Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira Announced! Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions

 
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 >> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/22/2004 7:06:22 PM   
Belisarius


Posts: 4042
Joined: 5/26/2001
From: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.


Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs


You mean more than there already is?

< Message edited by Belisarius -- 2/22/2004 6:07:18 PM >


_____________________________


Got StuG?

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 151
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/22/2004 7:45:05 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.


Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs


You mean more than there already is?


Yep, if need be.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Belisarius)
Post #: 152
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/23/2004 1:42:52 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8900
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Rune, there are a number of very rare and scenario-design only units which are already in the Norway & Czechoslovakian OOBs. If need be, some others could be moved.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 153
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/23/2004 1:48:14 AM   
harlekwin


Posts: 5863
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: arkham asylum
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Belisarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

i think the german OOB is quite full to add much more units.


Then it is possible to export some of the esoteric units to other OOBs


You mean more than there already is?


Yep, if need be.





of course

_____________________________

$ociali$m-from those who will to those who won't.....

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 154
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/23/2004 2:00:53 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8900
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 2/22/2004 7:08:00 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 155
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/23/2004 3:21:53 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?


Well, itīs a good start, but we are still not closer to solving the basic issues, namely how high the proliferation of M1 rifles were in the Raider units.
One solution could be to change the encyclopedia text so that players could be made aware that the unit is unique.
Another to remove the Garand armed units from the USMC OOB and put them into one of the scenario designer OOBs, since they are a historic anomaly and therefore not widely available.
The third and last option would be to set their rarity rating as high in order that it be impossible to buy many of them (if playing with that option "ON").

But this still doesnīt address the basic question of units using no TO&E gear. How is this regulated by the OOB team? Is it only the USMC that getīs non TO&E gear? Furthermore this discussion leads us into the availability of captured gear, the question of which hasnīt been satisfactorily answered yet.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 156
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/23/2004 3:32:08 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8900
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Ok, Rune. For those USMC units, we can just set rarity to 3. We're only talking about some guys getting these two months early, anyway. The M1 Garand became standard isssue for ALL USMC infantry beginning in January 1943.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 157
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/23/2004 3:41:00 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8900
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
The use of captured weapons leads into some tricky areas, so others on the team can sort that out. Here's a good example: on Guadalcanal, the Marines seized a few 37mm AT guns from the Japanese, which turned out to be German Pak 35/36s. These in turn had been captured from the Nationalist Chinese, and then shipped to the Solomons!

_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 158
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/23/2004 6:01:57 PM   
Igor

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 12/11/2000
Status: offline
One of the reasons I like playing the Chinese communists is the wide open OOB; plenty of room to create units to represent equipment captured/purchased by my troops (high cost MP-19 armed troops, for instance). Besides, I've got a propaganda photo of PLA troops marching with Tommy guns in the mid-30s; so of course I had to create a rarity three squad of Tommy gun armed SMG troops...

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 159
Corrections for T-50 infanrty tank - 2/23/2004 7:52:00 PM   
Commander Klank

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/15/2000
From: Killleen, Texas
Status: offline





The armor thickness and slope is incorrect for my favorate little Soviet tank. While they only made about 70 of these little darlings I think we should get the tank right.

Here's a link to the T-50s true armor stats, look at very bottom of the page for armor thickness and slope of hull and turret.

T-50 tank stats

Here are the stats the game currently has:

Hull: armor front 32mm@35% slope, side 32mm@40% slope, rear 20mm@63% slope, top armor 12mm

Turret: armor front 32mm@30% slope, side 32mm@20% slope, rear 12mm @15% slpoe, toop 12mm

actual armor stats from historic records:

Hull: armor front 37mm@50% slope, side 37mm@40% slope, rear 25mm@63% slope, top armor 15mm

Turret: armor front 37mm@30% slope, side 37mm@20% slope, rear 15mm @15% slpoe, toop 15mm

The biggest diffence is 5mm of armor on the front and side and the front slope shold be at 50% not 30. Correcting this diffence to historic values would make the T-50 a tougher opponent than it is now.

< Message edited by Commander Klank -- 2/23/2004 11:59:45 AM >


_____________________________

Commander Klank


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 160
RE: Corrections for T-50 infanrty tank - 2/23/2004 8:25:38 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 4824
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
Why do T-34's starting 43 have better fire control? As I understand it the Soviet Optics and such were horrible. Yet in the 43 model of the T-34 suddenly the tank has as good a fire control as German tanks.

(in reply to Commander Klank)
Post #: 161
RE: Corrections for T-50 infanrty tank - 2/23/2004 8:41:58 PM   
Keke


Posts: 3515
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Why do T-34's starting 43 have better fire control? As I understand it the Soviet Optics and such were horrible. Yet in the 43 model of the T-34 suddenly the tank has as good a fire control as German tanks.


Check the T-34 thread on page 2...

It's not just FC and RgF, but totally unrealistic PEN-values as well...

< Message edited by Keke -- 2/23/2004 8:48:05 PM >


_____________________________

Jyri

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 162
RE: Corrections for T-50 infanrty tank - 2/23/2004 11:22:34 PM   
Commander Klank

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/15/2000
From: Killleen, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Why do T-34's starting 43 have better fire control? As I understand it the Soviet Optics and such were horrible. Yet in the 43 model of the T-34 suddenly the tank has as good a fire control as German tanks.


Becouse around 43 Soviet optics and guns did improve somewhat. this must be a reflection of that.

_____________________________

Commander Klank


(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 163
RE: Corrections for T-50 infanrty tank - 2/23/2004 11:41:48 PM   
Keke


Posts: 3515
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Klank

Becouse around 43 Soviet optics and guns did improve somewhat. this must be a reflection of that.


Ammo did improve slightly in '43, but not optics and guns. Since the 2-hatch cupola was a minor improvement, it just and just could justify some tweaking, but not such dramatic improvements as presented in the latest OOB.

_____________________________

Jyri

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn


(in reply to Commander Klank)
Post #: 164
RE: Corrections for T-50 infanrty tank - 2/23/2004 11:47:31 PM   
harlekwin


Posts: 5863
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: arkham asylum
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Klank

Becouse around 43 Soviet optics and guns did improve somewhat. this must be a reflection of that.


Ammo did improve slightly in '43, but not optics and guns. Since the 2-hatch cupola was a minor improvement, it just and just could justify some tweaking, but not such dramatic improvements as presented in the latest OOB.


The alteration to values was done to get a desired result in playtesting IMHO and not based in any quanifiable result of alterations in design that can be based on citeable data.

I am betting the alterations were done to reflect a percieved improvement in the system's lethality which was in fact a human element not a technical one and should better be reflected in morale/exp ratings.

regards,
sven

_____________________________

$ociali$m-from those who will to those who won't.....

(in reply to Keke)
Post #: 165
RE: Corrections for T-50 infanrty tank - 2/24/2004 12:02:22 AM   
Keke


Posts: 3515
Joined: 3/12/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Keke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Klank

Becouse around 43 Soviet optics and guns did improve somewhat. this must be a reflection of that.


Ammo did improve slightly in '43, but not optics and guns. Since the 2-hatch cupola was a minor improvement, it just and just could justify some tweaking, but not such dramatic improvements as presented in the latest OOB.


The alteration to values was done to get a desired result in playtesting IMHO and not based in any quanifiable result of alterations in design that can be based on citeable data.


If it was even based on playtesting (edit: the values have been explained to be 'experimental'), I guess the testing was done against Tiger I, since it also has fantasy values now, ie. improved over others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: harlekwin

I am betting the alterations were done to reflect a percieved improvement in the system's lethality which was in fact a human element not a technical one and should better be reflected in morale/exp ratings.


Well, the fact is that were no actual improvement in the system's lethality either...unless we ask Rotmistrov...

< Message edited by Keke -- 2/24/2004 12:16:00 AM >


_____________________________

Jyri

The eternal privilege of those who never act themselves: to interrogate, be dissatisfied, find fault.

- A. Solzhenitsyn


(in reply to harlekwin)
Post #: 166
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 4:51:07 AM   
Major Destruction


Posts: 879
Joined: 8/10/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen


There are contradicting sources as regards this question, but the earliest sources I have seen has the first of the rechambered guns shipped to the east in late january/early february with more to follow.

With the introduction of the Marder series of SPATGs the profiferation of this gun of course rose.

But let me reiterate. Why is these guns available upon capture for the germans, while captured german armor in the russian OOB is much later despite evidence to the contrary.

But perhaps you can explain to me why this gun, available from 7/41 has the better german ammuntion (AP Pen 133) available upon capture (The eqivalent soviet gun is AP Pen 84)


If the detailed data is not available, then units are introduced according to the best guess. As information is accumulated, sometimes after a search and sometimes by accident, but usually from someone on the Forum, the start or end date for a unit is 'corrected'.

Look at any unit and the chances are the start date is January. Go back to version 2 and you will find a higher proportion of start dates in January.

Typically a m36 gun would be available from January of 1936; a model 37 tank available from January 1937.

Whoever placed the pak36 gun in the OOB, obviously knew that it could not be available before June 1941. July 1941 is the next best guess.

We know the remanufactured gun was available in late December 1941 because Hitler ordered them to be mounted onto obsolete tank hulls to be used as Marders in late December 1941. Does this imply that the ATG's were used prior to this date? Does it imply that the guns were fast-tracked to Marder and later used as ATG's? What is the next best guess?

If the information on the forum that the ATG's were deployed in Jan/Feb 1942; that may be the best info we have to date. I would be happy to use a start date of Feb 1942 for this unit.

But Rene states that there is conflicting evidence.

So for now, we know that July 1941 is probably not correct and the next best guess is Feb 1942.

Good enough? Or will some Forum poster complain next year that the dolts who made this latest edit of the OOB got it all wrong again?

We do the best we can with the data we have. Pick any unit that starts in January of any year and you will probably find a new ax to grind.

Grind on

_____________________________

They struggled with a ferocity that was to be expected of brave men fighting with forlorn hope against an enemy who had the advantage of position......knowing that courage was the one thing that would save them.

Julius Caesar, 57 BC

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 167
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 4:53:44 AM   
harlekwin


Posts: 5863
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: arkham asylum
Status: offline
Ah I see so Sgt. Hans really DID go about with an optic and ammo....?

What exactly are captures modeling?


The example you gave is also part of the reason the Tiger Team vetted proposed changes and cited data used so the community coould rebutt or offer better data.

< Message edited by harlekwin -- 2/23/2004 10:04:35 PM >


_____________________________

$ociali$m-from those who will to those who won't.....

(in reply to Major Destruction)
Post #: 168
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 4:57:51 AM   
Major Destruction


Posts: 879
Joined: 8/10/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

But perhaps you can explain to me why this gun, available from 7/41 has the better german ammuntion (AP Pen 133) available upon capture (The eqivalent soviet gun is AP Pen 84)


The OOB models the remanufactured gun that uses German ammunition. The Russian gun was not designed as an anti-tank gun and although used in that role by both Soviet and German forces is not modeled in the game as a captured ATG.

If you want to place captured Russian guns in your scenario it is simplest to buy them from the USSR purchase list then change the data manually to reflect your ideas about the effectiveness of the captured pieces, commander's name, ammo loadouts etc.

_____________________________

They struggled with a ferocity that was to be expected of brave men fighting with forlorn hope against an enemy who had the advantage of position......knowing that courage was the one thing that would save them.

Julius Caesar, 57 BC

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 169
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 6:21:46 PM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline
From a ASL addict,

The date for the 76.2mm Pak36r's availability is July 1941 but is rated as quite rare until January 1942 when it becomes more available.
In the ASL game notes on this weapon it states that the German modified guns were not available until January 1942 and that the earlier dates reflect use without these modifications. In other words, Russian guns and Russian ammunition.

In German Artillery of World War Two by I. V. Hogg, he states that vast numbers of Soviet guns and ammunition was captured in the early weeks of the Russian Campaign, and prominent among the booty was the 76.2mm 1936. He says that these weapons were immediatly assimilated into German use under their Fremdengerat name FK 296(r). The Germans saw the potential of this weapon to be a potent AT weapon and thats when the changes were ordered. Now Hogg says that the only changes were reaming-out the chamber to fit a PAK 40 cartridge,moving the elevating handwheel to the left side to allow one man laying,(NO wise cracks please!!)and finnaly to add a muzzle brake. Then it was re-named 7.62cm PAK 36(r).
IMHO, the German modifier gun should become available in January 1942. The Russian gun as captured from July 1941.

Mounted on Marder, availability dates start at May 1942.

In the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two by Chamberlain, Doyle etc. Production date for the LaS 762 is April 1942.

Marder III Started production on the same date April 1942.

It would make sence that these vehicles got into the field quickly because the chassis used were either already built or on the production line.

Hope this helps to settle this little dispute.

_____________________________

KED

(in reply to Major Destruction)
Post #: 170
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 6:39:04 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kevin E. Duguay

From a ASL addict,

The date for the 76.2mm Pak36r's availability is July 1941 but is rated as quite rare until January 1942 when it becomes more available.
In the ASL game notes on this weapon it states that the German modified guns were not available until January 1942 and that the earlier dates reflect use without these modifications. In other words, Russian guns and Russian ammunition.

In German Artillery of World War Two by I. V. Hogg, he states that vast numbers of Soviet guns and ammunition was captured in the early weeks of the Russian Campaign, and prominent among the booty was the 76.2mm 1936. He says that these weapons were immediatly assimilated into German use under their Fremdengerat name FK 296(r). The Germans saw the potential of this weapon to be a potent AT weapon and thats when the changes were ordered. Now Hogg says that the only changes were reaming-out the chamber to fit a PAK 40 cartridge,moving the elevating handwheel to the left side to allow one man laying,(NO wise cracks please!!)and finnaly to add a muzzle brake. Then it was re-named 7.62cm PAK 36(r).
IMHO, the German modifier gun should become available in January 1942. The Russian gun as captured from July 1941.

Mounted on Marder, availability dates start at May 1942.

In the Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two by Chamberlain, Doyle etc. Production date for the LaS 762 is April 1942.

Marder III Started production on the same date April 1942.

It would make sence that these vehicles got into the field quickly because the chassis used were either already built or on the production line.

Hope this helps to settle this little dispute.


Thank you ever so much for making my point crystal clear.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Kevin E. Duguay)
Post #: 171
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 6:41:54 PM   
harlekwin


Posts: 5863
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: arkham asylum
Status: offline
Beer....

I knew what the dates SHOULD be what I was wondering was what the model was modeling so to speak.....

is it expedience or integrated use.

I'd say because of stats it is integrated and thus in too early.

< Message edited by harlekwin -- 2/24/2004 12:14:47 PM >


_____________________________

$ociali$m-from those who will to those who won't.....

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 172
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 7:05:53 PM   
Kevin E. Duguay

 

Posts: 1044
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Goldsboro, North Carolina
Status: offline
Another matter for thought are the availability dates for the corresponding Russian guns.

In SPWAW the 76.2mm obr.36 is available for the entire war and then some, 1949? Same go's for the 76.2mm AA M.38.

In the case of the 76.2mm obr.36, its availablity fell off sharply by January 1942 and by December of that year had all but dissapeared from Russian weapons stocks. It is belived that this was because the factories that produced these guns were over run. Another possibility is that the Russians decided to concentrate production on the 76.2mm obr.39. Either way, by 1943 the only armies that were using this weapon were in the Axis camp.

With the 76.2mm AA m.38, the story is much the same. The reason for this may have been that they shared common parts(Barrels). This gun had the same performance as the obr.36 in ground use.

Use in Soviet service may have declined for another reason besides the ones mentioned above. It seems their use declined rapidly after the rifle division's heavy AA battery was officially deleted at the end of July 1941.

The Germans loved this gun too. Many of these were captured with enough ammunition to last till late 1944 in some home front flak units. It was also widely used on the Russian front.
Starting in 1943 as the ammunition supply began to dwindle, many of these guns were modified to use 88mm ammunition.

If I find other "stuff" I'll be glad to let you know. Just ask!!


Forgot the main reason of my own post.!!

Availability of the 76.2mm obr.36 should stop as of December 1942 for Russian forces. This may upset some Tiger hunters but fact's are fact's.
Availability of the 76.2mm AA M.38 to Russian forces would also stop as of December 1942.

And this is only IMHO.

< Message edited by Kevin E. Duguay -- 2/24/2004 5:17:21 PM >


_____________________________

KED

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 173
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 10:37:42 PM   
Overlord

 

Posts: 232
Joined: 6/20/2000
From: The Marines
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?


Well, itīs a good start, but we are still not closer to solving the basic issues, namely how high the proliferation of M1 rifles were in the Raider units.
One solution could be to change the encyclopedia text so that players could be made aware that the unit is unique.
Another to remove the Garand armed units from the USMC OOB and put them into one of the scenario designer OOBs, since they are a historic anomaly and therefore not widely available.
The third and last option would be to set their rarity rating as high in order that it be impossible to buy many of them (if playing with that option "ON").

But this still doesnīt address the basic question of units using no TO&E gear. How is this regulated by the OOB team? Is it only the USMC that getīs non TO&E gear? Furthermore this discussion leads us into the availability of captured gear, the question of which hasnīt been satisfactorily answered yet.


Here is some info on who had M1's......Raider weapons
the 2nd Raiders had them most likely around Fed of '42.

Some relevant passages..
"The raiders also had carte blanche to obtain any equipment they deemed necessary, whether or not it was standard issue anywhere else in the Corps"
also..
"Carlson also implemented an important change to the raider organization promulgated from Washington. Instead of a unitary eight-man squad, he created a 10-man unit composed of a squad leader and three fire teams of three men each. Each fire team boasted a Thompson submachine gun, a Browning automatic rifle (BAR), and one of the new Garand M-1 semiautomatic rifles. "

< Message edited by Overlord -- 2/24/2004 3:44:04 PM >


_____________________________

Semper Fi!

Jeremy


(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 174
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 10:49:17 PM   
Rune Iversen


Posts: 3630
Joined: 7/20/2001
From: Copenhagen. Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Overlord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Getting back to one of the OOBs I worked on, the USMC: there was an issue with the Raider/Para units getting M1 Garands before they were offically issued beginning in January 1943 . I went back and made some corrections.
Most of the 1942 units are now equipped with 03 Springfields or Johnson Rifles, but I left in three units which do indeed have Garands, starting in November 1942. The reason for this has been documented, and is part of Raider legend.
Mid October-November was when the Army arrived at Guadalcanal, and they had crates full of the new Garands. Well, in some cases, these weapons arrived before the troops did, and the Raiders took it upon themselves to "liberate" them. Others traded Japanese war souvenirs to the newcomers for their rifles.
Bill Wilder wrote a great article on the history of the Garand, and he mentions these incidents. So, in a few instances, I believed it would still be historically accurate to leave these few units in.
Is there any objection to that?


Well, itīs a good start, but we are still not closer to solving the basic issues, namely how high the proliferation of M1 rifles were in the Raider units.
One solution could be to change the encyclopedia text so that players could be made aware that the unit is unique.
Another to remove the Garand armed units from the USMC OOB and put them into one of the scenario designer OOBs, since they are a historic anomaly and therefore not widely available.
The third and last option would be to set their rarity rating as high in order that it be impossible to buy many of them (if playing with that option "ON").

But this still doesnīt address the basic question of units using no TO&E gear. How is this regulated by the OOB team? Is it only the USMC that getīs non TO&E gear? Furthermore this discussion leads us into the availability of captured gear, the question of which hasnīt been satisfactorily answered yet.


Here is some info on who had M1's......Raider weapons
the 2nd Raiders had them most likely around Fed of '42.

Some relevant passages..
"The raiders also had carte blanche to obtain any equipment they deemed necessary, whether or not it was standard issue anywhere else in the Corps"
also..
"Carlson also implemented an important change to the raider organization promulgated from Washington. Instead of a unitary eight-man squad, he created a 10-man unit composed of a squad leader and three fire teams of three men each. Each fire team boasted a Thompson submachine gun, a Browning automatic rifle (BAR), and one of the new Garand M-1 semiautomatic rifles. "


Afaik. Carlsons Raiders were not deployed on Guadalcanal, only in the central Pacific, right?

But still, this would entail two kinds of USMC Raider units, which the OOB afaik. used to contain (I donīt know if Erwin changed that.

The Carlson raider type unit could either be a squad of 10 men with the option of either having Thompsons or Garands in slot one, With a BAR*3 in Slot two, hand grenades in slot three, and Thompson/Garand in slot 4 (The opposite weapon of the one in slot 1)
Or it could consist of a 4 man and two three man fireteams, again with the weapons layout described above.

But again, The discussion at hand was primarily about the Raiders on Guadalcanal and their armament prior to 1943. But letīs get everything sorted out. It can only be for the better.

_____________________________

Ignoring the wulfir
Fighting the EUnuchs from within

(in reply to Overlord)
Post #: 175
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 10:55:46 PM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8900
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
OK, Overlord. Thanks for the info. So, I need to revert the 2nd "Carlson" Raider Bn Sqds to having the M1s, as they did originally, but keep the 1st "Edson" Raider Bn units as I changed them. Consider it done.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 176
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/24/2004 11:04:38 PM   
harlekwin


Posts: 5863
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: arkham asylum
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

OK, Overlord. Thanks for the info. So, I need to revert the 2nd "Carlson" Raider Bn Sqds to having the M1s, as they did originally, but keep the 1st "Edson" Raider Bn units as I changed them. Consider it done.


that's copacetic, a source reference.

Be nice if we could find TO&E on the sister unit

_____________________________

$ociali$m-from those who will to those who won't.....

(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 177
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/25/2004 12:25:15 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8900
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
Rune, the 2nd Raiders did indeed participate in the Guadalcanal campaign, but not until November-December 1942.
As far as the Raider units go, they had a notional TOE, but as has been noted, much leeway was given to the individual commanders in how these units were equipped & organized. One source lists a section of Boys ATRs as belonging to the Weapons Company, but I can't verify if they were actually used in every Raider operation. There IS a photo of a 3rd Raider Battalion unit crossing a river at Bougainville, and one of the Raiders is carrying a Boys.
Carlson's battalion was the most radically changed from the standard "D" series TOE of "regular" Marine units. Starting with 8.0, the Carlson Raiders are classed as light infantry, since Carlson's tactical methods were more akin to guerilla-type operations.
Edson's battalion was organized more like the standard Marine rifle units. What's interesting, though, is that Carlson's "fire-team" concept was offically adopted by the USMC for its rifle units in March 1944, with the issuance of the "F" series TOEs.
I apologize for going on at length about "infantry" in SPWaW , but I am fascinated by the complexities of the ever-changing permutations of the USMC organization in WWII.
My main source has been Gordon Rottmann's "USMC WWII Order of Battle", but details on the Raiders come from a variety of sources.
Overlord brought up the offical USMC Raider website, http://www.usmarineraiders.org/ , but there's also http://www.stormpages.com/garyjkennedy/index.htm , and http://www.usmcraiders.com/ , a site run by Raider vet Dan Marsh.

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 2/24/2004 5:53:06 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to harlekwin)
Post #: 178
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/25/2004 12:42:42 AM   
KG Erwin


Posts: 8900
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline
One more thing, and then I'll shut up: Bill Wilder has been on my case about writing some more articles for Wargamer. I started with an overview of Marine Tanks in WWII, but would anyone be interested in an article on the evolution of the USMC Rifle Squad/Platoon/Company from 1941-45? Would any of you read it? Just curious.
At the rate I'm going, you may end up with an article like that on this forum.

< Message edited by KG Erwin -- 2/24/2004 5:53:30 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to KG Erwin)
Post #: 179
RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions - 2/25/2004 3:00:39 AM   
Skotty702

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rune Iversen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skotty702

Is the aircraft gun issue still an issue?
P-39: 10 37mm guns
P-38J: 15 20mm guns
P-51B: 10 .50cal guns
P-51D: 10 .50cal guns
F-80: 10 .50cal guns
P-51H: 10 .50cal guns
P-38F: 15 20mm guns
P-38L: 15 20mm guns
B-25H: TEN 75mm cannons!!!!!!!!!!!

This is just the US OOB. I know there are more OOB's that have funky
gun counts. Is this an error or part of the aircraft "improvement" idea.

Thanks
Scott


I think those are the rounds of ammo available pr. weapon guvī.


My error, I referenced the HE load amount, not the AP amount. AP counts as the number of equipped weapons given for an aircraft from what I understand. So here are a few of what I THINK to be errors:

US P-39: SIX 37mm cannons. Should be ONE
US B-25H: FOUR 75mm cannons. Should only be ONE
US P-38(all versions): FOUR 20mm cannons. Should only be ONE.

Any comments?

(in reply to Rune Iversen)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> RE: 8.0 Corrections/Suggestions Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
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

0.121