SUPPORTING the v6.1 versus v7.0

gorgias96 · Post by **gorgias96** » Wed Dec 19, 2001 9:32 pm

Well i like and enjoy the SP:WaW a lot of time ago. But It´s obvius and mentally healthy not to be ALWAYS agreed with every change in the game as someones "official" flatterers (i don´t mean Matrix need or "pay" them in any way). The new v7 patch has good things and other ones very bad too. I admit that some "bugs" in the anterior version have been efficiently corrected (i. e. OOB for mortars in every army) but in the other hand the game is now clearly unbalanced in the OOB design.
I.e. the red army has been excessively weakened. I know only a bit about penetration/armor tables etc.. etc... and i don´t know if at present the new units statictics are better or worse than before but i´m sure in a point in wich concur every book about the WWII i have readed, the early medium soviets tanks overhelm clearly to their german competitors. Is this reflected in the new version??? I think NO.
We suppose that the new penetration/armor values are ABSOLUTELY correct, then there is another thing wrong. We would try to identify and upgrade them because i think that is fundamental to keep a balanced game.

For this i support enphatically the v6.1 versus the new v7. I think the first version is more balanced and accurate historically.

What do u think wargamer??

--------------------------------------------------

Para los ke hablan en cristiano. Bueno yo creo ke dejo clara mi linea de argumentacion jeje. Como no podemos discutir con ellos en lo referente a detalles muy tecnicos acerca de penetracion, blindaje y demas lo suyo es llevarlos a nuestro terreno, es decir al del rigor historico. Creo ke he dejado claro más o menos lo ke pienso, aunke con mi "macarronico" ingles no sé si ellos me entenderan. Así ke si vosotros los "bilingües" kereis repetir mis argumentos aunke mejor expuestos y explicados pues mejor ke mejor. Creo ke es fundamental para salirnos con la nuestra tener tb. un poco de mano izkierda. Es decir alternar una de cal y otra de arena. Por eso creo ke debemos dejar muyyyyyy claro y enfatizar mucho ke porke "amamos" desesperadamente al WaW jejeje es por lo ke lo criticamos con tanta pasion y no porke lo "odiemos". Así halagamos su vanidad ke por lo ke veo es mucha jejeje.
Por todo esto mi tactica se basa no tanto en machacar a la version 7 como en defender en su detrimento la 6.1 ke al fin de al cabo tb. es obra suya jejeje

Hala espero vuestra opinión al respecto porke hay ke enmendar este desaguisado y ponerlos al menos por una vez en su sitio....

lnp4668 · Post by **lnp4668** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 12:08 am

I have been doing a bit of testing, so if you could take a look at the result and then makes up your own mind.

Basic setup: 1 on one, at 10 hexes with country characteristic and training off. Each tank only takes the first shot from non moving position to neutralize the bonus from subsequent rounds as well as suppression from counter fire.

Test 1: Pz III J (s) vs T 34 m.41
25 shots by Pz III: 8 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 2 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T34: 2 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 11 Pz III destroyed.

Test 2: Pz III G vs T34 m 40
25 shots by Pz III: 9 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 1 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T34: 0 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 14 Pz III destroyed

Test 3: Pz 3H vs T 34 m40
25 shots by Pz III: 0 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 5 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T 34: 2 T 34 destroyed by counter shot, 7 Pz III destroyed.

Test 4: Pz 3H vs T34 m 41
25 shots by Pz III: 0 Pz III destroyed by counter shot, 8 T 34 destroyed
25 shots by T 34: 3 destroyed by counter shot, 5 Pz III destroyed.

Basically, I don't think that the T 34 is severely weaken. I just thinks that the added armor on the Pz III h is not accurately represented since they supposed to be weaker than a single plate of armor.

Mikimoto · Post by **Mikimoto** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 12:24 am

Hola Camarada.

I agree with Gorgias, as you can expect. Version 6.1 has some things that I dont like: I don't like mortars that doesn't work, or fragile infantry, but I can live with that... cause in most part it is accurate and balanced. And all this occurrences are against all countries.

V 7.0 is unbalanced and unfair.

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 1:44 am

lnp4668: Hmm, radically different results than we've otherwise heard. Note, your tests were still at the range for the radical PZIIIH advantage, that of range 10.

lnp4668 · Post by **lnp4668** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 2:23 am

Originally posted by Charles_22:
lnp4668: Hmm, radically different results than we've otherwise heard. Note, your tests were still at the range for the radical PZIIIH advantage, that of range 10.

I thinks the way I setup neutralize the AI's tendency to charge head on and fire at point blank range. This shows that even with APCR, the German are not much more effective against T34. However, the Soviet guns seems to have trouble against the thicker armor of the III h.

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 2:35 am

Originally posted by Mikimoto:

V 7.0 is unbalanced and unfair.

Let's look at the only thing we can turn to here to find a "correct" answer: The outcome of the early battles of WWII in Russia. If there ever was a "balanced and fair" situation, Germany would have been stopped much earlier instead of just about overthrowing the early Russian armies completely. Let's face it. War isn't fair.

Even because you sit in a better tank, it doesn't have to mean that you fight better than the enemy in a poor one. There are so many other issues as well to consider and weigh in the total balance. Gunnery skills, initiative, tactics, etc etc.

If (and only if, I doubt that looking at my personal experience of 7.0) these changes penalise the Soviet side, this is more than compensated by what the Soviets gain by letting skill mean much less than equipment when it comes to infantry. Despite the very low-quality Russian infantry, they will win the battle any day for the Soviets because number of barrels mean so much more than the skill of the men behind the barrels in SPWAW (Note: this has been the case in earlier versions as well. Nothing new to 7.0).

These are the same undisciplined, inefficient, ill-trained, badly led infanterists that surrounded to the Germans in hordes in the beginning of Barbarossa.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Fredde ]</p>

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 2:53 am

I vote for 6.1 over 7.0. I have already written extensively on this here so let me be as brief as possible.

The "armor reform" is to my mind nothing but replacing one incorrect nominal value with another incorrect nominal value. The major deficiencies in the present assignment seem to be:

1)Late war german armor took a sharp downturn in quality, which the reform does not take into account;
2)The treatment of soviet armor seems biased toward thin, sloped armor. This leaves KVs, turrets and others in the lurch.

This sweeping reform upsets many delicate balances in the game, exposing hidden weaknesses that were inconsequential before. Just a few I have discovered in this relatively short time:

Tiger I is practically invulnerable to the T-34;
Pz3 is practically invulnerable to PTRD AT-rifle;
Already in june 1941 Pz3h,j (APCR) tear T-34s and KVs apart from the front at considerable range. With regard to the experiment above, 2 Pz3s lost to each T-34 at 500 metres is not the result I would expect in real life, not in 1941 at least. The T-34 losses should be much lower.

There is no reason to believe that no more anomalies will surface in the future.
With regard to battle outcomes I believe that v7 is a poorer simulation than 6.1, not better.

Not all my original discoveries of course.
Another thing that bothers me a lot is the downgrading of the F-34 gun (T34). After many attempts I have not received a full explanation of it, and this new value (80) is difficult to justify by any sources I have seen.

So, I intend to stick with 6.1. Anyone for PBEM?

Redleg · Post by **Redleg** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 3:06 am

V 6.1 is dead and buried as far as I am concerned.

V7 is current. The OOBs can be altered. The settings can be altered.

A crash in V7 is a rarity.....

I am happy.

Drex · Post by **Drex** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 3:23 am

Every version that has come out goes through the same gauntlet of criticism. Each version was still playable and no version was ever expected to please everyone. I will play with V7 and like it.

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 3:24 am

Originally posted by Redleg:
V 6.1 is dead and buried as far as I am concerned.
V7 is current. The OOBs can be altered. The settings can be altered.

As I understand it this discussion only refers to the OOBs.

bud · Post by **bud** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 3:48 am

i have been waiting for the dust to settle -- but it look`s like some damage control may be needed -- i have noticed at the c+c league a very poor showing for the russian`s --(the 43 was so so --44 was less - and now cold war on v7.0 - well you can see)now hitting was better in v6.01 -- but unit`s cost way too much -- now the cost of the units look`s much better but they can`t even hit the hex the enemy is in .it`s very noticable now --perhaps a slight improvement over v6.1 hitting with the same unit costs might be the least line of argument and resistance to look at. Just a thought. <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Red Baron · Post by **Red Baron** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 3:55 am

Originally posted by Redleg:
V 6.1 is dead and buried as far as I am concerned.

V7 is current. The OOBs can be altered. The settings can be altered.

A crash in V7 is a rarity.....

I am happy.

Can´t say it more briefly..? Oh! Just might anyway..DITTO!
Michael.

achappelle · Post by **achappelle** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 4:20 am

Historically, the Russians suffered massive losses in tanks as compared to German tanks, even in the 1941-1942 era when it was PZ3 vs T34. I have the hard numbers at home and will post them later, but i remember being shocked. I guess it goes show that tactics and experience and training count for lots

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 4:21 am

Indeed.

Originally posted by Redleg:
V 6.1 is dead and buried as far as I am concerned.

V7 is current. The OOBs can be altered. The settings can be altered.

A crash in V7 is a rarity.....

I am happy.

Fredde · Post by **Fredde** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 4:28 am

Aleksandr,

I have the same figures somewhere in a book written by K.S. Kolganov at the Frunze acedemy and I had the same feeling as you when I read about it. Not many Russian books are translated to Swedish or English though.. that is too bad.

In another year or two I will hopefully know Russian so I can read it first hand <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

Originally posted by Aleksandr Morozov:
Historically, the Russians suffered massive losses in tanks as compared to German tanks, even in the 1941-1942 era when it was PZ3 vs T34. I have the hard numbers at home and will post them later, but i remember being shocked. I guess it goes show that tactics and experience and training count for lots

Mike Rothery · Post by **Mike Rothery** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 4:56 am

It would appear that the basis for the criticism is that folks have a feeling for the T34 being a real shock to the Germans and that the adjustments to the V7 OOb make it a mere mortal.

In 1941 when the Germans first encountered the T34 and KV series tanks the 50mm armed Pz III's were a rare item. The bulk of german armour and AT gun units were armed with the 37mm. The upgunning of the PzIV F with the 75L43, the long barrelled 50mm for the PzIII and Marders with the PAK 40 were all responses to the difficulties in taking out the heavier allied armour. Whole Panzer diisions were still armed with the Czech 35T and 38T with 37mm gun, with the Panzerjager units only having the PzJgr I with the Czech 47mm gun. The T34 must have been a real problem to deal with at that time.

The T34 was well respected because it was such a good all round package, and highly suitable to the Russian winter. It was quick and with its wide tracks was a good performer in mud and snow. The sloping armour gave it good protection for the weight, which allowed it to have a good power-to-weight ratio. It had an OK gun, and an air-cooled diesel that was more resiliant to the temperature extremes.

The reason that the T34 is often praised as the best tank of the war is because is could be produced cheaply and quickly.....and it is that strategic consideration that made it a success. I have thought for many years now that Soviet equipment was over-rated on a comparitive basis.

gorgias96 · Post by **gorgias96** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 5:01 am

For Imp:

Plz try that same test with the tanks moving and IA activated. I don´t criticise only the new armor/piercing values. Perhaps they are correct but the result is a poor performance with the T34. The anterior values maybe weren´t absolutely correct but the T34 was a more balanced unit. If u say OK OK then we must keep the presents A/P values and increase another T34´s caracteristics to get a more historically accurate tank. Than i´ll be agreed with u.
I don´t want a T34 "russian tiger" only look for a tank wich support the historics dates. I.e. a T34 that be a very hard opponent to earlies german tanks. It´s very amazing to see like Pz III destroy KV-1!!! from medium and long distance Do u want to tell me that this is historically accurate??????

I mean the same with every new "amazing" unit like Shermans "tiger´s hunter" etc.... etc...

asgrrr · Post by **asgrrr** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 5:22 am

If you don't support 6.1 vs 7, I think you should not write to this thread. I see its length as a measure of popular feeling on this subject. Not that I don't want to hear other views, there are plenty of other threads where they are well at home.

gorgias96 · Post by **gorgias96** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:09 am

?????????????????

I SUPPORT clearly the v6.1 vs the v7. I LOVE the v6.1 I adore the v6.1 hehehe Is this enough??? hehe

But if in a future there is a new version more balanced yet then WELCOME!!! babe

Figmo · Post by **Figmo** » Thu Dec 20, 2001 7:19 am

I agee version 6.1 is better than 7.0. One thing that really stands out is the PzKwIIF has better protection than the PzKwIVC - that has to be wrong. In my book the maximum on the IIF is 35mm and the max on the IVC is 90mm. Why then is the IIF better protected?

I'll have to re-load Version 6.1 to see if it was this bad in that one.

This is just one example.