BMBM

CORNERED RAT
  • Content count

    2,055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by BMBM

  1. Doyle and Chamberlain puts the StuH 42 ammunition at 36. I'm more inclined to believe them over unnamed sources at any old website. The StuH 42's primary historical role was infantry support using that big gun, hence the dominating HE loadout. Remember the StuG is kind of cramped and the 105mm shells are rather much bigger than 75mm. External MGs for StuG's is in the works, however not for the B. Even so, you might not want to peg your hopes too high as the traverse on that thing is very limited, akin to the Sdkfz 251.
  2. FWIW, bugs and stuff that can be improved are dealt with: in due turn; as time allows; without bias. Last year we processed a great quantity of legacy bugs/issues of greater or lesser magnitude, from blocked TT gangways and PzII TC/gunner view disparity to missing Churchill interiors, gun shields and collider issues. This particular nonfeature (missing episcopes) is certainly one of the oldest and most debilitating, and I’ll be taking care of it as soon as current critical tasks are finished.
  3. If anything, the French tanks need another rather vital and loooong overdue overhaul WRT their suboptimally modelled observation. I have this on my desk: http://www.pangea-systems.com/wwiiws/public/systems/episcopes/Your_Episcopes_and_You.html
  4. I’m glad you nailed the definition of functional vs dysfunctional area capture with this description. I believe, if we go this route, we should try out multiple variants of open cap points. Hilltops. Woods. Tight cityscapes. Exposed. Cul-de-sacs. Fieldworks. Etc. Variation, non-repeatability, is key to success IMO. With just a few standard solutions (as now) gameplay becomes very predictable and stale. Bravo Sir!
  5. I personally love this without reservation. Well argued.
  6. The US are getting the M1A1, not the M2. The French will likely get a few too, the Brits - none. There will be NO equal to the Stg44, but that seems to be OK with at least 60% of the playerbase.
  7. The grease gun enters tier 3, so no more time warp there. Nope, not more Shermans. In fact, a few less.
  8. I'd prefer if you didn't assume what I think and make up straw men as you go. So what do you think of the Stg44 then - will that lead to a hot influx of Allied players do you think? What will we balance it with?
  9. The actual fact however, beyond simple sound bites, is that (following slight revision) the gun-armed tank count for armored brigades for tier 3 are thus: DE - 61 (including Stugs, excluding PzII) FR - 85 (including H39 and Stuarts) UK - 68 (including Daimlers, excluding mostly harmless CS tanks and Vickers') US - 72 (excluding Vicker's, including Daimlers) I believe the numbers are quite balanced given sometimes very unequal costs and equal budgets. And yes, the Allied MBT in this era was the Sherman - in quite larger numbers than we have here and with much greater numerical superiority vs the opposition than we have here, while for the Germans it was the PzIVG and StugIIIG (of what we have modeled thus far).
  10. In the last 1,5 years I've been devoting ALL my spare time to developing kit. I'm surprised I even have 62 infantry sorties. What's more, it's both irrelevant and untrue - I have thousands of infantry sorties since year 2000, and the basic set hasn't evolved that much. I also don't think many would agree that e.g. French infantry kit is superior to German.
  11. Infantry weapons are however not created alike. Even bolt action rifles differ. The knife would be the most equal piece of kit. In the LMG class there’s a clear winner, and that superiority cannot be adequately balanced. Did the Germans have semis? Yup, however not in numbers approaching the US whose Garand was standard issue. The Brits are likewise handicapped, but have other things going for them. We incorporate that difference so that each side has its own peculiar set of pros and cons. Edit: When the Stg44 is delivered, will it be general issue or have an equivalent on the Allied side? No, and no. What we will (or should) do however is limit it to its historical distribution which was two platoons (Sturm-Zuge) per one third of the German infantry divisions by December 1944. This would make the Stg44 ultra-rare - and we will likely have far more of them than was historically available. How do you propose we balance that?
  12. In case someone wonders, there are numerous supply tweaks inbound for all factions based on customer input and ongoing monitoring.
  13. Good point. I'll have a look at this (among other things). Thanks.
  14. They’re on the backburner pending completion of other priorities. The weapon station began as an an experiment/investigation, still not sure if it’ll work.
  15. The Sdkfz 251 MG34 adds a benefit, as well as the armor protection against small arms. Its cross-country ability is also slightly better as I recall. Haven't driven it much to be honest. The Sdkfz 7 OTOH is rather bad value for money I agree, except that it's slightly harder to kill than a truck. When the UC and M3 HT goes in, the Allies will gain the same or equal value/cost/benefit as the Germans have had for years. Both are well overdue. To balance the Sd7, the Allies should perhaps have the Quad Morris C8 instead of the Morris CDSW - which would also open the field for the as yet missing 25 pdr and the Flak 36 equivalent QF 3.7 inch AA (see https://rommelsriposte.com/2012/10/09/use-of-the-3-7-aa-gun-in-the-ground-role/).
  16. The budget you mention is legacy, you can safely disregard that, as well as your comparison. The seven digit budgets are 1:1 with a variance of 0,12%, which given apples and oranges is as good as it gets. One might argue that the price of portage would be a better value than price of construction, IOW that any hauler would carry the same price tag. Sounds legit on the surface, but it doesn't recognize speed, durability, gear ratios, climbing ability, hauling capacity, weaponry etc - which would have to be quantified not only for haulers but for every category. And then we're into arbitrary-land, assigning values according to gut feeling. How would we value the better open sights on the Kar98 for instance? The Enfields 10-round mag? When the Allies eventually get their halftracks too - yay, and with weapons yay - their costing will rise accordingly. For now, the Germans have a unique vehicle with no Allied counterpart - that capability comes at a cost, same as other unique bits of kit. PS. Sorry for hijacking the thread (:
  17. Like the Matilda, the B1bis, the Tiger and what else? I have a hard time artificially pumping up the $ value of these units, or any unit in isolation, based on what factors exactly? The same X value would have to apply to any such edge case - and where does one draw the line? How come the Churchill is absent from the equation? What happens when the Tiger II, the Panther, the PzJ IV, the Ferdinand, the Lee/Grant, the various flakvierlings, the M16, the Sherman Jumbo and the Lancaster gets into the game? Show me the math here, because I simply can't see it. Not trying to be obtuse but we have to use something else than our gut feeling in defining balance.
  18. There's no game like our game. If you, by your own devices and/or helped by Depuy or whomever you may want to call on for support, can define a formula that takes human and situational factors into account - go for it. I am, sad to say, not brainy enough to devise such a thing.
  19. There is no such unwillingness.
  20. The cost of the optics is only applied once and yes it's included in the total cost. I fully understand that you don't like the model, particularly since you're not privy to its details, or its effects - I get that. But until someone comes up with a better model, this is it. And no, I'm not saying the current budget disposition is final - there may yet be tweaks. All I ask is try to keep this constructive and civil.
  21. You don't want to see me when I pontificate I've been saying the same thing throughout. Higher production cost = greater quality. If you're opposed to that I don't know what to tell you. And no, it's not subjective - you'll have to ask Scotsman for the objective factors that went in the statistical model. Off hand, weight (more armor, greater weight), gun caliber, optics, number of engines, stuff like that. That's why an R35 costs more than a Vickers and a Heinkel more than a Stuka. These are all HARD scientific facts. We're not putting any mushy human factors in there, because they can't be quantified.
  22. Sure, and I'm waiting with bated breath on an alternative model. This is the best and fairest we can do. If you have a better idea and can quantify it, be my guest. What is laughable, is the constant unsubstantiated sniping based on what "feels" right. Define and quantify your feeling and we shall listen. Remember also that even with this model the Axis is favored because the one thing that the Allies had IRL which we can't provide here, is quantity over quality (except in marginal terms). Equal budgets does that. Thus the Axis have, in general, a qualitative, a quantitative and for the most part, a numerical advantage, relative to historical events and to in game realities.
  23. We're also ignoring that the Allies out-produced Germany on the order of 3:1 to 5:1. We're ignoring Russia. We're ignoring things like pilot training, where Allied aircrew in 1944 had up to four years of training whereas German pilots got thrown in with a few months of basic training - if they were lucky. We're ignoring almost ALL of the historical stuff, except for bare production in equal currency (then-year dollars). We're just looking at the metal and the quality of work. All countries are equal in budgetary terms, or it wouldn't be fair. If you think Germany has a right to win the Blitzkrieg because they did duh, then you will have to accept that the Allied powers have a right to win anything post 1942. That's not how we operate.
  24. You're assuming too much. We discussed at length how to measure unit value and how to attain the mythical balance - which has never existed, because spawnlists were either infinite or heavily biased (again according to the best model we could create). And as Scotsman have said repeatedly, even the US Army couldn't come up with a "combat efficiency" value for their real world kit despite years of data gathering and deep thinking: how do you expect us to best them? If you have the magic bullet, don't sit on it but share the love.
  25. Define it.