I don't know why but I feel cheat [Archive]

saper

01 Nov 06, 09:03

Rome didn't burn in a day, saper, eh?

Should all be excellent by say, march 2007 or similar, something like that!

Present version has much to reccomend, dude!

Maybe yes, maybe not ...

Game is very old, and have very old mistakes - look f.e. tanks ... american aberration of creators giving crap ...

Tiger I: AT - 12, armor - 10 !!!
Tiger II: AT - 19 (the same gun as Tiger I), armor 19
Panther: AT - 13 !!! (the best 75mm on world, and only 13), armor - 13

T-34/85 (deadly 85mm gun): AT - 13, armor - 9 !

and amreican tracked miracle

M4/75: AT-8, AP - 12 !!!!, armor -8 (better then Pz IV H/J !!!)

M4 Firefly: AT - 17, armor 10
Jumbo 75: armor 15 !!!
Jumbo 76: AT-16, armor -15

Look M-16/19 SPAAG: AT - 5!, AP - 63 !!!!!!!!, armor - 5 !!!!!! - the most deadly weapon

Tell my - why german made production of Tiger I, if better was cheap Jumbo??? Why rusians not made production of Firefly if was cheaper than t-34/85 ???

Crap like this is a lot - look 40 mm AA gun - AT-5, AP-31 !!! penetration of this is better than 37mm and 45 mm AT gun!!!

Look for 25 pound british gun and compare it with 105 mm howitzer, or 122 mm rusian howitzer - why is so deadly ???

Look for aeroplanes ...

To made correction of this we don’t need TOAW III, enought is only patch - what we have in TOAW III ??? Almost nothing ... new visual (bader than was), few small correction and new price ... this is clear cheat ...

In effect we have game for people without base knowledge about II WW ... shame ...

Only sense of this game is possibility to remodeling .exe - like in TOAW II, that is why I asking about it ...

IF FREEWILL CREATOR HAVE PROBLEM with real live (bills), why company which create game don't pay him for LAST CHANCE TO MADE THIS GAME GOOD ???

Joao Lima

01 Nov 06, 09:58

...To made correction of this we don’t need TOAW III, enought is only patch - what we have in TOAW III ??? Almost nothing ... new visual (bader than was), few small correction and new price ... this is clear cheat ...

Not being a TOAW3 super-fan , nor a super-critic, but just an ordinary bloke that plays the game less and less every month, I would say that there are very few reasons to feel cheated.
What was done and what was not done was a very clear process , people were very well informed on it, in fact, like I pointed out in other thread, very few people can come here and say that they did not knew the problems the game they were buying had. Almost everyone that made a small appeareance in here could know the problems of the game engine, and what was being sorted out or not. I don't feel cheated, I feel dissapointed because the game is a good starting point to evolve, unfortunatelly many of the most anoying problems are still there, but people knew about it, and most of all, nobody can in all honesty say that they were not informed about what exactelly TOAW3 was. There was a wish list, but it never was more than a wish list, nobody promissed to do everything in there, and as to the database, there can be hundreds of reasons for the things you point , and if there is some inconsistency (and there are plenty) they were always there, and people knew they would still be there.

Ben Turner

01 Nov 06, 09:58

Tiger I: AT - 12, armor - 10 !!!
Tiger II: AT - 19 (the same gun as Tiger I), armor 19

No, the Tiger I used the L/56. The Tiger II used the L/71. Two different weapons.

Panther: AT - 13 !!! (the best 75mm on world, and only 13), armor - 13

I don't see what your problem is with this figure.

T-34/85 (deadly 85mm gun): AT - 13, armor - 9 !

The 85mm gun has a number of problems which were not really ironed out until the war was over.

and amreican tracked miracle

M4/75: AT-8, AP - 12 !!!!, armor -8 (better then Pz IV H/J !!!)

Well, the M4/75 was first in service in 1942. The Pz-IVH was a patched-up version of a vehicle first in service in 1938.

M4 Firefly: AT - 17, armor 10
Jumbo 75: armor 15 !!!
Jumbo 76: AT-16, armor -15

All looks fine. All of Norm's figures, btw, were calculated using penetration tables. If there's a problem its that he didn't consider less tangible factors.

Look M-16/19 SPAAG: AT - 5!, AP - 63 !!!!!!!!, armor - 5 !!!!!! - the most deadly weapon

This has been discussed elsewhere.

Tell my - why german made production of Tiger I, if better was cheap Jumbo??? Why rusians not made production of Firefly if was cheaper than t-34/85 ???

For goodness sake, Saper. Germany was not going to build a 1944 American tank in 1942 because they were not 1944 America. It's really quite simple. The T-34, as you perfectly well know, was very quick and cheap to build. That's why it was produced more than some higher rated equipment types.

Honestly- sometimes you come up with legitimate points, but this post just seems to consist mainly of exclamation marks.

Crap like this is a lot - look 40 mm AA gun - AT-5, AP-31 !!! penetration of this is better than 37mm and 45 mm AT gun!!!

Yes, that's correct.

Look for 25 pound british gun and compare it with 105 mm howitzer, or 122 mm rusian howitzer - why is so deadly ???

Because it was an incredibly modern weapon with a very rapid rate of fire.

nemo

01 Nov 06, 10:39

Maybe yes, maybe not ...

Game is very old, and have very old mistakes - look f.e. tanks ... american aberration of creators giving crap ...
Probably as old as your erratic bouts of ranting. While far from perfect indeed, those items you've singled out have been discussed - and debunked - long ago.

Tiger I: AT - 12, armor - 10 !!!
Tiger II: AT - 19 (the same gun as Tiger I), armor 19
Panther: AT - 13 !!! (the best 75mm on world, and only 13), armor - 13Tiger I (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm) and II didn't have the same gun : KwK 36 L/56 for the former, KwK 43 L/71 for the latter. The penetration tables for the KwK 36 and the 75mm KwK 42 L/70 mounted on the Panther (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther) are roughly equivalent.

T-34/85 (deadly 85mm gun): AT - 13, armor - 9 !You're mistaking the D-5T-85 with Darth Vador's Black Star of Death. Help yourself to these tables (http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/art_tanks.htm) and you'll see that it's simply on par with the KwK 36 or the KwK 42.

and amreican tracked miracle

M4/75: AT-8, AP - 12 !!!!, armor -8 (better then Pz IV H/J !!!)The thickness of the front armor for the Pzkpwf IV Ausf. G (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm#panzer4) was 50mm at 11 degrees. It was 51mm at 37 degrees on the M4A1 (http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html). So what's your point buddy?

M4 Firefly: AT - 17, armor 10
Jumbo 75: armor 15 !!!
Jumbo 76: AT-16, armor -15Front armor: 100mm on the Jumbo, at 47 degrees. You might want to check your figures before posting next time.

Look M-16/19 SPAAG: AT - 5!, AP - 63 !!!!!!!!, armor - 5 !!!!!! - the most deadly weaponRate of fire. Four .50 machine guns can indeed produce a noticeable anti personel effect on the battlefield.

Tell my - why german made production of Tiger I, if better was cheap Jumbo??? Why rusians not made production of Firefly if was cheaper than t-34/85 ???Maybe because the Jumbo entered service somewhere in 1944, long after the Tiger I - and (this may come as a shock to you) it was a U.S. tank, not a German one :halo:
Same goes with the Firefly. You should note that the Russians fielded quite a large number of Lend-Lease Shermans.

Crap like this is a lot - look 40 mm AA gun - AT-5, AP-31 !!! penetration of this is better than 37mm and 45 mm AT gun!!!Don't have the data at hand, but you can't simply compare guns by the caliber.

Look for 25 pound british gun and compare it with 105 mm howitzer, or 122 mm rusian howitzer - why is so deadly ???Again, rate of fire. The 25 pounder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_25_pounder) fired a 25 kg shell at the rate of 5 per minute, which makes for 125 kg of ordnance per minute. Its AP strength is 21.
The M-30 (http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/Artillery/art_div.htm) gun on the other hand fires at 5-6 rounds per minute a 22 kg shell, which makes for 110-132 kg to 100 kg of ordnance per minute. It's rated at 22 for AP purposes. Again: your point?

Look for aeroplanes ...No thank you. If the points you want to make in that department are as ill-informed as the previous, that'd be a waste of time. Besides, my lawn needs mowing.

To made correction of this we don’t need TOAW III, enought is only patch - what we have in TOAW III ??? Almost nothing ... new visual (bader than was), few small correction and new price ... this is clear cheat ...Good thing you didn't have to pay for it then. If it really sucks so bad, I would suggest you send your copy back.

In effect we have game for people without base knowledge about II WW ... shame ...You on the other hand show a great knowledge on WWII hard facts and figures don't you? This is precious.

Only sense of this game is possibility to remodeling .exe - like in TOAW II, that is why I asking about it ...

IF FREEWILL CREATOR HAVE PROBLEM with real live (bills), why company which create game don't pay him for LAST CHANCE TO MADE THIS GAME GOOD ???You should send Matrix your resume. With your skills and competence, no doubt they'd hire you on the spot.
Two last things though: for your readers' sake, get a grip on your bloody English; and don't capitalize, it only makes you look dumber (and that says a lot).

nemo

01 Nov 06, 10:41

Damn, Ben beat me to it.

Veers

01 Nov 06, 12:59

But at least you two were consistent. :laugh:

saper

01 Nov 06, 14:45

Probably as old as your erratic bouts of ranting. While far from perfect indeed, those items you've singled out have been discussed - and debunked - long ago.

Sorry – long time ago, I was not study this forum.

Tiger I (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm) and II didn't have the same gun : KwK 36 L/56 for the former, KwK 43 L/71 for the latter. The penetration tables for the KwK 36 and the 75mm KwK 42 L/70 mounted on the Panther (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz4.htm#panther) are roughly equivalent. ).[/QUOTE]

I agree with tigres guns - maybe I was not to clever with description - but try to compare Tiger I AT with Sherman 17 pound on 1000m, and we have 99-138 mm to 178-230 mm, but anybody think about accuracy ??? anybody try to tell me that accuracy of shell of 17 pound gun with sabot was more/less similar to 88mm shell of tiger???
And what about deadly hited tanks – 17 pounds sabot shell, and 88mm HVAP shell … should I explaining something ?…
Is in Poland group of children (Barbarossa group) witch is aberated in opinion that polish AT rifle UR, should be on the same level as Russian heavy AT rifle, because … UR had armor penetration biger than other similar light AT rifle in its time. But they never show how big was Russian shell to heavy rifle, and how small was UR’s …
Matrix creators making the same mistake, perforating of armor is not similar with destroying of tank.
And another point – have you got any information about penetrating of front tiger armor by british/us guns ??? I found only 2-3 times any information about this – very often I found information like this “Out of the 12 Tigers that had been lost, only 3 of them were due to Allied fire”

If allied guns was so wonder, why Panther could withstand 18 hit of their shells?

With reference to Panther, I could show that AT possibility is slightly too low, and armor is more/less OK, but try to compare this to Tiger I armor … Why is so big difference ???

You're mistaking the D-5T-85 with Darth Vador's Black Star of Death. Help yourself to these tables (http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/art_tanks.htm) and you'll see that it's simply on par with the KwK 36 or the KwK 42.

I am not watching child movies, but you can invite Ben.
But you have right - I was basing only on Russian sources (they are similar in selfadoration).

The thickness of the front armor for the Pzkpwf IV Ausf. G (http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm#panzer4) was 50mm at 11 degrees. It was 51mm at 37 degrees on the M4A1 (http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/m4sherman.html). So what's your point buddy?

Pzkpwf IV – H and J had front armor 80 mm, and it probably should be very poor quality, because in your opinion its made in iron-foundry armor was almost two times better.

Front armor: 100mm on the Jumbo, at 47 degrees. You might want to check your figures before posting next time.

And you wanna tell me that armor of jumbo armor was better than high quality tiger, because when we will put of lean will be better – is’t it?

Rate of fire. Four .50 machine guns can indeed produce a noticeable anti personel effect on the battlefield.

Sorry M16/19 had 2x40 mm guns – stupidity of 63 AP is in this that in schedule it was calculated 40mm rate of fire + 40mm rate of fire, but it is not 2 other guns – it was one quaded – I can agree that AP possibility will be higher than one alone gun, but not 2 times!

WW2 armor penetration of AA 40 mm guns was more/less 25 mm – why AT is 5 ???

Don't have the data at hand, but you can't simply compare guns by the caliber.
[QUOTE=nemo;601209]

It is explaining you.

[QUOTE=nemo;601209]
Maybe because the Jumbo entered service somewhere in 1944, long after the Tiger I - and (this may come as a shock to you) it was a U.S. tank, not a German one :halo:
Same goes with the Firefly. You should note that the Russians fielded quite a large number of Lend-Lease Shermans.

No it not is shock for me – german build tanks long before in US anybody try to think about tactic for tanks.
About my rhetoric question …well I am slightly disappointed that you are trying to explaining it to me …


Again, rate of fire. The 25 pounder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_25_pounder) fired a 25 kg shell at the rate of 5 per minute, which makes for 125 kg of ordnance per minute. Its AP strength is 21.
The M-30 (http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/weapons/Artillery/art_div.htm) gun on the other hand fires at 5-6 rounds per minute a 22 kg shell, which makes for 110-132 kg to 100 kg of ordnance per minute. It's rated at 22 for AP purposes. Again: your point?

Sorry but you are trying to tell me, that 87 mm shell could weight 25 kg !!! Have you see any shell for canon in your life??????
It is my dream to see this shell and canon to fire this shells.
If creators schedule of equipment thinking that 1 pound is similar to 1 kg, that I know why german player have no chance confrontation with us/british forces …

For your knowledge – weight shell to 150/155 mm gun is about 25 to 32 kg.

Funny is calculating lethal weapon is calculating of weight of shells – sorry dude but I am a soldier – and for your knowledge – one shell of 155 mm is more deadly than 5 of 87 – if you don’t know why, try to imagine situation when you are under fire … it’s difficult but not impossible …

The same level of fun is in Ben answer …

No thank you. If the points you want to make in that department are as ill-informed as the previous, that'd be a waste of time. Besides, my lawn needs mowing.

Sorry but you was not impressing me today.

Good thing you didn't have to pay for it then. If it really sucks so bad, I would suggest you send your copy back.

TOAW 3 is misunderstanding – the one chance for it is possibility to making BioEd correction.

You on the other hand show a great knowledge on WWII hard facts and figures don't you? This is precious.

Yes – your examples with M16/19, 25 pound gun and child movie example, giving you point to appreciate me … congratulation!

You should send Matrix your resume. With your skills and competence, no doubt they'd hire you on the spot.
Two last things though: for your readers' sake, get a grip on your bloody English; and don't capitalize, it only makes you look dumber (and that says a lot).

Sorry – I don’t care about matrix and your opinion and competence. I don’t expecting almost nothing essential from this side, but today you give me a point about 85mm Russian guns – it is suppriced for me …

Ben Turner

01 Nov 06, 16:50

I agree with tigres guns - maybe I was not to clever with description - but try to compare Tiger I AT with Sherman 17 pound on 1000m, and we have 99-138 mm to 178-230 mm, but anybody think about accuracy ??? anybody try to tell me that accuracy of shell of 17 pound gun with sabot was more/less similar to 88mm shell of tiger???

What about turret rotation? The Sherman had an electrically powered turret. This meant that in a meeting engagement it might get off two shells before the Tiger can even bring its 88 to bear.

The Tiger II, in any case, has enhanced targetting in TOAW. So it will hit more often (more than twice as often in open terrain).

Matrix creators making the same mistake, perforating of armor is not similar with destroying of tank.

It goes a long way. If you can penetrate the armour you can get a shell in the engine, or in the ammo store, or in some part of the machinery, or send shrapnel flying around the inside of the tank shredding the crew.

I found only 2-3 times any information about this – very often I found information like this “Out of the 12 Tigers that had been lost, only 3 of them were due to Allied fire”

Yeah: this highlights a real problem in TOAW- that it doesn't reflect the variable reliability of different vehicles.

WW2 armor penetration of AA 40 mm guns was more/less 25 mm – why AT is 5 ???

Sounds about right to me.

Sorry but you are trying to tell me, that 87 mm shell could weight 25 kg !!! Have you see any shell for canon in your life??????

LemaireSoft's 25-pounder: global gun (http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/armes/artillerie/1914.html#108839)

It's not even remotely difficult to check this fact. As I said, the 25 Pounder was a highly modern peice of equipment- so modern in fact that it is still in service with the Irish Army almost seventy years since it was first produced, with virtually no modifications. Most armies mainly used developed versions of their First World War artillery

For your knowledge – weight shell to 150/155 mm gun is about 25 to 32 kg.

For yours, the German 150mm K18 and the American 155mm M1918 both had a shell weight of 43kg.

Seriously- why do you even bother citing such obviously faulty data?

The same level of fun is in Ben answer …

Your English still needs some work, Saper. I think the word you were looking for was "humiliation". That's the feeling you're having right now.

nemo

01 Nov 06, 16:57

Sorry but you are trying to tell me, that 87 mm shell could weight 25 kg !!! Have you see any shell for canon in your life??????
It is my dream to see this shell and canon to fire this shells.
If creators schedule of equipment thinking that 1 pound is similar to 1 kg, that I know why german player have no chance confrontation with us/british forces …

For your knowledge – weight shell to 150/155 mm gun is about 25 to 32 kg.

Funny is calculating lethal weapon is calculating of weight of shells – sorry dude but I am a soldier – and for your knowledge – one shell of 155 mm is more deadly than 5 of 87 – if you don’t know why, try to imagine situation when you are under fire … it’s difficult but not impossible …

The same level of fun is in Ben answer …
…
On the shell weight you're right of course: I took the data from the Lemaire site without thinking twice. Naturally, as its very name implies, the QF 25-pounder fires a shell of about 12 and a half kilograms - my bad. Ben's argument still stands nonetheless.

As for the rest, I still can make neither head nor tail of it. A collection of anecdotes is no source for a weapon database.

nemo

01 Nov 06, 16:59

Damn again!

Ben Turner

02 Nov 06, 06:24

On the shell weight you're right of course: I took the data from the Lemaire site without thinking twice. Naturally, as its very name implies, the QF 25-pounder fires a shell of about 12 and a half kilograms - my bad.

Drat it. The "25 pounder" name supposedly derived from the barrel being the size of a 25-lb solid shot. Doesn't seem to actually be true.

Anyway, there's the rate of fire- and the fact that eight 25 pound shells are more effective at suppressing infantry than six 33 pound (105mm) shells.

viridomaros

02 Nov 06, 11:12

For me the first thing to change in the database is the effectiveness of aircrafts against ground units. I understand the arguments in favour of keeping a low effectiveness against armoured equipement but soft equipement ( especially trucks) should be hit more often. to counter balance this the air units would reorganize more often. As it is interdiction is even more effective than combat support/ direct attack. What i don't like is when i set up an air attack against a mobile artillery unit being on a road and seing 0% losses for the ground unit despite having bombed it with 300 planes or so.

Schmindrick

02 Nov 06, 13:31

Yeah sorta of a highway of death tactic....pisses me off too when light skinned vehicles don't blow up...but you still got the attack helo vs the tank variable...that seems to work pretty well;)

JAMiAM

02 Nov 06, 13:39

You do all realize, don't you, that when we fix the combat routines to include more transport losses, that everyone's gonna start *****ing about never having enough vehicles in their units to move them around?

And you do realize, don't you, that when you do get what you want, and find out it wasn't exactly what you thought you wanted, I'm going to blame this all on scenario designers not including the "right" number of transports in their units in the first place...;)

LoL! The joys of firing at a moving target...:devious:

irwin

02 Nov 06, 14:06

If anybody want i prepared special edition exe for Toaw III with changed several parms. on many tanks and anti-tanks units (about 100 vehicules and anti-tank guns, i check all WW II toaw3 units and correct wrong) . In my edition Tiger is heavy tank, in orginal toaw is only medium. :)

And correct many Orginal exe have bugs like for example:
Belgium T-15 - armour = 10!! (like Tiger) i change to 1 (real 9mm armour)

i use this pages for info about armour and penetrations
Guns vs Armour 1939 to 1945 (http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/)
World War II Vehicles and Advanced Squad Leader (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/)

Download here:
ToawIII changed exe (http://rapidshare.com/files/1004814/opart3-up-001a.rar.html)

polish version -> http://csto.v24.pl/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=2946&sid=707df88adb85fd0d700c9b40e60d9675

-------------------
sorry for my english

El Cid

02 Nov 06, 14:21

I don't find too strange the present poor behaviour of air attacks against trucks.

Low altitude bombers might try to target the tanks over the trucks, given that trucks are not a threat. True that my only source of information is Hollywood movies, but I have never seen in such movies a radio operator calling for air support to "knock out those trucks".

High altitude bombers are more random, but they are very imprecise. They only serve to create fear among the enemy, but their precision with small targets is very poor. They could reduce the moral/proficiency or readiness, but thats about it.

Perhaps there is a reason for things the way they are, and I would not change things without knowing why they were made that way in the first place.

Bloodstar

02 Nov 06, 15:02

Dicke Bertha

02 Nov 06, 15:55

You do all realize, don't you, that when we fix the combat routines to include more transport losses, that everyone's gonna start *****ing about never having enough vehicles in their units to move them around?

And you do realize, don't you, that when you do get what you want, and find out it wasn't exactly what you thought you wanted, I'm going to blame this all on scenario designers not including the "right" number of transports in their units in the first place...;)

LoL! The joys of firing at a moving target...:devious:

Oops. Guilty! :D

viridomaros

03 Nov 06, 07:12

Yeah sorta of a highway of death tactic....pisses me off too when light skinned vehicles don't blow up...but you still got the attack helo vs the tank variable...that seems to work pretty well;)

may be too well, i feel like TOAW is somewhat extreme or it kills everything or nothing. Same with naval combat. or naval bombing.

viridomaros

03 Nov 06, 07:44

You do all realize, don't you, that when we fix the combat routines to include more transport losses, that everyone's gonna start *****ing about never having enough vehicles in their units to move them around?

sure but isn't it realistic?
you would be forced to move off road etc..., move at night use AA to protect your ground units instead of using those in ANT attacks. Really that's something i'd like to see implemented.

And you do realize, don't you, that when you do get what you want, and find out it wasn't exactly what you thought you wanted, I'm going to blame this all on scenario designers not including the "right" number of transports in their units in the first place...;)

LoL! The joys of firing at a moving target...:devious:

first it's what i want. furthermore if it reduces the mobility of ground units that's exactly the effect i'm looking for. Of course testing needs to be made to be sure the effect is not too high neither too low. Well designers will take this into account. I don't see where the problem is really.

That might not be the first thing to change i agree but an enhanced version of air power would be nice. if i had to make a wish list in order of priority:

1) enhanced naval combat. Really that's a must.

2) enhanced supply system including real fuel value for motor equipement, units would spend oil points when moving. the designer would have the ability to set 3 different value for supply. 1 for oil income, 1 for ammunition and 1 for food. Equipement having to retreat when out of oil would be lost. That would be the end of panzers having a 2000kms ride when the german were really short on oil. a separated system for ammunition regarding artillery would be nice. that would allow to lower artillery abuse. I know this imply an enormous amount of work. But just imagine what the game would be.

3) an enhanced version of airpower ( see above)

4) enhanced version of loss tolerance. that would enable the possibility of conducting elastic defense on minimum losses with units defending only up to x% losses then retreating in good order to the next line of defense.

5) enhanced version of combat mechanics regarding overwhelming assault against smaller units. really the 10 stugs stopping a whole army for weeks has to stop.

6) the possibility to transfer units from one formation to another. assign more artillery when division x has to attack a city for instance etc...

7) the last but not least. When the next version/patch is coming what i'd like to see: all the scenario included with the game should be redesigned using the new features. not a copy/cut like for TOAW III. Really that's my only critic on TOAW III, that wouldn't have taken much time to redesign the existing scenarios with at least the number of rounds per turn. I can understand the time issue for checking every events though.

Anyway no matter which way TOAW will decide to go, i'll follow it as long as it stays on the historical highway. To all those who contribute to make the game better, congratulations :smoke:

Ben Turner

03 Nov 06, 08:09

And correct many Orginal exe have bugs like for example:
Belgium T-15 - armour = 10!! (like Tiger) i change to 1 (real 9mm armour)

Yeah- that'd be a typo. However the rest is all based on real world data. I prefer to trust Norm's judgement.

Ben Turner

03 Nov 06, 08:11

Pavlov tried to attack Germans few days after the start Barbarossa and Germans bombed so much on of his Cavarly Corps that it was not ready for action later. Horses as well are easy target, they also sustained very high losses.

The Germans also found that the sound of the Hs-123 was perfect for panicking horses. This would be why that aircraft remained in service long after it became obsolete.

Ben Turner

03 Nov 06, 08:14

2) enhanced supply system including real fuel value for motor equipement, units would spend oil points when moving. the designer would have the ability to set 3 different value for supply. 1 for oil income, 1 for ammunition and 1 for food. Equipement having to retreat when out of oil would be lost. That would be the end of panzers having a 2000kms ride when the german were really short on oil. a separated system for ammunition regarding artillery would be nice. that would allow to lower artillery abuse. I know this imply an enormous amount of work. But just imagine what the game would be.

This last in particular has been gone over quite thoroughly at TDG. I believe Jarek came up with quite a satisfactory system.

5) enhanced version of combat mechanics regarding overwhelming assault against smaller units. really the 10 stugs stopping a whole army for weeks has to stop.

This problem would go away if towed AT guns were less impotent on the attack.

nemo

03 Nov 06, 08:31

1) enhanced naval combat. Really that's a must.
That wouldn't be the top priority item on my list. Naval combat effects can be modeled in a number of scenarios through events. To me, there are other glaring shortcomings to fix before engaging in what amounts to quite an overhaul of the game engine.

6) the possibility to transfer units from one formation to another. assign more artillery when division x has to attack a city for instance etc...
Ditto. That said, this has to be limited in some way, lest you end up with grossly overweight divisional headquarters commanding dozens of regiments. The limit could be hard-wired (in accordance with the headquarters level) or set as a penalty in communication checks - the more the units attached, the greater the chance some of them will fail their communication check before combat.

7) the last but not least. When the next version/patch is coming what i'd like to see: all the scenario included with the game should be redesigned using the new features. not a copy/cut like for TOAW III. Really that's my only critic on TOAW III, that wouldn't have taken much time to redesign the existing scenarios with at least the number of rounds per turn. I can understand the time issue for checking every events though.
The MRPB feature has to be either agreed upon by two players when introduced in a scenario deprived of it or playtested to attain the desired effect. There's no formula for giving it a value depending on scenario size, scale etc. To me, it's too heavily scenario-dependant to be determined uniformly accross the whole collection of scenarios. It will be implemented as designers will upgrade their scenarios but I can't see it reasonably finished for the next patch.

Worth 0.02 € ;)

irwin

03 Nov 06, 11:47

Yeah- that'd be a typo. However the rest is all based on real world data. I prefer to trust Norm's judgement.

I don't agree at all.
Only 2 tanks on Belgium side:
T-13 Armour in toaw = 6 (real 9mm, 4mm sides, Valentine have 60mm in most sides and Aromur in toaw A=6)
T-13 Short gun 47mm AT = 5 ( great 2pdr = 5 too!)
T-15 13.2mm AT = 3 (like many 3.7cm AT even great USA 37 mm M6 AT = 3)

still belive in typo?

more..
M16/19 armour in toaw = 5 (real 12mm - USA's M19 Gun Motor Carriage (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/self_propelled_guns/m19_gun_motor_carriage.html) ) for example Pz IIIE has 30mm - armour in toaw = 4
Russia T-28 early 76.2mm KT28 gun AT=5
Russia BT-07A with near exactly this same gun 76.2mm KT26 AT=2
Hungary
40M Turan II - AT=11 orginal short gun 75mm 41M with penetration like 75 mm KwK L/24 but Pz IVD have AT=4 (43M Turan II have long 75mm 43M gun with penetration like 75 mm KwK 42 L/70 but in toaw not available this tank)
40M Nimród - Bofors gun on 38Toldi I Hull - Armour 38Toldi I A= 2 Armour 40M Nimród A= 5
40M Turan I - is a version LT-35 (Pz 35t) with better armour - LT35 Armour = 3, better 40M Turan I armour A = 2

M18 Hellcat AP=12 (with open turret - infantry play nice semi-basketball slam-dunk with hand grenades, even 20mm gun colud penetrate poor armour - in real only 12mm)
vs
Panther AP=10 (no comments)

M4/76 with 76 mm M1 vs Pz Panther V with 75mm kwk L70
1000m, angle 30 degree (in mm)
76.2 mm M1 vs 75mm kwk L70
APCBC 97 vs 111
HVAP 133 vs 149

in toaw3
M4/76 AT=16
Panther AT=13

3" M5 (from M10 and M18) similar results as 76mm M1 - in toaw M10 and M18 have AT=16

M36 with 90mm M3 gun AT=23
APCBC = 120 vs 165 in 88mm kwk L71 from Elefant, Nashorn or Tiger II (AT = 19 in toaw)

Firefly Armour vs KV-85 Armour
Hull
Front 51mm/37dg vs 65mm/30dg
Side 38mm/0 vs 60mm
Rear 38mm/10dg vs 60mm
Turret
FireFly vs Kv-85
Front 76mm/30dg vs 100mm
Side 51mm/5 vs 100mm/18dg
Rear 64mm/0dg vs 100mm/30dg

Armour in toaw
M4 Firefly A=10
Kv-85 A=10

real world data? :nuts:

more?
about 40% vehicules from toawIII have wrong paramaters (but only 5% is very bad)

Ben Turner

03 Nov 06, 12:18

I don't agree at all.
Only 2 tanks on Belgium side:
T-13 Armour in toaw = 6 (real 9mm, 4mm sides, Valentine have 60mm in most sides and Aromur in toaw A=6)
T-13 Short gun 47mm AT = 5 ( great 2pdr = 5 too!)
T-15 13.2mm AT = 3 (like many 3.7cm AT even great USA 37 mm M6 AT = 3)

still belive in typo?

You're right these values are questionable. However I don't think this is deliberate.

M16/19 armour in toaw = 5 (real 12mm - USA's M19 Gun Motor Carriage (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/usa/self_propelled_guns/m19_gun_motor_carriage.html) ) for example Pz IIIE has 30mm - armour in toaw = 4

You may have a point here as well.

Russia T-28 early 76.2mm KT28 gun AT=5
Russia BT-07A with near exactly this same gun 76.2mm KT26 AT=2

Check out the AP value for the latter vehicle- it's basically a self-propelled gun. The KT26 had a short barrel.

Hungary
40M Turan II - AT=11 orginal short gun 75mm 41M with penetration like 75 mm KwK L/24 but Pz IVD have AT=4 (43M Turan II have long 75mm 43M gun with penetration like 75 mm KwK 42 L/70 but in toaw not available this tank)
40M Nimród - Bofors gun on 38Toldi I Hull - Armour 38Toldi I A= 2 Armour 40M Nimród A= 5
40M Turan I - is a version LT-35 (Pz 35t) with better armour - LT35 Armour = 3, better 40M Turan I armour A = 2

These all seem valid.

M18 Hellcat AP=12 (with open turret - infantry play nice semi-basketball slam-dunk with hand grenades, even 20mm gun colud penetrate poor armour - in real only 12mm)
vs
Panther AP=10 (no comments)

I don't see what the AP strength has to do with whether the thing had an open turret.

M4/76 with 76 mm M1 vs Pz Panther V with 75mm kwk L70
1000m, angle 30 degree (in mm)
76.2 mm M1 vs 75mm kwk L70
APCBC 97 vs 111
HVAP 133 vs 149

in toaw3
M4/76 AT=16
Panther AT=13

a) source?
b) there are other situations besides firing at 1000m range at a 30 degree angle.

3" M5 (from M10 and M18) similar results as 76mm M1 - in toaw M10 and M18 have AT=16

I don't see your point- two similar weapons which are similar in TOAW?

M36 with 90mm M3 gun AT=23
APCBC = 120 vs 165 in 88mm kwk L71 from Elefant, Nashorn or Tiger II (AT = 19 in toaw)

Again, source and what about other conditions?

Firefly Armour vs KV-85 Armour
Hull
Front 51mm/37dg vs 65mm/30dg
Side 38mm/0 vs 60mm
Rear 38mm/10dg vs 60mm
Turret
FireFly vs Kv-85
Front 76mm/30dg vs 100mm
Side 51mm/5 vs 100mm/18dg
Rear 64mm/0dg vs 100mm/30dg

Armour in toaw
M4 Firefly A=10
Kv-85 A=10

I imagine the Firefly was made from rather better steel.

All this being said, I'm reluctant to give support to a wide-reaching revision of the TOAW .exe. Norm moves in mysterious ways- and I'd advise against deciding that you know better without a LOT of testing.

irwin

03 Nov 06, 12:51

all sources i descibe in first post on this thread:
http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/601753-post20.html
but on this forum any links is not visible (i don't why - maybe only on my computer) until you click right mouse button on post and "select all"
All main nations have penetration tables (on wwehicules page - sometimes named - "guns" or "penetration tables")

AP - for me vehicules attack infantry on three ways:
- from long distance - shots HE shells (M18 vs Panther - both 75mm/76 - draw)
- from medium distance - shots HE shells and attacks machine guns (Panther wins because any 3.7cm AT gun destroy M18)
- from short distance - broke front line, (Panther wins because M18 is a NBA WW II for infantry with hand grandes)

Kt26 and Kt28 is short barrel gun (this same caliber/lengh = 16.5) and have exactly this same penetration
(30mm on 500m) (from FreeWeb (http://freeweb.hu/gva/) )

Maybe you right about better steel in Firefly vs KV-85 but look for numbers. Sides and rear - about twice better then firefly - There is big diference.

Ben Turner

03 Nov 06, 20:02

Kt26 and Kt28 is short barrel gun (this same caliber/lengh = 16.5) and have exactly this same penetration

Perhaps it's just a matter of the ammunition the BT-7A was issued with, then?

irwin

04 Nov 06, 05:41

Perhaps it's just a matter of the ammunition the BT-7A was issued with, then?

Perhaps it's just another from many mistakes in toaw3? :D

viridomaros

04 Nov 06, 07:29

AP - for me vehicules attack infantry on three ways:
- from long distance - shots HE shells (M18 vs Panther - both 75mm/76 - draw)
- from medium distance - shots HE shells and attacks machine guns (Panther wins because any 3.7cm AT gun destroy M18)
- from short distance - broke front line, (Panther wins because M18 is a NBA WW II for infantry with hand grandes)

well what you describe is not related to the anti personal firepower but rather to the protection of the vehicle. which translates into armor in toaw

when you compare both vehicles:
panther has 10 and the m18 has 2. I think it's quite fair

irwin

04 Nov 06, 07:36

I don't see what the AP strength has to do with whether the thing had an open turret. and viridomaros post

and additional info (more i post above) for your question - With my opinion (about three ways of attack on infantry,) agree toaw authors too - why?

Watch this:

17 pdr on Firefly - AP=12
17 pdr AT Gun standalone - AP=9

This same gun but AP is different. And this is correct.
In real world any commander who take order to attack infantry - choose Panthers, no M18 Open Casket - for yours crew.

In toaw Panther AP=10, M18 AP=12 -> Big cheat and mistake

viridomaros

04 Nov 06, 07:40

and viridomaros post
In toaw Panther AP=10, M18 AP=12 -> Big cheat and mistake

it's not
the ap value just means the M18 has a little bit more firepower against infantry than what the panther has. regarding the lack of protection for the crew you have to look at the armor value. And the panther is 5x better protected, really that's realistic.

irwin

04 Nov 06, 07:47

it's not
the ap value just means the M18 has a little bit more firepower against infantry than what the panther has. regarding the lack of protection for the crew you have to look at the armor value. And the panther is 5x better protected, really that's realistic.

Nice but
answer two questions

first, difference between this same gun (ex. 17pdr) mounted on Firefly and standalne. AP=12 vs AP=9

second, why m18 76,2mm he shell is better 20% then 75mm HE panther?

Ben Turner

04 Nov 06, 08:27

Watch this:

17 pdr on Firefly - AP=12
17 pdr AT Gun standalone - AP=9

This same gun but AP is different.

That's because the Firefly has two MGs.

nemo

04 Nov 06, 11:24

second, why m18 76,2mm he shell is better 20% then 75mm HE panther?
Do you have the rates of fire for both weapons: 3" M1A1 and the KwK 42/L70?

irwin

04 Nov 06, 13:12

Now we look about this MG syndrome.
Firefly firepower AP-12 = 17pdr gun AP-9 + 2MG AP-3.
one MG = AP-1,5

Stug SturmHaubice 42 = 105mm + one MG = overall AP-16
this means 105mm AP-14,5 (1,5 goes to MG power)

and finally

Tiger I - AP-28 = 88mm gun have much less power in HE shells but today i very mercifull and give 88mm this same value what have 105mm HE - AP-14,5 (in real world 105mm have more power)
28-14,5= 13,5
Tiger I have two MG - 13,5/2 = 6,75 for one MG.
hmph - very powerfull MG mounted on Tigers.
I guess is a brilliant idea to mount this MGs to others German tanks - for example to Panther.

ok now we back to main thema: "M18 - cheat edition"

Now we have M18 with 1MG and
Panther with 2MG
some calulations:
i use this same power MG =1,5
M18 AP-12 - 1,5 = 10,5 for 76mm gun power for AP
Panther AP-10 - 3 = 7 for 75mm gun power for AP

Question: Why 76mm He now is 50% better then 75mm Panther gun?
Additional info (for nemo "Do you..."):
Panther have 79 shells (half He, half AT)
M18 have 45 shells (only few He, because only insane commander order to attack infantry) M18 is typical anti-tank destroyer and in real don't use for infantry attacks. (soldiers don't wants steel caskets)

Still believe "there is nothing wrong here"?
AP-12 M18 and AP-10 in Panther still good values?

nemo

04 Nov 06, 13:40

Now we look about this MG syndrome.
Firefly firepower AP-12 = 17pdr gun AP-9 + 2MG AP-3.
one MG = AP-1,5

[...]

ok now we back to main thema: "M18 - cheat edition"

[...]

Question: Why 76mm He now is 50% better then 75mm Panther gun?
Additional info (for nemo "Do you..."):
Panther have 79 shells (half He, half AT)
M18 have 45 shells (only few He, because only insane commander order to attack infantry) M18 is typical anti-tank destroyer and in real don't use for infantry attacks. (soldiers don't wants steel caskets)
You still leave out of the equation such trivia as rate of fire, shell weight and actual shell payload in terms of HE explosive, gun accuracy, quality of the optics and aiming devices etc. It's perfectly legitimate to nitpick but you have to be serious about it and take everything into account.
Besides, I don't understand why you and Saper keep using the cheat noun or adjective (the latter would be 'cheating' by the way). There are factual errors indeed in the database, I can't see any hard fact pointing to any form of cheat nor do I see whom it should benefit.

Still believe "there is nothing wrong here"?
AP-12 M18 and AP-10 in Panther still good values?Seen from here, they don't raise an eyebrow, all the more as it's an operational game, not a tactical one.

Ben Turner

04 Nov 06, 19:58

Tiger I - AP-28 = 88mm gun have much less power in HE shells but today i very mercifull and give 88mm this same value what have 105mm HE - AP-14,5 (in real world 105mm have more power)

Take a look at the equipment database. The AP value of the 88 is 26- so the game is entirely consistent.

You can disagree with this- but look again at the rate of fire etc.

Now we have M18 with 1MG and
Panther with 2MG
some calulations:
i use this same power MG =1,5
M18 AP-12 - 1,5 = 10,5 for 76mm gun power for AP
Panther AP-10 - 3 = 7 for 75mm gun power for AP

The M18s machine guns were .50 cal- heavy machine guns in other words. The Panther, I believe, was armed with the MG34, which was 7.92mm. A medium machine gun.

saper

04 Nov 06, 22:52

Besides, I don't understand why you and Saper keep using the cheat noun or adjective (the latter would be 'cheating' by the way). There are factual errors indeed in the database, I can't see any hard fact pointing to any form of cheat nor do I see whom it should benefit.
[/I]game, not a tactical one.

I don't care about cosmetic upgrades in TOAW III, fore me TOAW COW was playable ...

Well - in my note, I want to tell only, that after 10 years (or more) of this game on the market, schedule of weapon should be made correct.

If is not, game designers should give me tool to make correction by myself.
I have fourth version of this game, and I see the same crap:

- AT possibility = possibility of armor penetration, without gun accuracy, optic possibility, etc...
- amour value = thickens of amour without bonus or penalty for quality
- AP possibility = rate of fire, if somebody will create M16/19 with 4x40mm guns, will create over history miracle personal killer with AP possibility 126 !!!, but nobody looking that AP of Sherman’s is crap because tank commander will not want to lose his live, during strafing from 12,7 mm HMG - on historical movies I never saw American WWII tankers in attack with brave tank commanders whose want to lost his live, from bullet of the enemy rifle.

Look for German tank Maus - in effect of strange calculations we have a monster ... but this monster was almost immovable ...

p.s: penetrating of armor is only first steep to destroying tank, not the last ... many tanks was hited by AT shells, and had penetrated armor and still fought ...

saper

04 Nov 06, 23:18

bEN I will answer you, nevertheless a year wan not end ...

:)

What about turret rotation? The Sherman had an electrically powered turret. This meant that in a meeting engagement it might get off two shells before the Tiger can even bring its 88 to bear.

The Tiger II, in any case, has enhanced targeting in TOAW. So it will hit more often (more than twice as often in open terrain).
.

Ben - we was talking about 1000m distance - what you are talking about turret rotation - it is last element to calculation

ad. Tiger II - its truth, but in schedule is size parameter

It goes a long way. If you can penetrate the armour you can get a shell in the engine, or in the ammo store, or in some part of the machinery, or send shrapnel flying around the inside of the tank shredding the crew.
.

It is truth, but after penetration of the amour, you have to get hit engine, or ammo store ... tell me what was made with the crew of Shermans after hit by german HVAP bullet - are you still calculating ammo store ???

Yeah: this highlights a real problem in TOAW- that it doesn't reflect the variable reliability of different vehicles.
.

I fill that should be another one factor in the game - durability of construction, it will give out another point - indestructible halftracks ...

LemaireSoft's 25-pounder: global gun (http://www.lemaire.happyhost.org/armes/artillerie/1914.html#108839)

It's not even remotely difficult to check this fact. As I said, the 25 Pounder was a highly modern peice of equipment- so modern in fact that it is still in service with the Irish Army almost seventy years since it was first produced, with virtually no modifications. Most armies mainly used developed versions of their First World War artillery
.

I agree that was modern - but not enough modern to mistake pounds for kilograms ...

I am sceptic for your link - I think they still changing pounds for kilograms - I will be very happy if you will find the picture of 25 kg shell for 87 mm gun ...

For yours, the German 150mm K18 and the American 155mm M1918 both had a shell weight of 43kg.
.

I agree, lighter was (are) too.

Your English still needs some work, Saper. I think the word you were looking for was "humiliation". That's the feeling you're having right now.

I agree with you (again !!!) - if somebody have feeling that is "humiliated" by me, have to know that was not my idea ...

JAMiAM

05 Nov 06, 00:49

First of all, let me go on record as saying that nobody seriously involved with TOAW would ever claim that the database is perfect. I'm sure that there are typos, miscalulated numbers, and poor assumptions built into at least a few of the several thousand numbers within it. That said...

I think that if you feel cheated about getting a free contributor's copy of a game, in exchange for Matrix Games including your scenario, then by all means, send it back, give it to a friend, or use it as a drink coaster on your coffee table. To be given it, in exchange for something that you had no legal rights to once you had released it to the public, under terms of the EULA of the Talonsoft product that you originally designed it under, is more than fair recompense. If Matrix Games hadn't acquired the publishing rights to TOAW and decided to improve it and offered you a free copy then what would you have had in exchange for the work that you had already done? That's right...Nothing!

So, please find another word to describe your feelings of having been given something, than "cheat".

I don't care about cosmetic upgrades in TOAW III, fore me TOAW COW was playable ...

Maybe you didn't read the extensive change list included with your game? It's in the Whatsnew file, and has been updated for each of the two released patches. We fixed a number of bugs still left in the game, from the last patch issued by Talonsoft (in 2000!) and made some very substantial engine improvements. We're working on a third patch, and have a LOT of work scheduled for the engine. What did you get from Talonsoft in terms of support for your CoW purchase (assuming you did actually buy it) in the last 6 years? That's right...nothing.

Well - in my note, I want to tell only, that after 10 years (or more) of this game on the market, schedule of weapon should be made correct.

TOAW was originally released in 1998. This is 2006.

I don't know about the mathematics you were taught, but 2006 - 1998 = 8. Not 10 years, and certainly not "(or more)".

I don't know why I'm going to bother going on, refuting the rest of your post, since obviously you're working with some sort of severe deficiency in analytical skills, but here we go...

If is not, game designers should give me tool to make correction by myself.

Why? You were not promised an equipment editor with your purchase (or gift, in your case) of any version of TOAW - TOAW III, included. You were promised a playable game, along with a scenario editor, and premade scenarios. You got that. Not only that, but you got one that is being actively supported by its publisher - Matrix Games - with continuing patches and additional engine development. It's not being left out to twist in the wind.

If you want to make the corrections yourself, you can learn programming and design your own perfect game. Or, you can wait until either Matrix Games, or some enterprising amateur, releases a database editor for TOAW III.

I have fourth version of this game, and I see the same crap:I don't know if you're implying that you had previously purchased the other versions, or not. Whether you did, or not, though is of no consequence. The changes from Century of Warfare to TOAW III are more significant than any of the previous generational releases. Regardless, if you can't see the evolution of the game that have occurred since its initial release 8 years ago, then you're not looking hard enough.

- AT possibility = possibility of armor penetration, without gun accuracy, optic possibility, etc...
- amour value = thickens of amour without bonus or penalty for quality

You demonstrate a lack of understanding about the basic engine here, and you want to tout your expertise to make it better? That's scary.

The anti-armor portion of the system does indeed take into account a probabilistic pairing of like, and likely, weapons systems, accuracy, optics, terrain, size and agility of target, and now, in TOAW III, flanking shots against weaker side armor. Further refinements to this are planned to make it even better than it is now.

With respect to the actual values, I suspect that Norm initially worked from penetration tables and average armor thicknesses, then adjusting by small increments for other "intangible" factors such as rate of fire, turret traversal speeds, armor quality, etc. Unfortunately, he didn't let us know the full range of things that he accounted for, and - yes - he may have made some mistakes along the way. However, since he had a much better idea of how the engine works than you've demonstrated thus far, I would have to say that as a general case, I would trust his judgements on these matters over yours.

- AP possibility = rate of fire, if somebody will create M16/19 with 4x40mm guns, will create over history miracle personal killer with AP possibility 126 !!!, but nobody looking that AP of Sherman’s is crap because tank commander will not want to lose his live, during strafing from 12,7 mm HMG - on historical movies I never saw American WWII tankers in attack with brave tank commanders whose want to lost his live, from bullet of the enemy rifle.
Maybe this is part of the problem. Quit using what happens in the movies to justify your preconceptions on what should, or should not, happen in the game. In any case, TOAW uses raw firepower to determine AP strength. This is calculated by using rate of fire, and HE capacity. Do you have a better magic formula for this?

If designers feel that using a particalar piece of AA equipment is lending what would be an excessive AP boost to the units in their game, then the answer is obvious. DON'T USE IT! Design for effect, and use some other piece of equipment that gives the effect within the engine's parameters that you intend for the unit to have.

The game is operational, not tactical, nor grand tactical. The combat formalae are designed to scale well within a particular range of hex/unit sizes, and offer a probabilistic model of overall attrition between weapons systems that are found within armies ranging from the late 1800's through 2010. Don't try to make it into something that it isn't. If you disregard my advice, and choose out of stubborness to make it (in your mind, or your scenarios) something that it isn't, then please don't come whining that you were somehow "cheated".

Look for German tank Maus - in effect of strange calculations we have a monster ... but this monster was almost immovable ...
And in terms of the game, its large size results in more hits against it, and its slow speed results in it reducing the speed of units with it included. Given an operational model this is appropriate.

p.s: penetrating of armor is only first steep to destroying tank, not the last ... many tanks was hited by AT shells, and had penetrated armor and still fought ...
Indeed. This is why there is a probabilistic model built into the penetration formula. A "hit" that does not destroy the tank can be either a hit that doesn't penetrate (by the formula and its probability check), one that results in a disabled and sent back to inventory, or one that doesn't even get checked against, since it is absorbed into the overall attritional structuring of the combat system. TOAW does not track every shot fired from every weapon. Pretending it does, or should, and then arguing from that false assumption is a waste of time - yours, and mine.

However, if even one person finds my rebuttal helpful in answering some questions on how TOAW III works, then I'll consider it time not wasted, and instead, well spent.

Veers

05 Nov 06, 00:59

I was entertained by it, does that count? :laugh:

JAMiAM

05 Nov 06, 01:08

I was entertained by it, does that count? :laugh:

Well...it is all about a game, so I guess the answer would have to be "yes"...;)

irwin

05 Nov 06, 06:01

You still leave out of the equation such trivia as rate of fire, shell weight and actual shell payload in terms of HE explosive, gun accuracy, quality of the optics and aiming devices etc.

and Ben Turner "but look again at the rate of fire etc."

No, i always try to answer on all yours comments and don't leave anything - in oposite - Ben Turner, viridomaros and even you often cut my post and don't respose to all my arguments. (ex. penetration data, Ben wants sources, i give it - no response, you cut MG mathemathics from my last post)

Ok - back to thema.
Opitcs, aiming - toaw have special bytes to show this things. "optics1 (enhanced targeting)" 2060-2063 on unit/abilities list, Do not nesesry include this in AP area.
Size of shells - if you think about huge differences - 76mm and 75mm shells is very this same , maybe one is very little more power but overall - is similar - DRAW
Gun accuracy - Panther gun have very high accucarcy, one of highest of all WW II guns - 97% from 1000m to 2mx2,5m target, for ex. 2pdr in this conditions only 26% (British independent test) - I don't know about 76mm M1 - I have no proof then i must say - is similar (but imho is less then kwk 42) - DRAW
Rate of Fire - Panther - 6-8 rounds per minute, i don't know exactly (hard to find any sources in this area) but i read "slightly lower then 75mm M3 from M4A1 (20-22 rounds per minute)" - maybe 18 rounds per minute - twice and half faster then Panther. M18 is BETTER? Not exactly. Look for any archival footage when tank use HE shell - for example M4A1 on Okinawa - 1-3 rounds pre minute.
Also rate of fire is strongly corelate with quantity of rounds. When M18 have for ex. 5 HE rounds - 5 rounds per minute becouse no ammo - Panther is much BETTER - 40 HE rounds!!! From many things in your list you leave this most important "quantity of rounds". (leave - because i describe it in my last post)

If you still believe M18 (with 5 rounds He and 1MG) is better infantry attack unit then Panther (40 HE rounds, 2MG) look another example

M18 US Anti-Tank vs M4A2 Sherman Infantry support tank
M18 (few rounds He, 5 for ex., 1 MG) vs M4A2 (90 rounds ammo, half HE (about 45) + 3 MGs!!!,)
add info: "76 mm M1 had less High Explosive (HE) and smoke performance than the 75 mm M3"

In toaw3
M18 AP=12
M4A2 AP=12

and funny thing - toaw use for AP 2 bytes values (most others is only 1byte like Armour, AT, AA) - for player when you look on statistics in game you see AP=12 but internally, inside in engine toaw use different values. (Ask "jlbetin" if you don't believe)

For example:
Cavalry Squad (Saber) AP=3 but internally have 20
Cavalry Squad (Lance) AP=3 but internally have 25 - better then Saber but player thinks "3 is 3" No! Saber have about AP=3.2, Lance about AP=3.8

Panther AP=10 but internally have 78
M18 AP=12 but internally have 99
M4A2 AP=12 but internally have 93!!

This means
M18 about AP=12.8
M4A2 about AP=12.2

M18 is better in AP!
M18 (few rounds He, 5 for ex., 1 MG) vs M4A2 (90 rounds ammo, half HE (about 45) + 3 MGs!!!,)

and for the end - Ben Turner - ok Tiger I have 26 - but then 26-14,5=11,5 - 5,75 for single MG, still very unrealistic power MG. Yes M18 have .50 cal - but look for my M18 vs M4A2 (1x.50 cal MG 2x0.30 cal MG) - what now?

AP-12 M18 and AP-10 in Panther still good values?

Ben Turner

05 Nov 06, 09:04

Look for German tank Maus - in effect of strange calculations we have a monster ... but this monster was almost immovable ...

And so it never went into service. The assumption is that if this thing were ever to show up on the battlefield, it would be because the Germans had arranged things so it could actually fight.

p.s: penetrating of armor is only first steep to destroying tank, not the last ... many tanks was hited by AT shells, and had penetrated armor and still fought ...

Generally, having your armour penetrated was extremely bad news. The shell might not hit anything vital on it's first trajectory, but you can be damned sure it'll hit the inside wall on the far side. It won't have the momentum to penetrate that, so it'll either bounce off or explode- killing the crew or hitting the fuel or ammunition.

Ben Turner

05 Nov 06, 09:21

Gun accuracy

Didn't you just dismiss optics because it's included elsewhere?

Rate of Fire - Panther - 6-8 rounds per minute, i don't know exactly (hard to find any sources in this area) but i read "slightly lower then 75mm M3 from M4A1 (20-22 rounds per minute)" - maybe 18 rounds per minute - twice and half faster then Panther. M18 is BETTER? Not exactly. Look for any archival footage when tank use HE shell - for example M4A1 on Okinawa - 1-3 rounds pre minute.

So you're saying that on paper it's fine but in this film you saw....

and for the end - Ben Turner - ok Tiger I have 26 - but then 26-14,5=11,5 - 5,75 for single MG, still very unrealistic power MG. Yes M18 have .50 cal - but look for my M18 vs M4A2 (1x.50 cal MG 2x0.30 cal MG) - what now?

Why are you subtracting 14.5 from 26? Where do these values come from? The AP factor of the Tiger I is derived from the 88mm DP gun, which has an AP factor of 26. 14.5 isn't involved at any stage. The reason this figure is so high is the same as the reason the 25 pounder's is so high- rate of fire. Moreover, even if you deliver the same weight of explosives to the target, delivering more, smaller shells will have a more disruptive effect.

saper

05 Nov 06, 10:53

First of all, let me go on record as saying that nobody seriously involved with TOAW would ever claim that the database is perfect. I'm sure that there are typos, miscalulated numbers, and poor assumptions built into at least a few of the several thousand numbers within it. That said....

I agree.

So, please find another word to describe your feelings of having been given something, than "cheat"..

This is funny – you are talking about my personal feelings – are you a God???

Maybe you didn't read the extensive change list included with your game? It's in the Whatsnew file, and has been updated for each of the two released patches. We fixed a number of bugs still left in the game, from the last patch issued by Talonsoft (in 2000!) and made some very substantial engine improvements. We're working on a third patch, and have a LOT of work scheduled for the engine. What did you get from Talonsoft in terms of support for your CoW purchase (assuming you did actually buy it) in the last 6 years? That's right...nothing. .

I Am still under impression of quality of the changes, but real problem was almost not touched.
http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/operational-art-war/33232-features-modifications-list-updated-team.html
Here you have got the list of expecting upgrades – serious treatment is preparing 70-80% of this in new TOAW version – how many of this is including in your list ???
If is different, that is for my feeling is not enough.

TOAW was originally released in 1998. This is 2006.
I don't know about the mathematics you were taught, but 2006 - 1998 = 8. Not 10 years, and certainly not "(or more)". .

Wow – mister wiseacre !!! 8 years is to long too, for big list of defects.

I don't know why I'm going to bother going on, refuting the rest of your post, since obviously you're working with some sort of severe deficiency in analytical skills, but here we go. ...

Yes – guy which is not see different between pound and kilogram have big potential … never mind.

Why? You were not promised an equipment editor with your purchase (or gift, in your case) of any version of TOAW - TOAW III, included. You were promised a playable game, along with a scenario editor, and premade scenarios. You got that. Not only that, but you got one that is being actively supported by its publisher - Matrix Games - with continuing patches and additional engine development. It's not being left out to twist in the wind... .

This is essential of Matrix point of view for clients. Take my congratulation!
Remember - I don’t promised anything!!! If I buying American car, I am not making marriage with that, I am not promising the factory, that I will be to the end of its poor product life, and I will be using f.e. the same engine if Chinese or German is better …

I see tahat you are very selfsatisficted of your product, and I am first guy wich is talking that TOAW III is crap in confrtation of expectation - that can be painfull for you - I can undrerstund that.

If you want to make the corrections yourself, you can learn programming and design your own perfect game. Or, you can wait until either Matrix Games, or some enterprising amateur, releases a database editor for TOAW III..

Now I know everything – than you.

I don't know if you're implying that you had previously purchased the other versions, or not. Whether you did, or not, though is of no consequence. The changes from Century of Warfare to TOAW III are more significant than any of the previous generational releases. Regardless, if you can't see the evolution of the game that have occurred since its initial release 8 years ago, then you're not looking hard enough.

I see evolution – I wanna talk only that after 8 years list should be completed, unfortunately is not …

You demonstrate a lack of understanding about the basic engine here, and you want to tout your expertise to make it better? That's scary.

The anti-armor portion of the system does indeed take into account a probabilistic pairing of like, and likely, weapons systems, accuracy, optics, terrain, size and agility of target, and now, in TOAW III, flanking shots against weaker side armor. Further refinements to this are planned to make it even better than it is now.

With respect to the actual values, I suspect that Norm initially worked from penetration tables and average armor thicknesses, then adjusting by small increments for other "intangible" factors such as rate of fire, turret traversal speeds, armor quality, etc. Unfortunately, he didn't let us know the full range of things that he accounted for, and - yes - he may have made some mistakes along the way. However, since he had a much better idea of how the engine works than you've demonstrated thus far, I would have to say that as a general case, I would trust his judgements on these matters over yours.

I can understand that if he is your boss, but I don’t thrusting him and you – I see a lot of American made equipment aberration, and talking about judgment is not enough to kill my skepticism.

Maybe this is part of the problem. Quit using what happens in the movies to justify your preconceptions on what should, or should not, happen in the game. In any case, TOAW uses raw firepower to determine AP strength. This is calculated by using rate of fire, and HE capacity. Do you have a better magic formula for this? .

Yes I have – enough is looking for logical human behavior. Is no heroes under fire. Look for M4 – we have 75mm gun and 2 MG. 12,7 mm giving AA factor = 2, and it is OK. But why is giving so big AP bonus ??? Extra HMG is giving AP bonus, but not for full rate fire – I think 30% of this should be OK.

If designers feel that using a particalar piece of AA equipment is lending what would be an excessive AP boost to the units in their game, then the answer is obvious. DON'T USE IT! Design for effect, and use some other piece of equipment that gives the effect within the engine's parameters that you intend for the unit to have. .

I don’t understand why – if booth side of players have the same fillings, why should use mistaken list of equipment ???

The game is operational, not tactical, nor grand tactical. The combat formalae are designed to scale well within a particular range of hex/unit sizes, and offer a probabilistic model of overall attrition between weapons systems that are found within armies ranging from the late 1800's through 2010. Don't try to make it into something that it isn't. If you disregard my advice, and choose out of stubborness to make it (in your mind, or your scenarios) something that it isn't, then please don't come whining that you were somehow "cheated"..

I think that different historical periods should have different .exe

And in terms of the game, its large size results in more hits against it, and its slow speed results in it reducing the speed of units with it included. Given an operational model this is appropriate.
Maybe is for you, but for me not. Maus calculated with your factors have defense strength =8, T-72 have 7 !!! Are you really don’t see the differed ??? Why more then 20 years after WWII, Russians start to build T72 if in 1945 caught miracle on the track???

Indeed. This is why there is a probabilistic model built into the penetration formula. A "hit" that does not destroy the tank can be either a hit that doesn't penetrate (by the formula and its probability check), one that results in a disabled and sent back to inventory, or one that doesn't even get checked against, since it is absorbed into the overall attritional structuring of the combat system. TOAW does not track every shot fired from every weapon. Pretending it does, or should, and then arguing from that false assumption is a waste of time - yours, and mine.

However, if even one person finds my rebuttal helpful in answering some questions on how TOAW III works, then I'll consider it time not wasted, and instead, well spent.

I am thinking that your company is not watching for all possibilities.
Idea is good, and with some upgrades of present product could give a good result – why is one exe for present time wars and I and IIWW ???
Look for 40 mm AA gun: AT-5, AA-6, AP-31. Too big for IIWW, to low for 2004 …

I think idea of different exe. for time periods should be made in TOAW COW, unfortunately is not made even in TOAW III.

And question of help for matrix – if matrix employee is talking that have “deeply in the ass” clients opinion … well – try answer for that by yourself …

bye

saper

05 Nov 06, 11:07

And so it never went into service. The assumption is that if this thing were ever to show up on the battlefield, it would be because the Germans had arranged things so it could actually fight.
.

Ben - maus is in the shedule - I saw few scenarios with this tank in "what if" sceanrios ... Do you realy don,t feel that is misunderstunding ???

Generally, having your armour penetrated was extremely bad news. The shell might not hit anything vital on it's first trajectory, but you can be damned sure it'll hit the inside wall on the far side. It won't have the momentum to penetrate that, so it'll either bounce off or explode- killing the crew or hitting the fuel or ammunition.

Ben - you are conferming my point of view. 88mm guns was more deadly than 17 pounds AT gun (bullet with sabot), but in the table that Tigres are shooting shells with sabots and 17 pound is shooting HVAP bullets. Can you see that???

nemo

05 Nov 06, 11:10

I'm looking forward to the stuff you'll put out scenario-wise when an equipment database editor is available.

Really.

nemo

05 Nov 06, 11:17

Ben - you are conferming my point of view. 88mm guns was more deadly than 17 pounds AT gun (bullet with sabot), but in the table that Tigres are shooting shells with sabots and 17 pound is shooting HVAP bullets. Can you see that???
Marginally for the KwK 36 L/56 (and with the Panzergranate 40). The KwK 43 L/71 was indeed superior. Which one are you talking about by the way?

Bob Cross

05 Nov 06, 11:52

I think that if you feel cheated about getting a free contributor's copy of a game, in exchange for Matrix Games including your scenario, then by all means, send it back, give it to a friend, or use it as a drink coaster on your coffee table.

Saper got a free copy? Which of his scenarios was included? Must have been under a different name as there is no "Saper" listed in the credits.

nemo

05 Nov 06, 12:02

Saper got a free copy? Which of his scenarios was included? Must have been under a different name as there is no "Saper" listed in the credits.
You're right. I think there's a possible confusion here with the CSTO group. I'm guilty as charged for this. My bad.

m5000

05 Nov 06, 12:42

Features/Modifications List (Updated by team) - Xtreme-Gamer Forums (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33232)

Siberian heat - I feel that somebody cheat buyers of TOAW III.

I am not see even half changes from your list.

No body even made BioEditor for Toaw 3 ...

I'm disappointed.

i also feel that the present release is a bit of a come down...

what we get is basically the same stuff as toaw-acow with very MINOR corrections, no breakthrough changes, and the promised patches don't seem to come up, it IS a bit disappointing

actually, it even turned out that the scenarios included in the game have not been corrected (this is a shame, really), are sometimes not fully compatible with the Matrix Ed and still need changes, the explanation that these scenarios were not made by Matrix but by others and it is their responsibility to correct them does not convince me since the fact that the game has lots of new scenarios was used by Matrix as an advertising slogan and Matrix benefited from it, so i believe it is the company's responsibilty to correct them if they're using these new scenarios to generate money

it's this that makes me slowly drift away from TOAW towards the Panzer Campaigns series

i don't want to say that the game is bad, it is fairly good, but up to this day it is basically the same as the previous releases, so i guess some people may feel that they wasted their money

but the prospects look bright so maybe one day we see a major change in this system :shy:

for the time being i like to cherish the breakthrough changes introduced so far - this very eleborate circle of stars on the right of the panel which sometimes helps (it really DOES), a new colour scheme, and some promises which are the most exciting part :D

m5000

05 Nov 06, 14:12

after having read the above posts i must say that it's always like this when it comes to discussing equipment characteristics, i remember similar 'rows' at SPWaW forums when they were discusimg verious tanks and other vehicles...

come on guys, stop squabbling over such petty details, i don't think it really matters if something will be '10' or '11'

there are far more serious matters here - e.g. the chain of command, the ability to attach units to hq during a scen, hexside rivers and so on

have a pint instead :smoke: and indulge in this, not perfect, but still good game

Veers

05 Nov 06, 14:17

JAMiAM

05 Nov 06, 14:32

You're right. I think there's a possible confusion here with the CSTO group. I'm guilty as charged for this. My bad.

However, in spite of his objections - in detail - to just about everything stated by anyone supporting the game, he didn't once refute your original claim, or my assumption based on the claim.

JAMiAM

05 Nov 06, 14:33

have a pint instead :smoke: and indulge in this, not perfect, but still good game
I'm a greedy SOB. Can I have two?:laugh:

m5000

05 Nov 06, 14:55

I'm a greedy SOB. Can I have two?:laugh:

sure, my treat :cool:

JAMiAM

05 Nov 06, 16:15

I Am still under impression of quality of the changes, but real problem was almost not touched.
http://www.xtreme-gamer.com/forums/operational-art-war/33232-features-modifications-list-updated-team.html
Here you have got the list of expecting upgrades – serious treatment is preparing 70-80% of this in new TOAW version – how many of this is including in your list ???
If is different, that is for my feeling is not enough.

That list was a call for suggestions. It was NEVER promised to be a list of expected upgrades. Sorry, if you couldn't read it correctly and assumed incorrectly.

Wow – mister wiseacre !!! 8 years is to long too, for big list of defects.

What does 8 years, or 100 years have to do with it? The real question is how many years was the program being developed, sold and supported by the companies that have had the publishing rights, and what did they do during that time? For Talonsoft and TakeTwo, this was some indeterminate amount of time developing, then around two years of active support, petering out in 2000, and dribbling sales through an almost impossible to find it in website. Then there was no development, or support on the title until the end of the 2005, when Matrix Games acquired the rights, recruited a team, and began catching up on lost time. Around 8 months later, you had a product released that added more improvements to the system than ANY of the post-TOAWI iterations.

Much of the rest of your rant is rather unintelligible. It may be that I haven't had enough coffee, or that maybe you've had too much. However, I'll skip to the parts that I do understand, and answer to them.

I see evolution – I wanna talk only that after 8 years list should be completed, unfortunately is not …

Even if TOAW was actively being worked on for that time (read again, what I wrote above) why should the product line's evolution be complete after 8 years? Is Civilization "completed"? Is the Total War Series "completed"? Is Doom, or Half-Life, or any other game system ever truly "completed"? No.

Why is that, do you suppose? My own thoughts are that it has to do both with how good the initial concept is, along with the results of the ongoing evolution, in inspiring players to constantly find that sweet spot of being happy with the product, yet always wanting to "grow it", just a little more.

I can understand that if he is your boss, but I don’t thrusting him and you – I see a lot of American made equipment aberration, and talking about judgment is not enough to kill my skepticism.

I presume you are speaking of Norm here. He is not my boss. David Heath is my boss. Norm helped with getting the TOAD Team up and running with some minor patchwork at the end of 2005, and is responsible, of course, for the conceptualization and creation of TOAW, from its initial release in 1998, through its final Talonsoft relase of Century of Warfare in 2000, along with patchwork for that version. He has long since moved on from TOAW, and is involved in other endeavors.

My point, that you seemingly missed, is that Norm was more intimately aware of the actual workings of the system and how it was intended to work, than anyone else. Hence, I would trust his judgement as to what the appropriate values for an item in the database should be, as opposed to yours. Particularly, since you demonstrate, time and time again, that you really don't know what the numbers represent.

Yes I have – enough is looking for logical human behavior. Is no heroes under fire. Look for M4 – we have 75mm gun and 2 MG. 12,7 mm giving AA factor = 2, and it is OK. But why is giving so big AP bonus ??? Extra HMG is giving AP bonus, but not for full rate fire – I think 30% of this should be OK.
With few exceptions, the database values generally are integer values only. Therefore, you will have rounding to the most appropriate integer occur. Arguing over the nuances of whether a turret mounted HMG should be counted as contributing a 1, 2, or 3 to the AP value of the piece of equipment goes into things that are not covered in an operational game, such as doctrine, Hollywood style bravery <g>, and increased field of fire from elevation advantages. Likewise, with arguing the advantages and disadvantages of hull mounted MG's. In other words, a waste of time. It is given a standard value based on best case usage in comparison to other equipment.

I don’t understand why – if booth side of players have the same fillings, why should use mistaken list of equipment ???

I think that different historical periods should have different .exe
We're working on these things; both an official equipment editor, as well as splitting off/extending the database to include time periods not well represented by the current one. Some of these future releases will be free for registered owners, while others will be packaged as new products.

Maybe is for you, but for me not. Maus calculated with your factors have defense strength =8, T-72 have 7 !!! Are you really don’t see the differed ??? Why more then 20 years after WWII, Russians start to build T72 if in 1945 caught miracle on the track???

I'm sorry to have to keep beating you up with this, but the above quote again demonstrates that you really have no clue as to how the defense factor of a piece of equipment is used in the game. Understand first, before you presume to change. Please.

I am thinking that your company is not watching for all possibilities.
We are indeed watching for all reasonable possibilities. Now...what your definition of reasonable is, and what ours is, might vary. I think it's entirely reasonable that I should be able to go into any restaurant and order a pizza. However, I haven't had much luck in convincing McDonalds to follow along with my expectations of what a restaurant should provide to me, as a paying customer.

Idea is good, and with some upgrades of present product could give a good result –
I'm glad you see the potential in the product, and you are obviously quite passionate in your desire for it to satisfy all of your needs.

why is one exe for present time wars and I and IIWW ???
Look for 40 mm AA gun: AT-5, AA-6, AP-31. Too big for IIWW, to low for 2004 …
If you think that the numbers are off, then design for effect, with different items available in the database, and make those notations in your design notes, and scenario briefing. Or, wait for an equipment editor to be made...

I think idea of different exe. for time periods should be made in TOAW COW, unfortunately is not made even in TOAW III.
And I think that my 1968 Chevrolet Pickup Truck should be able to turn into a boat or a plane, at my whim. After all, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang did that and it came out in the same year.

Perhaps we should each readjust what our expectations are for the products we are using, based on a more realistic appraisal of the circumstances.

And question of help for matrix – if matrix employee is talking that have “deeply in the ass” clients opinion … well – try answer for that by yourself …

That sounds like more of a cry for help, than a question for help. My participation with you in this conversation is at an end, if this is continues to be the tone of it.

We may reasonably disagree on whether your expectations for a product are likely to be met by us, and if you don't feel that you are getting your money's worth, then by all means, do not patronize us in the future. It is the power of the consumer, after all. However, to suggest that we are intentionally screwing you, in any way, because your expectations (in terms of price, features, and timing) are not deemed realistic by us, is insulting at best. You obviously have no idea of how customer oriented Matrix Games is.

Bloodstar

05 Nov 06, 18:52

active support, petering out in 2000, and dribbling sales through an almost impossible to find it in website. Then there was no development, or support on the title until the end of the 2005, when Matrix Games acquired the rights, recruited a team, and began catching up on lost time. Around 8 months later, you had a product released that added more improvements to the system than ANY of the post-TOAWI iterations.

Maybe I could agree that database was inherented from previous version of TOAW and changing that would cause whole eruption of new problems ie. letting the worms out of can but I disagree that TOAW 3 added more improvements to the system than any of the post TOAW 1 iterations.

This is clearly playing at the horn Matrix Games is great, Talon Soft is shite.
To explain:

First there was THE OPERATIONAL ART OF WAR 1939-1955 released in 1998. I will call that TOAW as we know it. :)

The next game was TOAW 2 that BROUGHT modern combat engine. Now, maybe someone could think that that is nothing but I disagree. Likewise EA will not GIVE YOU Battlefield 2 and BF 2142 for the same price.

Why Talon Soft released so many version of TOAW? (WOTY, Battle Packs, Elite, COW etc...). Because that is the way how they WERE SUPPOSED TO DO BUSINESS to keep TOAW on the SHELF! The shops wanted always new version and in fact everyone is doing that releasing some kind of GOLD, or GOTY version etc. So when we understand that we can see that TalonSoft HAD TO DO THINGS THAT WAY.

Also, COW introduced also some changes and COMBINED all WW1, WW2, modern times into one package. So calling TOAW 3 best things in TOAW series is a little bit exagerating. I wouldn't spit on COW just like that.

Just that.

Mario

nemo

05 Nov 06, 19:09

Also, COW introduced also some changes and COMBINED all WW1, WW2, modern times into one package. So calling TOAW 3 best things in TOAW series is a little bit exagerating. I wouldn't spit on COW just like that.

Just that.

Mario
I don't think anyone is spitting on CoW (or on anybody for that matter :D). Just re-stating the hard fact that CoW was (and still is by the way) unsupported from 2000 on. On top of the things TOAW 3 adds to CoW (we might disagree on their extent and merits), the huge improvement it brings is support for the game.

Bloodstar

05 Nov 06, 19:17

I don't think anyone is spitting on CoW (or on anybody for that matter :D). Just re-stating the hard fact that CoW was (and still is by the way) unsupported from 2000 on. On top of the things TOAW 3 adds to CoW (we might disagree on their extent and merits), the huge improvement it brings is support for the game.

Ok, maybe my use of words was clumsy.
But, we must respect COW :) Many veteran players, Kraut, me etc... didn't even get TOAW 3 (khm or at least legal version ahem)...

I agree that TOAW 3 is supported and all that and maybe when it reach something that I found useful I will buy it. COW showed that it have endured TEST OF TIME. How many games you have on your hard disk from year 2000.?

About support if you think that other games are so much supported then you are wrong... Any big company release their project as they call the games and move on. Do you see support for Quake 2 around? COW was more or less rounded product and pretty much enjoyed inspite of some problems. TalonSoft in fact terminated their label pretty much so that's why they ceased to support their products.

Another thing about COW I still think that it was best version of all TOAW's but that is just my opinion. Without it's foundation there would be no TOAW 3. And there is HUGE difference between TOAW 1 from 1998. and COW from 2000.

Mario

m5000

05 Nov 06, 20:12

yeah, toaw-cow was and is pretty good, far better than toaw-vol I, and it may be true that without toaw-acow, there would be no toaw 3

i think that the broblem some people have is that in spite of the changes, toaw 3 is almost the same as toaw-acow, this doesn't mean that toaw-acow was rubbish but i think that some people simply expected that toaw 3 would be much more different with more radical changes introduced at the very beginning

now, there ARE some changes and corrections but they are deep inside, and on the surface, the game is almost the same

of course, knowing Matrix and the way they support their titles, we know that these more radical changes will eventually come, but the problem for some people seems to be that in spite of all the hype, now the game looks very similar to the previous versions

ps
personally, i prefer toaw 3 to toaw-acow, it's got nicer colours :D, no really, i'm serious...

saper

05 Nov 06, 20:31

Irwin - i recived your exe. and ...

Well, well, well Ervin

I am realy under impression – after first look New exe for TOAW3 looking very interesting.
You probably made this what not was made by game creators – you made analyze of armored vehicles from WWII period and I think this is more close to historical values then original made by matrix.

I see some point to discussion too.
First Cromwell “early” – AT 10 – I understood this is 6 pound gun effect with APDS bullet – yes? I am asking because Cromwell with 75 mm gun had AT factor only 8 … Is this correct? For me previous factor was looking more attractive, because APDS bullets appeared in march 1944, and if Cromwell is “early” should be armed with APCR bullets …

FT-17/37 – AT1, and R-35 – AT2. I fought that was the same gun – am I wrong ?

7 TPjw – armor = 3, should be 2 if you drop German tank amours value.

Elephant – this is real problem – with AP=22 (the same like Tiger I - too big!!!) and amour = 21 it will be indestructible (unfortunately it was not).

Archer – British **** on track – AT=16 OK, AP – you made low factor, and it is good move, but AP=8 is still to big .. to shoot from this “miracle”, crew had turn around vehicle, and get out yourself from vehicle – defense strength is to big to in my feeling.

M4 Sherman AP=12 … still 12 …

That is for my comments after first look for this.
Now you will be attacked by self-satisfied guys whose was working at the game, but don’t care for unessential opinions – you made good work, and I think on your base, I (or we) will made good exe for whole WWII period.
As you saw – matrix representative don’t want to update schedule of equipment, and looking for more knowledge-advanced guys to do this for game creators.

Well done!

saper

05 Nov 06, 20:53

For your knowledge - I am not member of the CSTO group!

I have very poor opinion about theirs "member of the board", and my scenario about Polish-German War 1939 was answer for my personal bad feeling for amateur work of CSTO group ...

They made something (few scenarios), and it is looking even good when we try to compare with "western" scenarios, but they don't understand a lot of war aspects.

The best example is opinion one of their wiseacre, than if he split regiments for battalions, he will build deep defensive zone ... but he forget that scale of map is 1:10 km, and one battalion in 1939 was not enough to defend so long line of defense, especially when this battalion had to fight with armor regiment (standard for polish Infantry division was 8km defence line in those time).

I was long list of absurd from their scenario, and “we faraway our expectations” …

m5000

05 Nov 06, 21:19

[...]if matrix employee is talking that have “deeply in the ass” clients opinion[…]

[...]Now you will be attacked by self-satisfied guys whose was working at the game [...] matrix representative don’t want to update schedule of equipment, and looking for more knowledge-advanced guys to do this for game creators[...]

hmmm, it doesn't seem to be true, in my opinion, Matrix have been one of the most supportive companies out there

they updated, improved and re-released Steel Panthers completely free of charge (!) a couple of years ago - now, this IS something and deserves repsect - something that very few companies would have done - toiling away at a program for months and giving it away free, and they supported the title from ver 5 up to ver 8.3 introducing numerous corrections and improvements, again very few would have done so

in my opinion, this single thing deserves respect, and there are others, the constant support for virtually every title they bring out - Uncommon Valor, War in the Pacific, Flashpoint Germany, GG's World at War, etc

compare it with what happened to e.g. Master of Orion III by Atari - they published the game, published a few basic corrections, and abandoned the title claiming that it's smply too complex to correct, now, this is the kind of behaviour that, in my opinion, is alien to Matrix, they don't necessarily introduce all the changes that people around would like to, but this is because every change that is introduced must be based on a general consensus, it seems impossible to introduce everything that someone comes up with

besides, those guys have probably their families, private life, possibly other more lucrative jobs (given the widespread piracy), and so many titles to support that i would really show more understanding about their work...

summing up, saying that the Matrix don't support their games and the customers seems to me to be a little unfair...

m5000

06 Nov 06, 00:47

...by the way - what is the CSTO group mentioned a couple of times above?

nemo

06 Nov 06, 04:55

It stands for Centrum Symulacji Taktyczno Operacyjnych (http://www.csto.v24.pl/Forum/portal.php) (I hope I didn't butcher the name), a group of Polish TOAW designers.

irwin

06 Nov 06, 07:07

The reason this figure is so high is the same as the reason the 25 pounder's is so high- rate of fire. Moreover, even if you deliver the same weight of explosives to the target, delivering more, smaller shells will have a more disruptive effect.

Ok... i try understand yours way of thinking.

105mm gun from StuH42 - have smaller rate of fire then 88mm gun, but more powerfull shells, additional this is haubitze - this means is more usefull to hiding infantry target then straight shooting 88mm. but in toaw is
88mm AP=26
105mm AP=15 (1 from 16 AP StuH42 goes to MG)

and you did't see anything wrong here. Ok i understand that.

but

Look now:
75mm M3 gun from M4A2 - very high rate gun, better then 88mm in this thing (like 88mm better then 105mm,) smaller shells then 88mm (like 88mm shells is smaller then 105mm)

In corelate with above where you didn't see any wrong when 88mm gun have near 60% better AP then 105mm - 75mm M3 (in your way of thinking) must have aboaut 60% better AP then 88mm gun. This means
75mm M3 AP=41!!!
but in toaw 75mm M3 have only AP=12 (with MGs!!!, without have less, 9 or 10)

Where is elematary logics in your thinking?

Why you in one case say: "rate of fire...is important" (88mm vs 105mm) in other (.50 cal vs MG34) you say "The M18s machine guns were .50 cal- heavy machine guns in other words. The Panther, I believe, was armed with the MG34, which was 7.92mm. A medium machine gun."

Now firepower is important - about more then twice higher rate of fire MG34 - you suddently forget.

Where is your consequence?

Bloodstar

06 Nov 06, 07:36

Don't pay attention too much to Ben's words... If everything was true what he says then Germans would not kicked UK butt so many times in WW2. What about that holding action when one Tiger alone knocked 25 British tanks near Tripoli? lol

And BTW. so that we don't just argue Allied equipment here is real gem - I brought this up also some time ago but again:

Geschutzwagen 1 AT- 12 (SIC!) AP - 33 (that I can understand)
This armored vehicle as I understand was haubitze mounted on Panzer 2 or 1 chassis.

Mario

Ben Turner

06 Nov 06, 08:17

Ben - maus is in the shedule - I saw few scenarios with this tank in "what if" sceanrios ... Do you realy don,t feel that is misunderstunding ???

Such as "what if the Maus was developed to the point where it was a useable AFV?"

Ben - you are conferming my point of view. 88mm guns was more deadly than 17 pounds AT gun (bullet with sabot), but in the table that Tigres are shooting shells with sabots and 17 pound is shooting HVAP bullets. Can you see that???

Whatever it is, once its inside the tank there is a lot of opportunity for damage. It can explode, it can ricochet, it can splinter into shrapnel. In any of these cases it has good odds of hitting something vital. Once you're inside the tank, most things are vital.

Ben Turner

06 Nov 06, 09:33

what we get is basically the same stuff as toaw-acow with very MINOR corrections, no breakthrough changes, and the promised patches don't seem to come up, it IS a bit disappointing

It's certainly no revolution, however;
a) the changes are more extensive than for WotY or TOAW COW
b) the PO was previously so broken as to be unuseable in most circumstances. This is fixed, which means a lot to the sizeable chunk of the community which only plays against the PO
c) TOAD is working on a new patch right now. Its contents are non-trivial.

nemo

06 Nov 06, 09:40

Geschutzwagen 1 AT- 12 (SIC!) AP - 33 (that I can understand)
This armored vehicle as I understand was haubitze mounted on Panzer 2 or 1 chassis.

Yeah, there's probably something to be examined here, as the towed 150mm howitzer shows an AT value of 0.

That said, the sIG 33 didn't compare that unfavourably in AT terms. Penetration tables (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns.html) for its Gr39 H1/A shell (HEAT I presume) show it could ge through any armour of the time. The problem being, naturally, hitting the target :smoke:

Ben Turner

06 Nov 06, 09:43

How many games you have on your hard disk from year 2000.?

I don't know- certainly plenty from the 90s. One of my favourite games of all time is Lords of Chaos. I think that was originally released in 1989. I still have it for my Atari ST emulator.

TalonSoft in fact terminated their label pretty much so that's why they ceased to support their products.

Well, TakeTwo bought them out and then completely changed their focus away from niche games to more mainstream. That's not exactly Talonsoft's fault, but it did mean COW didn't get the support it deserved- as a very simple measure, Volume I went up to 1.07. COW only reached 1.04 (and that last was only XP compatability).

Another thing about COW I still think that it was best version of all TOAW's but that is just my opinion.

Currently I play COW more than TOAW III. That is almost certainly going to change.

Ben Turner

06 Nov 06, 09:48

(standard for polish Infantry division was 8km defence line in those time)

That may have been the doctrine based on a short frontage, but in practice (and, as I recall, through another part of doctrine) the frontages were much wider.

No, a battalion cannot hold a 10km stretch in a continuous line. Yes, it can hold strongpoints along that line so as to present a screen against an attacking force. You'll find that if you've designed your OOB accurately, that in sufficient strength the attacker will have no difficulty brushing aside such a screen in a round of combat. Of course as I recall your OOB has twice the number of combat squads as mine.

Ben Turner

06 Nov 06, 09:56

Don't pay attention too much to Ben's words... If everything was true what he says then Germans would not kicked UK butt so many times in WW2. What about that holding action when one Tiger alone knocked 25 British tanks near Tripoli? lol

...

Tripoli was captured in January 1943 and the first Tigers didn't come into action until the following month. We have this from wwiivehicles.com on the first clash;

Encountered by British near Pont du Fahs, Tunisia in February 1943 in Tiger Unit 501. The 2 Tigers that were sent into this battle, accompanied by 9 PzKpfw IIIs & IVs, were knocked out by British 6 pounder guns, of the 72nd Anti-tank Regiment, RA8, at a range of 500 yards against the flanks of the Tigers.

Geschutzwagen 1 AT- 12 (SIC!) AP - 33 (that I can understand)
This armored vehicle as I understand was haubitze mounted on Panzer 2 or 1 chassis.

Well, even with HE shells a 150mm Howitzer can be quite potent against armour. They were used against KVs in 1941. Of course in practice the armour value of 1 will mean the vehicle is ineffective against armour.

Bloodstar

06 Nov 06, 10:15

Yeah, there's probably something to be examined here, as the towed 150mm howitzer shows an AT value of 0.

That said, the sIG 33 didn't compare that unfavourably in AT terms. Penetration tables (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns.html) for its Gr39 H1/A shell (HEAT I presume) show it could ge through any armour of the time. The problem being, naturally, hitting the target :smoke:

Germany's 15cm sIG 33 (SF) Self Propelled Guns (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/self_propelled/sig33.html)

Is this that weapon? :D

I cannot imagine that Germans used that in advanced firing position against enemy tanks. :D

Mario

Bloodstar

06 Nov 06, 10:23

It's certainly no revolution, however;
a) the changes are more extensive than for WotY or TOAW COW
b) the PO was previously so broken as to be unuseable in most circumstances. This is fixed, which means a lot to the sizeable chunk of the community which only plays against the PO
c) TOAD is working on a new patch right now. Its contents are non-trivial.

From COW help:

DIFFERENCES FROM THE ORIGINAL TOAW VOLUMES I & II

· The game now covers the entire 1900 to 2000 period with an integrated database. The equipment database has been expanded and reworked. See additional files in the Docs folder of your game CD for details.

· Many of the original TOAW I & II scenarios have been reworked to take advantage of new equipment added to the database, and new features that become available as the game has evolved. A scenarios released in previous game releases and "battle packs" are included, and several completely new scenarios have been added.

· Additional graphics have been incorporated.

TOAW 3 have brought some changes to the system and I agree with that.

But, there is huge difference between Toaw 1 and COW. It is like EA combying BF 2 and BF2142 in one package at the same price.

AI? Telling that most of TOAW community plays against AI is bold statement unless you have camera in front of all of them. As playing against humans is hundreds of times better I really doubt that.

Mario

Bloodstar

06 Nov 06, 10:37

I don't know- certainly plenty from the 90s. One of my favourite games of all time is Lords of Chaos. I think that was originally released in 1989. I still have it for my Atari ST emulator.

OK. :) I am also fond of games from 90s...

Well, TakeTwo bought them out and then completely changed their focus away from niche games to more mainstream. That's not exactly Talonsoft's fault, but it did mean COW didn't get the support it deserved- as a very simple measure, Volume I went up to 1.07. COW only reached 1.04 (and that last was only XP compatability).

OK.

Currently I play COW more than TOAW III. That is almost certainly going to change.

You see, you used word going. If I want to be really rude I could say that I would not give 40 cents for TOAW 3 at this state and not 40 US$. As I already said my own uncle can make a game like TOAW 3 and I would not pay him 40 US$. I pay for original games full amount or almost full amount, I am not paying for promised support and for future stuff. Then TOAD team could easily took additional 3-6 month and come up with substantial changes. But, as I said I will stick with TOAW and not credit any development of TOAW 3. Selfish? Maybe. But they at Matrix are being selfish too so I could be also. It's not players obligation to fund their projects. They have venture capitalist money, banks and things like that for raising money. And certanly not all players will welcome riping of fans of old classics. As I see there is retromania and many old games will get remakes, like Close Combat, but not all fans will be pleased to give them money like for whole new game. That is one thing I will certanly fight against. Yes it is nice to see that games are being made but certanly it is not nice to see that fans are ripped of.

And that in fact is pro wargaming hobby view. They need to think about budget prices because cost of development or changes to remakes are much lower than full production cost's of new games. We will see will they will come to their sense. Yes, they can charge as much as they want but then circle of players would not enlarge like in one prowargaming policy of prices. Budget prices would not only keep satisfied the fans but bring a lot more new players to wargaming hobby.

Mario

Bloodstar

06 Nov 06, 10:45

Tripoli was captured in January 1943 and the first Tigers didn't come into action until the following month. We have this from wwiivehicles.com on the first clash;

Encountered by British near Pont du Fahs, Tunisia in February 1943 in Tiger Unit 501. The 2 Tigers that were sent into this battle, accompanied by 9 PzKpfw IIIs & IVs, were knocked out by British 6 pounder guns, of the 72nd Anti-tank Regiment, RA8, at a range of 500 yards against the flanks of the Tigers.

I had a book about German tanks and there is described one action of Tiger near Tripoli that knocked out 25 British AFV's. Maybe it was mistaken for some action nearer to Mareth line but I don't make this up. Wish I could find that book again but this book was borowed from library. In same book was described also how some Tiger destroyed many allied tanks on defensive static position on Gothic line in Italy, making Tiger excellent defensive weapon as well due to it's excellent gunnery optics.

Well, even with HE shells a 150mm Howitzer can be quite potent against armour. They were used against KVs in 1941. Of course in practice the armour value of 1 will mean the vehicle is ineffective against armour.

Yes, Germans used 150mm Howitzer but towed ones. I don't remember that they used this model in any antiarmor role. I doubt that this gun could be even lowered to in fact target enemy tank. This weapon was designed for fighting behind front in support missions. So giving it 12 AP rating is a way off. Theoretically it could destroy a tank but theoretically even mortar could destroy a tank and in happened one one occassion in Croatia in 1991. A shell of mortar had a lucky shot and entered on tank on opened hole on turret and killed the crew.
In real combat that lucky shots are so rare that it is pointless to argue that database should be made according to that rare occasions.

Mario