Update SPWAW OOB's

[88mmshock]

Originally posted by KG Erwin
The 7.2 OOBs will be released to the public soon, along with some other "goodies", but I'm not sure of the exact date.

Is there a 7.2 vers of SPWAW? I currently have 7.1.

[KG Erwin]

As I understand it, 7.2 is the final official revision to the SPWaW OOBs, and there will be some new terrain icons for scenario designers. The game engine itself, as far as I know, will not be changed. This will be a game patch, but its total size, unless there's some other stuff I haven't heard about, will not be a monster. Many of the OOBs have undergone major revisions, but I'm only privy to the USMC, which I have seen and it will be correct to as near historical accuracy as the SPWaW engine will allow. I'm happy with the results, so if you want to design a new Bougainville or Guam scenario, the tools will be there. I'm thinking of revamping the older Pacific scenarios to match the new research, but that's down the road. The original scenario designers, most notably Bill Wilder, will have final say on these revisions. I'm serving only as a research assistant. The patch will be made available to you guys soon. That's all I know.

[BruceAZ]

One more item for the OOB team.

I know this was supposedly fixed in version 6.0 or 7.0 but I think we did a temp repair rather than a true fix.

The issue is USMC Amtrak’s. The mechanized heart and soul of any Marine BLT are its Amtrak’s! :rolleyes:

The original problem was they would run into buildings and become immobilized thus driving everybody crazy. The fix was to eliminate the problem of immobilization but the Amtrak’s still drive through building after building. I call them my “Terminators” except one keeps asking for my vote. I think it was from California but not quite sure? My last campaign against the IJA was a score of 1228 with 28 AFV’s destroyed plus 3 Nells and 27 stone buildings.

Anyway, can you stop them from smashing every village in sight? I know Wild Bill likes it but he just likes to blow up buildings!

Thanks.

Recon
Semper Fi

[KG Erwin]

These are now now classified as type 33--Amphib. I haven't tested them, but they shouldn't be demolitions vehicles now. The availability for all the USMC armor has been altered to match historical reality, which one exception. The Scotts have been left in until the older scenarios can be reworked. I KNOW they were never there, BUT the 7.2 OOBs were designed to be retrofitting to play older scenarios. You should be pleased with the other changes regarding the D, E and F- series units, but again some compromises had to be made. Now, breaking down the D-series Weapons Company allows for each squad in a battalion to have a 30 cal M1919A4 or 30 cal M1917A1 at its disposal, which corresponds to real -life usage . You should also be pleased with the revamping of the Raider units, but I'll save those until the official 7.2 release. Wild Bill and Marauder Mel did a wonderful job with the USMC, with some input by yours truly, and I think the final version should be regarded as the definitive OOB83.

[BruceAZ]

Originally posted by KG Erwin
Wild Bill and Marauder Mel did a wonderful job with the USMC, with some input by yours truly, and I think the final version should be regarded as the definitive OOB83.

Thanks. I know we can never really solve the Marine MG issue so they must be separte units rather than assiged to the individual squad (as in not enough slots). Your solution should work well.

To Bill, KG and Mel: Thanks for the fixes. It will help when I update my scenarios and campaigns.

Recon
Semper Fi

[KG Erwin]

They were meant as protected troop carriers for the beach landings only. I don't think it was intended for them to become amphibious APCs for inland advance. The AMTRACS aren't Bradleys---they were originally intended to be ammo and supply humpers, so don't try to project the future onto these fragile vehicles. Simply put, if you're under fire, dismount your passengers and head for safety. There WAS an experimental attempt to mount flamethrowers on some LVTA4s at Peleliu, but I don't have any info on how successful they were. In the absence of many flamethrowing tanks, this seems to have been a desperate expedient.

[BruceAZ]

Originally posted by KG Erwin
They were meant as protected troop carriers for the beach landings only. I don't think it was intended for them to become amphibious APCs for inland advance. The AMTRACS aren't Bradleys---they were originally intended to be ammo and supply humpers, so don't try to project the future onto these fragile vehicles. Simply put, if you're under fire, dismount your passengers and head for safety. There WAS an experimental attempt to mount flamethrowers on some LVTA4s at Peleliu, but I don't have any info on how successful they were. In the absence of many flamethrowing tanks, this seems to have been a desperate expedient.

Quite true historically but while playing SPWAW, I enjoy the ability to move my Marines inland, in the protection of tanks, to gain a bigger foothold before disembarking. Their 50 cals sometimes come in very handy and the mobility of the track does have its advantages. Thanks for the info.

Recon
Semper Fi

[Alby]

Dont know if prices have been looked at or not.
here is a quote from an opponent of mine,



"Geez ,......nothing stops those IS4's and my British tanks
cost more !!!"

[KG Erwin]

This was pointed out in another thread. Weapon 2 for unit 164 should be 003. <sigh> I know the newest revisions have already been submitted, so rather than hold up the release any further, further changes should be sticky posted and let the gamers make the changes using the OOB editor. Otherwise, 7.2 could be held up indefinitely. The quest for perfection does have its limits, doesn't it?

[BryanMelvin]

Originally posted by KG Erwin
This was pointed out in another thread. Weapon 2 for unit 164 should be 003. <sigh> I know the newest revisions have already been submitted, so rather than hold up the release any further, further changes should be sticky posted and let the gamers make the changes using the OOB editor. Otherwise, 7.2 could be held up indefinitely. The quest for perfection does have its limits, doesn't it?

One of the main problems with the SP series is that you only have 249 slots in oobs to make units. The German OOB uses all of these. There was simply no room to add new units to German oobs. Best thing to do is to add the LMG weapon using the editors!

[Gavris Narcis]

Hi !

All this changes were accurate. Good work. But is still a great work to do on HE penetration values for all shells in all OOB's. After many many searches I arrived at the conclusions that ALL he shells must have a penetration 1/6 of own diameter !!
And when the dividing is not precise it must to be adjusted above.
For example: an 150 mm shell have an 1/6*150mm=25 mm penetration tickness. An 280 mm have 46,66 and it must be 47 not 46 !!!! Here the mortars have to be treated like in reality not like in H2H where the values were incredible low !
For AP values all it's O.K. in 7.1 version. I search militay formulas and were good enough.

Leo.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by BryanMelvin
The new OOBs are being finalized. Many a fix has gone into to improving combat results.

I did lessen the 50 cal and 12.7 HMG HE penetrates rates as these were too high but I also increase all other HMG's MMHs HE Penetration values to more WW II realistic levels.

HMG's will rain Havoc on Trucks and HT's if these get too close.

HMG, MMG, and LMG will suppress armor slightly more than before when fired from short ranges.

[dlazov]

Not to throw too much water on the fire but...

One of the main problems with the SP series is that you only have 249 slots in oobs to make units.

This was fixed in the SP WW2/MBT release's:

Units = 599
Weapons = 249
Formation = 399

[Kevin E. Duguay]

Please fix this vehicle before the new release. It should be armed with the 37mm flak43. (1 tube ) Only the original prototype and possibly a few field mods were armed with the 20mmFlakvierling.

Thank you

[TheOriginalOverlord]

Will the US 57mm recoilless rifle be included? I saw a reference that the 17th Airborne used it in the jump over the Rhine?

[BryanMelvin]

Originally posted by Overlord
Will the US 57mm recoilless rifle be included? I saw a reference that the 17th Airborne used it in the jump over the Rhine?

Yes, I can add it in.

As fro release date for OOBs 8.0 - David Heath at Matrixgames has the last word

During this time, we are fine tuning the OOBs. I hope to have the AI selection of forces for Long Campaigns and Battle Games improved soon. This will aid the game much more

[TheOriginalOverlord]

THANKS!

[BryanMelvin]

THANKS!

These have been added

[Penetrator]

Hi !

After many many searches I arrived at the conclusions that ALL he shells must have a penetration 1/6 of own diameter !!
And when the dividing is not precise it must to be adjusted above.
For example: an 150 mm shell have an 1/6*150mm=25 mm penetration tickness. An 280 mm have 46,66 and it must be 47 not 46 !!!! Here the mortars have to be treated like in reality not like in H2H where the values were incredible low !

Wah!?

This is a very dangerous path to go down, if you are just examining the effect on the plate hit. A large HE shell could easily demolish a tank even if a classical penetration through a particular plate was not achieved. Seams, rivets, guns, sights blasted away. If we take a T-34 and shower it with 150mm shells, I for one do NOT like to see it suffer only scratched paint and 99 suppression. A tank would be very lucky to take a direct hit like that and continue to function in any capacity.
On the theoretical level, the amount of explosive in a shell is to the power of 3 of the diameter. Furthermore, mortar shells have a far lower explosive content than regular shells.

[Losqualo]

Wah!?

This is a very dangerous path to go down, if you are just examining the effect on the plate hit. A large HE shell could easily demolish a tank even if a classical penetration through a particular plate was not achieved. Seams, rivets, guns, sights blasted away. If we take a T-34 and shower it with 150mm shells, I for one do NOT like to see it suffer only scratched paint and 99 suppression. A tank would be very lucky to take a direct hit like that and continue to function in any capacity.
On the theoretical level, the amount of explosive in a shell is to the power of 3 of the diameter. Furthermore, mortar shells have a far lower explosive content than regular shells.

I second that.

When I was at the German Bundeswehr I was gunner in a M-109 SP Howitzer.
We were told (though I can't confirm that ) that a direct, not penetrating hit of our 155 mm gun at an enemy tank would instantly disable if not kill the enemy crew because of the shock of the impact.
Again, we didn't try it, but it sounds reasonable.

[Kevin E. Duguay]

Will someone involved with the 8.0 project please read the post by Frank W. about the Nahverteidigungswaffe. It is very eye opening. This my also effect CL so spread the word!! His post is located just below this one so look it up!