Matrix Games Forums

"Even under such constraints, though, one of the radio-telephone conversations between Hitler and Gen. Heinz Guderian in late December is instructive in showing how a good army can make one kind of supply serve another purpose. Guderian was complaining to Hitler about having trouble stopping the Soviet's T-34-led breakthrougs. The Führer asked why he didnpt use the 88mm Flak guns to destroy them as in previous encounters. The general explained the ground was now frozen so hard he needed to save his artillery rounds to blast holes for their infantry to sleep in at night. Experience has already shown if he didn't get his Landser below ground level they'd freeze to death."

By Ty Bomba.
Command issue 27

Mikimoto: Hi dude! You and I have had different opinions regarding what you've been discussing lately, but I must say there is one area where I agree with you 100%.

That area is one of your ability to mention that something is not right if you see it. Let me throw this phrase at you: "We welcome all comments to the OOBS, etc., etc., etc.". Now, I recall hearing phrases to that effect. In corporations those words roll off people's tongues and often don't mean a thing. They're there just to make the corporate team sound fair. So, when someone retorts to your protestations to something you don't like, and generally comes across with the attitude that you should've joined the OOB team, or what right have you to complain when you did not, I come back to that basic statement people so commonly use: "We welcome your comments". Apparently many do not welcome them, or in any case forget to tell you in that trite phrase how they welcome comments only if you'll join the team. I realize that the people who may be saying you should join the team may not be part of that team, and it may be difficult to suggest joining the team without coming across as disingeniuous, but I've been in the same boat you're in, in that regard. People should learn to admit what they will and will not accept. If you don't have the courage to face up to telling people that only those who "do work" comments are accepted,then you'll continue to say how much you value everyone's opinions. On the other hand, even given that one might genuinely want opinions from everybody, work or not, if one doesn't have the time or wherewithal to do the work, then one should at least make comments in something of a thoughtful subdued tone.

Alby:

Quit pickin on me charles!! LOL

The apcr is makin the difference here i think, not the gun or armor changes is all I think I was saying LOL

---

I wasn't picking on you. I reread the post you must've referred to (as what you quoted here wasn't my quote but yours) and I can't figure out why I quoted you and then wasn't more direct to what I quoted. I think I was trying to say that many of these tests are bogus anyway, because though it sounds fair to turn the AI loose, people don't play that way, and there are other factors which if one is just sitting back and letting it rip, they will not notice that there's some definite skewing taking place even so.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]</p>

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Mikimoto: Hi dude! You and I have had different opinions regarding what you've been discussing lately, but I must say there is one area where I agree with you 100%.

That area is one of your ability to mention that something is not right if you see it. Let me throw this phrase at you: "We welcome all comments to the OOBS, etc., etc., etc.". Now, I recall hearing phrases to that effect. In corporations those words roll off people's tongues and often don't mean a thing. They're there just to make the corporate team sound fair. So, when someone retorts to your protestations to something you don't like, and generally comes across with the attitude that you should've joined the OOB team, or what right have you to complain when you did not, I come back to that basic statement people so commonly use: "We welcome your comments". Apparently many do not welcome them, or in any case forget to tell you in that trite phrase how they welcome comments only if you'll join the team. I realize that the people who may be saying you should join the team may not be part of that team, and it may be difficult to suggest joining the team without coming across as disingeniuous, but I've been in the same boat you're in, in that regard. People should learn to admit what they will and will not accept. If you don't have the courage to face up to telling people that only those who "do work" comments are accepted,then you'll continue to say how much you value everyone's opinions. On the other hand, even given that one might genuinely want opinions from everybody, work or not, if one doesn't have the time or wherewithal to do the work, then one should at least make comments in something of a thoughtful subdued tone.

---

Charles: Hi dude! thank you for your comprension. I am fully sure we agree or can agree in more than we know now about this loved thing. Yes, I love Spwaw beyond limits, with passion. And this passion makes me post, sometimes, in a non-political-correct way. Add to this that my two basic languages are Catalan and Spanish, not english... so sometimes post subtle animic states is complicated for me. And who wants an ALWAYS correct world? thats 1984 from Orwell or Huxley's happy world too...

"fairy tale" is rude?... I don't think, others do, but not insulting. I loved this game from version 1.0 until v7. In this version, the most claimed "definitive" version, when only some upgrades in "two-player" campaings were to be implemented, and some bug cleaning a add-ons, I find new features that unbalances heavily the game. To the point to make East Front battles inplayabe...
History shows some tips on this topic. Lorrin's work on ballistics can be a marvellous, innovative thing, but is against ALL battle reports from the first two years of the "great patriotic war". I find ridicolous that some guys claim I must show data... All history joins my point.

"With 24,000 Soviet tanks versus about 3,000 German, the Red Army have repelled the invasion, but the new mechanized units proved entirely unable to stop, or even seriously impede, the onslaught. That was true even though, for the most part, the defender's tanks were as good as or better than those of the Germans. Though the excellent T-34 AND KV-I weren't present in significant numbers until the end of the year, the older models, such as the BT-7 and T-26, were more than a match for the German Mark I and II, and were the equal of the Mark III that made up the bulk of the panzer division's inventory.
The inept manner in wich the Soviet mechanized forces were led and operated -- at the start of the fighting the average in-unit driving experience of the crews before going into battle was two hours -- resulted in easy triumphs for the Germans who in many cases simply encircled and annihilated those units. That was the case with the 6th, 16th and 23rd Mechanized Corps, which were wiped out during their first engagement, while the 9th, 22nd and 19th had their tank strength reduced 95 percent by the third day.
By the end of August, the mechanized corps had for all practical purposes ceased to exist. The tank replacements becoming available were all sent to the rifle divisions, wich in many cases began to spontaneously organize their own tank battalions. Thus the role of the tank in the Red Army was once again shifted back to infantry support out of the sheer necessity of shoring up the rifle units. This reversion was also a reflection of the fact that at the time the battalion was probably the organizational limit of mobile unit Soviet commanders were capable of handling with any degree of competence.
The mechanized corps were officially disbanded in September, and the Soviet high command began forming independent tank brigades and battalions that continued to be used almost exclusively in the infantry close-support role. These new units were small, with only 48 tanks ans 1,000 men each.
Even during the Moscow counteroffensive beginning in December, there was no attempt to use the independent tank brigades to exploit breaches torn in the German line by the rifle divisions. This resulted in a slow, methodic offensive that entirely lacked the echelons and speed called for in Deep Battle.
Still, emboldened by the limited success the methodic approach had gained during the winter, the Red Army prepared to attack again that spring. By this point the high command (Stavka) realized if they were to wage an offensive truly strategic in scope some portion of the tanks would have to be reclaimed from the infantry support role and put back into independent mobile formations. As a result, the tank corps, and even a tank army, made their appearances on the Red Army's order of battle during April and May 1942.
The organization of the new tank corps was based on brigades rather than the divisions of the 1940 mechanized corps. As a result, these new units were rough equivalents of the German panzer divisions. The new tank army's organization varied from two to three tank corps, with several rifle divisions added for support."

By Peter J.Vlakancic
Command issue 34

Mikimoto:

"fairy tale" is rude?... I don't think, others do, but not insulting. I loved this game from version 1.0 until v7. In this version, the most claimed "definitive" version, when only some upgrades in "two-player" campaings were to be implemented, and some bug cleaning a add-ons, I find new features that unbalances heavily the game. To the point to make East Front battles inplayabe...
History shows some tips on this topic. Lorrin's work on ballistics can be a marvellous, innovative thing, but is against ALL battle reports from the first two years of the "great patriotic war". I find ridicolous that some guys claim I must show data... All history joins my point.

---

Considering your quote above, I went back to the original post. There are two things that are sticking in people's minds: 1. You said 'fairy tale' 2. You laughed

Considering those facts, a number of people may have twisted how you said them, just as badly as you may have said them (well not all that bad, but I'm trying to hint that there's more to this than is easily discernable). I recall one poster putting your fairy tale comment along with the laughter, but that's not what you did. Perhaps the most important sentence of your post was asking what could either be regarded as taunting or serious (asking whether it simulation or fairy tale), but seems serious to me considering how you added the 'confused' smiley instead of one sticking it's tongue out.

As to the latter portion of your quote above, I've often wondered myself, as have many others, whether this game is trying to portray balance, tactical history, or strategic history. I'm as puzzled as you are about this. From my perspective, irrespective of what MAY be going on, I'm looking for tactical accuracy, and often enough people get that confused with one side or the other winning. In relatively even battles it's pretty clear often enough that heavy tanks are going to win, particularly when there's not a whole lot of comparable penalty for them, like it costing your steel industry greatly. The main question isn't whether the game is inaccurate because the PZIIIH can do better than it once did in the game, but whether this was true in real life. Unfortunately, if V.7 is incorrect on this change, and someone requires proof to change it, it almost invariably won't happen especially when our arguments are more vague such as the USSR saying it's the best tank (which of course you haven't said, but it does show that vaguer data makes things more difficult). It's not easy to deal with this from either side of the argument. Your comments about German commander reports or what not, falls basically in the category that some of mine have fallen before, such as the Panther/Tiger should be able to at least show a 3-to-1 ratio against Shermans, since many an American commander said that it was 5-to-1 (and understand the Tigers/Panthers should achieve 5-to-1 MINIMUM, because the US commanders often had greater superiority than what these battles allow (basically because, as I say, the game strives for answering the question: "If a few companies of one side, met a few companies of another side, what would happen?"). This game no doubt favors those who had less quantity but more quality, and that's why Germany is often so difficult to deal with. That does make for something of a fantasy environment, but it is a legitimate perspective, because surely there were a number of battles where the forces involved were relatively even, so that those with the better quality/tactics won out.

One last thing, be careful about your sources. I know you've been drubbed with some anti-American rhetoric so you might believe the ugliest of the Americans is more dominant than it may be (then or now), but when you say "great patriotic war" and then refer to 41-42 almost as though it were a USSR panacea, you are stepping in my opinion into this stupid over-zealous "we are the greatest" nonsense that surely you must detest in some Americans and Germans. I read a book, only recently available Russia at War written by Russians which dispels a number of myths, and when people start using the phrase "great patriotic war" and then refer to 41-42 instead of 43-45, it usually isn't indicative of someone who is being objective beyond the reach of the then party lines. The same goes for some of the English trying to make Dunkirk look like a great victory, when actually it was a demoralizing rout. You have to wonder about objectivity from sources like those, when they can't even admit that their worst battle was anythign but a victory (sure it could've been worse, but still).

Later

Originally posted by Charles_22:

One last thing, be careful about your sources. I know you've been drubbed with some anti-American rhetoric so you might believe the ugliest of the Americans is more dominant than it may be (then or now), but when you say "great patriotic war" and then refer to 41-42 almost as though it were a USSR panacea, you are stepping in my opinion into this stupid over-zealous "we are the greatest" nonsense that surely you must detest in some Americans and Germans. I read a book, only recently available Russia at War written by Russians which dispels a number of myths, and when people start using the phrase "great patriotic war" and then refer to 41-42 instead of 43-45, it usually isn't indicative of someone who is being objective beyond the reach of the then party lines. The same goes for some of the English trying to make Dunkirk look like a great victory, when actually it was a demoralizing rout. You have to wonder about objectivity from sources like those, when they can't even admit that their worst battle was anythign but a victory (sure it could've been worse, but still).

Later

---

Hello again.

Thanks for the advice. I have used "great patriotic war" cause it is an alternative to "East Front", "Russian Front" or whatever else you want to name that part of WWII. Not for politics.

I speak about the 1941/42 period, because that is the time frame when Russians had superior tanks that Germans. Not for another reason.

As you can see, I am posting "made in USA" material only. Cause if I post "other" sources some people will complain about its validity. But perhaps I will post some Spanish stuff...

By the way, a year or so ago, when I was new to the forum, a fellow American send to me a private mail asking why a Japanese wanted to be here: It was not a good place for an asiatic. And I am European...

Later too.

Originally posted by AmmoSgt:
WELL!!!! If i don't like it and I want something changed I at least try and find a refernce .. well ok lately .. anyway I am Hurt and I am going to go eat worms until I get my way pout <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

PS I never said the BAR was better than an MG-42 .. I said it was more controlable in full auto fire .. But please I didn't mean to interupt .. continue with your rant <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

---

I am STILL entertained by the fact the MG42 is the wunderweapon of the wunderkrieg....

Glad I hung up my guns...

Originally posted by Warrior:


Pilgrim, you haven't seen my rudeness yet. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

---

LOL - You gotta like a guy that quotes the Duke!! And copying the OOB from 6.1 to 7.0 is a good idea but you would have to do the Russians and German and I haven't had a chance to check the other countries. But the German Protection was increased while the Russian was Decreased - that's only half the problem but maybe livable.

Richmonder - you are probably correct - I haven't read every thread at Matrix and somebody could find a worse one <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> - like you I was only trying to make a point. That point being that half of the posts in this thread are people saying drop it - if they had not done that it would probably be dead by now.

Mikimoto:

I speak about the 1941/42 period, because that is the time frame when Russians had superior tanks that Germans. Not for another reason.

---

Well that certainly makes sense. Unfortunately if one is speaking in the broader sense and generally saying that Gerry should be getting whipped (which is not exactly what you're saying) then where does accepting that the T34 and KV crews were fairly worthless for the period (or that they weren't used very well in any sense) fit in? With what we're seeing here, assuming the current fix is correct (and that IS the whole issue) the KVs were only invincible if they had numeric superior tank advantage, and then only if Gerry didn't close very well. Considering how many times the USSR forces were surrounded I don't think it's entirely out of the question that Gerry closed very well. There's also another issue at hand here, which the game cannot address, though CL might, and that is, just what was the quality of the T34/KV crews. That one Russian website seemed to indicate, as one might expect with an undisciplined army, with tanks fairly radically different from what they or anyone else had at that time, that those crews were probably worse than the T28 crews for instance, just like the Tiger crews were often the best crews (or so I've heard). I would imagine, later in the war those tanks got some of the better crews, but the USSR was so disorganized in 41-42 that many of the worst crews being in the best tanks wouldn't be too surprising.

Yeah, that's funny, Japanese, but I had thought that for a while too, but then I don't expect people to leave because they're the same race one of my aunts is.

I see this thread had drawn Sven's attention (one of the OOB team).

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]</p>

Your spanish posts were not exactly enlightened, Mik, questioning my eatinghabots as a cause of my mental defects and to perform an unatural act if I didn't read Spanish...

But to the point, you claim "all history" proves your point. You talked about past game designers that proved your point, I could not find one. In each game the KV-1 was vulnerable to 50L42 APCR to a LONGER range than in v7. Where was the ranting about Advanced Squad Leader, or Command Decision? Are these two systems "fairy tales" and "unfair"? In both cases KV-1 are more vulnerable to 50L42 APCR than in SP:WaW.

You take broad operational statements about "trouble stopping T-34s" - but with what? IT fails to mention if this is trouble stopping them with Ps38ts or what? The entire geramn army was not PzIIIh's with APCR...A tank which by the way had a T-34 like reputation on the Desert front...

Are you seriously arging that BT-7 and T-26s were "the equal fo PzIIIh's?" perhaps PzIIIe's, but again these broad generalizations are silent on the details. And there are many experts on Operational aspects that are clueless about the technical details.

Warfare is a very non-linear activity and small changes can have large outcomes, but from you posted quotations how is one to divine the proper enagement range a T-34 should be vulnerable to 50L42 APCR and vice versa?

THere are plenty of games that rely on "what feels good" as a test of historical accuracy. We are trying to go beyond that and use detailed analysis to get to the underlying issues. That is a bumpy road, but not one that can be paved with platitudes of "Gen Guderian had troules with T-34s therefore the game is a fraud"

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Mikimoto:

Well that certainly makes sense. Unfortunately if one is speaking in the broader sense and generally saying that Gerry should be getting whipped (which is not exactly what you're saying) then where does accepting that the T34 and KV crews were fairly worthless for the period (or that they weren't used very well in any sense) fit in? With what we're seeing here, assuming the current fix is correct (and that IS the whole issue) the KVs were only invincible if they had numeric superior tank advantage, and then only if Gerry didn't close very well. Considering how many times the USSR forces were surrounded I don't think it's entirely out of the question that Gerry closed very well. There's also another issue at hand here, which the game cannot address, though CL might, and that is, just what was the quality of the T34/KV crews. That one Russian website seemed to indicate, as one might expect with an undisciplined army, with tanks fairly radically different from what they or anyone else had at that time, that those crews were probably worse than the T28 crews for instance, just like the Tiger crews were often the best crews (or so I've heard). I would imagine, later in the war those tanks got some of the better crews, but the USSR was so disorganized in 41-42 that many of the worst crews being in the best tanks wouldn't be too surprising.

Yeah, that's funny, Japanese, but I had thought that for a while too, but then I don't expect people to leave because they're the same race one of my aunts is.

I see this thread had drawn Sven's attention (one of the OOB team).

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Charles_22 ]

---

]

Charles I have had no hand in OOB work for some time. I had to cease my work while my mother died of cancer. I am still interested in the topic, and miss several of the people I had the pleasure of working with.

It seems that nothing Matrix or an OOB team does will ever please everyone. I have yet to playtest version 7.0 dilligently. I hope it is as big an improvement as the last update I helped test.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of passion that is directed at a bunch of guys who took a pretty flower(SP1)mated it with another(SP3) and made the prettiest thing I have seen(spwaw). They GAVE us a game that many begged for for a long time. They KEEP improving it.

If I had had my wish from the proverbial Genie I would have had them make SPWAMW(Steel Panthers World at Modern War)first. I figure there will never be a version of the SP engine that gets the loving care ww2 got from the team. Driving nails helped that.

Matrix I thank you once again for the hours of diversion your team gave me in my time of trouble, and do hope if there is ever ANYTHING I can do research wise to help a project please do not hesitate to call on me.

Regards and best wishes,
Sven(Frank Howell)

I believe you are missing my point. If someone called your work at where you are employed a "fantasy" or a "fairy tale", would you not be insulted? Now consider that the people who worked on the OOB's were volunteers, that is even more insulting.

I cannot speak for Warrior, but any insulting response only adds fuel to the fire, therfore I do not condone people who lash out with vitriol. The hardest people to work with are volunteers because they are contributing and if they feel their contributions are not valued, then they are hurt more deeply than a person who has been demeaned by an employer. There is an implied agreement that if you are being paid to perform you can be taken to task for mistakes while a volunteer should alway be made to feel his work is valued.

I think the best way to discuss the issue is to follow the old adage, PIP-RIP. Praise in public and reprimand in privste. A well though out and balanced opinion on a parrticular issue is better received than a blanket condemnation of an entire system because of issues that affect a small percentage of the system

Originally posted by Mikimoto:


Perhaps I am bit rude, perhaps it is my bad english or perhaps you don't want to understand my point, Brent. If you want rudeness look for Warrior replies. As rude is the person who presumes I am idiot cause I dont have the marvellous Lorrin thing.

If the wargame is unbalanced cause the russians are underrated, then something is wrong. You can invoke all the new and revolutionary ballistics works as unique excuse for those changes, and forget History as a source. You are rewriting history then. And this kind of revisionism is insulting too. And I loved this wargame, but version 7.0 is becoming more a game of war than a wargame, in my humbliest opinion, of course.

Do you really think that only OOB volunteers can post in the forum to express his opinions or complain about the game? If so, create a private forum with oob members only in it... cause this is a PUBLIC forum with freedoom of speech. Don't you know? But you can always make what you want about this and other subjects.

Alvin and Inp4668, read my posts carefully please. If you win over your impulse of defending v7.0 at all costs, you can find some ideas behind my "impolite" words.

---

One last comment

to start out an article or post in this manner

"It is weird and incorrect, ahistorical and unfair" about anything I have done would makdke me feel very bitter. What about the good things? Is ther no praise for everything else done correctly in your opinion?

When I correct an employee, I always take pains to point out the things he did right before going into what I think is wrong. The employee is much more receptive to my criticism is I recognize his accomplishments first

sven: Sorry to hear about your mum.

If I had had my wish from the proverbial Genie I would have had them make SPWAMW(Steel Panthers World at Modern War)first. I figure there will never be a version of the SP engine that gets the loving care ww2 got from the team. Driving nails helped that.

---

Two things: 1) From what I understand, in fact as recent as the just posted WarfareHQ interview, there will be a modern version. 2) If you mean by nail driving what I think you mean, I don't think it has anything to do with whether there will be one or not. WWII just has a lot more interest than the modern stuff. Modern is just too much theory as most of us see it, I reckon. Besides, the modern stuff doesn't have the appeal, if you can call it that, of being a world war.

In case a number of us don't understand this recent passion, and I hope I haven't been too passionate, at least in my case I don't say that I have a problem with what I've heard about 7.0 because of 7.0 itself, but what 7.0 means to CL.

If all the sudden the stuff that was greatly greatly feared from Germany, for example, is just the playthings of so many Shermans and ends up looking like play-balance, no matter how elaborate the formulas, it will still look like revisionism. The fact that CL is quite near, and that some pretty wide rating departures have been taken with SPWAW from previous versions, is primary reason for this.

There was a battle, if you will, about the MGs and rifles changing behavior in 6.1, but since it happens across the board, and one can adapt, perhaps it's not that big an issue for some of us, but when HE factors are changed and various other things change, one has to question just how the "functionality" of a heavier FT, or a higher HE MG kill were wrong, and the new outlook right.

I for one think this is very bad timing for changing ratings that have been fairly staple. What concerns me is that these new ratings will be with CL from the start. AT least with SPWAW, if a version goes south for me I can stick to that version, but if CL never sees V.6.1 or V.5 OOB ratings from the start, I don't think it ever will. That's why V.7 is quite crucial. I could be wrong but it seems common sense to me.

While the information that lead to the armor changes in v7 came while researching CL, don't read too much into the specific data becasue CL's OOB format changes many things. Like 20 armor locations instead of 6 (well 7 counting the top) so not so much "fudging" is necessary. And armor quality is a unit characteristic, so it can be "fine tuned" more (though a lot will still have to come from "rules of thumb" and generalization).

Specific armor values for vehicels will be "diced for" individually so if armor is flawed, you might get some that are perfectly fine and a few that are pre-disposed to a bad fate... It is really an apples to oranges comparison.

Now I have asked all week for SPECIFIC suggestions on what folks think are wrong and mostly I get telegrams to teh Fuhrer saying "T-34s are tough to deal with" What does that mean to the issue at hand, if I am in a PzIIIG with no APCR they certainly are!

The best scholarship to date has been used as the basis for the changes so it comes down to simple questions:

Is the data flawed? You can buy Lorrin and Roberts book and judge for yourself. Those knowledgable in the details agree that it is. Perfect? no...it raises more questions in many areas than it aswers, but the answers it gives are authoritative. There are some "tweaks" to some units that are in order, best addressed by loweering some of the high angle ratings for some late war German units to bring the "low end" possible resistance down. Angles on the T-34 and possibly IS types needs to be given a little bump to do the opposite.

Is the use of teh data flawed? Always possible, my methododlogy was done independat of Lorrin and Roberts and gives result in close agreement, so when two independant and very different techniques, give similar results, that is generally good.

Are the right units available with the right ammunition in the correct timeframes. Where I think the changes needed should be focused... APCR in particular seems to be teh casue of most fo the fracus...restricting the models that have APCR to later introduction is somethin I wish to hear form you on.

And finally are tactics flawed. IN general if you are attacking you try to ascertain where your enemies weak, while it may have occured that T-34s ran int o PzIII's armed with boat loads of APCR, methinks that Soviet Generals were not quite so stupid and focused their offensives where they hoped for easier pickens. On teh Attack, well stocked PzIIIhs had to try to close with T-34s smart enough to kep their distance and us formation volley fire to make tough going for the PzIIIs. On the attack, T-34s would likelybe facing Pz38t, and PzIII marks with 37mm or 50mm guns not prepared with APCR, and so the "trouble" with stopping them.

I put the best data I could find into the game and I personally think it an improvement, I am not above makig a few tweaks and fial to understand those who are on this "Matrix arrogance" trip that we "always think we are right". Obviously I don;t put data in teh game I think is WRONG, so the burdon of proof to convince me I'm wrong is elswhere.

Still waiting...tonight is my last night until after Christmas to work on it, and I thank those of you who have written or posted SPECIFIC corrections.

When all is said and done, as always happens, some like teh changes, some don;t and you have the ability to use what you like.

These are not things that are knowable to teh degree teh data in teh game implies. Teh game attempts to "create a world" that is "WWII - like" but becasue it is a game and you have teh "hive mind" to control your troops and the "time warp" of IGO -UGO and other inherant problems the game by definition is "ahistorical and a fairy tale"... So what?

TO those protesting: your lack of concurrance is noted, but without feedback that can be used to change something, there is obviously nothing I can do!

The OOBs are created from thousands of data points. It seems to me that the "feel" of the game is a data point also. I am not sure if any of us have sufficient "feel" for WWII warfare to know if the game "feels" accurate though. Most of us have read books or talked to veterans, both of whom are human sources and not statistically valid (except for some studies that attempt to survey and validate numerous sources e.g. Lorrin's book). Pehaps a Desert Storm or National Training Center veteran could comment of the realism of certain modern simulations but this is not the case in SPWaW.

Even the good testing example was not valid as it ran only 10 runs, not the 30 to 60 that would be valid. To claim that that "feel" is not correct would require dozens of test cases, each containing dozens of REPRODUCEABLE scenarios compared between real life and the simulation.

While it may be valid to SUGGEST that there MAY be some anomalies based on a limited data set (one person's "feel") it is not a basis to conclusively state that the simulaton is not valid.

All right.

Back to the question at hand: what specific changes should be done?

We now know that
a) Russian armor was lowered by 5-10 pts across the board
b)German armour got improved
c)Russian guns/ammo were weakened
d) German guns/ammo were improved
e)PzGr40-ammo is too readily available and too efficient (too much range/penetration)

Which of these should we look into? Perhaps all the changes were justified, but the individual changes were not subtle enough.

Let´s try to work together and get into this instead of arguing about who said what etc.
I want my MegaCampaign experience to be the best it can.


Still, I admire the nerves and integrity of Mr. Vebber. To stay objective and willing in this situation...

PS.

When I correct an employee, I always take pains to point out the things he did right before going into what I think is wrong. The employee is much more receptive to my criticism is I recognize his accomplishments first

---

An excellent tip, I´m sure. I´ll keep that in mind.

Well, there it is from the horse´s (ahem, Paul´s <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> mouth.
Again requesting for specific data changes.

You said it yourself: improve the armour of some of the russian tanks, and reduce the armour on some German models (due to the varying quality and the angling being only on the front, for ex.)

We now have to realize that it´s the availability of PzGr40 ammo that skews up the balance.

However, the thing is, some units were equipped with PzGr40 ammo-and guess what, in the case of SPWAW it just happens that *your* units always happen to be one of those.
There´s nothing ahistorical about that. It´s just that you always fight with one of these "lucky units" when playing SPWAW.

The alternative? Restrict the availability of this "super ammo" to later dates, and possibly even then allow only those models that were equipped with such ammo *most of the time* historically.

Try expending the PzGr40 ammo on your german tanks (PzIIIh:s) on some non-threatening targets first, THEN try to slug it out with the T-34.
I´m sure that it can not be called "easy", even without the tweaks to the armour values.

Figmo - gotcha!

LOL! Funny to watch us all make up <smooch> "Glad to see ya - oh, and here's a cocktail for you (Molotov)! Down the hatch."

HAHAHA

I guess this is just how the Version Adjustment Period is, eh? That's V.A.P. for all you grognards out there.