Too much detail? Does it matter? Who cares?

[Zovs]

So I went off adventuring again, and using both online resources and Steel Panthers I started to create another WW2 type of database.

But is this too much info, not enough, who cares, why you asking me this Don?



Thoughts?

[Lobster]

There are lots more equipment slot than there used to be. Might as well use them if you have the desire. [;)]

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
There are lots more equipment slot than there used to be. Might as well use them if you have the desire.

Dunno about that; sure no problem including them in the database, but using this kind of fine-grained equipment in a scenario, at least a longer scenario, could be problematic for the reasons described in the thread about equipment transitions.

For instance, at the operational scale, is there any real difference between a Pzkw IV E and a Pzkw IV F1? By including both in a scenario you introduce problems with replacements: if your scenario is short enough, or there are few enough units using this equipment, no big deal. Otherwise, your unit with an E won't get an F1 as a replacement unless it is also included in the unit, which will allow you to have twice as many tanks, etc.

[Lobster]

The game doesn't do equipment transitions well. That's why people pull out entire units if major pieces of equipment are involved.

The F1 had more better armor, weighed more but had the same engine as the E and had a wider track. The E did have some extra armor applied that somewhat equaled the F1 in the hull/super structure, not in the turret. But it was either welded or bolted on, neither a good solution but a stop gap measure until the F1 could roll out of the factories. So yeah, enough of a difference to include both models.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Lobster
The F1 had more better armor, weighed more but had the same engine as the E and had a wider track. The E did have some extra armor applied that somewhat equaled the F1 in the hull/super structure, not in the turret. But it was either welded or bolted on, neither a good solution but a stop gap measure until the F1 could roll out of the factories. So yeah, enough of a difference to include both models.

Sure, the models were different, but you often have problems when you try to reflect those differences in the equipment database. The problem is that in the database you have to (AFAIK) use integer rather than decimal values, so you can't reflect incremental improvements.

In the database that I'm using, yes, there are different entries for the E and the F1 (with slightly different armor ratings, etc), but for many other types of vehicles the small differences in performance between various models simply cannot be modeled in the equipment database. That's fine--this is an operational game after all--but it is a reason not to go too crazy with including various vehicle variants.

And this is not just an issue of equipment transitions--it is relevant for replacements as well, even if you don't have any equipment transitions. Let's say you have 20 units equipped with short-barreled Pzkw IVs--half the Es and half the F1s. That of course means that if you have Es on hand, the units with the Fs won't get them, and vice versa, when IRL I expect that units would get either.

[Lobster]

While it is true that this is an operational game there are tactical elements that apply mainly to armored vehicles. 19.2. Notes On Combat Resolution

As for replacements, that part of the game is afu. It needs some work.