Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Hungarian OOB

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Hungarian OOB Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Hungarian OOB - 8/10/2003 5:55:15 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8856
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
In the latest pre-release OOB I have, there are now 07/12 MMGs incorporated into some Hungarian units. The 07/31 HMG is also configured into some elite units. Sztartur, if you have more information on the composition of Hungarian units, feel free to post them here. The OOB design team is wanting this final official release to be as complete as possible, and they're now approaching last call for suggested changes. To all concerned, get your wants and suggestions in here now. Marauder Mel has been a patient man--he has been the subject of my endless nitpickings on the USMC .:) However, for all of you with info on the lesser-known OOBs--please step forward. The time is near. ;)

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 31
- 8/11/2003 12:22:59 AM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline
how about take a look into flame tanks. much too deadly against tanks IMHO.

also they should be somewhat more rare to buy, except perhaps in assault scens ( mostly used against fortifications ! ).

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 32
Re: Hungarian OOB - 8/11/2003 3:07:18 AM   
sztartur


Posts: 669
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Budapest,Hungary
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KG Erwin
[B]In the latest pre-release OOB I have, there are now 07/12 MMGs incorporated into some Hungarian units. The 07/31 HMG is also configured into some elite units. [/B][/QUOTE]

This sounds good.

I would very heavily suggest that separate MG platoons and sections should also be available. No more detailed info available unfortunately :(.

Artur.

_____________________________

"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.", Sun Tzu

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 33
- 8/11/2003 4:52:25 AM   
PzV im Einsatz!

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 8/11/2003
Status: offline
Hi!

Were Romania's ratings (exp. & morale) increased since SP:WaW v.4.7. :confused:

I ask this because I don't want to download a 400mb file only to bring back the frustration I had playing v.4.7 with Romania.

Seriously, who would've thought that Romanian troops were *slightly* better than Chinese soldiers from during WWII. :rolleyes:

I've talked with an SP:WaW official about this a year and half ago. He said that the stats are low because romanian troops performed rather poorly in many places and the only example he came up with was, surprise! surprise!, Operation Uranus... He obviously never took into account the successful operations at Kerch, Sevastopol, Taman, Odessa (rather bloody), etc.

Labeling romanian soldiers bad troops due to what happened at [B]one place without even investigating the conditions (see below) in which the soldiers fought and without taking in account the rest of the campaign in Russia is an awful generalization.

OK, so romanian troops performed poorly during Operation Uranus, wonder why? There were 2 understrengthed romanian armies:

-who were facing 7 fully equiped Soviet armies (including 1,183 tanks, mostly T-34's and KV's)
-with a 400 km front to defend
-with no tanks at their disposition
-whose majority of AT guns were of 37mm and 47mm, only 9% of the AT guns were of 75mm caliber, reason why they were placed at 3.2 km from each other

now a hypothetical question: do you think US marines could have done better in these conditions?

I may be biased but what I ask for is a fair rating, not 40's in experience, and 50's in morale for an army that earned Manstein's respect :confused:

if this was fixed during my period of inactivity, then nevermind :D

best regards,
Andrei

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 34
- 8/11/2003 5:11:20 AM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline
[QUOTE]
if this was fixed during my period of inactivity, then nevermind :D
best regards,
Andrei [/B][/QUOTE]

no. just playing a PBM as rumania against russia in 41 ( with some german tanks as support ) and they have esp. low rally rating if they come under fire they are alomst impossible to rally.... much like the german non elite troops in late 44/45.

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 35
- 8/11/2003 8:29:24 AM   
PzV im Einsatz!

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 8/11/2003
Status: offline
**** :(
how can I bring this to the SP:WaW team's attention??

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 36
- 8/11/2003 8:32:30 AM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline
You can Manually set any Army to any base experience level you want in the preferences section .

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 37
- 8/11/2003 8:47:14 AM   
PzV im Einsatz!

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 8/11/2003
Status: offline
Thanks but I think it'll be a real shame if this problem is going to be avoided forever. If a bug can be corrected, why not find a permanent solution?

Do you know whom I should contact before it's "too late" (the next and probably last version for a while is soon going to be released) :(

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 38
- 8/11/2003 12:35:55 PM   
returnfire

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 6/13/2003
Status: offline
On a side note, I think I found two more errors in the v7.1 OOB files:

1. Check out the Nationalist China OOB. Take a look at Weapon 144 ("Hanyang 88"). It has a Pen AP value of 33 but no HE kill value.

(I'm not familiar with their WW2 weaponry, but it doesn't make sense for infantry squads to use ATRs as their early war rifle. :D)

Perhaps the rifle with the same name under the Communist China OOB should be used here?


2. Check out Communist Chinese's "Misc Small Arms" (Weapon 229).

WHY ON EARTH did they get range 24 (6 hexes) instead of 20 (5 hexes, the range of "Misc Small Arms" for ALL other nations)? :rolleyes:

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 39
- 8/11/2003 4:46:25 PM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PzV im Einsatz!
[B]Thanks but I think it'll be a real shame if this problem is going to be avoided forever. If a bug can be corrected, why not find a permanent solution?

Do you know whom I should contact before it's "too late" (the next and probably last version for a while is soon going to be released) :( [/B][/QUOTE]

i would say you can´t do much as some nations are intended to be "cannon food" if this excatly the performance they had in WW2 is questionable, how you will measure the performance btw ?

is the performance of a US G.I: better you had only to round up shocked survivers from a 5h arty + air bombardement with 500 B17 ( for the americans: this is not meant to downplay the overall good performance and bravery of your men in WW2 )or the rumanian soldier that flees before 300-400 russian T34 + KV1 tanks as his only AT weapons are 37mm + hand grenades ???

or the italians with their ignorant officers , almost incapable NCO and "tanks" about the british laughed ?
much afrika korps veterans say the italian soldiers ( not the officers ) were fine ppl. but....and isn´t it understandable that they didn´t want to fight for a goverment ( mussolini ) that they don´t liked and in a stranhe land the yhated ( africa ? ) ?

so think for your self about that !!

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 40
- 8/11/2003 4:56:51 PM   
Frank W.

 

Posts: 1958
Joined: 10/18/2001
From: Siegen + Essen / W. Germany
Status: offline
another sidenote about rumania:

i read in manstein book, that the rumanian had always met their goal in the war with the capture of the odessa area and they don´t wanted to march deeper into russia. but with pressure from hitler they had to. understandable the same as the italians in africa, that they had not THAT great fighting spirit sometimes...

despite that fact they performed very good in some placed and manstein said they were germans best allies, perhaps he forgot here the finnish soldier which proved itself in many places against the russians.

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 41
- 8/11/2003 8:34:04 PM   
PzV im Einsatz!

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 8/11/2003
Status: offline
Hi Frank,

[QUOTE] i would say you can´t do much as some nations are intended to be "cannon food" if this excatly the performance they had in WW2 is questionable, how you will measure the performance btw ?[/QUOTE]

To tell you the truth, I don’t know how to measure their performance, but the important question here is how did the SP:WaW team measure the performance to arrive at what we have now. The last time I checked, romanian troops had the worst ratings among the Axis countries (behind Finland, Hungary, Italy, etc. ). I even read someone’s post 2 days ago (I think it’s tracer’s post) saying that the person made a test to see whether romanian troops are as poor as someone on the board claimed them to be in the game and guess what: the entrenched romanian troops fell already during the first wave of attacks by soviet partisans. Does this make sense to you? By 1943 (in SP:WaW) a romanian infantry squad is no longer a threat for a soviet infantry squad, yet during the Kuban campaign (again in 1943) the romanian fighting spirit proved to be at one of its best times, the best example is the elimination of the Soviet bridgehead at Eltingen (the romanian side lost 886 soldiers and the soviet side 2,770 along with 38 tanks and 25 AT guns). Don’t get me wrong Frank, I don’t want to glorify the romanian army, but I don’t think the one from SP:WaW is the same Manstein talks about in his book. There is more than one reason why Hitler asked for the hungarian and italian troops to be retired from the East in the spring of 1943, and for the romanian troops to remain in place (I'm not implying anything here).

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 42
The Endless Struggle - 8/11/2003 11:35:43 PM   
vahauser


Posts: 1644
Joined: 10/1/2002
From: Texas
Status: offline
This has got to stop.

OOB fiddling and niggling and haggling must not be allowed to drag on forever.

Can anybody tell me if the OOB revision process for 8.0 (it is being called 8.0 these days isn't it?) has been frozen yet?

All of my campaigns are on hold waiting for 8.0 which I thought was due out 2 weeks ago.

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 43
- 8/12/2003 2:14:53 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25219
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
I think its sad in general that everyone wants their favorite country to have "decent" stats in a game that allows an exp level ranging from recruit (Exp 10, all the way up to GI Joe (exp 140) Sad in that the result is that such a degree of variation goes largely un-tapped.

with 7.1, all stats pretty much center around 65-75 for the average (with some variation with the min and max figures represented above. Feels very political to me. Even well known extreme eras for some nations are watered down...such as post purge Soviet 39 for example.

Thank god for the preferences screen :D

It was interesting to see that Hungarian scenerio vs German (late war) go from exp 30's-40's all the way up to 60's and 70's with 7.1's debut

How does one judge preformance? Good question. perhaps one needs to go back to the basics which tends to translate back to the basic 0-99 exp level (applicable since one rarely sees 100+ units in the game)

back in War in Russia days (8 bit) new divisions started off with exp 10 (conscript), then gained exp weekly till they reached 50 (fully trained but unbloodied) 70 was considered "veteran" and 80 was the minimum requirement for promotion to "guards" units for Russian. 90+ was elite. An exception to this was the Germans got a short period where new divisions started at exp 70 to represent a large pool of trained or high quality recruits..after that they had to train up from exp 10

only diff in WAW case vs the above is 100+ is considered elite though few designers use it....as with the lower level exp ratings i think playability and balance issues rule here, 100+ is considered a game breaker, and <50 or even <60 is considered as such too (as well as offending the people who's favorite nation gets that rating)

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 44
- 8/12/2003 11:18:10 PM   
PzV im Einsatz!

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 8/11/2003
Status: offline
[QUOTE]I think its sad in general that everyone wants their favorite country to have "decent" stats in a game that allows an exp level ranging from recruit (Exp 10, all the way up to GI Joe (exp 140) Sad in that the result is that such a degree of variation goes largely un-tapped.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps you don't see a large variation in the numbers but a 70 exp. unit in contrast with a 60 for example has a much higher chance to hit its target + an increased number of shots per turn from what I saw.

Anyway, unless my consciousness lies to me, there is no patriotic bias behind my case, and even if there is, anyone familiar with the Eastern Front would disagree with the idea that romania's troops should remain as underrated as they are now. I'm not asking to dramatically change the ratings, just slight alterations. This is not about giving decent stats to my favorite country, it's about giving an historically accurate portrait of the troops. Doesn't it puzzle you a bit hearing Manstein, Paulus & Speidel say their best allied troops were the romanians, yet in SP:WaW they resemble some sort of second line troops who aren't even capable of facing russian partisans (untrained civilians!) (esp. from 1943 onwards)? I won't suggest how the values should be increased (if!). All I want is some ratings that make sense, ratings that reflect the overall performance of romanian troops in the East, rather than judging them for what happened at Don river's bend (this is what the SP:WaW official replied to me!).

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 45
- 8/12/2003 11:31:38 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25219
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PzV im Einsatz!
[B]Perhaps you don't see a large variation in the numbers but a 70 exp. unit in contrast with a 60 for example has a much higher chance to hit its target + an increased number of shots per turn from what I saw.

Anyway, unless my consciousness lies to me, there is no patriotic bias behind my case, and even if there is, anyone familiar with the Eastern Front would disagree with the idea that romania's troops should remain as underrated as they are now. I'm not asking to dramatically change the ratings, just slight alterations. This is not about giving decent stats to my favorite country, it's about giving an historically accurate portrait of the troops. Doesn't it puzzle you a bit hearing Manstein, Paulus & Speidel say their best allied troops were the romanians, yet in SP:WaW they resemble some sort of second line troops who aren't even capable of facing russian partisans (untrained civilians!) (esp. from 1943 onwards)? I won't suggest how the values should be increased (if!). All I want is some ratings that make sense, ratings that reflect the overall performance of romanian troops in the East, rather than judging them for what happened at Don river's bend (this is what the SP:WaW official replied to me!). [/B][/QUOTE]

You are right there :D

I dont see alot of difference between an exp 60 unit and an exp 70 unit. Certainly not game breaking. That Hungarian scenerio i mentioned was a good example (sorry....cant recall it's title) but it stood out for me because i had just played it before 7.0/7.1 came out and noticed the drastic change.

When i first played it the Hungarian forces were much greener. Keep in mind this was a specific scenerio and not meant to be a blanket indicator of Hungarian proficiancy.....meerly for this scenerio, the "force" employed was not high quality, i.e. they were green as grass....a perfectly reasonable situation that can occur in wartime. The german force was much better though given the year certainly not "Elite", (60's mostly)

Despite the large exp gap, the Hungarians (thus the scenerio) still presented a challenge and it was an entertaining game. However after 7.0 i was shocked to suddenly see this "green" force sprouting 60's and some 70's in the exp column, close to the German mark.

The only indication for the change i'd seen was the smattering of complaints about such and such's favorite minor Axis/Allied country not getting a fair deal so the OOB's were modified accordingly. All these requests for "minor" adjustments to one's favorite OOB have now all added up to present a linear multinational force where 90% of everyone falls within the 65-75 exp bracket. Leader skill ratings vary a little more though i dont see them having as big an effect as is often stated.

Hence my comment. WAW is the only game i possess that has such a close cropped "official" OOB (when using "country training") where all the exp ratings are so close. It didn't start off that way but evolved from 1.0 to 7.1, from what i can tell, mainly due to complaints similar to those voiced here. I think it's sad because pitting forces with variable exp ratings is part of the fun and challnege of the game like when one is saddled with a green or worse, half trained force and is required to fight a more exp'd enemy. SP: WW2 doesnt do it thank god...though i much prefer WAW over that engine.

Now the only way to do that is to manually set the preferences...easy enough to do i suppose but it always feels a bit artificial my having to do it not to mention the suprise factor is lost.

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 46
- 8/13/2003 2:05:01 PM   
AmmoSgt

 

Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/21/2000
From: Redstone Arsenal Al
Status: offline
Uh, I am trying to get the Americans before June 1944 to just have a Experience rating of 65, maybe even a 60 in 42 and a 65 in 43 .. as it currently stands The US Army goes ashore in Tunsia in Nov '42 at exp 70 .. 5 points higher than the British who have been fighting in North Africa since day one ofthe War who only have a 65 in Nov 42 .. is that crazy or what?

_____________________________

"For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary periods, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 47
- 8/13/2003 11:17:38 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25219
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
I would actually suggest 50-55 as the average since that is the almost universally accepted value for "trained but unbloodied" and in WAW does represent the threshold between the "Green" and "regular" status bars.

Exceptions to that of course would be "elite" units that represent either pre-war established units (Regular army) or special forces.
Marine units are a quandry. They automatically get high ratings becaus they are considered "elite" but they too experienced their fill of drafts of raw recruits. They did have an excellent cadre though.....65 is reasonable. 70-80 for smaller established brigades not ballooned up to division size by drafts.

However after that initial period, US Exp would ramp up quickly till by June 44 it is very respectible (say a solid 70-75 avg). A major wishlist item i've had since before WAW was a seperate preference rating for Morale, which i think should be high for US right off the bat (cuz we r so gung ho with all those eager conscripts ready to kick butt and chew bubblegum ;) ) The more hard bitten Brit/UK units, i'd want to see morale sliding a bit as after 3 years of war, the thrill has definately worn off. Then again thats supposed to be part of the mysterious "national characteristics" too

Even in the early phase though it would still be challenging since the US is the best supported (logistically) nation in the game. Firepower R us :D

But like i said, everyone wants their favorite nation to start at no less than the 60's at an absolute minimum. Everyone's proficient right off the bat :rolleyes:

Yet we have a game engine that allows such a wide variety of exp levels ranging from green/hopeless to an enemy's worst nightmare. Thank god for user built scenerios which dont rely on the bland "country training"

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 48
The real truth about ro0manian army during ww2 - 8/14/2003 9:22:25 PM   
Gavris Narcis

 

Posts: 311
Joined: 8/19/2000
Status: offline
Hi !

I'm already on this forum from beggining and with this great game almost too. From since that, I always search everything which was related to this. And because my relates were from Basarabia, and many died in ww2 in romanian army I want HERE to set a definitive point about Romania role in ww2: as an army and as an ally of Grmany. I talked dozens of times with my family ex soldiers in ww2 and what I'm discovered is somehow different from how one or others know about us.
Because I'm forced to be brief (financial, oh, it's Romania again !) I resume all the truth in points. Now, to begin:


1. For the first days of war and far to the eliberation of Basarabia, the romanian army have fair/good morale and an extremely lack of experience. This with a very poor training and equipment make a relative poor enemy to soviets. This because 2 major causes:
- the wellknowed romanian lack of courage and initiative under centuries; unless the limit situation when well motivated the romanian have an incredible courage and heroism. Badly, because this happened only on a few rare situations and ONLY when the ''knife arrive to bones'' onto romanians. Yes, this it is the words who characterizing best the romanians (army as well) from centuries. But when this happened, they become heroes in mass. This contrasted for example best with the brits or germans,
who were diametral opposed with us. Maybe the latin roots. The italians performed almost the same in ww2 and theirs army suffers from the same ''simptoms''. From this, almost all ww2 the romanians were used as cannon fodder, by germans first and by soviets second. Not to mention the own staff (army and civil government) who many times used the army as a ''third time cannon fodder users''). For example, I talked onetime with a man who was into the personal guard of the king Mihai/Michael durind ww2 and he talk to me that when hundreds of romanian soldiers were killed each day onto eastern battles the king almost always deal with ......... sex, f.....g all he get into sights living in luxurious conditions when the majority of the romanians suffers at extreme from war and famine (my gradma had to be evacuated from basarabia in 1942 and leave 2 years only with 3 sacks of dehidrated piece of bread (300 kg) together with 6 other family members. Sorry for the language but i reproduce the old man words. That was the reality ! Not what one or other believe to be was ! Or books fantasy !
2. From eliberation to the end of the war the morale went down !!! Point. Other characteristichs were same. (Very) poor equipment and lack of experience.
3. The truth was that the romanians were for the long of the war a weak enemy for soviets. Almost same as italians, but compared to them I think we need to be see a little high because the italians have a more good equipment

4. But we were ''cuiul lui Pepelea'' in ww2 !!. This in brute translation means: ''Pepelea's nail/needle'' which means a minor thing but with major effects. Why ? Because that:
-if romanian didn't leave axis and join allies Hitler could gain 6 month to war. All historians are well acording with that.
-if Hitler could have 6 month to war he could have the atomic bomb ! This is well knowed too.
Conclusions: do yourselves !
This is ''cuiul lui Pepelea'' ! A minor country with a poor army could be the major factor into ww2.
Point.

Jenea.

P.S. But what bothering me is not that morale/experience /etc discusion but the innacurate OOB's for Romania in SPWAW and even in SPWW2 ! The most expresive is at the airplane section where is a big mess/error (for example, we had a real air match for many airplanes of the time -the IAR's and we had 6/7 different versions, very innacurate in OOB). Many times I wanted to encounter (by e-mail of course) someone which could modify that (after my parameters) but never happened. Too bad.


>i read in manstein book, that the rumanian had always met their goal in the war with the capture of the odessa area and they don´t wanted to march deeper into russia. but with pressure from hitler they had to. understandable the same as the italians in africa, that they had not THAT great fighting spirit sometimes...

despite that fact they performed very good in some placed and manstein said they were germans best allies, perhaps he forgot here the finnish soldier which proved itself in many places against the russians. [/B][/QUOTE]

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 49
Re: Hungarian OOB - 8/17/2003 1:38:03 AM   
o4r

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 1/31/2003
Status: offline
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KG Erwin
[B]In the latest pre-release OOB I have, there are now 07/12 MMGs incorporated into some Hungarian units. The 07/31 HMG is also configured into some elite units. Sztartur, if you have more information on the composition of Hungarian units, feel free to post them here. The OOB design team is wanting this final official release to be as complete as possible, and they're now approaching last call for suggested changes. To all concerned, get your wants and suggestions in here now. Marauder Mel has been a patient man--he has been the subject of my endless nitpickings on the USMC .:) However, for all of you with info on the lesser-known OOBs--please step forward. The time is near. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

So lucky :D , I was just about to hack the heading of the work ETA to ETL (Estimate Time of Late) :p :p

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 50
Sorry, o4r... - 8/17/2003 4:29:23 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8856
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
...but the reason I have the pre-release OOBs is because of my connection with the design of the new Mega Campaign. I'd love to be able to share them, but I'm not cleared to do that. I'm also not privy as to what the actual release date is, but there are new terrain features and whatnot that will be part of the package. I can tell you that the USMC is much more historically accurate than previously, with changes in squad armaments, availability dates, the Raider formations etc. I'm in the 7th battle of a test long campaign, and so far have four decisive and two marginal victories.

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 51
- 8/17/2003 2:32:44 PM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2917
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline
Please tell me more please, the USMC in H2H is well a little whimpy

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 52
OK, Viking... - 8/18/2003 12:38:59 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8856
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
I posted suggested changes to the USMC in earlier threads, but here's a few that were adopted: the Raider units have several different configurations, with the 1st Bn (Edson's) and 2nd Bn (Carlson's) squads having distinctive weapons lists, plus a generic Raider squad to represent the 3rd and 4th Bns. In 1943 the Raiders were combined in a regiment, so there's a standardized organization possible for those squads. As for the infantry units, an MMG is now attached to each "D" platoon. Weapon 3 for the "E" and "F'' squads is the M1 Carbine. The shotguns were removed. The secondary weapon for the MMG and HMG units is now the Thompson SMG. Platoon and Company HQ units now have Garand M1s as primary weapons post-Jan 1943. These are just a few of the changes, but I think you'll find that the USMC is now more powerful than previously, especially after 1943. Some may disagree with doing this, but after consulting the available sources, it's more accurate. The Marines are not supermen, but by 1945 these guys were literally 13-man wrecking squads. I'm hoping at some point to rework some of the older existing scenarios to incorporate this OOB, most notably Peleliu and Iwo Jima.

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 53
- 8/18/2003 1:23:29 AM   
VikingNo2


Posts: 2917
Joined: 1/26/2002
From: NC
Status: offline
:cool: :D :cool:

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 54
- 8/18/2003 1:58:24 AM   
o4r

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 1/31/2003
Status: offline
No matter what the changes might be I had a feeling that it will not be that much, you all must understand that they have to take care of the mega campaign created.

(in reply to Supervisor)
Post #: 55
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Hungarian OOB Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.102