes up, the T-34 M43 Gun goes up and doesn't get it's APCR in Russian service. German Mortars with 2/3 the range of US Mortars get US range and German 80mm mortar shells with Half the weight of explosive get a higher HE killfactor . US HE Mortar ammo came in a couple of types for the 81mm Mortar the US gets a combo shell with the lightest HE combined with the shortest range and then the German mortar gets inflated to meet the US specs , it happen again and again and again .. I have been pointing this out for 3 years and backing it time after time with facts .. no facts are posted to refute any of it and the Inflation of the Germans contiunes unabated .
Yes I am frustrated , comments like yours , about how you "feel" that bazookas are overrated because they do what they are designed to do , in the way they are designed to do them, trump hard data , as in the above thread, everytime. I like how you specify a "SS crewed Panther " as if that should affect the Pen or accuracy on a Bazooka .
I agree on the part of different sources list slightly different penetration factors for the same weapon , but i do not know of a single source anywhere that rates a German 37mm Gun on a PzIIIe at a higher pen than the 37mm on a PZKpfw 38t (e) like it is now in the game ( back in versions prior to 7.0 maybe 6.1 the Pz38 had the better gun , and in all of the tables I can find they indicate a better pen for the Czech gun) . , and while we can differ on the Pen on a T-34, not only should they be the same Pen wether in German or Russian Service , the Russian had a BR354P AP Subcaliber round that is not inculded in the game which would be the Russian Equivalent to the APCR category ammo with about a 30 % increase in pen over the standard AP category round , just about like the German get with thier APCR that is Inculded in the game . The existence of Russian APCR is not in dispute, it's just not in the game ..
These are fact , you don't like my tone , then don't read facts for emotional content . It's not my tone that bothers folks , it is my facts that nobody yet has even attempted to refute with other facts , they just say they don't like my tone or my attitude ..OK, don't like it, I don't care ..if you differ with my facts dispute the facts . attitude or not, the facts are the facts , it ain't about how you "feel" the pen should be or the accuracy should be , it is how the facts, specs, detail, tests ,trials, say they should be . And the German Gear has been inflated and other nations dumbed down in way to many ways for it to be a simple misunderstanding .. the list grows every time somebody doesn't like my tone and has no facts to say I am wrong .. the mistakes are in the game , they have gotten worse as the versions have progressed , they have gotten worse in specific directions for the Germans and in the other Direction for other nations. Common standard within the game mechanics, that the Germans get, like APCR, are denied other nations. WP for the US is totally doable Main ammo for the US 4.2 Mortar .. but can't do flame indirect fire weapons for the US ( to hard to code ) ( it isn't a code problem actually you make a 4.2 Mortar unit that has the same HE Kill and warhead size as a 4.2 HE and you make it a Flame weapon instead of a Hevay mortar on the OOB editor , it's that simple ) but that is only for the germans , only for the Germans , however the German Wulfraum (which is the indirect fire flame weapon in questions) wasn't indirect fire equiped but it gets it anyway while actual indirect fire units like the M8 Scott don't, and actual indirect fire flame weapons like the US 4.2 Mortar which was a WP using weapon can't .. they list grows . Germans get it even if they didn't have it , other nations can't get the same thing even when they did have it .. Guns pentrate better when Germans have them .. not just one, almost every German captured weapon in the game The 37mm on the PzKpfw 38t goes up from 46 in czech service to 56 in German service whats the deal with that ? the 47mm goes up, the T-34 M43 Gun goes up and doesn't get it's APCR in Russian service. German Mortars with 2/3 the range of US Mortars get US range and German 80mm mortar shells with Half the weight of explosive get a higher HE killfactor . US HE Mortar ammo came in a couple of types for the 81mm Mortar the US gets a combo shell with the lightest HE combined with the shortest range and then the German mortar gets inflated to meet the US specs , it happen again and again and again .. I have been pointing this out for 3 years and backing it time after time with facts .. no facts are posted to refute any of it and the Inflation of the Germans contiunes unabated .
"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which
I never post on OOB topics until someone starts acting like a *ick. Then I ask that it goes to the OOB forums where people that have nothing better to do can rant over their 1mm this and .5mph that. When people start to insult others with conspiracy claims and moaning over a game, then they can walk, as far as I'm concerned.AmmoSgt wrote:Goblin anybody CAN use anybodys stuff .. the question is why do the Germans have captured equipment with increased capability in thier OOB T34 M43 Pen of 80 in the Russian OOB Pen of 84 in the German OOB ? what they ram the shell in the gun a little harder giving it more velocity in the German Army?
Goblin all the Version 8.0 OOB stuff is a sticky on this forum , you afraid to many people will see these postings ? figure out what is going on ? hard data bother you ?
You stated that the Russians cannot buy German Captured Tanks. I have it on my shopping list. It is listed under armor, Captured PzIII, and Captured PzIV. Ergo, they can buy it, and on their shopping list.
Incidently, I noticed 'hard data' varies greatly from source to source. I also noticed that the OOB arguers tend to quote only the most advantageous sources, based on their view point. Since there is no cut and dried, absolutely correct numbers, then there seems little point in arguing over it while shouting 'They did it on purpose!'.
Goblin- A Goblin won't be back to this thread
-
Capt. Pixel
- Posts: 1178
- Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Tucson, AZ
Whew!! AmmoSgt - Breathe! 
(and put a few paragraph breaks in your posts. It would make them easier to read 
)
As I read your posts, I find myself inserting 'US' wherever you've mentioned 'German'. (and a few other US/GE replacements as is appropriate.) I've had a similar, running sore about the 'modeling' of the US forces. To no avail, by the way. :rolleyes:
But I was just thinking about this the other night: Considering the vast range of weapons and defense represented in this 'simple' game, from pistols to 203mm howitzers and canvas-covered trucks to the mighty M4, I find it amazing that the original designers developed a single game system that could model that range even close to accurately.
No doubt some tweaking and twiddling with the database has been occurring over the dozen or so versions, but I believe that it's been done to accomodate comments and concerns presented right here in this forum. Undoubtedly, those with the loudest voices were given a disproportionate amount of attention, but people only tend to squeak when they feel they've somehow been wronged.
I also believe that those commiting the evil deeds, did so only with the best of intentions. As there have always been, there are some 'mistakes' in the Oob that have created a few super-charged units that barely represent the historical performance. No matter how many people poke, prod and twiddle with the database, not everyone will ever be completely happy.
So what does a good designer do? They aim for the middle ground. They make their 'best bet' shot and stand by it. Otherwise, they're in for a never-ending muck fest.
The more experienced players (and historians) can observe the 'dicrepancies' and wag their fingers and shake their heads. Then come up with ad-hoc rules that disallow certain units or selection capabilities (ie 10% arty) to 'compensate'.
That really won't stop the rest of us from playing the game and getting our dollars worth of enjoyment. 
(and put a few paragraph breaks in your posts. It would make them easier to read )As I read your posts, I find myself inserting 'US' wherever you've mentioned 'German'. (and a few other US/GE replacements as is appropriate.) I've had a similar, running sore about the 'modeling' of the US forces. To no avail, by the way. :rolleyes:
But I was just thinking about this the other night: Considering the vast range of weapons and defense represented in this 'simple' game, from pistols to 203mm howitzers and canvas-covered trucks to the mighty M4, I find it amazing that the original designers developed a single game system that could model that range even close to accurately.
No doubt some tweaking and twiddling with the database has been occurring over the dozen or so versions, but I believe that it's been done to accomodate comments and concerns presented right here in this forum. Undoubtedly, those with the loudest voices were given a disproportionate amount of attention, but people only tend to squeak when they feel they've somehow been wronged.
I also believe that those commiting the evil deeds, did so only with the best of intentions. As there have always been, there are some 'mistakes' in the Oob that have created a few super-charged units that barely represent the historical performance. No matter how many people poke, prod and twiddle with the database, not everyone will ever be completely happy.
So what does a good designer do? They aim for the middle ground. They make their 'best bet' shot and stand by it. Otherwise, they're in for a never-ending muck fest.
The more experienced players (and historians) can observe the 'dicrepancies' and wag their fingers and shake their heads. Then come up with ad-hoc rules that disallow certain units or selection capabilities (ie 10% arty) to 'compensate'.
That really won't stop the rest of us from playing the game and getting our dollars worth of enjoyment.
"Always mystify, mislead, and surprise the enemy, if possible. "
- Stonewall Jackson
- Stonewall Jackson
Capt. Pixel wrote:That really won't stop the rest of us from playing the game and getting our dollars worth of enjoyment.
You paid for the game!!
We all are getting far more from SPWAW than we could possibly demand from any game that we actually paid big bucks for. No one can argue that fact.
Everyone is a potential [PBEM] enemy, every place a potential [PBEM] battlefield. --Zensunni Wisdom
-
David Lehmann
- Posts: 35
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: France
Wow ... I never intended to trigger such a heated debate about nations' discrepancies etc. My single point was just to post details/info/proposals about the army I know the best, that is to say the French army which I like to study as well as I do for the German army. I already sent many proposals (in form of .pdf files) about French OB modifications especially in the unit organization, weapons distribution etc. I don't know exactly what will or will not be used from all what I sent but generally I never heard things like "keep your stupid files about Frenchies" and several member of the Matrix team like Paul Vebber seemed always interested by new and detailed info ... Panzer Leo was also interested and corrected several points in the French OB even if he had only time to fix several things in the infantry section.
I don't want a nation to be artificially 'boosted' I just try to provide as many info as I can so that people can work on them ... hoping that it will be somehow taken into account in the game developpment ... if not for SPWAW I hope for the future Combat Leader Western module that will be developped one day I guess.
SPWAW nevertheless remains a game, it is not really a tactical simulation and I hope CL will be closer to the simulation. I have to say that the French army is always caricaturated and I have understood that SPWAW is done to recreate the defeats of those who lost even if, on my side, I think that the tactical level of SPWAW should not reflect the strategical level.
Best regards,
David
I don't want a nation to be artificially 'boosted' I just try to provide as many info as I can so that people can work on them ... hoping that it will be somehow taken into account in the game developpment ... if not for SPWAW I hope for the future Combat Leader Western module that will be developped one day I guess.
SPWAW nevertheless remains a game, it is not really a tactical simulation and I hope CL will be closer to the simulation. I have to say that the French army is always caricaturated and I have understood that SPWAW is done to recreate the defeats of those who lost even if, on my side, I think that the tactical level of SPWAW should not reflect the strategical level.
Best regards,
David
"Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing in the tempting place."
Ammo,
Read my whole explanation on how I experienced the game-modeled M9 operating. The reason I mentioned the SS-crewed Panther is because IIRC, crew skill adds to spotting chances. SS = higher experience = better chance to spot enemies 3 hexes away. I hope that makes more sense now.
Anyway, I've had some real "hard data" experiences of my own. I've fired real US Recoilless Rifles, LAWs, AT-4, and a few Soviet-manufactured weapons. They're NOT very accurate at ranges over 200m, the LAW not over 80m.
As far as US data goes, I've also fired our AT weapons on a range, under range conditions. I hadn't just run a 1/2 mile, dive behind a log, arm, check your backblast, and pop up to fire. In other words, MUCH different accuracy when you're firing in combat vs. range conditions. And weapons tests are even more clinical, stationary "same way every time" mounts for the weapons, etc.
I'm not a poor shot by any means, and as I said I have difficulty hitting targets with our best "iron sighted" AT weapons today at distances over 200-250 meters, as a trained Airborne troop. Now make that target move, add trees/fog of war, elevation changes, and it's a whole new ballgame. Now, if it's that difficult (and I honestly wish it wasn't) with the best the US has to offer in terms of dumb-fire light AT weapons today, I think it would be at least that difficult then. I can't imagine the US making it sights markedly worse 50+ years later. Add to that the training level of the average GI firing that Bazooka... Have you personally fired any of the above, or an M9? Under what conditions? If so, do your experiences differ?
Now, I hope you can see why I disagree with you on the M9. It's just my personal experience. IMO as it is in 7.1, it's far too powerful. A platoon of M20 scout cars with M9 Bazooka teams riding shotgun and a Browning .30 cal can easily take out 4 Panthers, and that's not "right". Don't believe me? Suppress (button up) all the Panthers with the MG (which at 8-10 hexes is likely to stay hidden). Use trees or nearby hill to approach to within 4-5 hexes. Drop the first team (or rally it if a Panther happens to hit a scout car). Use that team to fire one round each at each of the Panthers. The suppression from the Bazooka is insane. Then drive the next three up to 3 hexes from your nearest Panther's flank (but the M9 often kills as easily with a frontal strike), and fire away. 4-5 shots per M9 team, one hit is usually all it takes, and there you go. 4 dead Panthers.
What does a platoon of M20s or Greyhounds with 4 M9 teams cost anyway? As much as 1 Panther G? I honestly believe they're an unbalancing factor. You believe differently. I could probably dig up data about penetration angles on Panther frontal armor that could show the M9 to achieve frontal kills far too easily if I was pressed to, but I'm not sure it's worth my time ATM.
Anyway, as far as the other obvious historical discrepancies, I agree with you that they should be fixed in the next mod (ex. 76mm PEN values differing for the same gun dependant upon nation firing). I'd also love to see WP in the game. There are a lot of "gee-whiz" armaments out there that different countries developed, but just how many need to be coded into the game for:
A) a good game?
B) a balanced game?
If they'd update the ballistics for which there is sufficient evidence to do so, I'd be very pleased. As I stated, I don't like twinks. And if you think I'm a "Tiger kiddy", I'd be happy to introduce you to my comrades driving their SU-100s.
But as I see it, the LEAST EFFECTIVE way to get that mission accomplished is to run out flaming anyone who doesn’t immediately fall in behind you marking time. I understand your passion about this, and as I’ve said before, I would love to see about 90% of your suggestions implemented. I’d even be willing to continue debate on the remaining 10%.
But effective debate can’t be “you take it my way, you do what I say, as I say it, or kiss my arse!” You’re method of delivery clouds your message, and hampers your effectiveness to communicate it. Less effective communication = less chance to see your wishes fulfilled.
Start a petition, and I’ll sign it. But the more brazen and rude the message, the more folks will fail to read it in its entirety. If you’ve got the time, how about doing up a list of “suggested balancing modifications” for the 5 major OOBs with their rationale, and I’d like to help you get it worked through to fruition. Interested?
Read my whole explanation on how I experienced the game-modeled M9 operating. The reason I mentioned the SS-crewed Panther is because IIRC, crew skill adds to spotting chances. SS = higher experience = better chance to spot enemies 3 hexes away. I hope that makes more sense now.
Anyway, I've had some real "hard data" experiences of my own. I've fired real US Recoilless Rifles, LAWs, AT-4, and a few Soviet-manufactured weapons. They're NOT very accurate at ranges over 200m, the LAW not over 80m.
As far as US data goes, I've also fired our AT weapons on a range, under range conditions. I hadn't just run a 1/2 mile, dive behind a log, arm, check your backblast, and pop up to fire. In other words, MUCH different accuracy when you're firing in combat vs. range conditions. And weapons tests are even more clinical, stationary "same way every time" mounts for the weapons, etc.
I'm not a poor shot by any means, and as I said I have difficulty hitting targets with our best "iron sighted" AT weapons today at distances over 200-250 meters, as a trained Airborne troop. Now make that target move, add trees/fog of war, elevation changes, and it's a whole new ballgame. Now, if it's that difficult (and I honestly wish it wasn't) with the best the US has to offer in terms of dumb-fire light AT weapons today, I think it would be at least that difficult then. I can't imagine the US making it sights markedly worse 50+ years later. Add to that the training level of the average GI firing that Bazooka... Have you personally fired any of the above, or an M9? Under what conditions? If so, do your experiences differ?
Now, I hope you can see why I disagree with you on the M9. It's just my personal experience. IMO as it is in 7.1, it's far too powerful. A platoon of M20 scout cars with M9 Bazooka teams riding shotgun and a Browning .30 cal can easily take out 4 Panthers, and that's not "right". Don't believe me? Suppress (button up) all the Panthers with the MG (which at 8-10 hexes is likely to stay hidden). Use trees or nearby hill to approach to within 4-5 hexes. Drop the first team (or rally it if a Panther happens to hit a scout car). Use that team to fire one round each at each of the Panthers. The suppression from the Bazooka is insane. Then drive the next three up to 3 hexes from your nearest Panther's flank (but the M9 often kills as easily with a frontal strike), and fire away. 4-5 shots per M9 team, one hit is usually all it takes, and there you go. 4 dead Panthers.
What does a platoon of M20s or Greyhounds with 4 M9 teams cost anyway? As much as 1 Panther G? I honestly believe they're an unbalancing factor. You believe differently. I could probably dig up data about penetration angles on Panther frontal armor that could show the M9 to achieve frontal kills far too easily if I was pressed to, but I'm not sure it's worth my time ATM.
Anyway, as far as the other obvious historical discrepancies, I agree with you that they should be fixed in the next mod (ex. 76mm PEN values differing for the same gun dependant upon nation firing). I'd also love to see WP in the game. There are a lot of "gee-whiz" armaments out there that different countries developed, but just how many need to be coded into the game for:
A) a good game?
B) a balanced game?
If they'd update the ballistics for which there is sufficient evidence to do so, I'd be very pleased. As I stated, I don't like twinks. And if you think I'm a "Tiger kiddy", I'd be happy to introduce you to my comrades driving their SU-100s
.But as I see it, the LEAST EFFECTIVE way to get that mission accomplished is to run out flaming anyone who doesn’t immediately fall in behind you marking time. I understand your passion about this, and as I’ve said before, I would love to see about 90% of your suggestions implemented. I’d even be willing to continue debate on the remaining 10%.
But effective debate can’t be “you take it my way, you do what I say, as I say it, or kiss my arse!” You’re method of delivery clouds your message, and hampers your effectiveness to communicate it. Less effective communication = less chance to see your wishes fulfilled.
Start a petition, and I’ll sign it. But the more brazen and rude the message, the more folks will fail to read it in its entirety. If you’ve got the time, how about doing up a list of “suggested balancing modifications” for the 5 major OOBs with their rationale, and I’d like to help you get it worked through to fruition. Interested?
Ever considered that the reason for same gun having different penetration in different armies might be that the ammunition is different? Better quality steel or ballistic design, perhaps higher chamber pressure..solid shot for one nation, solit shot with explosive filler for another...
Even though you can capture a lot of guns and take them into your own use you cannot leave your ammunition supply depending of what you can capture, thus domestic production is usually initiated..and as the opponent may not give you the specs for the ammunition, you design your own...
Voriax
Even though you can capture a lot of guns and take them into your own use you cannot leave your ammunition supply depending of what you can capture, thus domestic production is usually initiated..and as the opponent may not give you the specs for the ammunition, you design your own...
Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!
-
Orzel Bialy
- Posts: 2569
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 5:39 am
- Location: Wisconsin USA
- Contact:
my two cents...
To begin with...I believe that some of the hard data was indeed skewed to assist model national characteristics that simply couldn't be handled via the normal "experience / morale + national characteristic" set up of the game engine.
I agree that hard gun ballistics data shouldn't be overly skewed (1-5 pts max) because of who's firing the gun...unless firm information can be shown that one nation did indeed have better quality ammunition. (which can then lead to better values.)
However, the best information put out in this thread is that it is a GAME folks...and it will never be the "perfect" game for everyone. All the data in the world can be installed to correct the specs and somebody out there will still not be happy with something.
Now...as for the whole "Tiger Kitties" getting their way crap.
The once secret and powerful GBGW (Gamers for Better German Weapons) lobby group no longer mettles in the OoB's values...we have turned our attention towards other things now. 
Sorry..that was just sitting badly with me....after all I used to love the trusty Pzkfw IV...and when it was "tamed" down in later versions I thought it sucked and I wasn't happy about it...but I never whined to Matrix or Leo or my fellow arsenal members to upgrade the Pzkfw IVH + series in any new versions of OoB's. I just developed other tactics for the tank.
I hate it when issues become the victim of "us and them" labelling.
I agree that hard gun ballistics data shouldn't be overly skewed (1-5 pts max) because of who's firing the gun...unless firm information can be shown that one nation did indeed have better quality ammunition. (which can then lead to better values.)
However, the best information put out in this thread is that it is a GAME folks...and it will never be the "perfect" game for everyone. All the data in the world can be installed to correct the specs and somebody out there will still not be happy with something.
Now...as for the whole "Tiger Kitties" getting their way crap.
The once secret and powerful GBGW (Gamers for Better German Weapons) lobby group no longer mettles in the OoB's values...we have turned our attention towards other things now. Sorry..that was just sitting badly with me....after all I used to love the trusty Pzkfw IV...and when it was "tamed" down in later versions I thought it sucked and I wasn't happy about it...but I never whined to Matrix or Leo or my fellow arsenal members to upgrade the Pzkfw IVH + series in any new versions of OoB's. I just developed other tactics for the tank.
I hate it when issues become the victim of "us and them" labelling.
AmmoSgt wrote: Looking at the 37mm L46.5 as used on the German PzIIIe
in SPWAW V4.5 AP pen was 39 and APCR pen was 58
in SPWAW v7.1 AP Pen is 64 and APCR pen is 94
Oddly enough, after checking from more than one source it actually seems that the 7.1 value is closer to the correct value than the 4.5...and btw, did you notice that the most powerful 37mm gun in the game is US M6 with 77 Pen..surely this should be in the 39 range as the German gun used to be, right???? The APCR pen seem a bit high, the figures I saw were around 80-85.
Btw, Finnish tests for 37mm PaK gave 39mm penetration at 300m, 20deg angle from vertical. This is afaik the same gun as the 37mm L46,5? Sorry, no plate hardness to give.
Voriax
Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!