Explain to me how H2H point costs are fair

[VikingNo2]

Okay Goblin I challange you only, you have to play with your little sisters bra on and one foot on top of the CPU.

M4 I challange you if I win I get Ogal and you get pictures of Goblin in the Bra LMAO:D


P.S, in a tool belt slinging mud LOL

[tracer]

That's correct: theoretically a unit can op-fire till it runs out of ammo. What I was referring to is that tanks won't fire back at infantry that engage them (from more than a 4 hexes or so). Many times the tank is the only unit with a LOS to the squad firing at them, so when that squad appears I know the tank can see them...it just doesn't fire back.

I saw this happen a few times today, here's an example: One of my (unsuppressed) T-34's took 2-3 shots from a GE squad in some trees 4 hexes away without firing back (the tank's range was set to 15). After the first shot the squad appeared, so I know the T-34 saw them. The T-34 then fired at a PzIV that appeared on a hill about 8 hexes behind the squad.

[mogami]

Hi, It is difficult to play SPWaW with C&C on. However with it off your not simulating WW2 battles your conducting armour thickness, shell penatration tests. C&C off makes every unit independant of the others. Every unit knows what to do and has instant response and leaders are just for calling in unlimited artillery. With C&C on those higher priced units really show why they cost more. I really think ths can be the root source of the unbalanced results. The German units have very good C&C on attributes. Turning it off equalizes all the other countries.

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by VikingNo2
Why not, have you never used AA with quad .50 cal to wipe out infantry squads, or machgun fire to suppress an area, its the same theory, the HE rounds were ment to bunker bust and suppress(like direct fire arty ). I do agree with Goblin a company of Bazookas riding on a company of greyhounds is just wrong IMHO. A range of 5 or 6 and a rate of fire of 3 or 4 would be good I think. I don't know if it is possible but can you change the range to match status( Infantry at weapons ), meening that if the unit is dugin and set to defence its range is ten( Bazooka ), and when move or unloading from a vehical it be reduced in half. Is that possible I think that would please most everybody. That would half to be applied to all infantry man portable AT weapons, or even better when a unit uloads from a vehical it can't shoot for a round, simalar to AT GUNs

Goblin, RB, Leo, M4, Gary what do you think.

It's not possible to change the weapon range by status...but if you moved the troops on a tank the same turn you're firing, they won't hit anything...making it somehow what you ask for...

On the other hand...what are these for battles ? A Bazooka company riding on tanks
If you're the German and play a tank battle and the enemy gets as close as 500m to fire his Bazookas, you sucked anyway...kill him at 2000m, that's what your weapons were made for...or buy more infantry the next time...I never saw a successfull Bazooka attack against tanks behind an infantry screen

That tanks get suppressed from Bazookas even if not hitting seems pretty realistic to me...you expect them to get suppressed from mortar rounds coming down in the same hex or ? It's normal that they button up then... why not from the direct fired Bazooka rounds also ?

I was always a friend of forcing players into historical battle setups, but this one seems to be to tough...I don't think one should downgrade a weapon beyond realism, just because a few fun gamers purchase a Divisions support of Bazookas for their tank company - there have to be smarter ways from the field of tactics to counter this nonsense

[tracer]

Here's a thought: why don't opponents negotiate a limit on bazookas like is commonly done with arty? A good starting point might be 1 bazooka team for each platoon, which is the ratio in many standard companies offered on the purchase menu.

[VikingNo2]

Thanks for the info Leo, I was just reaching. I think you done a great job, the Bazooka is much less powerful now that it was in 7.1. I don't think players have played it enough. I understand their fear though if you that a 7.1 Bazooka and extend the range to 10, you have the makings of a super weapon.

Tracer how about you Germany me Russia 41-42, in out battle.

[Goblin]

Originally posted by Panzer Leo
On the other hand...what are these for battles ? A Bazooka company riding on tanks
If you're the German and play a tank battle and the enemy gets as close as 500m to fire his Bazookas, you sucked anyway...

That tanks get suppressed from Bazookas even if not hitting seems pretty realistic to me...you expect them to get suppressed from mortar rounds coming down in the same hex or ? It's normal that they button up then... why not from the direct fired Bazooka rounds also ?

I don't think one should downgrade a weapon beyond realism

1.) TREES? VISIBILITY? WEATHER? You show me how to get 2000m sight range every time, and I will. Sucked because they got within 500m? I won't respond to that.

2.) A mortar round lands and explodes next to the tank. A bazooka round, if it misses, zips past the tank. The crew may not even realize it was fired at them. My complaint is not the suppression, but how much suppression small arms cause. "Buttoned Up" and suppression are two different things in the game.

3.) 500m is realistic for bazooka shots on tanks!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

4.) For a bunch of people not trying to insult someone, you have all done a pretty **** fine job. I won't even come back to this thread again.

Goblin:mad:

[tracer]

Originally posted by VikingNo2

Tracer how about you Germany me Russia 41-42, in out battle.

Sounds like a plan...I'll send one off for your approval after lunch.

[VikingNo2]

The amount of suppresion I agree its to much, troops on tanks I believe the anything unloading from a vehical should not be able to shoot that round. If they are riding on a tank I believe the tank should be much more difficult to assault.



Saying people suck at tactics because of CC On or CC Off, run counter to productive discussion and debate.


Leo if some of my points are valid and you believe they have worth then please use them, if not that is why I have both Version of SPWAW on my CPU ( 7.1 and H2H ). They are free, just a reminder to everyone. I have great and Wonderful games on both, whether is getting steamrolled by Gary and his army of bee's, or Rick 3/2s army of Tanks, Reds ( Red Horde ), M4s ' The Might of the M4" . Dealing with RBs tactic's, or playing endless close games with Willy. I have a great time. Thanks again to all the makers and undaters of all the games.

JJ

[Voriax]

As the bazookas seem to crop up in here...can *anyone* give me a reference that says there was HE ammo for bazookas during WW2???

I've seen a picture of one test round that had 2 handgrenades as payload, but afaik that never came to use.

I've been thinking about removing HE ammo from all units that have bazookas...

Voriax

[VikingNo2]

Wow, that would certianly change the argument:eek:

[tracer]

Elsewhere, Goblin pointed something out that should be mentioned here (paraphrased): a rifleman can hit a house at 1000yds....all direct-fire guns in the game can throw a round farther than listed. On bazookas: "They are allowing one class of weapons to go to max, and the rest used at max effective".

Just my $0.02, but that's a pretty good argument for dropping the range.

[rbrunsman]

Boy! I miss this thread for a day and it gets too big to even respond to everything mentioned. I'll just second what Golbin says (except I'll still read this thread). And, I agree with most of what V2 says (grudgingly since I owe him a payback:mad: ).

I also respectfully request that people stop saying, "Play with C&C ON." Most of us don't want to, so that argument doesn't help. We understand that C&C ON makes for a more realistic battle, but after all SPWAW is a game and I want the freedom of movement allowed with C&C Off. I like the "game" part of the experience. I just want to easily know what an even battle is. The system doesn't even have to be changed at all if someone would be so kind as to say, "For US v GE do this..." "For GE v Russia do this..." etc. The way H2H is now, x pts vs x pts does not equal an even battle.

And, Bazookas are still too powerful in H2H (couldn't help myeself).

[mogami]

Hi, OK I'll stop suggesting people use C&C. But then you will all have too stop saying the points are unbalanced.
I have always had a difficult time explaining things on the internet.
C&C what does it mean? Why would players use or not use it?
How does it impact the cost of units?

If units cost more because they are more effective with C&C on versus C&C off then I suppose the pricing could be rewritten for C&C off battles. C&C on effects the way units move, how they recover from fatigue and how often they fire, what they can fire at. Blah blah blah. Nothing important enough to consider.
Saying there is no differance between C&C battle off or on is silly.
You decide to buy forces from a country that has strong C&C attributes and fight a country with weak C&C attribute. Then you turn C&C off and complain about unbalanced results?????

Before you all agree this has no effect how about some of you playing a few small battles with C&C on and posting results?

[john g]

Originally posted by Voriax
As the bazookas seem to crop up in here...can *anyone* give me a reference that says there was HE ammo for bazookas during WW2???

I've seen a picture of one test round that had 2 handgrenades as payload, but afaik that never came to use.

I've been thinking about removing HE ammo from all units that have bazookas...

Voriax

I think in the past that the he capability of bazookas was given because of the WP round it could fire, in addition to the explosive effect the heat warhead had on surrounding troops. It had the reputation of not focusing as much of the force forward as the more efficient panzerfaust and panzershrek.

I can recall reading more than once how bazookas were used vs infantry.
thanks, John.

[Voriax]

Ok, did the WP round exist during WW2? Intro date and availability?

In the thread 'What US tanker..' I started is a link to a certain site. In this site a engineer officer mentions that in tests a round from US Bazooka generally did not explode when it hit the ground. That's not really effective against infantry.

I'm sure both bazookas and panzerschrecks were regularly used against infantry, but with what rounds...

Voriax

[Panzer Leo]

Originally posted by Goblin
1.) TREES? VISIBILITY? WEATHER? You show me how to get 2000m sight range every time, and I will. Sucked because they got within 500m? I won't respond to that.

Uhhh...didn't know Goblins are that thin-skinned...

No more grumbling posts in the morning before first coffee, I promise :rolleyes:

May I suggest you take a designed map of vast Russian steppes like severals are flying around and chanllenge someone to battle your '44 Germans on that...it feels great to command a Nashorn in it's true field of action...
For generated battles, I ofcourse understand your problems...

2.) A mortar round lands and explodes next to the tank. A bazooka round, if it misses, zips past the tank. The crew may not even realize it was fired at them. My complaint is not the suppression, but how much suppression small arms cause. "Buttoned Up" and suppression are two different things in the game.

True for short distance, but at 500m that thing comes in at a pretty good arc...should land at least somewhere in the same hex (50*50m)

3.) 500m is realistic for bazooka shots on tanks!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Not the shot at a tank, but a hit is pretty unrealistic...

4.) For a bunch of people not trying to insult someone, you have all done a pretty **** fine job. I won't even come back to this thread again.

...so you probably don't even read this one and all the typing was for nothing...


Hihi, o.k. serious now...I think my raising of the morale will slightly reduce the suppression for tankers done by small arms and Bazooka rounds, but not much...there's nothing I can do about it, it's the **** old thing with the coding...

The thing with the ranges...none of the weapons has it's maximum reachable range, it's all max effective (or supposed to be)...PIATs traveled 700m, Bazookas and Panzerschrecks even up to 1000m...the RW Pueppchen used the same 88mm rocket as did the PzSchreck and being a more stable mount reached considerable far ranges for anti-personel or area fire...

I will do further tests with these weapons and see how they behave in the game...

The other question about the HE ammo...for PIATs there was a special HE round, but I don't know how often it was used...for the Bazooka I don't know (some White Phosphor and so...) and for the PanzerSchreck I can say there was no special HE round...
BUT...a HEAT round is a HE round with lesser splinter effect...the blast is strong enough to be valuable against soft targets and the cap and body of the rocket produce some fragments to go around...in the game you will see them take out one enemy the most per shot...that's realistic and should stay that way...the Germans made extensive use of all AT-rockets (especially PzFausts) against personell (as did the Russians with captured ones)...there were much more PzFausts fired at troops then at tanks...

But keep up complaining, Goblin...that I give you some contra here does not mean I think you're wrong...I just need to squeeze out some arguments here to make me feel better when changing things...

[rbrunsman]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, OK I'll stop suggesting people use C&C. But then you will all have too stop saying the points are unbalanced.
I have always had a difficult time explaining things on the internet.
C&C what does it mean? Why would players use or not use it?
How does it impact the cost of units?

If units cost more because they are more effective with C&C on versus C&C off then I suppose the pricing could be rewritten for C&C off battles. C&C on effects the way units move, how they recover from fatigue and how often they fire, what they can fire at. Blah blah blah. Nothing important enough to consider.
Saying there is no differance between C&C battle off or on is silly.
You decide to buy forces from a country that has strong C&C attributes and fight a country with weak C&C attribute. Then you turn C&C off and complain about unbalanced results?????

Before you all agree this has no effect how about some of you playing a few small battles with C&C on and posting results?

Nobody is suggesting there isn't a difference with C&C on or off. Of course, there is a huge difference. Where are you seeing that assertion? The point is that more people play with C&C off, so it makes sense to make the battles easier for us (the majority) to play than you "C&C on" guys (the minority). SPWAW is a game with C&C off and more of a simulation with C&C on. More people want a game than want a simulation, so cater to the gamers. That's my point. H2H is not a very good game as it stands, whereas it may be a great simulation.

And another thing while I'm bitching again:
Bazookas shooting at max range with effect should be stopped. Hitting a house is nothing like hitting a vehicle (even a big vehicle) at 1000 yards.

[mogami]

Hi, I have no problem with games. Only I think if a system is designed to be a simulation then when it does not work as a game rather then say it is broke the players should alter their style.
To be a good game and remove all claims of unbalance all you need do is have both sides use the same source.
Since you don't care about historical realism who cares if Germans fight Germans? There can be no doubt about fairness. Both sides have the exact same pool to draw on.

For persons who would rather fight WW2 battles then I suggest the C&C rules are very important in reproducing realisim. The points are based on how units react using the C&C rules.

[Lars]

Originally posted by rbrunsman
The point is that more people play with C&C off, so it makes sense to make the battles easier for us (the majority) to play than you "C&C on" guys (the minority).

I must say that I really respect all of you players, that often fills this interesting forum with your chat. But you really have to play a lot of people to know that C&C off is the majorities choice, (I remember back when the game only had been downloaded about 20'000 times ).
In all off my challenges with other players, which should be about 15, only one preferred C&C off. That OTOH doesn't say that C&C ON is the majority's choice...

/Lars