Two most numerous WWII AT guns missing?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Great game… but in my own very eccentric way I always start learning a game by building scenarios. I have discovered that the two most numerous AT guns of WWII are missing from a database. I think they are anyway[;)]. I am talking about the Soviet 45mmModel’42 AT gun and the Soviet 76.2mmModel’42 divisional gun.

I should start by pointing out that in Soviet use all frontline artillery pieces were used as what the Germans would have called “dual-purpose guns”, the British “field guns”. I think of them as “static tank guns”. What all this means is that they their first priority was enemy AFVs, but if only infantry targets were available then they engaged as direct fire artillery. In the field one load of ammunition was 50 rounds, 30 of which would normally be HE. Neither was used in the German/Western Allies model of AT as “anti-armour sniper”, most often equipped only with AT rounds. Seventy to eighty thousand of both were produced in WWII, in either case more than all other players’ world production of AT guns put together[:)].

Anyway… enough of my ranting…[;)]

In TOAW terms the 45mm Model’42 should have an anti armour figure of 6, the 76.2mm Model’42 an anti-armour figure of 8. Remember the both guns had tungsten rounds from ’43 onwards plus improved hardened steel AP rounds as the war moved on.

Hoping they may make it into a patch sometime.

All the best,
Kip.
PS. I the case of the 76.2mm Model’42 gun there does not seem to a decent generic unit that can be used as a substitute.

[JAMiAM]

There are 45mm AT guns, and 76mm AT guns that are both dual-use type guns. You may not agree with the particular values they have in the database, but as I mention to all scenario designers, design for effect. If a strict TO&E doesn't play out quite the way you had in mind, make adjustments based on the equipment available in the database, and notate it in your scenario briefing. For example, if you think that the 45mm AT gun is too weak, for mid-war, or late-war use, then try out the 47mm AT gun. Think the 76mm is too strong for early war use, then use a 57mm/6lbr.

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

There are 45mm AT guns, and 76mm AT guns that are both dual-use type guns. You may not agree with the particular values they have in the database, but as I mention to all scenario designers, design for effect. If a strict TO&E doesn't play out quite the way you had in mind, make adjustments based on the equipment available in the database, and notate it in your scenario briefing. For example, if you think that the 45mm AT gun is too weak, for mid-war, or late-war use, then try out the 47mm AT gun. Think the 76mm is too strong for early war use, then use a 57mm/6lbr.

I have seen that done, and admittedly have done so myself on scenarios. However, this sometimes leads into endless debates with grognards over not using specific unit data... go figure.

[kipanderson]

[font="times new roman"]JAMiAM,[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Thanks for getting back to me… I only posted out of “completeness”… I realise that the system is so flexible that one can “fix the result” to almost any degree. I already had my eye on the generic 47mm AT gun as a substitute for the 45mm Model’42[;)]. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]No problem… your priority must have been to develop a cleaned up/improved version of the classic and you have none that outstandingly. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]One day you may wish to clean up the weapons database as quite a few are off target… but no matter. I agree it does not affect the final outcome of a carefully designed scenario.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]All good fun[:)],[/font]
[font="times new roman"]All the best,[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Kip. [/font]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: kipanderson
[font="times new roman"]No problem… your priority must have been to develop a cleaned up/improved version of the classic and you have none that outstandingly. [/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]One day you may wish to clean up the weapons database as quite a few are off target… but no matter. I agree it does not affect the final outcome of a carefully designed scenario.[/font]

Exactly, and thank you. There has been a lot of experimentation with alternate databases, and executables over the past few years, and some members of the community have done a superb job of fleshing out databases for specific time periods, e.g., 19th Century, WWII, and Modern. Some of this work may eventually find its way into TOAW products, and there is talk of supporting some form of an editable database, as long as it doesn't break PBEM security. However, that is still down the road a bit, as we want to do some renovation to the engine first, before we start retooling the databases.

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: geozero

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

There are 45mm AT guns, and 76mm AT guns that are both dual-use type guns. You may not agree with the particular values they have in the database, but as I mention to all scenario designers, design for effect. If a strict TO&E doesn't play out quite the way you had in mind, make adjustments based on the equipment available in the database, and notate it in your scenario briefing. For example, if you think that the 45mm AT gun is too weak, for mid-war, or late-war use, then try out the 47mm AT gun. Think the 76mm is too strong for early war use, then use a 57mm/6lbr.

I have seen that done, and admittedly have done so myself on scenarios. However, this sometimes leads into endless debates with grognards over not using specific unit data... go figure.

You do know that you can change the name of the equipment in each scenario, even if you can't change the statistics, right?

See the thread in the scenario design section entitled...

How to edit the TOAW font and date format and scenario strings, etc

[Chuck2]

Hi Ralph,

I tried this today but values seem to be missing. Go to 155 and 156 under the "Strings Table". It jumps from the "AUF-1 GCT" to "PzH 2000". Maybe the dll is out of order from what's in the database. Anyway to search or get a printout of what's inside of the dll?

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

Hi Ralph,

I tried this today but values seem to be missing. Go to 155 and 156 under the "Strings Table". It jumps from the "AUF-1 GCT" to "PzH 2000". Maybe the dll is out of order from what's in the database. Anyway to search or get a printout of what's inside of the dll?

Chuck,
Here's a copy of the string table. I'm working on releasing an SDK for the language DLLs when I can get the time.

Ralph

[Chuck2]

Thanks, that looks like it will work. Please don't tell anyone else about this.

[:D]

[ralphtricky]

Chuck,
You do realize they'll have to install something on their machine if you want to rename all their tanks to infrantry, right?

[Chuck2]

Darn it.

[kipanderson]

[font="times new roman"]Ralphtrick,[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]“You do know that you can change the name of the equipment in each scenario, even if you can't change the statistics, right?”[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]No… it never crossed my mind that such a thing would be possible.. that certainly does the job, thanks for taking the time to let me know[:)]. I will check it out.[/font]
[font="times new roman"] [/font]
[font="times new roman"]Thanks,[/font]
[font="times new roman"]All the best,[/font]
[font="times new roman"]Kip.[/font]