Slitherine

terminator wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:51 am

jeffoot77 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 9:45 am super idea, the refugees !

Yeah but not for refugees who are innocent victims

The refugees are Allied. The Germans have no reason to harm them. They are going south and make traffic jam for French reinforcements on there way to the front like it historical happend.

Preview Big France scenario

Sacre-Coeur Paris

Paris Notre Dame (before the fire )

And better Eiffeltower

Battle of Britain Preview

Latest graphic support from Wurschtmaxe, our royal aircraft supplier

He-59 Seenotdienst

Will such a scenario be reflected ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on ... K%C3%A9bir

uzbek2012 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 3:14 pm Will such a scenario be reflected ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on ... K%C3%A9bir

A scenario like this belongs to Allied Corps and looks much like "Taranto Raid". Maybe we will do something with this in the far future but for the moment we have much other priorities in making scenarios. But with the British and French fleet in the mod and the editor you can already try to make the scenario yourself if you like.

Greetings

phcas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:57 am (We have to find out which guns fired in point blanc range)

It's the towed infantry guns and their derivatives - these were all direct line-of-sight fire guns that were used in a fashion similar to AT guns but were low velocity weapons with weak to mediocre armor piercing performance, their purpose being to simply add a bit more "punch" to infantry when dealing with machine gun nests and similar. The emphasis was on mobility and weight savings (these were usually manhandled into combat) so these would have short barrels and weaker ammo compared to the similar caliber field pieces, which meant significantly shorter maximum ranges. But the range was irrelevant since these were meant to be fired at an enemy that is seen, not from behind the lines.

Here's a list of guns (incomplete - some Soviet and Japanese 120mm models are missing - mostly older guns repurposed for this use in WW2) that were used in this role, including vehicles, which should be a good start point. In my opinion (for whatever that's worth) these should be modeled in the AT class rather than as ATY, but with an emphasis on SA rather than HA performance (and a possible range = 1).


EDIT: here's the list - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i ... pport_guns

Radoye wrote: ↑Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:00 pm

phcas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 16, 2019 7:57 am (We have to find out which guns fired in point blanc range)

It's the towed infantry guns and their derivatives - these were all direct line-of-sight fire guns that were used in a fashion similar to AT guns but were low velocity weapons with weak to mediocre armor piercing performance, their purpose being to simply add a bit more "punch" to infantry when dealing with machine gun nests and similar. The emphasis was on mobility and weight savings (these were usually manhandled into combat) so these would have short barrels and weaker ammo compared to the similar caliber field pieces, which meant significantly shorter maximum ranges. But the range was irrelevant since these were meant to be fired at an enemy that is seen, not from behind the lines.

Here's a list of guns (incomplete - some Soviet and Japanese 120mm models are missing - mostly older guns repurposed for this use in WW2) that were used in this role, including vehicles, which should be a good start point. In my opinion (for whatever that's worth) these should be modeled in the AT class rather than as ATY, but with an emphasis on SA rather than HA performance (and a possible range = 1).

OK thanks for your support in this artillery discussion.

A lot of things are said about the artillery now but what we need is a formula that we can use on all units. If anyone has a formula we can talk about it and come to a final workmodel.

You're welcome, glad if i could help.

I find this direct fire / indirect fire debate very interesting.

But one thing I seem to be missing: if range 1 artillery is useless and no one will use it (that was what I understood from earlier posts), how does changing that same unit to AT with range 1 make it any more useful? You no longer get support fire for adjacent units and there's not as much suppression. So it seems we're taking a rather useless unit and making it even more useless?

I understand the rationale behind the argument for direct fire artillery but I'm not convinced it translates well to gameplay, at least with the Panzer Corps game engine. Other thoughts or opinions?

yes the fact is that the game engine imposes restrictions. here there is no concept of counter-battery struggle and no response to a remote attack. I know that the game was made by people who have their own special look at such games and unfortunately this cannot be changed. I think it’s not necessary to give ATY bonuses to assault guns, since in essence these are ordinary infantry support tanks like Matilda, Churchill, etc. and it makes no sense to give the AT mode to most artillery it is already in the characteristics of defense. That is, leave units as they are in the vanilla game

cw58 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:33 am I find this direct fire / indirect fire debate very interesting.

But one thing I seem to be missing: if range 1 artillery is useless and no one will use it (that was what I understood from earlier posts), how does changing that same unit to AT with range 1 make it any more useful? You no longer get support fire for adjacent units and there's not as much suppression. So it seems we're taking a rather useless unit and making it even more useless?

I understand the rationale behind the argument for direct fire artillery but I'm not convinced it translates well to gameplay, at least with the Panzer Corps game engine. Other thoughts or opinions?

There are some interesting effects with Range 1 units vs range 0 units even though it looks the same on the surface - both are able to attack enemy units adjacent to them but in my experience the effects of their attack are quite different.

And you're right, moving these from ATY to AT class makes them lose their support fire ability, which IMO is not necessarily bad, it would force the player to use them solely in offensive role which after all is how an assault gun is supposed to be used in the first place, no?




Now - on the different note, with regards to formulas:

I suggest in both direct (AT, TK) and indirect (ATY) fire the SA to be calculated from shell weight and rate of fire - since this stat is mainly about HE performance and it doesn't matter how explosives are delivered to the target but rather how much is being delivered. This kind of information is not hard to find for most of the WW2 era guns except the really exotic ones and it can be easily massaged to fit into the game scale with a neat simple formula.

With regards to HA the situation is unfortunately much more complicated. This is supposed to represent armor penetration, but it is very hard to find data which was obtained in an uniform way - same type of target steel, same impact angle, same distance from target - it appears every nation had their own methodology of testing, and their results do not necessarily match. To make matters worse, even the test methods from the same nation might've changed from early war to late war. So it is near impossible to come up with a good uniform formula - you will be forced to "fugde" it to a degree to get everything to agree, at least for direct fire (AT and TK classes) units. For indirect fire (ATY class) i suggest using a nominal HA value based on the caliber and maybe adjusted a bit based on the SA value so that the gun of the same caliber but firing a heavier shell could offer a bit of an advantage in this department too. But in any case ATY HA should be significantly lower than direct fire HA (even if it's the same gun in AT role vs ATY role).

Update see first post

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... 61#p793561

wow ! the new big french scenario looks so good !

The new update v0.033 brings new ground graphics of fields etc thanks to AKRebel. Also the sea and rivers are different now.

Taste is a personal thing. For people who do not like the new sea and rivers, they can use the sea and rivers as on the picture and still have the new ground graphics. For that you can find the Tiles files in the folder:
Options/Layout-PHCAS Style/Panzer Corps/Graphics/Tiles
Work on the Big Battle of Britain scenario starts now. The other Big scenarios are still not finished but you can play them, and you will see that by every new update this scenarios will be also updated a little. We follow this line to keep progress in the mod. If you have any ideas about the Big scenarios so far please tell us.

Greetings PHCAS

I see a couple of issues, one is you forgot to shorten the names in the equipment file so that white glitch background wont appear and two is were is the v0.033 update at the startscreen? I did see you fixed the maus tank

MjrOu812 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 7:17 pm I see a couple of issues, one is you forgot to shorten the names in the equipment file so that white glitch background wont appear and two is were is the v0.033 update at the startscreen? I did see you fixed the maus tank

I didn't forget to shorten the names in the equipment file, I simply didn't have the time to do it yet. It's on the to do list. To give you any impression it took me about 50 hours to make the Big France scenario.

The startscreen v0.033 update is a AKRebel issue.

Yes I fixed the Maus tank.

jeffoot77 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:31 pm wow ! the new big french scenario looks so good !

Thanks

A question. Sound files can be started with opening sceens and with ending screens in scenarios. Does anyone knows if sound files can be started by messages in the scenario?