Will Weapons Values Be Reviewed?

[Akmatov]

Reading the thread started by Uncle Joe regarding bombardment spurred my curiousity. I fired up Bioedit and went into TOAW-COW v1.04 and looked at some of the AT values.

WOW! are they wierd. For example:

89 - AH-64 Apache, OK, this is the best value in the game and sets a standard.
80 - Truck HOT SPATGM, This seems very high, if true why buy expensive helos.

07 - A-10 Thunderbolt II, this was the basis for Uncle Joe's thread. Now lets compare it.
76 - Bradley M2 & M3, THAT much more efficient at AT?
07 - T-34/76, you have to be kidding!
08 - Mk VIII Liberty Tank(1919) - this is INSANE

Without going any farther, when I see that in terms of AT strength a tank from 1919 is rated as doing more damage than an A-10 it is clear that something is seriously hosed.

Based on just a bit of light reseach this morning and thinking about how errors can creep into evaluations, I'm wondering if the AT values for modern aircraft might represent an error in decimal placement, i.e. the A-10 should be 70 vic 7. This might be a better fit with reality.

Obviously I'm still putzing about in TOAW-COW, not TOAW III. PLEASE tell me that a unit editor, similar or better than Bioed, will be released soon. It would also be nice to hear that Weapons Values were being reviewed - think of all the goofs that have been found in SPWAW over the years. (BTB from reading the Uncle Joe thread I gather that the values for the AH-64 and the A-10 are still the same values as in COW.)

I would REALLY like to buy TOAW III soon, but at this point it would be silly to buy it knowing that, at least some, values are really hosed and that, lacking an editor, I can't adjust them myself.

[Panzer War]

I think you are jumping to conclusions here. For one thing you can’t go down the list and compare the equipments ability that simply. As I recall there are things in the engine that differentiate them. An Example would be the aircraft as I recall when they attack armored vehicles it reduces the armor value by half or 2/3rds it value. Also the heat value works differently from the normal AT rateing.
I do agree the Equipment database could use an overhaul and designers need to be able to manipulate the values. Take it from me that it is not easy to balance equipment from WWI to the modern era.

[Chuck2]

No. The AT value for modern aircraft should not be compared to AT values for land equipment. There are treated a lot differently by the game engine.

Most of this is in either the PDF or in-game manual. First, there are two main parts of the equation when attempting to destroy armor:

1. Chance to hit armor
2. Chance to defeat armor

The chance to hit is modified by terrain and weapon type. Later models of AT weapons have much better targetting and are usually close to 100%. WW2-era weapons are much more variable and can vary from 50% to 10% chance to hit depending on terrain.

The chance to defeat is modified by the actual AT value vs the armor value. However, in the case of aircraft, the armor of the defending vehicles are divided by 3 while the AT value of the aircraft is modified by the precision-guided weapons modifier.

[Akmatov]

Panzer War 
As I recall there are things in the engine that differentiate them
Thanks, I'll go dig a bit deeper.  Was initially looking at the difference between an A-10(7) and an AH-64(89), which are wierd enough, and saw the other figures.
 
it is not easy to balance equipment from WWI to the modern era
No arguement there [:)]  However, a lot of WW2 equipment hung around for decades so there needs to be some sort of compatable system.
 
Chuck2
The AT value for modern aircraft should not be compared to AT values for land equipment. There are treated a lot differently by the game engine.
Fair enough.  As I mentioned above initally was comparing values for helos and fixed wing and stumbled across the wierd land values.
 
However, just the comparison between the A-10(7) and the Su-25 Frogfoot(4), two aircraft specifically designed as tank killers, and any helo is extreme. Assuming both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft are both treated the same as aircraft, something is misvalued.
 
There are several modern examples of fixed-wing aircraft engaging armoured forces alone or almost alone and defeating them.  With values 1/10  that of helos, I don't think that would be possible in TOAW. 
 
I fully realize the difficulties in computing values over such a wide span of time and weapons, but I think in terms of fixed-wing attack on armour, at least, something slipped.
 
Any ideas on the best way to correct this would be appreciated.  Someone must know the formulas origially used to determine these values, want to share?  Checking this should be a simple thing. 
 
 
 
 

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

However, just the comparison between the A-10(7) and the Su-25 Frogfoot(4), two aircraft specifically designed as tank killers, and any helo is extreme. Assuming both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft are both treated the same as aircraft, something is misvalued.

Well, you are correct that late-model helos in TOAW are more efficient than A-10s in most scenarios. However, note that the Helos use HEAT anti-armor munitions vs. kinetic for the fixed-wing aircraft. This is calculated differently and HEAT works out to be less effective against modern armor. This is just one example, but the M1A1 is 66% more effective against HEAT than kinetic anti-armor weapons.

There are several modern examples of fixed-wing aircraft engaging armoured forces alone or almost alone and defeating them. With values 1/10 that of helos, I don't think that would be possible in TOAW.

I don't think the value is 1/10. It works out to something less than that. Note that helos aren't tagged with the PGW modifier. In theory, the A-10 can be stronger against armor than the helo if some very high number is used. It's up to the designer to work with these tools to make a better scenario.

[PDiFolco]

I agree with Akmatov, the database is full of errors/glitches/whatever. Myself I had a look at the tank values for the Desert War and found out that Panzer IIIs were underpowered when compared to the various Brits tanks of the era...
The aircraft problem has to be addressed also, A-10 are really overly powerful tank-killers but the game is incapable of rating independently a gun and an assortment of missiles : so we have A-10s armed with just guns and Apaches with just TOWs, that's not good (or require a 1000% PGM modifier to put them on par, that will then give unlimited AT missiles to any aircraft...).

Rather than any review I hope the database can get externalised and modded, so the community will converge on something.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

08 - Mk VIII Liberty Tank(1919) - this is INSANE

Someone looked at the tank, saw a 6-pounder gun and thought, ah, I know the figure for a 6-pounder. Obviously, not actually appropriate in reality. I doubt the guns on this tank could knock out another tank, as that is not what they were designed for.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Myself I had a look at the tank values for the Desert War and found out that Panzer IIIs were underpowered when compared to the various Brits tanks of the era...

German tanks in this period were not actually very impressive in terms of guns or armour. The difference lie in speed, reliability, practicality and the experience of the crews. Some of this can be modelled in TOAW, some of it can't.

[Akmatov]

Rats! Rather than actually playing, I just spent the morning putzing around on this.

OK, using the values in TOAW-COW found in the Equipment List.doc found in the folder Documents of the installed game and the formulas given in the same game manual (pages 123-124), here are some calculated values:

Attacker vs Defender - % Chance to Kill
A-10 vs T-64(Imp) - 26%
AH-1 Cobra vs " - 441%
AH-1 Cobra(Imp) vs " - 1142%

So just the un-improved Cobra is 44 times as effective as a tank killer than the A-10.

And btb, I did divide the armour values to account for air attack and I did notice the diff between kinetic values and HEAT values, both in defense and in attack.

Intuitively I would describe this as ludicrous. As I understand it from casually following defence events, the only reasons the A-10 hasn't already been retired (it was on the list for the scrapheap in 1990) was its excellent performance in Gulf War I and the Army's ardent desire for it to be retained. I believe that currently the newest upgrade (Hog II?) is slated to fly until at least 2020. None of this would be the case if it wasn't believed to be a superior tank killer.

The only hard source I can come up with at the moment is the capabilities analysis presented in James F. Dunnigan's How to Make War, 1995, pp 186-187; which lists the Attack values thusly:

A-10 - 29
Cobra - 7
Apache - 14

I realize there is a bit of fuzziness in this comparison, but given that the only things A-10s are designed to attack are tanks and vehicles; I think the evaluation of one A-10 as being worth approximately two Apaches is relivant. Especially when TOAW suggest an Apache is worth 44 A-10s. At that valuation, the Army could replace the entire A-10 inventory with 14 Apaches.

I did just a bit of tank vs tank comparison and the results seemed very reasonable and believable.

And yes, I know there is a precision munitions value that one can manipulate. However, in my view this should be reserved for what seems its apparent purpose; to enable the scenario designer to modify 'off the shelf' aircraft to reflect the presence of precision munitions in a particular situation. Not to try to fix a busted initial unit value.

My only points are:
1) The comparison of values for AT missions by fixed-wing vs helos are wildly unlikely.
2) It would be really nice if there were to be a review of the values in TOAW III. SPWAW has benefited enormously from such reviews.
3) It is basically essential that there be a unit editior published . Otherwise the buyer of TOAW III is knowingly buying into unit values which are clearly wildly unrealistic with no way to fix it.
4) I would be very interested in the ideas of others on more realistic values for this area.

BTB, just for laughs I calculated the chance of the Liberty tank killing a T-64 and the value came out to 2%. In real terms I suspect this is the chance of the round happening to enter the tank through the open drivers hatch and just managed to explode next to some ready rounds; then it might be a problem. And even then I don't think the value of 8 for the Liberty tank is right. [:)]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

Rats! Rather than actually playing, I just spent the morning putzing around on this.

OK, using the values in TOAW-COW found in the Equipment List.doc found in the folder Documents of the installed game and the formulas given in the same game manual (pages 123-124), here are some calculated values:

Attacker vs Defender - % Chance to Kill
A-10 vs T-64(Imp) - 26%
AH-1 Cobra vs " - 441%
AH-1 Cobra(Imp) vs " - 1142%

So just the un-improved Cobra is 44 times as effective as a tank killer than the A-10.

And btb, I did divide the armour values to account for air attack and I did notice the diff between kinetic values and HEAT values, both in defense and in attack.

Intuitively I would describe this as ludicrous.

And mathematically, the above statement about the Cobra and A-10 is ludicrous...[;)]

Especially since you cannot get a chance to kill % of greater than 100%. Therefore, the numbers for the Cobras are incorrect, and even if the A-10 numbers are correctly figured, then at best, the Cobras can only be approximately 4 times as effective.[:D]

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

Rats! Rather than actually playing, I just spent the morning putzing around on this.

OK, using the values in TOAW-COW found in the Equipment List.doc found in the folder Documents of the installed game and the formulas given in the same game manual (pages 123-124), here are some calculated values:

Attacker vs Defender - % Chance to Kill
A-10 vs T-64(Imp) - 26%
AH-1 Cobra vs " - 441%
AH-1 Cobra(Imp) vs " - 1142%


So just the un-improved Cobra is 44 times as effective as a tank killer than the A-10.

And btb, I did divide the armour values to account for air attack and I did notice the diff between kinetic values and HEAT values, both in defense and in attack.

A quick test shows these numbers to be wrong. Even with an unmodified PGW modifier, the losses of T-64(Improved) look like this:

Cobra

17%
100%
48%
21%
16%

Cobra (Improved)

63%
36%
34%
25%
100%

A-10

13%
4%
17%
4%
16%


It looks to be around a 4-1 ratio for the Cobra to A-10 and 5-1 ratio for the Cobra(Improved) to A-10. Whether these are justified, I don't know.

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

Rats! Rather than actually playing, I just spent the morning putzing around on this.

OK, using the values in TOAW-COW found in the Equipment List.doc found in the folder Documents of the installed game and the formulas given in the same game manual (pages 123-124), here are some calculated values:

Attacker vs Defender - % Chance to Kill
A-10 vs T-64(Imp) - 26%
AH-1 Cobra vs " - 441%
AH-1 Cobra(Imp) vs " - 1142%

So just the un-improved Cobra is 44 times as effective as a tank killer than the A-10.

And btb, I did divide the armour values to account for air attack and I did notice the diff between kinetic values and HEAT values, both in defense and in attack.

Intuitively I would describe this as ludicrous.

And mathematically, the above statement about the Cobra and A-10 is ludicrous...[;)]

Especially since you cannot get a chance to kill % of greater than 100%. Therefore, the numbers for the Cobras are incorrect, and even if the A-10 numbers are correctly figured, then at best, the Cobras can only be approximately 4 times as effective.[:D]

Well, it's also true that the chance to hit can't be more than 100%. These issues have to be accounted for when calculating the equations.

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Myself I had a look at the tank values for the Desert War and found out that Panzer IIIs were underpowered when compared to the various Brits tanks of the era...

German tanks in this period were not actually very impressive in terms of guns or armour. The difference lie in speed, reliability, practicality and the experience of the crews. Some of this can be modelled in TOAW, some of it can't.

I have to agree. The early panzers weren't anything to write home about. People have this image in their mind of giant 50-ton steel tanks rumbling across Poland, France, Russia, and North Africa. Not really the case.

[Chuck2]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

08 - Mk VIII Liberty Tank(1919) - this is INSANE

Someone looked at the tank, saw a 6-pounder gun and thought, ah, I know the figure for a 6-pounder. Obviously, not actually appropriate in reality. I doubt the guns on this tank could knock out another tank, as that is not what they were designed for.

Yeah, that looks to be a mistake. I think all of the other WW1 tanks are rated with an AT of 3 or under. 8 is way too high.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

I have to agree. The early panzers weren't anything to write home about. People have this image in their mind of giant 50-ton steel tanks rumbling across Poland, France, Russia, and North Africa. Not really the case.

The thing is, the German tanks were good for the role they had in the Wehrmacht: they were fast, reliable, manoeuvreable and the crews could actually fight in them comfortably. They may not have been ideal for tank-to-tank engagements but that simply wasn't their role; tanks were to be dealt with by anti-tank guns.

In TOAW, I'm inclined to give German tanks a recon capability to reflect the German armour doctrine. But the stats are otherwise fine.

[Szilard]

My favorite database oddity is the Fairey Battle: it's classed as a "fighter bomber".

[larryfulkerson]

Here's my favorite oddity in the equipment database.  According to the database the F-100 can fly further than the F-105.  I happen to have personal knowledge that the F-105 can fly further than 330 Km. 
 

[vahauser]

I stopped playing TOAW:COW years ago and tossed the CD into the trash. Why? Because the numbers were busted and there was no editor that I could use to fix them.

Everything I've just read indicates that the numbers are still busted and there is still no editor to fix them.

The game system is excellent. The graphics are fine.

If I had an editor to fix the busted numbers, then I would be willing to pay $40 to play the game again.

But unless an editor is made available to the players, then I will avoid the stress and frustration and heartburn that I experienced years ago with this otherwise fine game and I won't be buying it.

Sorry Matrix. I love you guys, but my health is more important.

Get me an editor and you get my $40.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: Chuck2

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

Myself I had a look at the tank values for the Desert War and found out that Panzer IIIs were underpowered when compared to the various Brits tanks of the era...

German tanks in this period were not actually very impressive in terms of guns or armour. The difference lie in speed, reliability, practicality and the experience of the crews. Some of this can be modelled in TOAW, some of it can't.

I have to agree. The early panzers weren't anything to write home about. People have this image in their mind of giant 50-ton steel tanks rumbling across Poland, France, Russia, and North Africa. Not really the case.

Sorry, you got me wrong, I don't idealize Uberpanzers.
I can give detailed figures of Panzer armor an 50MM/L42 or L60 gun penetration, the same for Valentines and Crusaders.
I don't talk about the Matilda II, which is nervertheless overarmored in the game.
It just end up to the fact that the TOAW PzIII lack 1 AT attack factor to match Brit tanks armor, so only have a 64% "kill" chance where the tiny 2-pdr is rated equal or more than PzIII armor with a 100% kill. That's just wrong...

[a white rabbit]

..BioEd...

..THE answer to 100% of all known weapons value problems..

..Sleepless nights, losing weight with worry ? because of that tank...

..then use BioEd, 100% guaranteed eco-friendly, simple to use,...

..simply take one hard-drive, one copy of toaw-acow and add instant

BioEd

..recommended by white rabbits and apples everywhere.....