A Quick View on testing the 8.2 OOBs

[KG Erwin]

As part of the ongoing testing of the OOB changes, I started yet another USMC Long Campaign, featuring my "Fighting Fifth" Marines, beginning in August 1942.
First off, I must say that one of the biggest improvements in 8.2 is in the AI force selection. I was facing a well-balanced Japanese force, a mix of Type A and A* platoons, a few engineers, scouts, snipers and of course the supporting MGs and mortars.
I started with a defend mission on the Tenaru, with a 2000-yard (40 hex) line to hold in a monsoon. Visibility was only one or two hexes. My reinforced battalion was hit hard by the opening bombardment of 81 & 90 mm mortars, and within two or three turns was assaulted in force across the northern half of my front. The two Raider platoons on my right flank were hit hardest, with repeated banzai charges against the 1st & 2nd Raiders. Using the banzai charge sound for Jap bayonet attacks is a distinctly chilling effect. I had three M2A4 tanks supporting the Raiders, along with a single 60mm mortar. My men were dug-in, but outnumbered by more than 2-1. The tanks were soon in the front, and the mortar soon exhausted its ammo against the human wave attacks.
The Marine company to the Raiders' left was also hit in mass. My standard platoon deployment on a narrow defensive frontage has the three rifle squads in front, with the BAR squad stacked with the Platoon HQ and one of the company's 60mm mortars one hex back. Having the 60s so close to the line is a must. They will suffer suppression from counterbattery fire, but will do significant killing at 2-6 hex range. My Weapons Company 81mm mortars are stationed behind two of the Rifle Company HQs, along with a platoon of M2A4s for each of my three Infantry Companies.
Japanese tank-hunter units, equipped with satchel charges, are at the forefront of the assault. They are easily killed, but will do damage if they're not taken down quickly. The attackers tend to close in and target my MG crews. I have a .30 cal HMG or MMG stacked with each forward rifle squad, and they suffer the most.
The human waves keep coming forward, sometimes forcing my Marines to fall back & regroup. Every turn my troops get hit by 81 and 90mm mortars. Casualties are fortunately few, but the suppression level mounts, and some men break for the rear. I bring forward my engineers, which had been kept in reserve, to close the gaps. Rifle Platoon HQs are forced into the frontline, too, as the rifle squads are repeatedly fired on at point-blank range and close-assaulted. My engineers throw satchel charges and use flamethrowers to contain the onslaught.
One of my squads is forced back, and an M2A4 is left uncovered. Japanese infantry swarm over it, and the crew has to bail out. Two of them are killed, but the other two haul ass and make it back... the carnage doesn't let up. My Marines sweat, curse and shed blood, but keep firing in the enemy's faces and throw grenades at the banzai-screaming attackers...we cut them down, but they still keep coming at us...

Nineteen turns later, the enemy has had enough. I get a marginal victory, even though I've lost ony 166 men and one tank. The Japanese lose 1079 men.
My troops have been blooded, and the first battle is complete.
I've played many campaigns in previous versions of the game, but this one seems different. Granted, it's still the same old AI, but there's more of a challenge now.
I hope you guys will enjoy the fruits of our labor--I'm having a great time with it.

[RayM]

Thanks for the info.

Ray

[o4r]

Why cant we have the trial version of the 8.2

[BulletMagnet]

Unforunately your testing the infantry aspect of the new OOb's.The game is based on tank battles and that should be the priority.Remember it is called "Steel Panthers" not great infantry battles of ww2.All of the main complaints about the oob's have been about gun size,accuracy,armor and such.So guess i feel testing infantry is a waste of time.

[Fallschirmjager]

Im not tryint to start something here but....

USMC OOB's are fine

Why arnt you testing the OOB's that have been disscussed?

[KG Erwin]

Believe me, the others are being worked over, too. This one just happened to be the one I personally worked on the most [;)].

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

Im not tryint to start something here but....

USMC OOB's are fine

Why arnt you testing the OOB's that have been disscussed?

[Les_the_Sarge_9_1]

It's called Steel Panthers admittedly, but it's like me whining that tanks get included in Squad Leader.

You really can't fight WW2 tactical battles without tanks, and you can't fight WW2 tactical battles without infantry.

To claim Steel Panthers is better if it is saturated in armour heavy actions, is just not worth anything as a comment.
Therefore, implying the game should be armour focused merely on the basis of its name is perhaps unimaginative.

I like playing Squad Leader when it has a bit of a focus on the squads and not including skads of armour, but that is mainly as running armour in the board game is physically very demanding. Inside of a computer program though, it is not work at all.

To me, Steel Panthers is about the whole picture. Armour as well as non armour.
Some of the best games I have played had almost no armour.
I liked the MC-SE battles almost for that reason.

[Twotribes]

The point was that the infantry wasnt being changed from previous OOB, but that armor and guns were. For example...... the T-34 in 43 suddenly is as good or better than the German tanks with fire control and rate of fire. Even though several knowledgable people have said it simply wasnt so.

[BulletMagnet]

"To claim Steel Panthers is better if it is saturated in armour heavy actions, is just not worth anything as a comment.
Therefore, implying the game should be armour focused merely on the basis of its name is perhaps unimaginative"

Les i never said or implied either of your rude statements.If you had read the entire post you woulld have seen that i was refering to 1) the main focus of the oob's and 2)playtesting them.
Now maybe i took the tone wrong but we all know the game is about ww2,whats truly unimaginative is your constant referal to squad leader in all of your posts.Steel panthers is a computer game,granted a great one but much different from playing a board game.Apples and oranges.

Regardless i hope the armor problems that exist get worked out in the latest oob's and i hope the game stays as completly historical as possible.Anything less would be sort of a disservice to the people who fought in the last great war.

[Igor]

In the 8.2 OOBs, will the AI choose more realistic Soviet armor and offboard guns in generated campaigns? Vast hordes of T-27s, no T-26s, no 82mm mortars, and only 76.2mm howitzers make 1941 battles somewhat more easy than they should be for the Axis.

[KG Erwin]

Igor, I just set up a meeting engagement in Sept 41, giving the Russians 1600 points. With true troop cost/rarity set "on", the USSR picked 5 rifle platoons, three GAZ 4 AA, a 76.2 bty, three 50mm mortars, and a tank group with a mix of BT-7s, T-27s, T-28s & T-60s. With rarity set "off", you get a few T-34s thrown into the mix. While the choice isn't ideal, it does give you a balanced mix between tanks & infantry to play against, and not the "Mongol horde" of tanks I've seen in the past.

ORIGINAL: Igor

In the 8.2 OOBs, will the AI choose more realistic Soviet armor and offboard guns in generated campaigns? Vast hordes of T-27s, no T-26s, no 82mm mortars, and only 76.2mm howitzers make 1941 battles somewhat more easy than they should be for the Axis.

[KG Erwin]

BulletMagnet, the accent in Steel Panthers is on WWII combined arms combat, so all elements of the database, armor, infantry, aircraft, naval units, artillery, engineers etc. are being checked out. Historical formations are also being evaluated, the minor countries as well as the major players. I completely agree with your last sentence, so this is why every element deserves equal attention.

ORIGINAL: BulletMagnet

Regardless i hope the armor problems that exist get worked out in the latest oob's and i hope the game stays as completly historical as possible.Anything less would be sort of a disservice to the people who fought in the last great war.

[KG Erwin]

Tomo, thanks for your post. Don't worry about the climate here, though. This forum is populated by some of the most knowledgeable gamers and historians I've ever had the privilege of being associated with. As such, we all have strong opinions on what was & what could've been in the conflicts we study, and this is part of the reason we play these games. I hold strong opinions on these subjects, as well as many others.
However, my responsibility as a moderator requires me to keep my opinions to a minimum, and just make sure things run smoothly.
Yes, I'm a member of the OOB Team, and was a writer involved with MCSE, but I'm not really allowed to be "one of the guys" and say whatever I please and d**n the consequences.
It ain't easy, but I'm trying my best.

[Tombstone]

I'm mad confused. Did I post something to this thread and it disappeared? Or are you responding to something else I posted in another thread? Its all good, I only know that the past was super, that is not to say things aren't good now. You're doing a good job of trying to hold together a situation where people's passions are high, that's delicate sh t.

Tomo

[BulletMagnet]

Hey KG the accent wants to be on combined arms,but lets face it combined arms in ww2 is artillery,infantry,armor,air power.Under all sp builds the last one is sorely lacking due to engine constraints.

[harlekwin]

ORIGINAL: BulletMagnet

Hey KG the accent wants to be on combined arms,but lets face it combined arms in ww2 is artillery,infantry,armor,air power.Under all sp builds the last one is sorely lacking due to engine constraints.

heh.....

you should have seen the forum when they denuded the US OOB of its airpower advantages.....

heh.....

makes this seem like a tea party.

The engine is flawed, but I would rather not have the basis of modeling devolve into a never ending cycle of SWAG alterations to eqpt. that has the OOBs chasing their tails like a dog.....

[Tombstone]

This is only a problem because we're trying to sqeeze this system white... eventually something better WILL come around and some things will better, and new things will become the problem. Oh, by the way, I am in no way advocating any reduction in system squeezing, I like kicking the dead horse... especially when it is my favorite horse.

Tomo

[KG Erwin]

Sorry, Tomo. I was actually responding to your post in the "What the Heck..." thread.
We seem to have several threads going in parallel paths. I'd attempt to move some posts around to reduce confusion & repetition, but I'm gonna leave things as they are.

I've been around long enough to know that each time an OOB update is imminent, everyone's favorite pet peeves with the database come to the forefront. Now that I'm seeing things "from the inside", so to speak, I'm more fully cognizant of the issues and the ones that can be addressed.

ORIGINAL: Tombstone

I'm mad confused. Did I post something to this thread and it disappeared? Or are you responding to something else I posted in another thread? Its all good, I only know that the past was super, that is not to say things aren't good now. You're doing a good job of trying to hold together a situation where people's passions are high, that's delicate sh t.

Tomo

[Tombstone]

I didn't mean mad as in angry, just wanted to make sure it wasn't misconstrued. lol.

Tomo

[BulletMagnet]

The biggest problem i have is with tanks moving and firing and actually hitting.Last time i checked there was no stabilized platforms until the 50s if you could call them that.So my tigers moving there full alotment should not be blasting tanks apart.Now that i would like seen fixed.In my world if you move your not hitting anything.