Matrix Games Forums

I know you guys are still working on the equipment editor but I have a few questions.

Will there be an upper limit to the total number of equipment items allowed in the data base?

Some bits of kit I would like to see
Pather II
MBT 70
T-95 / Black eagal
T-84 Oplot
BTR-90
Stryker sereies
Oliphant MBT
Osirio
New russian ATGMs and SAMs
Euro Fighter
F-35
New PRC fighters and bombers

This will all be moot once we get the equipment editor.

And when do we get the equipment editor?

ORIGINAL: Ecthelion008

And when do we get the equipment editor?

Jean-Luc talked about late July, but it's a bit delayed.

http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forum ... post564786

I have a question about the equipment editor?

Who will control the values for the equipment? Take the Merkava Mark IV if you take 20 wargamers or tank experts you will get 20 different opinions on its capability. If I design a sceario using values I think are good and "General Patton" has designed equipment which has a different set of values it could unbalance an entire scenario.

For my part I'd like to see Martix keep control over this and set the standard for the equipment. This way a Merkava Mark IV is the same on my computer as General Patton's. See my point or am I off base?

Al

Al,

As a long time ladder player, I see your point with crystal clarity. However, there is a large segment of the TOAW III market that wants to tinker, and to play games that have been tinkered with. When we can ensure that the engine's verification between databases in PBEM games is bulletproof in that respect, and we have an editor presented to us that suits the needs of the community, without breaking the game, then we'll put our seal of approval on it, make it available for download, and keep it updated throughout the rest of our TOAW III development cycle.

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Al,

As a long time ladder player, I see your point with crystal clarity. However, there is a large segment of the TOAW III market that wants to tinker, and to play games that have been tinkered with. When we can ensure that the engine's verification between databases in PBEM games is bulletproof in that respect, and we have an editor presented to us that suits the needs of the community, without breaking the game, then we'll put our seal of approval on it, make it available for download, and keep it updated throughout the rest of our TOAW III development cycle.

I'm in the segment, for sure [:)].
I'm waiting for the WanderEd and the new possibilities opened by modification of equipment and creation the new exes. However, I see only one way to save full PBEM security - the modification of equipment should be included to a SCE file itself and to BPLs later. Just like present modified graphics and strings, but without possibility to modify when a game is started. I'm not a programmer, but I could imagine that there is a slot for new equipment data in SCE and BPL files. Default it's empty, so the program uses standard equipment data from exe file. If there is a modified value for an equipment, the program uses the new value (f.e. halftrack is passive defender or 76.5 gun has range = 9 instead of 11 km).

Is the WanderEd the same as Bio-Ed?

I'd like to see the ability to rotate the hexgrid by 90 degrees prior to creating a scenario map....

This is more about the stats on current equipment than any new equipment:

I've recently broken out the calculator an confirmed my suspicions about the bias of the stats for Anglo-American, especially American, equipment.  Here's an example:

Historically, the 75mm gun a M4 Sherman cannot penetrate the frontal armor of a Panther at any range.  But if we take the stats from the game and do the calculations, the Sherman has a 20.3% chance to kill a Panther per shot!  Conversely, the Panther's 75mm high velocity gun can kill a Sherman frontally at up to 2000 yards, basically, as far as the shell will accurately go.  In the game, a Panther has only a 53.6% chance to kill frontally per shot.

It gets even more ridiculous with the 76mm Sherman, which can only reliably kill a Panther with a side shot.  In the game it has a 40.6% chance to kill per shot.  Practically this means that a 76mm Sherman is guranteed to knock out at least 1 Panther every combat round (3 shots fired per round).

Does anyone else find the stats odd besides me?

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I'd like to see the ability to rotate the hexgrid by 90 degrees prior to creating a scenario map....

I really doubt that will ever happen in TOAW. If you want the hex grid to be at 90 degrees to it's current orientation, then map the left or right map edge north. Same effect.

ORIGINAL: Ecthelion008

This is more about the stats on current equipment than any new equipment:

I've recently broken out the calculator an confirmed my suspicions about the bias of the stats for Anglo-American, especially American, equipment.  Here's an example:

Historically, the 75mm gun a M4 Sherman cannot penetrate the frontal armor of a Panther at any range.  But if we take the stats from the game and do the calculations, the Sherman has a 20.3% chance to kill a Panther per shot!  Conversely, the Panther's 75mm high velocity gun can kill a Sherman frontally at up to 2000 yards, basically, as far as the shell will accurately go.  In the game, a Panther has only a 53.6% chance to kill frontally per shot.

I don't know where you get this figure. 13 AT strength versus 8 armour = 100% penetration. I think Panthers also have enhanced targetting, making them even more lethal.

It gets even more ridiculous with the 76mm Sherman, which can only reliably kill a Panther with a side shot.  In the game it has a 40.6% chance to kill per shot.  Practically this means that a 76mm Sherman is guranteed to knock out at least 1 Panther every combat round (3 shots fired per round).

No. You've ignored the to-hit calculation, which will be either 50%, 33% or 11% depending on the terrain. The Panther will have much more of an advantage in open terrain due to its enhanced targetting.

I realized as I was going to be last night I forgot to square my pq values [:'(]

This changes things but not as much as you might think:

The 75mm has a 12.497% chance to kill per hit considering a 33% chance to hit. (on a Panther)
The 76mm has a 49.988% chance to kill per hit considering a 33% chance to hit.

Panzer V do not have enhanced targetting.  Against the 8 armor of a M4/75mm Sherman, they have a 87.140% chance to kill per shot.

The raw stats are that the 76mm gun has an anti-armor value of 16(!) and the Panther's 75mm gun only a value of 13.

Another ridiculous example is the 90mm gun on the Jackson which has a AT value of 23 (BTW a T-54 only has a AT of 19), while the 88mm gun on a Tiger I only has 12.  The Tiger II with it's slightly upgraded 88mm still is limited at 19.

ORIGINAL: Ecthelion008

The 75mm has a 12.497% chance to kill per hit considering a 33% chance to hit. (on a Panther)
The 76mm has a 49.988% chance to kill per hit considering a 33% chance to hit.

I don't think the system is that simple. Note it says in the manual three is the maximum rate of fire. The average rate of fire will be less.

The raw stats are that the 76mm gun has an anti-armor value of 16(!) and the Panther's 75mm gun only a value of 13.

On another thread it was suggested that the M4/76 was intended to represent the tank in use in the Korean War.

Another ridiculous example is the 90mm gun on the Jackson which has a AT value of 23 (BTW a T-54 only has a AT of 19), while the 88mm gun on a Tiger I only has 12.

The 88mm gun on the Tiger I wasn't designed as an anti-tank gun. Hence the Tiger II has a higher AT rating.