Matrix Games Forums

Good points Rob, and this was a good place to post them.

I've looked at the MG values also and agree that the only MG with an actual 'HMG' value is the .50 cal. I believe that when fine tuning a scenario we can juggle the squad types and number of MG's in order to get it 'right', as determined by the designer for each particular scenario.

Our overall intention is to provide the basic unit outlines based on the actual data sources that we have access to, and to leave the actual final determination of what is to be used to represent individual squads up to the designer. In reality, it would happen this way anyway.

Transport is another area of abstraction. I agree that '1 Truck' in TOAW is not one truck. As with the squads and mg's, the scenario designer will tailor the movement allowances to the scenario. When putting together a scenario, after the scales are set I check what the 'foot rate' of a unit is, and what the 'pure motorised' rate is. Then as the oob is built I have base values to use. I imagine other designers do the same thing.

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Transport is another area of abstraction. I agree that '1 Truck' in TOAW is not one truck. As with the squads and mg's, the scenario designer will tailor the movement allowances to the scenario. When putting together a scenario, after the scales are set I check what the 'foot rate' of a unit is, and what the 'pure motorised' rate is. Then as the oob is built I have base values to use. I imagine other designers do the same thing.

Where things really get screwed up is when you have a unit with halftracks. They are both abstract transport and individual armored personel carriers. [8|]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

And also the designer of this Alternate Equipment file :

The designer is Bil Wilson or cathar1244

He was also busy with a modern equipment database. I have nothing hear from him after september 2009, does somebody know why?

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

I need to ask someone to please confirm the designer of this Alternate Equipment file :

Derek Weichs aka Panzer_War did this. Download here: http://forums.gamesquad.com/downloads.p ... le&id=1064

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

And also the designer of this Alternate Equipment file :

The designer is Bil Wilson or cathar1244

He was also busy with a modern equipment database. I have nothing hear from him after september 2009, does somebody know why?

Download here: http://forums.gamesquad.com/downloads.p ... le&id=2002 The download contains a scenario using he database, a modified version of Arracourt 44

Thanks Jo and Telu, now we can properly credit these.

Would either of the equipment files mentioned by Telumar or Jo be the (TOAW TOE's-2 and TOAW TOE's-3) mentioned above by Klink? Or are the two mentioned by him yet more equipment files?

I'm merely looking for some consistancy.

There are three files, one for the original equipment file that is used by TOAW (named TOAW TOE's-1), the other two are for the alternate WWII equipment files (TOAW TOE's-2 and TOAW TOE's-3).

'2' is the Derek Weichs database, '3' is the Bill Wilson database.

Partly referring to what HPT KUNZ said..

There is a main difference between the two equipment databases. That is that in Derek Weichs' database the MGs are higher rated in AP than in Bill Wilson's. This also goes into the rifle squads which have generally higher AP ratings in Derek Weich's database.

Also note that HEAT ratings for infantry AT weapons (PIAT, Bazooka etc) are higher in both databases than in the default one.

As for the initial topic..
Where to post submissions? Here? Or per e-mail? I would rather do it here hoping for additional feedback, creative discussion etc.

There is a main difference between the two equipment databases.

Yes, I noticed this because at one time I was considering combining both, but they obviously used different base values, and theories. This is why we (you included) decided it would be best to include all three databases. Additionally, with all three being used, we can incorporate submissions directly into the one used, rather than us trying to modify submissions to fit one or the other. In the end, it is up to designers to decide which database they prefer, and to make any TOE adjustments that they seem fit for the particular scenario they are working on.

Where to post submissions?

Any way you like. Our e-mails area available in our profiles. Posting screenies here is nice. Klink would rather have .xml's, but make submissions any way you like, we will sort it out.

ORIGINAL: Panama

Would either of the equipment files mentioned by Telumar or Jo be the (TOAW TOE's-2 and TOAW TOE's-3) mentioned above by Klink? Or are the two mentioned by him yet more equipment files?

I'm merely looking for some consistancy.

I stick to the 'original' .eqp for the moment. I'll be fully operational in about a weeks time. I'll try to keep various notes in mind, *see Rob's post about the HR Squads, HMGs etc.*.

kLiNk, Oberst

TOE's #2 and #3 available now at :

TOE #2 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/vr6cwb2qe3cm6 ... 2.zip?dl=0

The .zip contains both 'scenario' files and both .eqp files. Check the scenario briefings for each to see the rundown. #2 contains more stuff as that is the one I have used the most. The .zip also contains Fred Henriksson's Welle document for further extensive info on that subject. Thanks again Fred !

Klink has the TOE-1 file, which corresponds to the original stock TOAW .eqp file. He will be posting it sometime on his site.

If anyone wants to contribute, please do.

Thanks !

I, too, think the transport should be treated as 'transport asset', not as individual transport equipment. I have noticed that it is generally better to tinker around with the number of transports based on how much movement allowance I want to provide for a unit, then perhaps a bit of excess in case of fully motorized units or units belonging to a power that is blessed with transports in general.

re: transport assets- I agree completely- transport assets, including halftracks, add a few until you get a reasonable movement rate.