Polish OOB2 corrections/suggestions (v.6)

[DRG]

The flamethrowers are in. I'm surprised there wasn't an FT unit in the game pre 1940

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by zastava128

About the rifle/carbine ranges - I'm pretty sure this was standardized a few versions back. I remember the 8mm Lebel rifle used to have range 600m in an older version of WinSPWW2, for example.

I'm not necessarily against your suggestion, but the above mentioned factors should be considered. In WinSPMBT a difference of 100m in rifle ranges (assault vs. battle rifle) can make a big difference. Now imagine if Soviet rifle squads had a 100m longer range than the German ones - it would make a *big* difference in gameplay.

I think the crux of the matter is what is a rifle and what is a carbine and how do they actually differ. Carbines which fire normal full-power rifle cartridges had roughly the same effective range as full-length infantry rifles. Both are highly lethal to 1000+ meters and able to deliver suppressive area fire up to 600 meters at least. However, once LMGs became common, firing at such long ranges was usually (but not always) left to them and to specialized sniper and marksmen (Mind you, in WW1 and even WW2 those guys used normal infantry rifles and sometimes did not even have any special optical sights. They were just better shooters and perhaps had a better vision than the average rifleman.)

Any accuracy differences were more due to the user not being able to see his target and hit it at long ranges with just iron sights. If some difference has to be modeled in the game, then instead of giving the long barrel rifles a longer range, they should have slightly higher accuracy than carbines. That would better represent any inherent differences between them.

No, I am not suggesting this should be implemented in the game now, later or never. It's just what my reading, minimal experience in shooting rifles and talking to more experienced shooters of infantry personal weapons have made me think about the matter. Food for thought, if you will, nothing more.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by DRG

#93 flamethrowers ??? what is this ?? A flamethrower is universally the same in the game so any pre 1940 unit would use the same weapons as unit 500 and they will be the same unitclass and they will be available through the Engineer Pl

Sorry, it was supposed to be #83.

But they shouldn't be the same class IMO, because in 1939 we have #326 Enginer Sqd of class 140, while flamethrowers were used in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.

Originally Posted by PvtJoker

...However, once LMGs became common, firing at such long ranges was usually (but not always) left to them and to specialized sniper and marksmen (Mind you, in WW1 and even WW2 those guys used normal infantry rifles and sometimes did not even have any special optical sights. They were just better shooters and perhaps had a better vision than the average rifleman.)

...and usually they had specially selected rifles, with best accuracy.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

...while flamethrowers were used in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.

I'd like to precise it: I proposed to create a section, and 3 sections should be a squad (platoon-level in the game). A platoon consisted of 3 squads, but I don't think it's useful to create such big FT units.

[Pibwl]

Originally Posted by DRG

I'm surprised there wasn't an FT unit in the game pre 1940

There were rare in the Polish Army, so they are usually overlooked - maybe it's because.

I'm attaching proposed pictures, and several improved ones - you might decide, if they're better enough (armoured cars have correct proportions on my pics).

Michał

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

I'd like to precise it: I proposed to create a section, and 3 sections should be a squad (platoon-level in the game). A platoon consisted of 3 squads, but I don't think it's useful to create such big FT units.

OK fine....... in the pre 1940 Polish army flamethrowers were not only rare but organized in separate flamethrower platoons, not in engineer squads.

Consider this.......... if I set them up the way you want to set them up the AI will never use them and if I set them up the way I am going to set them up the AI will, occasionally, buy a team and actually use them in the game which is better than making them a human only formation simply because the "official" TO&E says they were used " in separate flamethrower platoons". If I make them part of the engineer organization ( Like they are in virtually all the other OOB's in both games ) the AI will use them AND they will be available to the human player which is the better solution to the issue..........BECAUSE......this is a game

Don

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

I'm attaching proposed pictures, and several improved ones - you might decide, if they're better enough (armoured cars have correct proportions on my pics).

Michał

I'm not sure which graphics program you use to create your photos but does it give you the option of choosing either colour matching or error diffusion dithering when you apply the pic palette with it ?


Also, the game does not like non standard sizes and pm29522_wz34_Image4.lbm is only 159 wide. I have corrected it but it saves me a lot of time I don't have much to spare when I don't have to check everything


Don

[DRG]

Originally Posted by Pibwl

Indeed, if there's an icon, it's worth to add earlier model of taczanka, with wz.08 MG, available in 1/30-9/39, with radio 01. But, probably, its wz.08 MG should be AAMG as well. It isn't written directly, but according to a new booklet on Polish Maxims, a cavalry mount for wz.08 HMG, taken from the Schwarzlose, "enabled quick conversion for AA fire", comparing with MG-08 sledge mount. Probably there was an additional mast mounted (it could be mounted on some Polish trucks, carts and even horse wagons). I'll attach a photo of early taczanka.

Then, unit 548 Taczanka, apart from icon 3492, should be available from 1/36.
There could be "wz.28" or "wz.36" added to names, but it's not necessary IMO.

Could you please clearly explain what it is you want me to do here .

What point would there be in having one start 1/30 and another start 1/36 if the MG.08 is a AAMG ? There is no purpose to having 2


Don

[PvtJoker]

Originally Posted by DRG

Could you please clearly explain what it is you want me to do here .

What point would there be in having one start 1/30 and another start 1/36 if the MG.08 is a AAMG ? There is no purpose to having 2
Don

If it was an AAMG or not does not really depend solely on the mount, but on whether AA sights were provided or not. Hitting aerial targets of faster than 100 km/h with ground sights is pretty much hopeless. Tracers help a little, but still aligning the target without the reference points provided by an AA sight is very difficult. Adjusting lead without speed rings is extremely hard as well (even a single ring is much better than none). Ring and bead sights were certainly crude, but much better than nothing. Hitting a fast moving aerial target without an AA sight would be like hitting a ground target with a rifle at 25+ meters without using the sights (Rambo style ). Except more difficult.

[DRG]

Which does not answer the question. There is a 08 as an AAMG in the OOB now so why would I need a second Taczanka in 1936. Michal posted, let him answer