Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: USMC paras ratings

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: USMC paras ratings Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 1:40:39 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


... My worry is two-fold.

First, those 75 anti-armor infantry section shoot en masse at Jap tanks, thus attriting Jap tank forces faster than in RL, provided Jap player assembles his tank units in Burma.


That is not how the algorithms operate. A point which is obvious if you actually read closely what the devs posted.


Second, if in assault phase and fort reduction by adjusted AV, the anti-armor rating of assualting devices is taken into consideration,which we don't know for sure, then the Allied Commonwealth divisions have another bonus compared to RL.


We do know for certain how it operates. You are wrong on all counts.



I don't mean in any way to disrespect the Commonwealth combat prowess,it just those 75 ratings from 01/1943 for infantry sections plus Bren(PIAT) (06/1943) plus Vickers (also PIAT) (08/1943) seem to me way off compared to US/USMC rifle squads in the same timeline. All Commonwealth inf sections match the anti-armor rating of Cdo/Para and Commonwealth combat engineer.

We had those Wirraway/Boomerang clerical errors in the Editor for 10 years, and I worry this may be the same situation.


What "errors".





I spend a lot of time ensuring I provide accurate answers. It is rare for me to not refresh my memory by going back to source material before I post an answer. Too many around here can't stand me because I **** their fantasies which are accepted by the gullible as being valid.

Alfred[/I]


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 31
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 1:51:30 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Alfred, for the Wirraway error, see the following link from post #41. The wrong/missing Wirraway and Boomerang loadouts were corrected by AndyMac in his updated scen001 in 2019.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3852047&mpage=2

AndyMac correction here, post #1, edit for v2 of scen001.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4692890

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 32
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 2:00:17 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Ambassador , there are two quotes I remember, but can no longer find via forum or Google search

One by Symon saying that 1000 Chinese infantry squads (anti-armor 5/anti soft 13) shooting at Jap tanks will finally disable/destroy tanks ,even though Chinese rifle squad has anti-armor rating 5 and penetration 0.


It’s from there : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2709758, and that quote basically confirms what I said about there’s being more to the code than simply the values.

By the way, if you check post #15, in the previous page, you’ll see JWE explaining that squad values include the support weapons present at platoon or company levels, and not otherwise included in the TOE of the units. And also that they carefully designed the values of all devices with complex maths, taking into account the algorithms and balancing every nationality’s squads in comparison to the artillery.

Also, post #96, again by JWE, and the following few ones, explains that AT mines, Bangalore’s, C4 satchels and the like are not modeled in the hard/soft firepower but in the AV/fort reduction algorithms.


As for the other quote, hard to figure if it’s from a dev.


Ambassador,

That is a good thread because it has the 3 key devs on the subject (JWE/Andy Mac/Kereguelen) all making several detailed posts. However ...

A better thread which is more on point re anti-armor values is this later thread from 2013:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3353694&mpage=1&key=armor�

JWE went very close to the edge of disclosure in his detailed comments in the thread I have provided.

Alfred

Thanks, that’s clearly enlightening !

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 33
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 2:06:38 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13168
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Then maybe someone needs to edit the Commonwealth divisions to reflect more the actual number of PIAT devices if that is what the anti-armour rating is reflecting.


That would be a serious mistake if anyone went down this path.

Alfred


Alfred,

Please note the:if

I am sure that there were other things involved, like the plastic and other fun explosives to play with that the troops were using.

Joe

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 34
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 2:17:03 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Alfred, for the Wirraway error, see the following link from post #41. The wrong/missing Wirraway and Boomerang loadouts were corrected by AndyMac in his updated scen001 in 2019.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3852047&mpage=2

AndyMac correction here, post #1, edit for v2 of scen001.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4692890



Andy Mac freely admits he isn't an air expert. Read his posts in that thread and you will see that he did the amendments without the feedback of several key devs. In descending order of importance re air OOB dev authority are:

TimTom
theElf
michaelm75au

These are the devs who can authoritatively confirm an air error or explain their judgement call.

Far too often someone claims to have found a mistake in AE when in fact what is in contention is a difference of opinion held by the devs on how to marry data with the how the algorithms operate. Judgement calls must always be left up to the devs.

Alfred

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 35
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: USMC paras ratings 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

0.195