Matrix Games

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
The first question I'd like to ask Mobius ;
1. How far advanced is the damage model compared to the Panzer War rules?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Pretty much the only tanks not recoverable from the battlefield were those captured by the enemy and those that caught fire.

In the campaign everything else should be pretty much recoverable. Unless you model major engine or transmission failures into the campaign.

Good Hunting.

MR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
There might be some differences because of the campaign nature - bonuses for kills from guys with lots of medals.

The D is not the die roll. It is the goal number needed to be scored by the die roll. Thus a higher D means harder to do.
In PW there is more chance of an fire/explosion from fighting compartment penetrations than engine compartment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
PRIMARY/SECONDARY WEAPONS - In OWS you have a choice between using your main gun or the MG against your target. Basically, you have one target to fire at using either weapon. Has there been any thought about having the Main Gun as the primary and the MG as a secondary which could allow two targets to be engaged?

I know the Multi-turret issue was a problem in PC as well as in CM but you were both only allowing one target to be selected. I mean, can it be as easy as dividing two weapons into a Primary and Secondary and allowing different fire selections for each? This would also pertain to infantry squads, a squad with a LMG could fire long range at one target (primary) and use the small arms against a closer secondary target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
A long time ago someone said that when HE is fired the MGs are also fired if in range. I don't know if this is still in effect or if it even is happening. In real life tanks would not bother to fire the coax because it required a distracting control by the gunner.
One reason I don't think the coax may be fired is because when I tried to make a two gun tank the main gun of the primary (first listed) main gun would use its HE (or even AP) on infantry targets and not the best HE if the other gun had a better HE shell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
yes, I aways wanted the LMG in a rifle squad to be able to use their LMG separately from the rifle armed rest of the squad like in PW. But things don't work that way in PC. All squad killpower in PC is a combination of rifles and LMG.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
1. How far advanced is the damage model compared to the Panzer War rules?
I'm asking this because (to me) it seems tanks blow up too much in PCOWS.
I would have thought the (D) value for FIRE (front hull) should be D+1 or +2. If you're trying to roll the (D) or greater to explode, it seems backwards in panzer war since the rear shot shows D+1 when it sounds like it should be D-1.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Pretty much the only tanks not recoverable from the battlefield were those captured by the enemy and those that caught fire.
In the campaign everything else should be pretty much recoverable. Unless you model major engine or transmission failures into the campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
You mentioned 'fighting compartment'. I'm curious, in PW the fighting compartment is the turret. I know that the hull contains ammunitions towage outside of the turret and below the turret in the turret basket. Also, in PW you have a section regarding more detailed hull location damage (9.5.5) however it relates to the side hull being penetrated. Does Karkov or OWS have such detail?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
AIMED FIRE - In the PW rules (9.20) you have the optional rule for aimed fire, aim high/low. I know in TOW they have this but since PW has been around for almost 30 years the idea isn't new.

I'd like to add to this. Since Karkov will indicate when a shot falls short and hits a location protected from a hull down status I would think a cumulative modifier for each subsequent shot is needed to allow the A/I to 'walk' the shots upward to the turret area. So, basically, a +1 modifier for the second shot, +2 for the third, etc. All in reference to the hit location. If a hull down status was blocking location 1-4, you can see that by the 4th shot it's going to guarrentee a hit.

quote:

PRIMARY/SECONDARY WEAPONS - In OWS you have a choice between using your main gun or the MG against your target. Basically, you have one target to fire at using either weapon. Has there been any thought about having the Main Gun as the primary and the MG as a secondary which could allow two targets to be engaged?

quote:

I know the Multi-turret issue was a problem in PC as well as in CM but you were both only allowing one target to be selected. I mean, can it be as easy as dividing two weapons into a Primary and Secondary and allowing different fire selections for each? This would also pertain to infantry squads, a squad with a LMG could fire long range at one target (primary) and use the small arms against a closer secondary target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
AIMED FIRE - In the PW rules (9.20) you have the optional rule for aimed fire, aim high/low. I know in TOW they have this but since PW has been around for almost 30 years the idea isn't new.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
I'd like to add to this. Since Karkov will indicate when a shot falls short and hits a location protected from a hull down status I would think a cumulative modifier for each subsequent shot is needed to allow the A/I to 'walk' the shots upward to the turret area. So, basically, a +1 modifier for the second shot, +2 for the third, etc. All in reference to the hit location. If a hull down status was blocking location 1-4, you can see that by the 4th shot it's going to guarrentee a hit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
I'd like to add to this. Since Karkov will indicate when a shot falls short and hits a location protected from a hull down status I would think a cumulative modifier for each subsequent shot is needed to allow the A/I to 'walk' the shots upward to the turret area. So, basically, a +1 modifier for the second shot, +2 for the third, etc. All in reference to the hit location. If a hull down status was blocking location 1-4, you can see that by the 4th shot it's going to guarrentee a hit.

That is the bracket method. Usually done by low velocity guns or those with poor sights. I don't know if the obscurance of dust from a lot of hits in front of the hulldown target wouldn't cancel out any aiming pluses.
Also, the tanks usually watched the tracer and not so much where hits were happening because of other friendlies firing on the same target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley


Tests have indicated that the 75/L43 was capable of first round hits 99% of the time under ideal conditions, for targets at 1000 m. An adjusted second shot, in the event of a miss, had a 77% chance of a hit. The point here is that, in-game, the PZKpfw IV only ever has a 30% chance of a hit at 900m, irrespective of the number of shots taken whereas in reality an adjusted second or subsequent shot had a better chance of hitting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley


Tests have indicated that the 75/L43 was capable of first round hits 99% of the time under ideal conditions, for targets at 1000 m. An adjusted second shot, in the event of a miss, had a 77% chance of a hit. The point here is that, in-game, the PZKpfw IV only ever has a 30% chance of a hit at 900m, irrespective of the number of shots taken whereas in reality an adjusted second or subsequent shot had a better chance of hitting.

I'm confused, if it has a 99% hit chance for the first hit, but only 77% chance for and "adjusted" 2nd shot, doesn't that indicate that it has a lower chance of a hit for shots after the first?

Rick

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
"the first number shows the accuracy that was obtained from controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion (99). the second number (which should be 71 not 77) was calculated by doubling the dispersion obtained from controlled test firing. the Germans considered that 'double dispersion' was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by troops, if they remained calm, in combat"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
"the first number shows the accuracy that was obtained from controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion (99). the second number (which should be 71 not 77) was calculated by doubling the dispersion obtained from controlled test firing. the Germans considered that 'double dispersion' was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by troops, if they remained calm, in combat"

The leaping from dispersion tests to live fire by the Germans is the problem.

1. The dispersion on the 75mm/L70 is 97% @ 1000m.
Dispersion is a physical limitation. You cannot correct this as it is a result of
variations of shell and charge manufacture and gun tube variation.
2. Live fire of British 17pdr @ 1000yds tank size target is 46% hit first round, 94% on second round.

When one introduces 10% range errors along dispersion according to
World War II Ballistics Armor and Gunnery by Bird and Livingston
3. Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1000m is 60%.
Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1250m is 35%.
Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1500m is 20%.
and that is under ideal lighting and level ground.

Now we head from test data to the real world.
Results of combat in Korea a 1954 US Army report indicates
At ranges of 751-1150 Stationary tank targets were hit
50%+/-18% with first shot.
55% +/-9% with all shots.
(Over 1150 this drops to 12% and 18%.)

PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m.

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
My point is that, averagely, adjusted fire should yield a better chance for a hit.

quote:

"PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m." Why is that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
My point is that, averagely, adjusted fire should yield a better chance for a hit.
I have never fired a tank gun but I have done a fair amount of shooting with a rifle (a good while ago!). The basic principle, I would have thought, is the same; provided you spotted where the first shot landed, one or two adjustments would usually get you on target. As you say, it may be that the first shot is obscured in some way but generally that principle holds up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

"PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m." Why is that?

That was a deliberate decision to "spread the maps out" a bit. It makes the extreme range shots on the 1km maps a bit less accurate without affecting the <500m shots much at all. The net result is that despite the 1km x 1km size, the maps feel a bit larger tactically in terms of the ability to maneuver at long range without being immediately destroyed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

The Germans captured many French 75mm field cannons in 1940. They also had captured a great amount of Polish 75mm AP shells that could be used by these weapons. Unfortunately the Polish 75mm AP shells had no tracer. When in 1941 the Soviet T34 showed up the 75mm guns were pressed into anti-tank service. It was found that these had to fire an extraordinary number of shells to score any hits. It took 20 or more per to take out targets. The problem was they could not correct for lack of tracer. They only had the position of where the shell landed to go on.

That may feel wrong too but it happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Unfortunately even at that range a T-34 can still pick off my PZIIIG running for cover but he can't do anything but annoy the T-34.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Unfortunately even at that range a T-34 can still pick off my PZIIIG running for cover but he can't do anything but annoy the T-34.

Use Smoke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Use Smoke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
The Germans captured many French 75mm field cannons in 1940. They also had captured a great amount of Polish 75mm AP shells that could be used by these weapons. Unfortunately the Polish 75mm AP shells had no tracer. When in 1941 the Soviet T34 showed up the 75mm guns were pressed into anti-tank service. It was found that these had to fire an extraordinary number of shells to score any hits. It took 20 or more per to take out targets. The problem was they could not correct for lack of tracer. They only had the position of where the shell landed to go on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Considering all the effects of accuracy (tracer,skill, debris, etc) it seems the idea of creating a realistic modifier isn't as simple as I would have thought!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
PRIMARY/SECONDARY WEAPONS - In OWS you have a choice between using your main gun or the MG against your target. Basically, you have one target to fire at using either weapon. Has there been any thought about having the Main Gun as the primary and the MG as a secondary which could allow two targets to be engaged?

I know the Multi-turret issue was a problem in PC as well as in CM but you were both only allowing one target to be selected. I mean, can it be as easy as dividing two weapons into a Primary and Secondary and allowing different fire selections for each? This would also pertain to infantry squads, a squad with a LMG could fire long range at one target (primary) and use the small arms against a closer secondary target.

A long time ago someone said that when HE is fired the MGs are also fired if in range. I don't know if this is still in effect or if it even is happening. In real life tanks would not bother to fire the coax because it required a distracting control by the gunner.
One reason I don't think the coax may be fired is because when I tried to make a two gun tank the main gun of the primary (first listed) main gun would use its HE (or even AP) on infantry targets and not the best HE if the other gun had a better HE shell.

yes, I aways wanted the LMG in a rifle squad to be able to use their LMG separately from the rifle armed rest of the squad like in PW. But things don't work that way in PC. All squad killpower in PC is a combination of rifles and LMG.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The coax was mostly used for targeting. You would fire the coax if you had to time to give yourself some kind of an idea where the main gun round would hit.