New OOB topic

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sat Jun 24, 2000 12:26 am

I've closed the old OOB topic.

Unfortunately time and technical difficulties prevented a lot of OOB enhancements I wanted, but we will try again:-)

IF you are not on the OOB update mailing list and want to participate in the process, drop me an email.

There are limits to what can be done! But if you want to participate in the process and help doing the editing, drop me a note.

Umberto · Post by **Umberto** » Sat Jun 24, 2000 10:35 am

Well I do believe you have read some
of my objections and suggestions.

---------------------------------------------But if you want to participate in the process and help doing the editing, drop me a note.
---------------------------------------------
here is my note let me know
ciao

------------------
Best Regards
Umberto

Exnur · Post by **Exnur** » Mon Jun 26, 2000 11:06 am

I'll take this opportunity to give my thanks for a great patch to you guys! I hope you know we appreciate all the hard work.

The picture for the Daimler Benz G5 truck is a pack AT gun

Thanks again

Exnur

Mark_Ezra · Post by **Mark_Ezra** » Mon Jun 26, 2000 2:14 pm

Hi Paul I want to say thanks to you, David, WB and ALL the folks at Matrix who contributed to this wonderful project. I haven't really given it the attention I want as Life does get in the way of wargaming (!) But I did go to my favorite OOB...USA circa Nov '42....I really liked the new Mech Company format...Thanks again

Exnur · Post by **Exnur** » Mon Jun 26, 2000 7:27 pm

Here are a few problems I've noticed are still in v2.0 that no one covered in the old OOB section:

The British Stuart V has a penetration of 14 for the 37 mm Gun. I believe it should be 4.

The Centurion tanks seem hard to select in the purchasing section. I tried a battle on June 1949, but could only get the Centurion I in the Centurion section, when version II and III should be available. The other armor sections will either have the I and/or II, when all three should probably be there.

The Polish 37mm wz 36 ATG has 0 penetration.

The German 122mm Capt. FH is available only in Dec 49, while the 122mm Capt. Bat is available in Jan 42.

Shouldn't the Matilda II have armored skirts?

Exnur

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Mon Jun 26, 2000 11:25 pm

If I recall some of the prior SP type games, the 75L70 is the Panther gun, which is rated with a higher penetration rating, however, the Tiger's 88L56 has a larger shell rating (of 5, compared to the 75L70's 4).

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Mon Jun 26, 2000 11:36 pm

Scipio, a good site for info about German armour is http://www.achtungpanzer.com

Also http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/index.htm (On Armour) has some very interesting tables about armour thickness and gun performance.

Voriax

Alastair Anderson · Post by **Alastair Anderson** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 2:10 am

Paul,

Only had 10 mins to browse it through last night, but the Ktiger has rightly had its front hull armour upgraded, but not so the hapless Jagdtiger which is still set at 100.

Cheers
Al

victorhauser · Post by **victorhauser** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 2:56 am

Regarding the IS-3...

After some preliminary checking, I was surprised to discover that Paul's armor ratings for the IS-3 was very close to the values given at the Russian Military website provided by ASDN. My surprise wasn't due to an implied lack of skill on Paul's part, but rather an imbedded belief I'd had for years regarding the armor of the IS-3.

At this point, my only quibbles are that I would increase the slope of the front turret armor to 39 degrees (instead of 28 degrees) and increase the slope of the side hull to 45 degrees (instead of 42 degrees). All the other values look good.

I'm going to do some more checking around, but that Russian Military website seemed pretty definitive.

--Victor

Alastair Anderson · Post by **Alastair Anderson** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 3:05 am

Paul,

French off map ship support is extremely expensive, at least in 1937 anyway. Also the French Renault APCs seem to only carry 4 men which makes them a strange match up for the 12 man infantry squads in a mechanized platoon.

Holland?? The oob for Holland in 1937 is almost non existent. Surely the poor old Dutch had more to choose from than that?? Any country that can play football like they do are surely deserving of a few more bits and pieces...

Cheers
Al

talon · Post by **talon** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 4:05 am

Good work on the new Version . One Question on the number of Poles in one group . Are 19 men correct ? This would mean a platoon had 76 men . And I noticed that the German Spec Ops still has the LMG 42 in 1938 . I still say this is wrong because parts of this MG were copies from things captured in poland the year after ! The polish 75mm AA gun still needs to be changed . Range by far to high for direct fire and cost to low if considered the poles only had 156 of these .

Omar.N.Bradley · Post by **Omar.N.Bradley** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 8:35 am

Hi,

The Tiger 1 or Pzkpfw VIe has to much armor in the front turret.
Now it has 200mm it should be more like 100mm

What about that, i have also seen some more stuff that is way of the mark.
Like M10 Wolverine coming September 1942 when it should come March 1943.

Well i hope that this is going to be fixed.

Omar.N.bradley

------------------

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 9:23 am

Originally posted by Omar.N.Bradley:
Hi,

The Tiger 1 or Pzkpfw VIe has to much armor in the front turret.
Now it has 200mm it should be more like 100mm

Isn't this figure actually correct? 100mm for the real turret front plus another 100mm for the gun mantle, which happens to be just about the same size than turret front.

Talon, Omar, there wasn't that much done to correct the OOB's. That'll wait for the v. 3.0 which will come out one day or another in the future.

Voriax

Scipio Africanus · Post by **Scipio Africanus** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 9:37 am

Nice job on the patch, clearly a tremendous amount of work has gone into this game. I have just a quick question. I noticed that the German 75mm L70 gun has a penetration of 185 while the 88mm L56 has a penetration of 163. I would have thought that the 88mm L56 would be closer to the American 90mm L50 in performance, with the 75 somewhat less effective. Is this an error in the OoB? (perhaps the numbers were reversed between the 75 and 88). This is simply an enquiry, I have no knowledge of how these guns actually performed. Thanks for the game and please keep up the good work.

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 4:53 pm

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the Polish 75mm AA (wz36?) needs the range corrected (248 at present), and the first two sets of Polish infantry need their number od men adjusted from the current 19.

PR^Spanjab · Post by **PR^Spanjab** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 4:58 pm

The VC Firefly looks too expensive to me. It cost quite a bit more than a Tiger and I think it is considerably weaker.

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 5:37 pm

Originally posted by Scipio Africanus:
Nice job on the patch, clearly a tremendous amount of work has gone into this game. I have just a quick question. I noticed that the German 75mm L70 gun has a penetration of 185 while the 88mm L56 has a penetration of 163.

The 75/L70 actually did have better penetration than the 88/L56. Barrel length is important. The later long 88 has even better performance.

talon · Post by **talon** » Tue Jun 27, 2000 6:35 pm

I think the German PSW should get Recon Unit because that is what they are . Psw maens Panzerspähwagen !! They German halftracks should lose recon . The 251HT is a APC .

dufrasnes · Post by **dufrasnes** » Wed Jun 28, 2000 1:46 am

I would like to suggest some new Russian units.
- Iag 10 truck with 76,2 mm AA gun.
- Gaz MM with DsHk AA Mg.
- Gaz MM with a 25 mm AA Gun.
These units were in low numbers but still more than the Maus.

- Tractors like the S80 were also used in WWII to tow medium and Heavy guns, just like the S60, S65, Kommintern and Vorochilovet.
In fact they were the the only way.
- the M31 rocket laucher on wood frame used from 1942 ( I have to check the month ).
- 203 mm B4 how.
- 203 mm B4 on map, (just remember the pictures of these monsters firing in Berlin in direct fire).
- captured Panthers tanks ( at least one Bn used them fron late 44 ).
- KV tank could also have an AA DT Mg.
- Lend Lease american trucks like the GMC, Studbacker,...
- T80 ( T70 with a 2 men turret).

About the BA6, I think it should have the same 45 mm gun as the BA10.
Some other tanks only reach the front line units in very few number, like the IS1, T43 ( one proto ) and T62.
The T40b ( with a 20 mm gun ) was called T30.

The Russian OOB is very goob, it's nice to see some exotic units.
The Russian army is my favorite modelling subject and I have an extensive collection of books and pictures.

victorhauser · Post by **victorhauser** » Thu Jun 29, 2000 4:44 pm

Some AFV Comparisons in Version 2.1...

Tiger I cost = 117
Tiger II cost = 188
PantherG cost = 125

T-34/85 cost = 120
IS-2 cost = 139
IS-3 cost = 194

I never liked ASL much for many reasons, but one thing that game did do that I liked was to multiply the "base cost" of AFVs by a "rarity factor" to produce a modifed cost for that AFV--thus "encouraging" players to purchase AFVs somewhat in keeping with historical production rates.

In any event, the sample of AFV costs I listed above seems to noticeably favor the Germans. Have the new, improved Tiger turret thicknesses been accounted for in the v2.1 point costs?

And More Regarding the IS-3...
My friend John simply won't give up his fixation regarding what he believes are low armor values for the IS-3. This is very surprising to me since he is your stereotypical Germanophile. Anyway, I finally have him convinced that the IS-3's v2.1 front hull rating is pretty darned close, but he still disagrees about the IS-3's front turret rating. And I finally think he has a valid argument. While he does not dispute the given thickness for the IS-3 "front turret" of 145 (he believes the angle should be 39 rather than 28 as I do), he points out that a visual inspection of the IS-3's front-turret cross-sectional area reveals that less than 50% of the actual front turret area is that which v2.1 assigns to the entire "front turret" rating. The remainder of the actual front-turret cross-sectional area (when faced head on) is the same heavy, tapering armor found on the rest of the rounded, cup-shaped turret, yet at an even more extreme angle due to the forward projection of the gun. He finally has me convinced. My suggestion is to turn the current 145 @ 28 into 145 @ 39. That's step 1. Step 2 is to give that 145 @ 39 a portion of 50% of the entire front turret rating. Step 3 is to take the 165 @ 35 and increase the 35 slope to 60 to account for the more extreme front protrusion angle, yielding 165 @ 60. Step 4 is to assign that 165 @ 60 a portion of 50% of the entire front turret rating. Step 5 is to combine the two portions into a single "averaged" whole. This yields 155 @ 49 which I now believe is a more accurate representation of the IS-3's front-turret armor. I think this also "tastes better". It always seemed disturbing to me that the IS-3 front turret value should be less effective than the side and rear turret values. It also didn't seem to make logical sense--the Russians by that stage of the war knew as much as anybody how to build formidable tanks. My friend John's bulldogged persistence finally showed me (at least) what I hadn't been taking into account. (The one good thing about having a Germanophile as a friend is that I always have a ready opponent when I want to play against the Germans, which is almost all the time!

)

Mighty Maus?...
The Maus is listed in the v2.1 OOB as having a front turret armor of 240 thick @ 90 slope. I suspect a typo here as a slope of 90 is highly unlikely (to say the least

).