8.0 Corrections/Suggestions

[VikingNo2]

Hi , was the US 75mm TD halftrack changed its pen was 25 I believe, just wondering. I know your all working hard on the 8.2 but did you have a time estimate when it might be done. Thanks[:D]

[harlekwin]

Why are all of saturday's posts suddenly gone from this and the "what is happening to this forum" thread?

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

Why are all of saturday's posts suddenly gone from this and the "what is happening to this forum" thread?

wow, gee whaddya know 2 days worth of PMs gone too....

*golly*

[KG Erwin]

No one has informed me of what happened. This doesn't "feel right" at all. [&:]

[Igor]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I think OOB 70 unit 123 (the 76 ATG) has a simple typo in the availability date. Would everyone agree that a beginning date of July 1942 would be more appropriate?

Why not have two guns? One available in August of 1941; with the same values for accuracy and penetration as the Soviet 76.2 field gun, a rarity of one, and a mediocre ammo supply. The second available in July 1942; with a rarity of zero, better accuracy and penetration, and a decent ammo load (for more purchase points, of course). This way the captured crash-booms pressed into service against the T-34s are there (sometimes) if you want them; but the sights and better ammo don't show up until they more reasonably should.

[Frank W.]

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Igor

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

I think OOB 70 unit 123 (the 76 ATG) has a simple typo in the availability date. Would everyone agree that a beginning date of July 1942 would be more appropriate?

Why not have two guns? One available in August of 1941; with the same values for accuracy and penetration as the Soviet 76.2 field gun, a rarity of one, and a mediocre ammo supply. The second available in July 1942; with a rarity of zero, better accuracy and penetration, and a decent ammo load (for more purchase points, of course). This way the captured crash-booms pressed into service against the T-34s are there (sometimes) if you want them; but the sights and better ammo don't show up until they more reasonably should.

Precisely.

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

[Alby]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

I suggest eliminating some of the 3 or 4 different types of wagon teams to free up some room

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Alby

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

I suggest eliminating some of the 3 or 4 different types of wagon teams to free up some room

For instance. Or deport the Sturmtiger (to the screams of KatFans everywhere [;)])

[Belisarius]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

You mean more than there already is?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.

Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

You mean more than there already is?

Yep, if need be.

[KG Erwin]

Rune, there are a number of very rare and scenario-design only units which are already in the Norway & Czechoslovakian OOBs. If need be, some others could be moved.

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen



Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs

You mean more than there already is?

Yep, if need be.

[:D]

of course

[KG Erwin]

Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?

[Rune Iversen]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?

Well, it´s a good start, but we are still not closer to solving the basic issues, namely how high the proliferation of M1 rifles were in the Raider units.
One solution could be to change the encyclopedia text so that players could be made aware that the unit is unique.
Another to remove the Garand armed units from the USMC OOB and put them into one of the scenario designer OOBs, since they are a historic anomaly and therefore not widely available.
The third and last option would be to set their rarity rating as high in order that it be impossible to buy many of them (if playing with that option "ON").

But this still doesn´t address the basic question of units using no TO&E gear. How is this regulated by the OOB team? Is it only the USMC that get´s non TO&E gear? Furthermore this discussion leads us into the availability of captured gear, the question of which hasn´t been satisfactorily answered yet.

[KG Erwin]

Ok, Rune. For those USMC units, we can just set rarity to 3. We're only talking about some guys getting these two months early, anyway. The M1 Garand became standard isssue for ALL USMC infantry beginning in January 1943.

[KG Erwin]

The use of captured weapons leads into some tricky areas, so others on the team can sort that out. Here's a good example: on Guadalcanal, the Marines seized a few 37mm AT guns from the Japanese, which turned out to be German Pak 35/36s. These in turn had been captured from the Nationalist Chinese, and then shipped to the Solomons! [X(]

[Igor]

One of the reasons I like playing the Chinese communists is the wide open OOB; plenty of room to create units to represent equipment captured/purchased by my troops (high cost MP-19 armed troops, for instance). Besides, I've got a propaganda photo of PLA troops marching with Tommy guns in the mid-30s; so of course I had to create a rarity three squad of Tommy gun armed SMG troops...

[Commander Klank]

The armor thickness and slope is incorrect for my favorate little Soviet tank. While they only made about 70 of these little darlings I think we should get the tank right.

Here's a link to the T-50s true armor stats, look at very bottom of the page for armor thickness and slope of hull and turret.

T-50 tank stats

Here are the stats the game currently has:

Hull: armor front 32mm@35% slope, side 32mm@40% slope, rear 20mm@63% slope, top armor 12mm

Turret: armor front 32mm@30% slope, side 32mm@20% slope, rear 12mm @15% slpoe, toop 12mm

actual armor stats from historic records:

Hull: armor front 37mm@50% slope, side 37mm@40% slope, rear 25mm@63% slope, top armor 15mm

Turret: armor front 37mm@30% slope, side 37mm@20% slope, rear 15mm @15% slpoe, toop 15mm

The biggest diffence is 5mm of armor on the front and side and the front slope shold be at 50% not 30. Correcting this diffence to historic values would make the T-50 a tougher opponent than it is now.