Looking over Victor's comments, I don't understand his idea that the German tanks are too inexpensive in comparison to the Russian ones. Is the idea to cost based on how easy a nation could produce it or on how many were produced? It's not exactly the same thing you know. What I mean by the former, is if a neutral nation with a random amount of supplies started building all of the tanks in SPWAW, what tanks would require more "material", whether you have the material or nor is another matter completely. I look at us, playing the game, sometimes as this neutral nation. We pick a nation's forces to play, and the cost is relatively what my somewhat endless supply would cost me in materials.
Anyway, perhaps to put this on another level, I look at the relative comparison. The Tiger in some ways is the T34/85 equivalent, and it's only 3 points cheaper so I don't see the problem. Also, the King Tiger and IS2 are comparable (while the IS2 has a fairly rare shell, even in Russia), but it's the IS2, which is much cheaper. If we get into shell comparison for the Tiger and T34/85, we once more see that the Tiger's shell has been made far longer than the 85mm for the Russian.
Also, I don't know if I would go messing with Russian slope angles on tanks, because if you compare German tank destroyers to Russian ones, despite that they look quite similar in slope (from the front is what I'm talking about), the Russian ones have HUGE advantages, or maybe the Germans HUGE disadvantages.
New OOB topic
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Failure to Communicate...
I guess I wasn't clear enough and ended up distracting instead of illuminating. Perhaps Strother Martin should use his cane on me ("What we have here... Is a failure to communicate!" WHACK!).
Let me rephrase...
1. My comment about "rarity factors" was meant only to indicate a possible way to limit campaign "abuses" where players purchase dozens of "rare and fabulous" items.
2. My real question concerning the current points cost comparison was, "Have the new turret armor thicknesses been factored into the costs listed for the Tiger I and Tiger II?" As to the debate of relative value, I'll be happy to take 20 Tiger Is and give Charles 20 T-34/85s and see if he *really* believes that the T-34/85s are the functional equivalent. Indeed, given the current armor ratings, I'll be happy to do the same thing where I'll take 20 Tiger IIs and give Charles 20 IS-3s. (In both cases, note that I'm giving Charles the more expensive, i.e., "better" AFVS). We can let Paul and Wild Bill moderate the battle and post the results.
3. My comments and discussion about the IS-3 is a plea for somebody at Matrix to re-evaluate its front turret armor rating. I've been re-convinced that this needs to be done (in much the same manner as the Tigers were re-evaluated, not "messed" with).
4. The front turret slope of the Maus is 90 degrees in the OOB, which produces "infinite" thicknesses for penetration calculations and is therefore probably a typo.
I guess I wasn't clear enough and ended up distracting instead of illuminating. Perhaps Strother Martin should use his cane on me ("What we have here... Is a failure to communicate!" WHACK!).
Let me rephrase...
1. My comment about "rarity factors" was meant only to indicate a possible way to limit campaign "abuses" where players purchase dozens of "rare and fabulous" items.
2. My real question concerning the current points cost comparison was, "Have the new turret armor thicknesses been factored into the costs listed for the Tiger I and Tiger II?" As to the debate of relative value, I'll be happy to take 20 Tiger Is and give Charles 20 T-34/85s and see if he *really* believes that the T-34/85s are the functional equivalent. Indeed, given the current armor ratings, I'll be happy to do the same thing where I'll take 20 Tiger IIs and give Charles 20 IS-3s. (In both cases, note that I'm giving Charles the more expensive, i.e., "better" AFVS). We can let Paul and Wild Bill moderate the battle and post the results.
3. My comments and discussion about the IS-3 is a plea for somebody at Matrix to re-evaluate its front turret armor rating. I've been re-convinced that this needs to be done (in much the same manner as the Tigers were re-evaluated, not "messed" with).
4. The front turret slope of the Maus is 90 degrees in the OOB, which produces "infinite" thicknesses for penetration calculations and is therefore probably a typo.
VAH
One needn't get into a direct battle to see the similarities for the functions.
BTW, I wasn't going as far as the IS3, which came too late to be a factor, rather, I was talking about the similarity in function between the IS2 and King Tiger. If I'm not mistaken, while the IS2 has better armor, and perhaps less size than the King Tiger, it does have a harder hitting shell, though the KT is probably more accurate. Seems as though the IS2 definitely has less rounds as well. My main point is that their isn't a large difference between any of medium tanks mentioned, nor the large ones, and the cost probably shouldn't reflect a large difference either. If we're talking in terms of numbers produced, in all the tanks listed, then the Russians almost always win hands down, and so does America, but from the way it appears to me, we aren't attempting to make a strategic statement with tactical forces, rather, it would seem as though the costs are being reflected on a "material" basis (How much material it took to manufacture said design?). The rarity factor is being played out in the force selection for the AI, while it would appear as though the costs aren't meant to reflect rarity, but material instead. Needless to say, when a tank such as the PZIV series stayed around so long (not mass numbers, but length of design) it complicates the "material" approach, because though it takes the same amount of material, it was easier to build because of similarity of parts.
BTW, I wasn't going as far as the IS3, which came too late to be a factor, rather, I was talking about the similarity in function between the IS2 and King Tiger. If I'm not mistaken, while the IS2 has better armor, and perhaps less size than the King Tiger, it does have a harder hitting shell, though the KT is probably more accurate. Seems as though the IS2 definitely has less rounds as well. My main point is that their isn't a large difference between any of medium tanks mentioned, nor the large ones, and the cost probably shouldn't reflect a large difference either. If we're talking in terms of numbers produced, in all the tanks listed, then the Russians almost always win hands down, and so does America, but from the way it appears to me, we aren't attempting to make a strategic statement with tactical forces, rather, it would seem as though the costs are being reflected on a "material" basis (How much material it took to manufacture said design?). The rarity factor is being played out in the force selection for the AI, while it would appear as though the costs aren't meant to reflect rarity, but material instead. Needless to say, when a tank such as the PZIV series stayed around so long (not mass numbers, but length of design) it complicates the "material" approach, because though it takes the same amount of material, it was easier to build because of similarity of parts.
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Postscript...
As I recall, SP3 priced the T-34/85 at 30pts, the IS-2 at 60pts and the IS-3 at 70pts. The Tiger I was 75pts and the Tiger II was 100pts. In that game I felt that the T-34/85 was the best AFV point-for-point in all of SP3.
Are the SPWAW point costs more reasonable? Only time and a lot of battle testing will tell for sure, but as of now I suspect (as I said in my earlier post) that the Soviet AFVs are in general overpriced compared to their German counterparts.
As I recall, SP3 priced the T-34/85 at 30pts, the IS-2 at 60pts and the IS-3 at 70pts. The Tiger I was 75pts and the Tiger II was 100pts. In that game I felt that the T-34/85 was the best AFV point-for-point in all of SP3.
Are the SPWAW point costs more reasonable? Only time and a lot of battle testing will tell for sure, but as of now I suspect (as I said in my earlier post) that the Soviet AFVs are in general overpriced compared to their German counterparts.
VAH
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
An Open Invitation...
I believe that the best way to see if a unit is priced "correctly" is to see what the players are actually buying in head-to-head games. Players tend to buy units that they think are bargains and avoid units that they think are overpriced.
Is there anybody out there willing to fight my 20 Tiger Is with their 20 T-34/85s? Or my 20 Tiger IIs with their 20 IS-3s as they are currently listed in the v2.1 OOBs? (That is, does anybody out there believe that these Soviet AFVs are a fair and even match for the Tigers?)
This is not intended as a test of egos, but rather as a test moderated by Paul and/or Wild Bill as a "combat evaluation" for purposes of determining the relative worth of these AFVs. I'm perfectly willing to let Paul and/or Wild Bill set up the initial playing conditions. And we can report the results to the rest of the SPWAW community.
I believe that the best way to see if a unit is priced "correctly" is to see what the players are actually buying in head-to-head games. Players tend to buy units that they think are bargains and avoid units that they think are overpriced.
Is there anybody out there willing to fight my 20 Tiger Is with their 20 T-34/85s? Or my 20 Tiger IIs with their 20 IS-3s as they are currently listed in the v2.1 OOBs? (That is, does anybody out there believe that these Soviet AFVs are a fair and even match for the Tigers?)
This is not intended as a test of egos, but rather as a test moderated by Paul and/or Wild Bill as a "combat evaluation" for purposes of determining the relative worth of these AFVs. I'm perfectly willing to let Paul and/or Wild Bill set up the initial playing conditions. And we can report the results to the rest of the SPWAW community.
VAH
Victor: I don't know why you think that the cost of a unit is related to that unit's performance, relative to other nations. You want to draw up a contest to prove an invalid point, from where I stand. Let's exaggerate your contest a bit. You say the Soviet tanks are overpriced, basing again on performance not material. If performance were the key, and T34/85 too overpriced, then on the same comparative basis, Gerry should be getting PZIIL's for free. Why? Because you could put 10 T34/85's against 200 PZIIL's and the T34/85's will win, probably without a loss. It just doesn't work that way. I know the cost difference in the games must be maddening, but then perhaps the question should have been asked back then, and probably was, that why are the Soviet designs so cheap (in the old games)?
As for the ego thing, as far as I'm concerned, I stopped playing against human opponents a long time ago because of that very thing, assurances only make me the more suspicious (and I've certainly never played via the internet yet [and probably never will]). Some form of cooperative play is much more interesting (back in the old days I campaigned Panzer Strike all the way through with a friend of mine, cooperatively. I commanded 1/2 of the core points and bought units I wanted and he did the same). Besides, in my case anyway, I don't like the contest you propose, for I don't think cost has the least thing to do with performance. If it were a statement of performance, I would think it would be for the performance of a given nation to produce said design, which was probably where a previous SP was operating from, in relation to cheaper Soviet tanks. Frankly, if they operated comparitively between German and Russian in it's truest sense, you would probably be seeing Soviet tanks, in general, being 20% or less than those of Gerry. I don't know of anyone would want to play a games that inbalanced, for we fight tacticually and have no control to better strategic planning.
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-29-2000).]
As for the ego thing, as far as I'm concerned, I stopped playing against human opponents a long time ago because of that very thing, assurances only make me the more suspicious (and I've certainly never played via the internet yet [and probably never will]). Some form of cooperative play is much more interesting (back in the old days I campaigned Panzer Strike all the way through with a friend of mine, cooperatively. I commanded 1/2 of the core points and bought units I wanted and he did the same). Besides, in my case anyway, I don't like the contest you propose, for I don't think cost has the least thing to do with performance. If it were a statement of performance, I would think it would be for the performance of a given nation to produce said design, which was probably where a previous SP was operating from, in relation to cheaper Soviet tanks. Frankly, if they operated comparitively between German and Russian in it's truest sense, you would probably be seeing Soviet tanks, in general, being 20% or less than those of Gerry. I don't know of anyone would want to play a games that inbalanced, for we fight tacticually and have no control to better strategic planning.
[This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 06-29-2000).]
Bottom line Victor, I don't know what system the designers have used to determine unit cost, but my exaggerated PZIIL example would show that it cannot be based on effectiveness. As for your question regarding up-armoring of the King Tiger to whther that should up the cost, there must be only the consideration of whether the former armor were consdiered as basis of cost to some degree or not. Even from a "material" basis, one could ask the same question you are asking (more armor=more expense), so that we are only left with whether the designer considered the 100 rating as a case for a signifigant discount to cost. Even if that were so, what is a mere frontal armor addition going to cost in comparison to the whole tank? What, maybe 10 more points? If that's the case, it's scarcely worth the bother.
So, at the risk of revealing horrible geekiness, Charles seems to be thinking of point values in a Star Fleet Battles sort of way, where such-and-such a gun is so many points, and each point of fire control is so many points, etc. Victor seems to be thinking of them in terms of an indicator not only of performance, but of quantity available. Right? So, using Charles' method, certain units become unfairly equivalent. That is to say, players can buy clearly superior equipment on nearly a one-to-one basis with the enemy. Buuuuuuuuut! (Before I get flamed 
) Using Victor's method, we will be forced to watch as our nifty expensive unit is swamped and destroyed. Obviously you can't satisfy both the need of some to have historically accurate force ratios, and the need of some to enjoy the game throught the use of lots of the coolest units. Err..not to say that plenty of gamers don't get their fun from a historically accurate challenge, but a lot of people feel cheated if they have to go through 1945 with Pz. IV's.
Now, something they've both forgotten. At least in generated battles, countries like Germany tend to get many fewer points than countries like the USSR, thus making point costs actually much higher for Germany, proportionally speaking. I think this holds true in campaigns, etc., but let me know if I'm wrong.
) Using Victor's method, we will be forced to watch as our nifty expensive unit is swamped and destroyed. Obviously you can't satisfy both the need of some to have historically accurate force ratios, and the need of some to enjoy the game throught the use of lots of the coolest units. Err..not to say that plenty of gamers don't get their fun from a historically accurate challenge, but a lot of people feel cheated if they have to go through 1945 with Pz. IV's.Now, something they've both forgotten. At least in generated battles, countries like Germany tend to get many fewer points than countries like the USSR, thus making point costs actually much higher for Germany, proportionally speaking. I think this holds true in campaigns, etc., but let me know if I'm wrong.
This is getting silly. The cost of units is CERTAINLY related to battlefield effectiveness. Units cost more or less depending on their usefulness. PZII's have a certain value... they are cheaper than PzVI's but not valueless. SPWAW is a game, therefore it is a requirement that 'points', which are a made-up game element to balance play, are used to rate performance. I think that there are other factors involved in the SPWAW teams assignment of point values to units but for the most part they are there to make it so that us players can think in terms of points equalling usefulness on the battlefield. I don't think anyone needs to have it proven to them that T-34-85's aren't as powerful as PzVI's. To be perfectly honest I never found IS-II/III's to be very effective at all. They are certainly hard to destroy, but that rate of fire thing does a lot toward ruining their effectiveness. I always felt that purchasing them over T-34's was only warranted if you intended to use them as bait because everyone knows they're so valuable. (BTW Vic, I would NEVER take 20 T34-85's against 20 PzVI's unless I was trying to embarrass the other player) SPWAW has TONS of units... so its no easy task balancing all their point values.
Charles, I really like playing PBEM games. Its one of the most fufilling things I do in my life that doesn't involve the people I love (not to leave all my opponents out). I think you're really missing out by not playing against the thinking and planning of another human. It makes the game really shine. Anyways, I think it boils down to the fact that SPWAW is a game and needs to adhere to the basic principles of a game...
Tomo
Charles, I really like playing PBEM games. Its one of the most fufilling things I do in my life that doesn't involve the people I love (not to leave all my opponents out). I think you're really missing out by not playing against the thinking and planning of another human. It makes the game really shine. Anyways, I think it boils down to the fact that SPWAW is a game and needs to adhere to the basic principles of a game...
Tomo
-
Paul Vebber
- Posts: 5342
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth RI
- Contact:
POint costs, like armor ratings, are subjective and can be an infinite time sump of argument:-)
The key points for now to remember:
The system is new to everybody (even we who designed it) so the 'value" of given units will shake out considerably over time. THe current values were "guestimates" of value that will indeed change as everyone gains familiarity with the system.
Point cost will NOT reflect rarity. It is meant to be a "value" within the game. Are some of them "wrong" that depends! ALL the tanks could be "wrong", if the basic relationship to infantry is skewed!
The maturation of point values will take a long time, and these discussion will help. I personally don't think "head to head" will tell you much. Its to situationally dependant. 20 IS-3s in some situations may well be a match for 20 King Tigers. Entrench them on hiltops and force the KT's to advance over open ground and I think they will prove quite sufficient. There is no way divorce the tactical situation. Who would take 20 King tigers against half the points of engineers in a city?
Do points need ajustment? YES...but there is no "scientific" way to judge what it should be, there are too many uncontrolled variables.
AS it becomes clear from play that certain unit clases need to be adjusted relative to other unit clases, they will be.
Similarly individual units costs will be sid around as familiarity with the game suggests. The "OOB group" will be the place where changes like that will ultimately be made, and inputs in the forum here will be considerd in teh process.
But it will take a while and a lot of 'bracketeing and halving' to get to improvement.
The key points for now to remember:
The system is new to everybody (even we who designed it) so the 'value" of given units will shake out considerably over time. THe current values were "guestimates" of value that will indeed change as everyone gains familiarity with the system.
Point cost will NOT reflect rarity. It is meant to be a "value" within the game. Are some of them "wrong" that depends! ALL the tanks could be "wrong", if the basic relationship to infantry is skewed!
The maturation of point values will take a long time, and these discussion will help. I personally don't think "head to head" will tell you much. Its to situationally dependant. 20 IS-3s in some situations may well be a match for 20 King Tigers. Entrench them on hiltops and force the KT's to advance over open ground and I think they will prove quite sufficient. There is no way divorce the tactical situation. Who would take 20 King tigers against half the points of engineers in a city?
Do points need ajustment? YES...but there is no "scientific" way to judge what it should be, there are too many uncontrolled variables.
AS it becomes clear from play that certain unit clases need to be adjusted relative to other unit clases, they will be.
Similarly individual units costs will be sid around as familiarity with the game suggests. The "OOB group" will be the place where changes like that will ultimately be made, and inputs in the forum here will be considerd in teh process.
But it will take a while and a lot of 'bracketeing and halving' to get to improvement.
Hello...
Bye...
Michael Wood
There have been some questions about the Wolverine and also about the entry date of Bazookas. A battery of 10 M-10 Wolverines and a company 17 of M-3 Stuarts fought a battalion of French 52 H-39 tanks on November 9th of 1942, according to "The US Army in World War II", the official US Army history, during Operation Torch in Morocco. The source also said that troops of the 1st Infantry Division also used Bazookas during Operation Torch.Originally posted by Omar.N.Bradley:
...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.
Bye...
Michael Wood
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
POint costs, like armor ratings, are subjective and can be an infinite time sump of argument:-)
Paul, Possibly changeing the subject, but has any one used a fort type unit to simulate a field telephone. This would be used in defend type only setups and allow high contact rates with offboard art.
Thanks, Glenn
POint costs, like armor ratings, are subjective and can be an infinite time sump of argument:-)
Paul, Possibly changeing the subject, but has any one used a fort type unit to simulate a field telephone. This would be used in defend type only setups and allow high contact rates with offboard art.
Thanks, Glenn
-
Fabio Prado
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Contact:
YES! This value is absolutely correct!Originally posted by Voriax:
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.
Turret Front:
Like the Panther, the gun mantlet of the Tiger covered most of the turret front. Unlike the Panther, however, it was near-vertical. The thickness of the mantlet was 100-145 mm thick. It has thickened part at the left and right edge, as well as the sight port and the big boss around the gun tube. Unlike the Panther, the Tiger also had a heavy plate of turret armor in back of the mantlet (100 mm thick), making the effective armor in these areas 200+ mm.
The revised values for the Tiger II also are also very reasonable, and appear to adequately represent the KT's armor.
As far as Tigers are concerned, the new OOB introduced with version 2.0 is vastly superior to the version 1.0 OOB. It's not perfect, but perfect modeling of armor is very difficult to achieve, IMHO.
For more info about the Tigers, see also:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger2.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz5.htm#tiger2 http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob75281/index.htm
You guys at Matrix are doing a GREAT job on every aspect of this game. You have my deepest respect for your work.
Fabio Prado
-
Fabio Prado
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Contact:
Paul,
I have a great respect for your work on the SPWAW databases. As a vicious member of the infamous TLS*, I was most satisfied when I saw the changer done in version 2.0/2.1. Now SPWAW is the wargame that most accurately represent the Tiger, ever. The Tiger's armor (especially the Tiger I) has been historically underestimated by almost all computer tactical wargames.
Please include me in your OOB update mailing list, and let me konw if I can be of any help.
Keep up the good work!
FAP
*Oh! TLS stands for "Tiger Lovers Society"
I have a great respect for your work on the SPWAW databases. As a vicious member of the infamous TLS*, I was most satisfied when I saw the changer done in version 2.0/2.1. Now SPWAW is the wargame that most accurately represent the Tiger, ever. The Tiger's armor (especially the Tiger I) has been historically underestimated by almost all computer tactical wargames.
Please include me in your OOB update mailing list, and let me konw if I can be of any help.
Keep up the good work!
FAP
*Oh! TLS stands for "Tiger Lovers Society"
-
victorhauser
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: austin, texas
Way back in Wargame Design 101 I learned that some means of "rating" or "quantifying" units is fundamental to wargame design. SPWAW and many other wargames use a "point-cost" method of doing so. This is a time-proven and effective way of giving players a rough estimate of a unit's value. If one unit has a cost of 100 and another has a cost of 50, then that is an indicator of those units' relative worth. However, SPWAW also ties those costs directly to victory points (another time-proven methodology). So if a Tiger I costs 117 points and a T-34/85 costs 120 points, then what does that mean?
It means that 20 Tiger Is are cheaper to buy (in a campaign or head-to-head) than 20 T-34/85s. And that is an indication of relative worth--that is, on average, 20 T-34/85s are considered more valuable than 20 Tiger Is. And this is not a "theoretical" value--it is a real value since every T-34/85 lost counts against that player's victory total. So when I ask the question, "Does anybody want to take their 20 T-34/85s (2400 points) against my 20 Tiger Is (2340 points)?", it is not a rhetorical question or a "thought experiment". It is a very real question put to gamers (i.e., how many players would choose to buy 20 T-34/85s for 2400 points when they could buy 20 Tiger Is for 2340 points)?
I'm not saying that SP3 had it right or that SPWAW has it wrong, but when one game values a T-34/85 at 30 points and a Tiger I at 75 points (which is what SP3 does) and another game values a T-34/85 at 120 points and a Tiger I at 117 points (which is what SPWAW does), then clearly this is a big difference.
I appreciate Paul's (and Matrix's) position. I've been rating units for wargames (both published and unpublished) for years and I agree that it is more art than science. And that a LOT of subjective reasoning and trial-and-error are involved. My only goal here is to bring what I see as OOB issues to the attention of the Matrix Staff in this OOB topic.
I don't have any big axes to grind and no major complaints. Indeed, as somebody pointed out to me weeks ago, that if I don't like something I can just go into my own OOB editor and alter values and costs to my heart's content. SPWAW is the best wargame I've ever played. Period. And that's why I mention these issues rather than just keep my mouth shut and fiddle with my OOB in private. I don't post without thinking. I spend time thinking about how relevant or important an issue is before taking up Matrix Forum bandwidth. I chose Tigers and T-34s and ISs because these are important AFVs to the people who play this game. And I believe it's important to provide feedback regarding these "benchmark" AFVs to the Matrix Staff.
(I have a bad headache right now, so if the tone of this post sounds too shrill or strident, please forgive me. I'm not upset or angry, just in pain.)
It means that 20 Tiger Is are cheaper to buy (in a campaign or head-to-head) than 20 T-34/85s. And that is an indication of relative worth--that is, on average, 20 T-34/85s are considered more valuable than 20 Tiger Is. And this is not a "theoretical" value--it is a real value since every T-34/85 lost counts against that player's victory total. So when I ask the question, "Does anybody want to take their 20 T-34/85s (2400 points) against my 20 Tiger Is (2340 points)?", it is not a rhetorical question or a "thought experiment". It is a very real question put to gamers (i.e., how many players would choose to buy 20 T-34/85s for 2400 points when they could buy 20 Tiger Is for 2340 points)?
I'm not saying that SP3 had it right or that SPWAW has it wrong, but when one game values a T-34/85 at 30 points and a Tiger I at 75 points (which is what SP3 does) and another game values a T-34/85 at 120 points and a Tiger I at 117 points (which is what SPWAW does), then clearly this is a big difference.
I appreciate Paul's (and Matrix's) position. I've been rating units for wargames (both published and unpublished) for years and I agree that it is more art than science. And that a LOT of subjective reasoning and trial-and-error are involved. My only goal here is to bring what I see as OOB issues to the attention of the Matrix Staff in this OOB topic.
I don't have any big axes to grind and no major complaints. Indeed, as somebody pointed out to me weeks ago, that if I don't like something I can just go into my own OOB editor and alter values and costs to my heart's content. SPWAW is the best wargame I've ever played. Period. And that's why I mention these issues rather than just keep my mouth shut and fiddle with my OOB in private. I don't post without thinking. I spend time thinking about how relevant or important an issue is before taking up Matrix Forum bandwidth. I chose Tigers and T-34s and ISs because these are important AFVs to the people who play this game. And I believe it's important to provide feedback regarding these "benchmark" AFVs to the Matrix Staff.
(I have a bad headache right now, so if the tone of this post sounds too shrill or strident, please forgive me. I'm not upset or angry, just in pain.)
VAH
-
Skandranon
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 8:00 am
Before I have time to really go bug hunting in the OOB's again, here's one I just noticed... some (at least in the scenario I was just playing 'A Tragic Stand' - absolutely fantastic playing the desperate role of the Americans) crews spawn without even a pistol to defend themselves with... now if that isn't bad by itself, by having no weapon to fire, they also can't drop smoke to cover themselves! I'm not sure if this should be considered a bug... or just that the crews wet themselves so badly getting out of the tank they forgot to grab the grenades.
Derek "Skandranon"
The data I have from books by Ian Hogg, Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander show a maximum range (against ground targets) of 16,202 yards for the 88 L/56 and virtually identical range for the Soviet 76.2mm L/55 AA gun. The U.S. 3" M3, only used in action in the first months of the war, could top 15,400 yards. This shouldn't be surprising, as the Soviet 76.2mm Model 36 field gun with a somewhat shorter barrel could top 15,000 yards. The Polish 75mm wz.36 L/50 should have been at least as good. The obsolescent British 3" 20 cwt L/46 AA gun could reach 12,200 yards.Originally posted by talon:
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 .
The real trouble with the 75mm wz. 36 is that of 406 guns on order, only 44 were delivered before the war! The remainder of the 154 Polish 75mm AA guns were variations of the French 75 modele 1897 - 12 of them the 75mm wz. 14 self-propelled AA gun mounted on the Polski-Fiat 621L truck. Zaloga gives this a maximum range of 6500 meters. Maximum ceiling was 21,300' for the L/33 gun.
Against high-altitude bombers (not really a factor in Steel Panthers) I have a maximum ceiling of 32,482' and effective ceiling of 26,248' for the 88 L/56; 31,200/28,000' for the U.S. 3" M3; 30,500'/26,000' for the Soviet 76.2mm L/55; 25,200'/23,500'(?) for the UK 3" 20cwt L/46; and 31,170' max. ceiling for the Polish 75mm wz. 36.
The Luftwaffe figured 1100 yards effective AA horizontal range for the 20mm, 1600 yards for 37mm, and 10,000 yards for 88mm FlaK 18/36/37.
("Luftwaffe Data Book", Dr. Alfred Price). This would be for aircraft at about 26,000' in the case of the 88. Sights for direct fire were only marked to 4000 meters at the most for the 88mm L/56, and normal anti-tank range 2500 meters.
Other data from Janes & Macdonalds WW2 Fact Files on "Anti-Aircraft Guns", Peter Chamberlain & Terry Gander 1975; Ian Hogg's "History of Anti-aircraft Guns", "German Artillery of World War II" & "British & American Artillery of WWII"; and Steven Zaloga's "The Polish Campaign 1939".