v7.1 status report

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 5:44 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:

7) Bit the bullet and added a rudimentory "armor quality" function that works a lot better than the thickness germandering I tried to do. Since the effective resistance of high hardness or cast armor had a bigger T/d dependance than I originally thought.

For those complaining about this I have come around to the error of my ways <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

I am extremely happy to hear this. I am convinced that this approach will turn out to considerably better than the earlier one. Most gracious of you, turning our ire into productivity in this way.

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:04 am

THe fix would be to remove the save buttoin so you don't save after a scenario is over. You can refrain form doing this (save before you "end turn" the last time" and then after you start the next game).

Figmo · Post by **Figmo** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 6:44 am

That's what I've done Paul - is it just to much time to fix the Report Screens in the WW2 Campaign not reloading - I understand if that's it - you have other thing to do. If you can't reproduce the problem - I have some saves if you need them.

Thanks for ALL the work - even though we complain we do appreciate it!!

Gallo Rojo · Post by **Gallo Rojo** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 7:42 am

clap... clap ... clap ...
chapeaux! <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 9:29 am

Originally posted by john g:

It is already in there, look for ammo cannisters, normally used only in scenarios because they are a total hose.

Last time I looked they were only 14 pts and were just 2 men in size. As I recall they loaded just as fast as an ammo carrier, and of course carried all varieties of ammo. At least they are immobile like an ammo dump.

There is no way I would want them in any battle except where the scenario author absolutely needed them (like in Lightning Strikes).
thanks, John.

Well, Ammo Trucks are (or should be) far easier to spot than a pile of ammo. I have to buy a lot of ammo trucks for each game I'm in, as I use my artillery enough that I run out of ammo.
My problem is that I want to drop ammo to my Special Forces and paratroops in a long scenario, and can't do it.
I haven't seen any sign of "ammo cannisters" on ANY purchase screen. Zip! None! NADA!

tracer · Post by **tracer** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 9:45 am

Paul, David, Bill, Matrix crew, designers and testers...hats off to you guys. The things you continue to do with a 1997 game engine are incredible. Thanks for everything.

achappelle · Post by **achappelle** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 9:57 am

First off,
Thanks Paul and crew, not only for maintaining and improving a game that we all know is in it's twilight of development, but, taking forum-member's suggestions and incorporating them into new releases. Don't know of many s/w companies that do this so willingly.
Secondly,
Velovich, welcome to the forums, and the game. I think you might have better luck with AI force selection if you make sure true troop cost, but more importantly, rarity is checked off in your preferences. I ran a long campaign as the Soviets, and it was almost brigade sized, and I couldn't use rarity, because, like you, I'd launch my 60 or so T34s against a whole section of flakpanzers and a couple of recon teams.
Also, you can try using the editor to buy, and deploy the AI forces. Haven't tried that really, but I've noticed a few people here do, with good results.

Lars Remmen · Post by **Lars Remmen** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:09 am

Originally posted by Velovich:

Well, Ammo Trucks are (or should be) far easier to spot than a pile of ammo. I have to buy a lot of ammo trucks for each game I'm in, as I use my artillery enough that I run out of ammo.
My problem is that I want to drop ammo to my Special Forces and paratroops in a long scenario, and can't do it.
I haven't seen any sign of "ammo cannisters" on ANY purchase screen. Zip! None! NADA!

It's there. Just look in the Norwegian OOB. Change the availability date and load them onto a cargo plane and airdrop them.

Regards,

Lars

I almost forgot. I suppose you could also give the cannister a weight of 1 and give the special forces unit a carry capacity of 1. Then one of the units could carry it into battle.

I'm sure this will be a bad dag - just put my socks on inside out...

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Lars Remmen ]</p>

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:20 am

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov:
Velovich, welcome to the forums, and the game. I think you might have better luck with AI force selection if you make sure true troop cost, but more importantly, rarity is checked off in your preferences. I ran a long campaign as the Soviets, and it was almost brigade sized, and I couldn't use rarity, because, like you, I'd launch my 60 or so T34s against a whole section of flakpanzers and a couple of recon teams.
Also, you can try using the editor to buy, and deploy the AI forces. Haven't tried that really, but I've noticed a few people here do, with good results.

Thanks, Aleksandr. I haven't messed with the editor yet, I'll have to try that. I do use true troop cost and rarity, it keeps things as real as possible.

V-man

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 10:22 am

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov:
First off,
Thanks Paul and crew, not only for maintaining and improving a game that we all know is in it's twilight of development, but, taking forum-member's suggestions and incorporating them into new releases. Don't know of many s/w companies that do this so willingly.

I must agree, the game, as it, with all the flaws I have bitched about,is incredible! Please, don't take my criticisms as anything but intended as constructive.

V-man

Panther_II · Post by **Panther_II** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 4:52 pm

correct the message when you fire a panther or a jgpz IV gun, it says "L 707" instead of "L 70".

why not include a editor for the units in the 7.1 version?

so you can change and add units your selfe.

toundra · Post by **toundra** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 5:08 pm

Thanks a lot Paul.

john g · Post by **john g** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 5:47 pm

Originally posted by Karl Brommann:
correct the message when you fire a panther or a jgpz IV gun, it says "L 707" instead of "L 70".

why not include a editor for the units in the 7.1 version?

so you can change and add units your selfe.

You do have an editor included, but I just checked and the panther doesn't show L 707 it shows L70. Perhaps you have a video driver that is throwing extra letters in there.
thanks, John.

melcer · Post by **melcer** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 5:58 pm

Good work! Don't let it delay CL to much though.

The armour fix and the addition of shatter gap (I followed the discussion on the OOB forum with interrest) is very appreciated. It will be interresting to see how it turns out.

Melcer

Frank W. · Post by **Frank W.** » Tue Jan 08, 2002 8:26 pm

from me a "good job", too.

so i will skip 7.0 and go straight to
7.1 when it´s released.

thanx

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 3:10 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
We are currently working on a fix to the "synch bug" and a few issues with the two player campaign (most notably when done online).

We are also looking into a way to address one aspect of the artillery delay issue, but I not sure if the fix will pan out.

What has been fixed in the current test build is:

1) too many men fire primary inf weapons - this has been corrected so only primary inf weapons in SLOT 1 are fired multiple times. Also a suppression componant has been added so supression reduces the number of "multiple men" firing. This should help the problem of unsuppressed defenders taking excessive losses because suppressed attackers still attack with the same number of men as unsuppressed units. Likewise this reduces this will reduce teh casualties taken when an attacking force has a significnat numerical superiority and suppresses the daylights out of defenders.

This will in general increase the effectiveness of preparatory and overwatcing fires.

The effect is now: Roll DIE(200) for each man in the squad , if the result is less than (experience-(suppression/2)) the man fires. The result is added to the base of at least 1 man always firing.

2) Flame weapons are too destructive: Flame weapons has a base 60% chance of penetration vice "automatic" penetration.

3) APCR T/d calcualtion incorrect: Repaired. This reduces the effectiveness in undermatched engagements (ie armor significantly greater than projectile diameter)

4) Slope effect on effective resistance tweaked slightly upward. (this makes the effective resistance slightly higher)

5) Modified the ricochet routine to do a check for "shatter gap" tendency (though with a significant randon element) based on the chance of shatter starting at about T/d = .75 and reaching max at about 1.25. Penetration to effective resistance ratio ramps from a minimum at ramping up linearly from 1.01 to max at 1.11 and at the high end more variably in a "hump" centered at 1.25 but having significant tails form about 1.10 up to 1.4. Note the max shatter probability is capped at .5 and testing has shown it generaly much less, but wanted to include this effect as part of the ricochet routine.

6)Introduced a more linear variabilty into vulnerable location hits, The chance ramps up from 300m on in rather than a step function at range 150.

7) Bit the bullet and added a rudimentory "armor quality" function that works a lot better than the thickness germandering I tried to do. Since the effective resistance of high hardness or cast armor had a bigger T/d dependance than I originally thought.

For those complaining about this I have come around to the error of my ways <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

The "Skirts" data element in the OOBs is now coded like radio to allow 5 different armor types:

0,1,2,3 Single digit gives the vehicle 0, 10, 20 , or 30mm skirts on Flank hits. Vehice is assumed to have MOSTLY "normal" 240 BHN RHA type armor

10,11,12,13 As above but armor is superior quality to "regualar" RHA.

20,21,22,23 As above but vehicle has "high hardness" armor of moderate quality.

30,31,32,33 As above but has "high hardness" armor of poor quality.

40,41,42,43 As above but armor is cast.

Now these categories are a bit vague, but allow for inclusion of T/d into the quality equation, namely that armor deficiency is most pronounced when siginiicantly overmatched, and in the case of high hardness can actually be a benefit when the T/d is high.

This means that 37 vs T-34 will be generally ineffective, 50mm will be a wash with the "old values" and 75 and 88 in particular will see less effective resistance. This will allow the enhanced effect of 75mm and 88mm rounds without giving the 50 and in particular 37mm APCR a free ride.

I am presently updating the vehicel stats with this additional value. ARmor values have been restored to v6 standards, in the case of some vehicels penalized for cast armor, enhanced. (KV, IS and Churchill types the most effected. THis allows for an appropriate T/d to be calculated based on actual armor thickness, and not a reduced value. I am also changing some of teh front hull values to a more uniform use of "most significant plate" with a slope modifier if a more vulnerable plate is present, again so T/d calculations are not skewed. This works withthe change in vulnerable loaction hits to allow for "lessor" plates to be engaged with more range dependance (its hard to hit them outside 300m, but much easier at 1 hex)

This OOB update will take me another week or so to get done with. I have instituted the updates Alby had made form the threads here and the mortar changes (less some the extr FO's).

Like to express my personal appreciation for the hard work your doing Paul and just for plain listening to those of us who had concerns since 7.0 came out. No one can ever accuse you of not doing your homework.

You've pretty much addressed all the questions i was going to pose to you since getting Lorrin's book, especially about the T/D factor in determining the effect of high hardness armor as well as the cast armor issue.

One question....i've posed this to Lorrin as well, Though i hav'nt had the chance to delve as deeply into his book as you have yet, i'm a little confused over the German armor quality issue. While in the intro section , German armor is quoted as retaining superior balistic resistance, even in the face of declining alloy content, test cases by the US consistantly state that German armor preformed similar to US standard test plate, implying that the two were mostly equivilent. I'm not sure if where the conclusion of German armor quality being superior comes from unless i'm interpreting the data wrong.

heh....did ya notice the Tiger mantlet drawings too <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> heh....knew there was a big open space behind it. Being cast as well....i'm thinking 140 might be a better more fair figure. Lorrin quoted that a shell with 135+mm pen ability should have a good chance against it. Thoughts?

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 3:13 am

Oh forgot one other thing <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Paul you said there was a bug allowing too many men to fire the primary weapon. Have you checked the formula for weapon 2-4 slots? I'm still seeing occasionally 3-5 multiple casualty examples per fire phase on these weapons even though they are supposed to be one shot weapons being in those slots.

Or is it that the game figures that even a bolt action rifle in slot 2-4 can get off multiple firings in the phase? if so that explains it and i'll shut up <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 3:31 am

Originally posted by melcer:
Good work! Don't let it delay CL to much though.

The armour fix and the addition of shatter gap (I followed the discussion on the OOB forum with interrest) is very appreciated. It will be interresting to see how it turns out.

Melcer

have to admit, i'm nervous about trying to incorporate the shatter gap. I can see the complaints now "I fired on a Tiger at 200 yards with a 17 pounder and it bounced off!!!!!"

<img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Besides which, alot of the data was a tad bit contradictory in terms of consistantly reproducing the shatter gap effect. It'll be interesting to see thats for sure

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 4:02 am

Nik, yes a single man shooting a "shot" is more than one round and can kill more than one enemy (also remeber that "casualties" are combat ineffectives so a single shot that "kills" 3 may have wounded one man who is being carried to the rear by two buddies who are out of the action also.

Contact me offline about the build you are using.

My interpretation is that if armor from a typically destroyed German vehicle (often blown out with explosives, cut out, or subject to intense heat of burnout) performs as well as US test plate that that indicates some degree of superiority. Though such tests are suspect in any case becasue of what the armor was subjected too before testing.

I put more credence in the German test results, on more "virgin" armor.

Always the Tiger mantlet...well I did a little "area average" albeit crude and came up with 164 as the average (accounting for the not insignificant overlp areas, though discounting them somewhat for edge effect...) Given penetration variability can be 9% a 135 pen round has a good chance if it gets a "vulnerable area hit"

The implementation of shatter gap is done in a similar fashion to ricochet. There is no "absolute" in fact I may have made it too obcure... I use Lorrin's diagram as "fuzzy boundaries" with probability of occurance increasing as you move to the interior. I have 50/50 chance superimposed on the whole thing so the absolute probabilty is never more than 50%. That can be adjusted based on reports.

Ricochets are uncommonenough ingeneral and the effect is so range dependant that it may be difficult to see it in many situations. I need to do more "shooting gallery" tests to tweak the effect... It should happen enough to be annoying when the range is correct, but not act as a "shield wall" to "game". That is why so much randomness in the implementation, it will be possible to figure out "range notches" where shatter gap may tend to help, but it will never be a remotely sure thing.

Nikademus · Post by **Nikademus** » Wed Jan 09, 2002 4:38 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Nik, yes a single man shooting a "shot" is more than one round and can kill more than one enemy (also remeber that "casualties" are combat ineffectives so a single shot that "kills" 3 may have wounded one man who is being carried to the rear by two buddies who are out of the action also.

Contact me offline about the build you are using.

My interpretation is that if armor from a typically destroyed German vehicle (often blown out with explosives, cut out, or subject to intense heat of burnout) performs as well as US test plate that that indicates some degree of superiority. Though such tests are suspect in any case becasue of what the armor was subjected too before testing.

I put more credence in the German test results, on more "virgin" armor.

Always the Tiger mantlet...well I did a little "area average" albeit crude and came up with 164 as the average (accounting for the not insignificant overlp areas, though discounting them somewhat for edge effect...) Given penetration variability can be 9% a 135 pen round has a good chance if it gets a "vulnerable area hit"

The implementation of shatter gap is done in a similar fashion to ricochet. There is no "absolute" in fact I may have made it too obcure... I use Lorrin's diagram as "fuzzy boundaries" with probability of occurance increasing as you move to the interior. I have 50/50 chance superimposed on the whole thing so the absolute probabilty is never more than 50%. That can be adjusted based on reports.

Ricochets are uncommonenough ingeneral and the effect is so range dependant that it may be difficult to see it in many situations. I need to do more "shooting gallery" tests to tweak the effect... It should happen enough to be annoying when the range is correct, but not act as a "shield wall" to "game". That is why so much randomness in the implementation, it will be possible to figure out "range notches" where shatter gap may tend to help, but it will never be a remotely sure thing.

I know....sorry, could'nt resist. I know that the Tiger I mantlet issue is one of your er.....'fonder' Steel panther's memories <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

That was the kicker and gave me much amusement. Getting my basic idea of a "mantlet's" function was totally countered by the variable thickness of the mantlet itself, hence the joke was still on me <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

For those not yet posessed of yon excellent resource courtasy of Lorrin, it includes a full sketch diagram of the Tiger 1 Mantlet. in a nutshell it's armor thickness varies between 90mm on the edges that align with the small outer surface area of the front turret to 150mm (cast) around the telescopic holes and MG holes. The majority of the mantlet is between 110-120 with a good chunk of 140mm around where the gun barrel exits the turret.

In truth given the wide disperity i did'nt think the 159 was bad (hell it's not 200mm at least <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> ) Given the variable thicknesses i had to latch on to something thus Lorrin's quote on a 135+mm penetration capability having a good chance. Since it's cast i figured too no armor bonus (other than not severely dinging it for being cast) was necessary thus 140 seemed good. It still bloody defeats most everything it faces except the 17 pounder and 122mm (or APCR 85mm)

I'll email you on the rest.