The Poles should have won WW2!

Gloo · Post by **Gloo** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 11:47 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
...Please do not generalize one "lucky event" to EVERY event.

Sorry Paul but I was not talking about "one unlucky event"... . I played four battles against the Poles and the average number of penetrating hits without damages was around 4 or 5. I modified the OOB 80 to reduce the survivibility from 3 to 2 and everything's alright now... .

Still have some "unlucky events" but the killing hits ratio is much more realistic!

Gen. Maczek · Post by **Gen. Maczek** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 5:53 pm

Just a note to those who seem to be swamped by Polish Infantry.This is because a 1939 Polish Infantry squad should have 12 men not 18 or 19 as the game suggests...Another thing for you all to correct in your OOB's.
Regards
Gen. Maczek

[ June 04, 2001: Message edited by: Gen. Maczek ]

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 8:16 pm

Average number of penetrating hits was 4 or 5

Based on what sample size? I tried it again and get 1 shot kills over 60% of the time?

But if you think it works better for you with the change you made...well thats why the editor is there!

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Mon Jun 04, 2001 10:46 pm

Originally posted by Figmo:
The German equipment wasn't better than everybody elses - in many cases their tanks were worse - it was their tactic of massing tanks together that gave them a local superiority in numbers. Plus there weren't any good hand held anti-tank guns like the bazooka and panzerfaus until later in the war.

Figmo

So Figmo you don't use the ATR's, they will open up any early war tank except the French and British heavies. And are wonderful against HT and AC's. I just love them since they are the only real AT the german infantry gets for most of the war.

On another vein is the number of penatrating shots that do no damage related to the surviablility of the vehical?? If a tank has a high surviability then it will sustain several penatrating shots and not blow up. Do I makes sence?

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 12:43 am

There is a bizarre function I came up with that takes the size of the unit, the survivability and the "energy" remaining in the round (ie whats left after pen-armor) and tthe warhead size to come up with a "damage factor"

related to warhead size squared, (pen-armor) to the 3/2 and size * survivability^1.33

This "damage factor" is used as a "dice roll" (sometimes divided by 2) for each of a set of 5 to 7 "systems" depending on the aspect hit,and each "hit" on a system (or crew man) counts as a "damage star" and adds supression.

Several of the systems involves a second die roll for "explosive destruction" that immediately brews up the tank, other wise if all crew members are killed, or sufficient damage occurs in the hit, the tank is brewed up.

Often the suppresion level on receiving minor damage is enough to make the crew bail out.

Paulus Pak · Post by **Paulus Pak** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 1:35 am

You know what? The main problem is that September's Compaign is not realistically recreated in SPWAW. Why Germans succeded? Because they used tactics against which Poles were not prepared. Polish static defence lines were suppressed with artillery barrages and tactical bombers. Then fast armored units strucked where defence was weaken most. It's true that polish AT 37 mm guns, and Wzór 35 AT rifles were excelent (AT Rifle was among best constructions in the world) but German units were attacking were there was no those weapons, or they were outnumbered, or supressed. Generally Germans were not facing massess of infantry or cavalary. They were outflanking, outcircling Poles, they were attacking from wings and from rears. I don't know how such a situation could be recreated in SPWAW, except scenarios of course. Maybe in Mega Compaign. And finally about Polish tanks. They were good but so what? We had only one operational armored brigade against 11 German armored units (including 4 light divisions). Other Polish tanks were formed in battalions or companies. The same problem appeared in France in 1940. Tanks were used in small formations as support for infantry units. Such a strategy was no match for Blitzkrieg. So finally, Germans didn't need to have superior vehicles. They had superior strategy and tactics and that was enough to succed in Poland, France and (at the beginnig) in USSR. You better think how to recreate all those factors in SPWAW.

Gen. Maczek · Post by **Gen. Maczek** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 1:56 pm

Cze' Paulus,
Jak typujesz jutrzejszy mecz? Mysle ze bez Oliego sobie poradzimy, moze Jukowiak sie wreszcie obudzi...3-1 Dla nas.
Pozdrawiam.

Gen. Maczek

murx · Post by **murx** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 3:08 pm

Re: Paul
There is a bizarre function I came up with that takes the size of the unit, the survivability and the "energy" remaining in the round (ie whats left after pen-armor) and tthe warhead size to come up with a "damage factor"
related to warhead size squared, (pen-armor) to the 3/2 and size * survivability^1.33

- so 'higher energy' warheads (i.e. faster) will make more damage ?
If that is the case it's completely wrong - a 'fast' bullet can easily go through a tank without any (or minor) damage, it's the slow ones that get caught inside the tank and do the 'Moulinex' (the kitchen machine to make shakes

). If it is slow enough it will ricochet inside the tank several times probably killing most everyone and rip apart any inside equipment like radio, ammo, MG, sights & gun handles etc ...
Maybe it would be better to ckeck if the bullet (in case of AP and APCR) has enough power left to penetrate the tank a second time - resulting in no/minimal damage - or if it gets caught inside the tank (resulting in another roll to check if the damage is minimal - low chance, severe - normal, or tank is destroyed).

murx

Gloo · Post by **Gloo** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:24 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Based on what sample size? I tried it again and get 1 shot kills over 60% of the time?

I was puzzled so I made the test you suggested... three times. 40 Pz IIIE in front of 40 7TP, 22 hexes of flat clear ground between them. The ratio vehicle hit/vehicle destroyed, was of 4,7 shots for a kill. If I include the damaged vehicles with crew bailing out, it drops down to 3,4.
You're perfectly right about the editor and I don't argue about that

It was only thinking about the fact the 7TP seem too resilient to me. I really think it's unreallistic to have a 7TP receiving at least 3 shots before seeing the crew bailing out. Of course, they had a really deadly maingun for the Panzers but they also cruelly lacked of armor thickness... .

Gloo · Post by **Gloo** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:34 pm

Originally posted by murx:
...so 'higher energy' warheads (i.e. faster) will make more damage ?...

I think that's a point that could be true in the game! It appeared to me the Pz II, using APCR rounds, seemed to be much more deadly to 7TP. I'll do the test... .

Gloo · Post by **Gloo** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 4:57 pm

Originally posted by Paulus:
You know what? The main problem is that September's Compaign is not realistically recreated in SPWAW...

Your point of view about the invasion of Poland is very interresting (maybe because you see things from the polish side?

) I posted (modestly) a thread about the polish armies in 1939 and I think what I read about the so called FallWeiss Operation (which was in fact renamed Erbst Nebel before it started) is in perfect accordance whith your analysis. The WaW great campaign can't be accurate due to the AI routines to purchase troops and the lack of accuracy in the OOBs. After all, it's only a game and it's main goal is to give fun to players! I really think it would be great to recreate a "real" Poland Campaign with accurate OoBs and maps! And a last word to say: "no, polish cavaliers never charged the Panzers with spears... " !

Horses were only meant to travel fastly in cross country and tow small 37mm ATG... . Polish soldiers surely were brave but not insane at all

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 6:21 pm

Gloo - no c'mon you are changing your definition!

You started out saying you got 4 or 5 PENETRATING hits per kill, now 4 or 5 HITS per kill is probably correct because of the variation on angles that change the effective armor thickness.

The geometry of the situation has a lot to do with this.

THe case of 'through and through' hits is a great minority compared to the times that a high energy round causes 'more stuff to rattle around inside'.

Technically the "damage potential" should increase to a threashold and then go back down again, but that is already accounted for HTs and trucks and stuff seperately.

For tanks, for the vast majority of cases, the higher the "remaining energy" the more damage the round will do.

THere really is no data for this so it becomes making a function based on common sense and looking at interior plans fo "generic vehicles" and what sort of things are most likely to be damage when hit from what aspect.

Remember the game engine originally had NO PARTIAL DAMAGE AT ALL in SP3 - just DEAD. It would be nice to add the detail of a tank sim game, but that is just not possible without a new game.

[ June 05, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]

Gloo · Post by **Gloo** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 6:54 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Gloo - no c'mon you are changing your definition!...

Well maybe I wasn't accurate enough, that's correct. In the las tests I made, I recorded each hit (penetrating or not) and compared it to the number of kills and damaged enough vehicules to make the crew bail out. That gives a ratio of 3,x hits for one kill or bailing out crew. I just made the same test with PzII and I got a 1,6 ratio. That seems more accurate but is it more realistic has Murx said? I don't think so. Anyway, I still think that 2 or more (really penetrating) rounds (sometimes 9

) to disable a 7TP is too high a value. But you're absolutly right about the game engine and the improvements made. You're also right to say it's up to any player to modify the Oobs to his tastes. Your game isn't perfect, that's obvious, but I never saw a perfect game till then

and this one is one of the closest to perfection I'm aware of. I truely thank you again for your dedication; I don't know many developpers who care enough to make the kind of test you made simply to verify my assertions. Just one word: Respect!

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Tue Jun 05, 2001 8:32 pm

Well, feedback from dedicated gamers like yourself helps us find out what is "wrong" with the game and is a "bug" with the game.

Often something that is "wrong" is just a limit on what the game can do - no game is reality! So we have approximate or "guesstimate" functions that we now are "wrong" bu the closest that we can come.

Its often hard to tell if a case where things do not seem believable are based on a game limitation, but it working as we intend, OR a "BUG" that is the game not doing something the way we intended!

We tried a very complicated damage routine that had more details, but it had serious problems so we "stripped away chrome" unitl it semed to work basically the way we wanted.

Too things that came up in researching the game (and out games in development) is that tanks where FAR more resiliant to hits than most games portray. The circumstances determining penetration are very complex and even where expeimental evidence is present a "penetration" figure is only an expected value that occurs even in identical test situations 50 or 80% of the time.

Yet gamers are used to "88 always kills" so when it does not, it is a "bug"!

We continue to strive for improving accuracy and detail ("realism" of war is so far away I hate to use the term...) but even the most sophisticated use of data is so much guesswork about assumpitons, and the design philosophy we have followed in SP:WaW is "War is chaos, unpredictable" so while one can "weigh the odds" of something happening - as in the board game Advanced Squad Leader, rolling a 12 is usually a bad thing...so no matter how sure a situation, there is always a small chance of Murphy rearing his ugly head! Meaning conversely when all is dark and defeat seems assured, there is a glimmer of hope every so often

Paulus Pak · Post by **Paulus Pak** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 4:11 pm

Originally posted by Gen. Maczek:
Cze' Paulus,
Jak typujesz jutrzejszy mecz? Mysle ze bez Oliego sobie poradzimy, moze Jukowiak sie wreszcie obudzi...3-1 Dla nas.
Pozdrawiam.

Gen. Maczek

Witam Generała Maczka. Dobrze wreszcie z kims pogadac po polsku. Bedzie 2-0 dla naszych, Białoruś przegra z Norwegią, Ukraina zremisuje z Walią i ..... JEDZIEMY DO AZJI!!!!!

) Może sie wymienimy mailami? Jakoś nie mam kontaktu z nikim z Polski kto gra w SPWAW

Paulus Pak · Post by **Paulus Pak** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 4:16 pm

erfect accordance whith your analysis. The And a last word to say: "no, polish cavaliers never charged the Panzers with spears... " !

Horses were only meant to travel fastly in cross country and tow small 37mm ATG... . Polish soldiers surely were brave but not insane at all

[/QB][/QUOTE]

You're right man! Story about polish cavalary charging tanks was created by nazi's propaganda (they even made a "dockumentary" movie about such an event). Later it was repeated in Heinz Guderian's memoirs, I don't know why, after all Blitzkireg creator was an intelligent man.

Gloo · Post by **Gloo** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 7:52 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
...Too things that came up in researching the game (and out games in development) is that tanks where FAR more resiliant to hits than most games portray...

...there is always a small chance of Murphy rearing his ugly head! Meaning conversely when all is dark and defeat seems assured, there is a glimmer of hope every so often

What can I say? You're perfectly right. The big thing about that game anyway, is that it's one of the very few which can be almost totally customized to the gamers needs. For the best or the worst...

Gloo · Post by **Gloo** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 7:55 pm

Originally posted by Paulus:
...I don't know why, after all Blitzkireg creator was an intelligent man.

Well, maybe because he was ALSO a nazi... ?

panda124c · Post by **panda124c** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 10:11 pm

Originally posted by Gloo:

Your point of view about the invasion of Poland is very interresting (maybe because you see things from the polish side? ) I posted (modestly) a thread about the polish armies in 1939 and I think what I read about the so called FallWeiss Operation (which was in fact renamed Erbst Nebel before it started) is in perfect accordance whith your analysis. The WaW great campaign can't be accurate due to the AI routines to purchase troops and the lack of accuracy in the OOBs. After all, it's only a game and it's main goal is to give fun to players! I really think it would be great to recreate a "real" Poland Campaign with accurate OoBs and maps! And a last word to say: "no, polish cavaliers never charged the Panzers with spears... " ! Horses were only meant to travel fastly in cross country and tow small 37mm ATG... . Polish soldiers surely were brave but not insane at all

Sounds like an excelent subject for a MegaCampain. Is Matrix lisening?

Gen. Maczek · Post by **Gen. Maczek** » Wed Jun 06, 2001 10:23 pm

Originally posted by Paulus:

Witam Generała Maczka. Dobrze wreszcie z kims pogadac po polsku. Bedzie 2-0 dla naszych, Białoruś przegra z Norwegią, Ukraina zremisuje z Walią i ..... JEDZIEMY DO AZJI!!!!! ) Może sie wymienimy mailami? Jakoś nie mam kontaktu z nikim z Polski kto gra w SPWAW

Dwa slowa...K***a mac. Niestety zagralismy jak za starych 'dobrych' czasow i teraz koniecznie musimy wygrac z Bialorusia...Coz nie mozna byc pesymista, nadal wierze ze pojedziemy na MS!
Pozdrawiam
Gen. Maczek