Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Hi All
I wonder if the unit "Carrier 3in Mortar", formation number 130 could be restricted to the ANZACS? The British and Canadian versions of this weapon actually couldnt be fired from within the vehicle. The reason I suggest this change is because the weapon is invariably used as an assault gun, rushing up and smashing infantry at range 0, very a-historic. I would suggest replacing this little assault gun in British and Canadian formations with the typical bren gun carrier and adding single mortar with a crew of 4 (The italians have these already) to the British and Canadian OBs. This will happily fit into the Bren gun carrier but will need to be unloaded before use. ie like the real thing.

A link stating the British mortar was not fired from within the vehicle.
http://www.mortarsinminiature.com/British%203.htm
This link shows how in British and Canadian service the mortar was transported by the carrier.
http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a22/index.htm

A picture of the Australian vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier
400 af the australian version were built not available until some time post 1943, see
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-...en_carrier.htm

Just in passing I should also mention that the British 3 inch mortar has a speed of 4 whereas all the other nations mortars (that I checked) of this size have a speed of 3.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

It is there probably since it was always in the SP OOBs?.

Removing it is not and option as it is most likely used in a scenario, and the only way to check is to go through each one individually. (And that would miss any third-party scenarios or campaigns). It is in all the UK and Empire OOBs - not just UK and Canada.

I will look into this and see if there is a work-around.

Otherwise, you can assume it gets set up beside the vehicle to fire, which was the case anyhow.

Cheers
And

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Hi Andy,
Fair enough, but I would just like to point out that assuming it gets set up beside the vehicle doesnt seem to justify how the unit is currently modeled. If modelled correctly the mortar would draw small arms fire when it dismounted and when it fired which it currently doesn't. Also if modeled correctly (ie unload required) the mortar gets no shots that turn as a penalty for dismount, whereas the assault gun version can get off 3 shots in a turn.
As you can see the two ways of modelling the unit give very different results.

Actually Im asking for its Date of service and availability to be changed but the actual unit 130 still survives post 43 in the ANZAC OOB. Would this change still bugger up the senarios?
If so Id be happy to go through the senarios and submit which are effected by the change.
Ive checked the OOBs and 130 only seems to appear in the UK Canadian Indian and ANZAC OOBs
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

since these things are only used for indirect fire, they have to remain stationary for a turn or so to plot fire. One can assume the mortar is set up beside the vehicle at that point. (And save an element, actually 2, as separate mortars).

If you want to be pedantic about it - use unit #289 (bren carier APC class) which is currently unused, and make a section of 2 with 2 single 3" mortar as a separate formation, and set your availability dates to what you think it should be. Agree with your opponent to only use that formation and your OOB as appropriate.

If your problem is an opponent using sp-mortars as direct fire artillery (which is ahistoric, but the game engine will allow), then simply do not play that opponent, if he continues to insist on doing so. (Or use any cheap tank to remove the problem, as they are thin tin and hence rather vulnerable.)

I never use Sp-arty or mortars in direct fire mode, my mortars (SP or otherwise) are always tucked away in dead ground. (But then me served in the bn mortar platoon http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Exposed arty is soon to be dead arty, I have found.

So - several work-arounds available, rahther than a mass exercise in examining all scenarios and OOBS (UK, CDN, India, Poland etc all have the possibility of the item), just as the patch is being assembled this weekend.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Actually - it is already there. Formation No. 118, Mortar sec/T.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

But the L-15's had those lovely iron sights for direct fire...

We did a practice shoot against a simulated Soviet advance. Drop a round, two turns on the elevation, drop a round two turns and repeat untill you're crushed under the BMPs...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

We never fired the mortars in DF mode.

I did fire 25pdr over open sights at Larkhill as an army cadet though. A convoy of old soft M/T (old military stock busses, airfield fire trucks etc all laid out in a line used for air strike practices usually). Blew up a nice red fire engine at my turn as the gun-layer http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Cheers
Andy

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

No they are being used for direct fire, armour protected, close range, direct fire, because they dont have to dismount which is error I am pointing out.
This assumption is only correct if it takes 0 time to deploy the mortar. ie in any given situation Formation No. 118 vs unit 130, Formation No. 118, will fire one turn later as this formation takes into account the time taken to set up the mortar, unit 130 does not.

I just play the game as is, I am interested in discussing areas of the game that can be improved (made more realistic). swapping unit 130 for formation 118 is one of them, You do not have to apply these changes of course but you should admit that my point is in fact correct, which I have as yet not seen. Then the discussion can move forward or end.
You are a rarity then. Maybe Im just lucky but my experience is that unit 130 is almost always used as a cheap fast close range infantry killer its Hit value of 9 comparing very well with say the stug 75, a real assault gun, which has hit 5. Ive played 60 or so PBEM
I have offered to do your mass excersise for you, no no, no need to thank me. Nor as far as I am concerned is there any hurry.

The reason this thread continues is because you keep saying you can assume the mortar is deployed beside the vehicle.
You cannot assume that the mortar is deployed beside the vehicle because
1. It still gets the vehicles armour protection
2. It takes 0 time to dismount.
And so, Unit 130 is wrong unless in the ANZAC oob post 43. Im not sure why we are dancing around this but it seems pretty simple to me.
Also Im not sure why you are unwilling to admit the truth of these two points.
I asked a question in my previous post which you didnt answer, I would still be interested to hear your thoughts. So Ill rephrase it here
Does restricting unit 130 to the ANZAC OOB post 1943 and replacing unit 130 with Formation No. 118 elsewhere bugger up the senarios?
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

As I said before. This is not a problem with the unit, but with your opponent using an SP-Mortar as an assault gun. All mortars and SP-mortars can fire direct fire over open sights with no set up time. As can any SP-arty.

If you do not like your PBEM opponent doing this, then speak to him.

And Sp-mortars, as I said, need 1 turn stationary to plot indirect fires. Just like other mortars. And other SP-arty.

Your point is your own opinion. If your PBEM opponent is using these things in a manner that you think is ahistoric - have a word with him.

If we see fit to remove the carrier 3in mortar (we may) - you will still have him doing the same thing in 43 onwards, with the M3 halftrack SPM (or the Sdkfz 250 one or whatever).

So - you need to discuss this tactic with your PBEM opponent, if it happens to annoy you. Not us.

Discuss the use of SPM as direct fire arty with your PBEM opponents in the pre-game negotiation then, if you do not like the tactic.

Some people are simply not bothered by that use of SPM - as it makes them rather vulnerable to AT fires.

1) As I said, the patch was in the middle of preapration, and so a large piece of work at that point was not wanted. Patch now released to playtesters and Shrapnel, so should be with the end users in a week or so.

2) Thanks for the offer, but if we are going through the scenarios and all the user campaigns oobs and the AI pick list code, we will do that ourselves.

4) Anything that involves a troll through all the scenarios etc is a large piece of work. For a minor thing like this particular carrier variant (nothing earth shattering), we may well do so but well after the patch is out.

However - as stated above, your real problem is not the units themselves, but some PBEM opponent taking them and doing something that annoys you. So - simply agree with him that formation No. 37 will be verboten till 3/43 when the halftrack SPM arrives. Now there is a simple, if perhaps radical solution to your problem - work it out with your PBEM opponent in the pre-game negotiation phase where you agree numbers of planes, amounts of arty etc. (If he refuses, then simply do not play the guy, if it bugs you so much).

Cheers
Andy

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Hi Andy
Seems we have strayed a bit of the track if its OK Ill take the time to show you how your arguments relate to the point I am making. i wont answer all your points as it is tedious enough with just these few.
Yes I am familar with the capabilities of SP-arty, and yes that is correct there is not a problem with the unit 130. There is however a problem with unit 130 being placed in the wrong OOBs. Unit 130 should only be in the ANZAC OOB post 43. ie In the Indian, UK and Canadian OOBs the game has a SP-arty vehicle where a mortar transporting vehicle should be.
My PBEM opponent can do this as much as he likes, but he should only be able to buy unit 130 in the ANZAC post 43 OOB.
No, I am very happy with getting direct fire from any sp-mortar, what I am not happy with is is getting direct fire from behind armour when in reality the mortar in question had to be taken out of the vehicle before firing. No, My real problem is that a mortar carrying unit has been replaced by a SP-arty unit in commonwealth OOBs. This is very clear in my origional post.

I think the thread has become rather confused as you have initially tried to show that its OK to model formation 118 as unit 130 basicaly by assuming for the purposes of game play that they are the same, wich obviously they arn't.
Unit 130 represents 400 scratch built Australian SP-Mortar Carriers completed some time in 1943. Somehow these have managed to cross the barriers of time and space to be included in all the commonwealth OOBs 1939 onwards. The correct unit in the UK, Indian and Canadian OOBs is formation 118 a brencarrier carrying a mortar not a SP-Mortar. The two units play very differently.

Thanks for your time Chuck.

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Mobhack,
I have to agree with Chuck on this. The 2 units play very differently, even when exchanging indirect fire. It might not be a change that is worth your while to make right now, but Chuck has done his homework, is willing to do a share of the legwork and I see his point.

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

I guess you haven't loaded the patch yet.

Don

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Huh?

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Get & install the v1.1 patch. It should be fixed now. Then examine the relevant OOBS that relate to this particular thread.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Thanks very much for your support Cameronius, you are indeed a brave fellow.
Re the 3 inch mortar carrier, unless Im missing something or havent perhaps installed the patch right, nothing seems to have changed re the units availability? Maybe in the next patch then?
Best regards Chuck.

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

And are you looking in the game or cruising through the OOB?

I changed them. I know they have been changed. If you think you see a problem perhaps some details as to nation and year and things like that might be useful.

The units themselves have been renationalized in the OOB's so they do not show up in the game except the Aussie version which shows up 6/43. The rest of them, for example are now carriers and mortars separate in formations usually named Mortar Sec/M. ( Canada formation 14 is one example, Poland formation 17 is another and in India its a "Mech Mortar Sec" formation 20 ) and in all cases the old "Carrier 3in Mor" or whatever it was named is now nationalized to "Nation 0" which means it will not show up for purchace in the game but will still be avaialble in a sceanrio in the off chance it's been used in one.

As well the SP-mortar formations in the OOB's that used that SP "Carrier 3in Mor" have been changed so they follow the availability of the "M21" ( it is called that in some OOB's and just "Halftrack SPM" in others.

Don

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Sorry Don,
I still see the 3inch mortar carrier in there, But I also see the new unit. Here is a screenshot of a British purchase May 1941. I have been able to purchase both units. Photobucket

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

POOP!http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...onius/demo.gif http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...onius/demo.gif

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

in mobhack, check the info tab when the British OOB is loaded.

It should state Version 5/July/06

Formation 37 starts in 3/43

unit 130 is nation 0

if you don't have that data, you have not upgraded to version 1.1 perhaps?.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

The British "SP Mortar Sec" in the OOB's supplied with the Ver 1.1 patch does not start until 3/43. The info line of that OOB starts off Version 5/July/06 . If you are seeing the British "SP Mortar Sec" in May 1941 and you "know" you installed the patch then you have installed the patch in the wrong place. When you start the game look at the bottom of the main screen and it will tell you the version number. It will say either WinSPww2 v1.1-DL or WinSPww2 v1.1-CD. There is no error at our end. I just checked the files the patch was made from.

Don

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Hi DRG
Sorry not to provide any detail in my previos post, yes indeed I have installed the patch in the wrong place which I must say gives some odd results. Im looking in the manual etc as to where to install the patch but If anyone could tell me what folder to install it in that would be very xcellent.

I should say in order not to interrupt my v1.0 pbem i have installed a second copy of the game next to the first and renamed it winspww2v1.1 this is the folder where I am installing the patch, but no joy.
Game tells me its v1.1 and the winspww2 executable has grown from 1831 to 1852 but Mobhack info remains at 13 June
Probably my stupid permissions again.

Best regards Chuck.

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Yes, I have installed the patch in the wrong place. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif
My game screen says v1.1 but the GB OOB file still says June 06. How do I make sure it is installed in the right place?

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

The patch has it's own installer. Just click the unzipped file and follow the install procedure. Select the main game folder for the game you want to update to version 1.1 for the installer to copy the files into. It'll automatically update the OB (and other) subfolders too.

Narwan

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

This is exactly what I have done http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif.
I don't understand, I looks and plays just like v1.1. It's labelled in game v1.1. I have all the new scenarios. But the OOB is still labelled according to the old update.

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

hmm - I just redownloaded the patch and extracted it to a scratch directory. It looks like the intended batch of UK/Commonwealth OOBS did not get included.

We'll look into this to see what went wrong.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Thanks Andy,
I thought I was going crazy http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

It will require a number of hours of checking to see what may have gone wrong but the files I have in my master folder for the patch are **correct**. When I know more I will let you know

Don

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

The "problem" has been identified.

The patch I uploaded isn't the one now found ( July 13. 2006 ) on the Shrapnel webpage. That one was copied from an FTP site we use for playtester updates and is almost two weeks out of date so no Cam, you are not going crazy and NO I did NOT forget to include the correct OOB files in the patch. The ZIP I uploaded contained all the correct files but the patch that ended up posted was picked up from the wrong FTP.

I am working to have this all fixed by tomorrow. We now have a new EXE that will report as being V1.1b to help straighten out this mess in the weeks ahead as people start trying to PBEM.

Don

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

The problem has been resolved. There is a new version of the patch posted at

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/SPCamo/wSPWW2/6.htm

WinSPWW2_Ver1.1B_Upgrade.ZIP

If you have downloaded the patch before 07/14/06 at 7:30 am EDST, please download the latest version now. The original patch was named, WinSPWW2_Ver1.1_Upgrade.zip. The most recent patch is named WinSPWW2_Ver1.1B_Upgrade.zip. Please make sure you are using the Version 1.1B patch. We are sorry for any inconvenience this has caused.

I would advise anyone who regularly PBEM to discuss this with their opponents BEFORE starting a new game to ensure everyone is working from the correct version

Don

Re: Carrier 3 inch mortar, what was it.
 

Thanks again Don,
I really can't express how high my regard is for you and Andy and everything that you have done for this game. Your work is outstanding, problems are resolved quickly, and you are always willing to listen to the players even though you may not agree. It is obvious that the high quality of the SPCamo projects come from a love of the game. I am inspired by your volunteer work on the game and I will continue to contribute what I can in time, design work and involvement in the SP community (I will even loosen my purse strings and buy the dics http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)

Thanks again for the hours of gaming enjoyment!