Make OOB comments HERE

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Sun May 14, 2000 3:26 am

Originally posted by Seth:
Yes, that's the turret I was thinking of. That would be a really cool unit. Especially vs. hordes of Russian infantry, ahahaha! I've often been fascinated at how some of the smaller countries managed to fight with such a bizarre grab-bag of equipment. Maybe there could be a way to offer a 'historical supply' preference option for those who prefer realism, to keep people from parlaying two Finnish KV-1's into an armored division, etc.

Finnsh coastal arty fired quite a lot against Russian troops and with great effect. Although the calibres were usually much smaller than 305mm. Fyi, this twin gun turret has about 1600 tons of steel in it of which about 500 tons is armour. Armour thickness is 305mm all around except 105mm on top.

The variety of material was a great pain indeed. When you don't have money to rationalize you'll end up buying an occasional modern equipment but you have to keep whatever old stuff you have. I have couple good books about Finnish arty and coastal arty and gee what really obscure guns were used.

I'd like to see the deBange cannons from 1877. They had no recoil system so they had to be realigned after every shot. Their Finnish nickname translates to 'Jumping Jack'
But as the weapon file seems to be kinda full guess I can't have them. Or I'll just have to create such unit and use some available weapon.

Historical amounts of units could be made by creating a new formation that has the exact force composition. For example the finnish heavy tanks were in a separate heavy platoon of the armoured brigade. Also snippets of info like these 2 Klim's could be added to those small info texts some units have. btw, how do you attach one to a unit?

Oh and are the leader names directly from SP3? Somehow the Finnish leaders are occasionally bit funnily named?

And as I gained speed

a thing about bunkers. Wood bunkers are neat, but bigger ones should have a lot of more armour, especially on top. I'll give you the requirements of a typical bunker from a 'Salpa' (Latch) defensive line built mainly during 1944. Basic MG bunker had to withstand single indirect fire from a 16" guns, continuous fire from 12" guns, direct fire from 8" guns and 1000kg aerial bombs. The reinforced concrete roof was 210cm thick plus the additional earth cover.
Even though the older bunkers were not as sturdy during the winter war such bunkers were destroyed mainly by isolating them and using flamethrowers afterwards. Russians cooked up some stories about 'rubber coated bunkers' that bounce the rounds away as they couldn't knock them out.

Voriax

Mac_MatrixForum · Post by **Mac_MatrixForum** » Sun May 14, 2000 2:08 pm

Came up with two small things.
-Versions of Panzerkampfwagen III up to Ausf. F had three MG 34 machine guns according to www.achtungpanzer.com. In SPWaW, they seem to have only two. This would only affect the E-variant that is in the game.
-Tauchpanzer III comes quite early with 50mm gun. In fact, it has the 50mm gun earlier (January 1940) than normal panzer III (August 1940). Is this intended?

------------------
Markku "Mac" Rontu

"Understanding is a three-edged sword,
your side, their side and the truth."
- Sheridan in B5

amatteucci · Post by **amatteucci** » Sun May 14, 2000 3:16 pm

Great game! It was worth a 10 hrs download...

Just some (for now) OOB remarks...

The frontal glacis of the Tiger II should be 150mm @ 50° (not 100mm @ 50°!)

The glacis of the IS-2m was 120mm @ 60°

The glacis armour for the IS-2 should be 120mm @ 30°

BTW... speaking of Soviet heavy tanks:
- The IS-2 was armed with a D-25 gun and had the same ammo load as the IS-2m and
should'nt have an higher ROF. The ammo loadout was the same.
- Please add the IS-1 (IS-85) and remove the SU-45, such a thing NEVER existed!
- Soviet heavy tanks shouldn't have roman numerals: use IS-2, KV-2 instead of IS-II, KV-II

Regards,

Amedeo

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sun May 14, 2000 9:02 pm

Remember that the front of most tanks are made up of more than one plate. We have attempted to model the 'effective" fornt protection in its entirety, so as the manual explains, some of the armor is not equal to a single plate that is often quoted.

THese figures will be refined as we go, but I think there is a good basis here.

SU-45s indeed existed, they were Komsomlets tractors with 45mm AT guns mounted.

I will see what happened to the IS-1 It most have gotten lost, I thought i added it in with the KV-1e and S... sorry about that!

troopie · Post by **troopie** » Sun May 14, 2000 9:35 pm

Now I suppose you're going to say, troopie's got a fine right to post, he hasn't even played the blery game yet

but one observation and one question. In every SP game I've ever played, it's easy to send Polish infantry and cavalry into retreat. But they don't stay that way. They rally and come back for more. I'm not an expert on the Polish campaign but I believe that was true in fact, they came back for more.

The question. Will we see a patch correcting the OOB errors? and when?

troopie
(who can't wait for next week so he can get his hands on SPWAW)

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Sun May 14, 2000 11:39 pm

We need to catch our breath and reintroduce ourselves to our families, but we will have a patch in a few weeks...

Ouch! You know how to rub it in

IT all depends on wht experiance you give them, the deafults are admittedly a bit wimpy...

Constructive contributions like that are always welcome whether you've played or not

Jon Grasham · Post by **Jon Grasham** » Mon May 15, 2000 1:25 am

Taking a Break?!?

A few weeks even seems quick! The way I see it, most companies release a game with a few significant bugs here and there, and they are, in essence, a work in progress, but paid in full for. Fewer companies release a game that more or less is broken, out of the box, and requires significant patching just to be played through. (And then take the consumer for a fool, claiming they had no idea that the game would not start at all, etc..

Still fewer release a game that is perfect, or damn close out of the box, and have a few patches, mostly refining what is, or adding new stuff. And THEN there is you guys... you offer something that took a long time, was far from profitable (other than good reception and building trust) and is works fine, having a few small flukes here and there, but most of the "problems" are with improvements.... (Long campaign points, flying trucks,)and then plan on releasing patches for that, quicker than many "pay to play" games!

Guess that means we can't whine and cry.

(And should be sending you checks in secret so Matel won't bring out the Attack dogs..err lawyers.)

[This message has been edited by Jon Grasham (edited 05-14-2000).]

amatteucci · Post by **amatteucci** » Mon May 15, 2000 1:26 am

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Remember that the front of most tanks are made up of more than one plate. We have attempted to model the 'effective" fornt protection in its entirety, so as the manual explains, some of the armor is not equal to a single plate that is often quoted.

THese figures will be refined as we go, but I think there is a good basis here.

SU-45s indeed existed, they were Komsomlets tractors with 45mm AT guns mounted.

You're right about the need to model the entire front armour of an AFV and not a single section of it but I doubt that 100mm @ 50° is a good simulation of the Tiger II glacis.
There was NO confirmed frontal penetration of the King Tiger in combat but with the original OOB data I got creamed in the very first scenario in a firefight at more than 1000m!

For what concernes the SU-45 I'm still doubtful, considering that I have never seen a single reference to it in any source (with the exception of the SP series... and consider that the SU-45 photo in SP1 was actually an experimental 37mm TD built on the chassis of a T-37 light tank. Only one prototype was built.)

Anyway keep on with this good work! It's the best SP engine I ever saw.
Regards,

Amedeo

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Mon May 15, 2000 1:41 am

I checked a few sources and the Doyle Chamberlien lists the front superstructure as 150/50 and the front hull as 100/50. Indeed looks like that one may need a bit of beefing up - What creamed you. at 50degrees, the effectis quite pronounced, a 17lber APDS or a Russian 122 is about all that could do such!

Any additional details would be appreciated.

pvi215 · Post by **pvi215** » Mon May 15, 2000 6:34 am

A word of warning: the US Army mech cav and armored infantry are way off the mark:

1. the armored infantry platoon had 5 squads, i.e. 3 rifle, 1 MG and 1 mortar; 1 track for each squad.

2. there was an AT platoon at company level, 3 57mm AT guns w/ M3 tracks as prime movers.

3. there was no organic recon unit at company level.

4. the mech cav platoon consisted of two sections; one of 3 M8 a/c and one of 6 armed jeeps.

5. I have yet to uncover a pure armored car platoon, much less an armored car company in US service.

6. the M8 HMC is SP arty, not an assault gun in the German/Soviet sence. It was primarily used in the indirect fire mode.

Reference T/O 17 of 15 Sept 1943.

So far the OB editor is my most used portion of SPWAW.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Mon May 15, 2000 5:01 pm

The polish bunkers are represented by half traks.

amatteucci · Post by **amatteucci** » Mon May 15, 2000 9:11 pm

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
I checked a few sources and the Doyle Chamberlien lists the front superstructure as 150/50 and the front hull as 100/50. Indeed looks like that one may need a bit of beefing up - What creamed you. at 50degrees, the effectis quite pronounced, a 17lber APDS or a Russian 122 is about all that could do such!

Any additional details would be appreciated.

I was destroyed by an american 90mm gun!
This was very surprising for me so I checked the stats for the KT and found that the OB provided for a 100mm only thick glacis.
If you look at the theoretical penetration tables the only weapon that could penetrate frontally a KT was the 17pdr firing an APDS shot (but only the turret!).
Soviet 122mm and 100mm guns achieved interesting results in tests held at Kubinka proving grounds but there's no evidence of such a penetration in combat. I've seen lots of photos of destroyed KTs after the battles in Hungary in 1945 and even those with multiple penetration hits showed only side and rear penetrations.
Regards,

Amedeo

Paul Vebber · Post by **Paul Vebber** » Mon May 15, 2000 9:35 pm

Thanks - The 90mm likely was firing APCR, which technically should be able to penetrate the front of a King Tiger. I am not sure if the two weapons ever faced each other in actual combat?

A 17lber could penetrate the fornt of a King Tiger, the odds against it are much less than teh turret, and the geometry would have to be right.

IT is very difficult to say that a weapon "can't penetrate" a certain vehicel. Penetration tests are stochastic, so simply comparing a penetration number to an armor value by subtraction, is not an "absolute" method.

By the way I did some checking on the "SU-45" and you are correct that the soviets never had a designatin for such a vehicle, it was a Western nomenclature some references use for what appears to be an ad hoc conversion.

Mayny contributed to the OOBs, and in many cases there are inconsistencies about what is in or left out.

I am putting together a small team of interested folks to help improve the OOBs, if you (or anybody else) are interested in taking part, drop me a note!

talon · Post by **talon** » Tue May 16, 2000 3:42 pm

I just have a question on the machinegun in the Yugoslavia rifle squad . Is this a heavy machinegun ? It is just as deadly as any of the other heavy or medium machineguns . Its the deadliest machinegun in any squad . If its a LMG then I think it needs to be changed and if its a heavy MG then the whole squad should be slowed and it should be notet that this is a heavy MG .

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue May 16, 2000 4:59 pm

Originally posted by talon:
I just have a question on the machinegun in the Yugoslavia rifle squad . Is this a heavy machinegun ? It is just as deadly as any of the other heavy or medium machineguns . Its the deadliest machinegun in any squad . If its a LMG then I think it needs to be changed and if its a heavy MG then the whole squad should be slowed and it should be notet that this is a heavy MG .

The ZB30J gun? This is actually a LMG so the stats should be changed, might use the same stats as the Bren because both of these weapons have been developed from Czech ZB26 LMG. (source: Small Arms of the World, 12th edition)

Voriax

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Tue May 16, 2000 6:18 pm

Took a look at three more last night.

Canada

The Rolls and AEC armored cars have a picture of a Panhard
There are 2 17pdr. guns. The only difference I could see was that one cost a point more. I probably missed some ammo thing here.
The White scout car has a halftrack picture
The Ford C11 AS/DF has a gun in the icon, but only lists a rifle.
The Morris 15cwt has a CMG. If it does have an MG, shouldn't it be an AAMG
3in 20CWT truck has a Type 97 MG
The Ford Canada 40 has a gun in the icon, but none listed.
The Lynx F/O has the wrong picture.
The C-47 is one size bigger than the DC-3. Why is that?
The Spitfire IX has a picture of a Typhoon.
The Mustang 3 has 16 MG's.
The Typhoon shouldn't have MG's.
The Ammo Truck icon is some sort of SP Gun truck.
Coastal guns one and two have Japanese MG's and thus perhaps the wrong gun as well.

India
The Valentine III CS has a 45mm gun.
There are 2 Churchill IV's and one has the bow MG moved to the bottom of the list, but no other difference.
The Humber Mk. II has a quad AAMG
The Indians probably had no ship with a 6 in., and certainly no 8 in. support.
The Spitfire Mk. IIE should be a Hurricane Mk. IIE.
The Beaufighter Mk. X should only have 4 cannon.
The Hurricane IV has 8 cannon.
The 7.7mm Lewis AAMG is actually a 3 in. gun.
All of the Marmon-Herringtons have a Ba-64 picture.
The Lynx has armor ranging from 100 to 144. Should probably be 10-14.
The Spitfire Mk. VIII has 21 MG's and the Hurricane picture and icon.
The Vultee has a Hurricane icon.
The A-20 has a C-47 icon.

Italy
The panzerfaust team has a picture of an ATR.
The M.C. 202 has 30 MG's.
The Ba. 65, Re. 2001, and Re. 2002 have 40 MG's.
The Re. 2002 has a picture of the Romanian armored car.
The Stuka has 0 of everything.
The Spitfire VB has 6 cannon and 5 MG's and a picture of a Hurricane.
The Wagon has a bunker icon.

It would be nice to get the encyclopedia text. Often I'm not sure what something's supposed to be, so I skip it or maybe get confused and say something's wrong when it's not.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue May 16, 2000 6:48 pm

You've been busy Seth, do you have time to play the game at all?

Those multiple-gunned aircraft are easy to fix, fire up the editor and look at the particular unit's weapon list. Aircraft gun's HE value is it's ammo load and AP value is the number of the guns. Those multigunned ac are just a result of forgotten AP value and the game then seems to take the HE amount as the amount of the guns.

But this may be a plot to increase the effect of air attacks? An aircraft strafing with 40 mg's should be deadly

Voriax

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Tue May 16, 2000 7:39 pm

Actually, I don't have much time to play, what with work, and moving, and a friend's wedding, etc. I play little scenarios now and then. I'd love to do a campaign, but the WWII one keeps crashing my computer.
I would really be interested to see what those planes do to infantry. Must be kind of sick. As far as fixing them goes, sure I could do it myself, but other people might not know the right number of guns, and it should get fixed for the CD version.

Voriax · Post by **Voriax** » Tue May 16, 2000 8:23 pm

Originally posted by Seth:
Actually, I don't have much time to play, what with work, and moving, and a friend's wedding, etc. I play little scenarios now and then. I'd love to do a campaign, but the WWII one keeps crashing my computer.

I started a generic campaign but then I read about the multiplying crews and didn't continue..guess I should end the first battle and see what happens.

I would really be interested to see what those planes do to infantry. Must be kind of sick. As far as fixing them goes, sure I could do it myself, but other people might not know the right number of guns, and it should get fixed for the CD version.

*nod* I pointed out the way to fix as the oob editor is somewhat lacking helpwise. For those who want to fix it before an official patch. I remember when I did my first version of the SP1 Finnish ob with a dos based editor. It was very much trial and error in the beginning.

Voriax

Seth · Post by **Seth** » Tue May 16, 2000 8:36 pm

I actually haven't tried to fix anything with the OOBEd, so it was good that you pointed out what was happening. Now that I get it, I just have to remember whether the Mustang had 4 guns with more ammo than the other two, or vice versa.