US Sniper rifle???

[Deputy]

Mobhack and DRG: I understand "This is a battalion level game" and that for MOST people things like sniper rifle info isn't important. But I'm sure a lot of folks like to have things as accurate as possible. Having a sniper rifle available months or even years before they were even produced may not mean much to guys moving masses of tanks around in the sim. But since this sim IS based on history, why purposely have the info incorrect? If sniper rifle data is meaningless, why even incorporate snipers into the sim??
It's the very DETAILS of the weapons and equipment that attracts lots of guys to this sim. I'm not asking the company or designers to incorporate all these, to them, nitpicky errors into a new patch or update. But it might be worth it to keep all this info recorded SOMEWHERE so that any individuals who do release an OOB correction would have it available. BTW...I HAVE seen a scenario where sniper vs sniper were the ONLY combatants. It was a nifty recreation of the "Enemy at the Gates" movie. It was a blast to play.

I have ONE more comment and then I will withdraw. Yesterday I was playing a generated campaign and noticed that when I blew a US tank apart with an 88, the Infantry troops riding on the outside of it all hopped off it and NONE were injured. This happened REPEATEDLY in the game. That is about as unrealistic as it gets. I have seen the results of troops riding on armored vehicles when the vehicle is hit by an RPG. Very few of them could walk, much less continue to engage the enemy. The Sherman tank had the nickname of "Zippo" among the US troops because of it's tendency to blow up in flames due to it using gasoline as a fuel. I can imagine the ghastly results of riding on a Sherman when it gets hit with an anti-tank round. But in WinSPWW2 they just hop off the tank and continue to march. Good grief!

Dep

[thatguy96]

Deputy said:
Having a sniper rifle available months or even years before they were even produced may not mean much to guys moving masses of tanks around in the sim. But since this sim IS based on history, why purposely have the info incorrect? If sniper rifle data is meaningless, why even incorporate snipers into the sim?? It's the very DETAILS of the weapons and equipment that attracts lots of guys to this sim.

The sniper rifle data is not meaningless. Its that small variations have such a negligible effect on the game that having anything other than a generic "sniper rifle" is more about name flavor than about stats. You could create every small arm you can think of and incorporate it in game, but the differences would be so small that it simply would not be worth it in the end. Furthermore, if you tried to make them all different you'd probably quickly find that it makes some inaccurately powerful because there isn't enough room to maneuver at this scale in the stats. Furthermore, remember that the training and relative skill of the marksman is not included in the stats for the sniper unit entirely, but in the stats for the weapon, and that the acc figures are as much a comment on the sniper's personal ability as the weapon's base accuracy.

Furthermore, do you have information that suggests that since there was no specific rifle that there were no snipers or marksman? I just don't know, but I think that would be much more of a case to modify the dates at which snipers can be bought than the existence of a type of rifle that it has already been suggested has little to no bearing on any specific type.

[evan]

As I understand it many US marine snipers where using a variety of private target and hunting rifles through and after the war because they where either the weapon they knew or else they (the sniper) concidered them better than the standard issue item; sort of like thompson's being better than M16's really.

[Marek_Tucan]

evan said:
As I understand it many US marine snipers where using a variety of private target and hunting rifles through and after the war because they where either the weapon they knew or else they (the sniper) concidered them better than the standard issue item; sort of like thompson's being better than M16's really.

The same for Germans and, well, everyone. Specialised sniper rifles were always in short supply and civillian hunting etc. rifles were used, as well as makeshift field mounts on general issue rifles.

[Deputy]

thatguy96 said:

The sniper rifle data is not meaningless. Its that small variations have such a negligible effect on the game that having anything other than a generic "sniper rifle" is more about name flavor than about stats. You could create every small arm you can think of and incorporate it in game, but the differences would be so small that it simply would not be worth it in the end. Furthermore, if you tried to make them all different you'd probably quickly find that it makes some inaccurately powerful because there isn't enough room to maneuver at this scale in the stats. Furthermore, remember that the training and relative skill of the marksman is not included in the stats for the sniper unit entirely, but in the stats for the weapon, and that the acc figures are as much a comment on the sniper's personal ability as the weapon's base accuracy.

Furthermore, do you have information that suggests that since there was no specific rifle that there were no snipers or marksman? I just don't know, but I think that would be much more of a case to modify the dates at which snipers can be bought than the existence of a type of rifle that it has already been suggested has little to no bearing on any specific type.

Again,if you are only interested in manuvering around huge formations of tanks and troops, snipers aren't all that relevant. Snipers didn't enter into the picture in any quantity for the US until AFTER D-Day. As far as I can tell, pretty much every flavor of small arm HAS been included in the game. Although there are still some missing. Truck drivers and tank crews WERE armed with small arms like M3 Greaseguns and Carbines, not just a 1911A1 and a grenade. Heck, I doubt most truck drivers and tank crews HAD grenades with them unless they begged some from an Infantryman.

Were there "snipers" without sniper rifles? I would say NO. Snipers can fire out to ranges far greater than an ordinary rifleman. But they do that becasue of their rifle. Were there "marksman". Yes, most definitey. But being accurate with a rifle still doesn't make you a "sniper".

Here's my bottom line...the sniper rifles and snipers of Germany and Russia were probably the best in WW2. And the sim should represent that. Saying all sniper rifles and snipers are "equal" is like saying a Sherman tank is equal to a Tiger tank is equal to a T-34 is equal to a Churchill. Will snipers matter for those playing huge tank battles or human wave attacks? Of course not. But everyone DOESN'T play that type of battle in WinSPWW2.
If the sniper is that meaningless, just delete him and move on. Otherwise, let's try and get the OOB to at least reflect SOME kind of historical accuracy. You wouldn't want a Tiger tank to pop up in 1939 would you???

Dep

[DRG]

Dep, you're a troll and I'm calling you on that. You twist every perceived "error" to prove your point but the argument is totally bogus. We stated right from the beginning that "in this game a "sniper rifle" is the same no matter who's using it" I said you could think of it by any name you like . You twisted that into some kind of damning evidence that we are providing "a sniper rifle available months or even years before they were even produced " when in fact snipers and "sniper rifles" have been used by the US Army and USMC in every war it participated in in the 20th century. During WW1 the USMC used the Springfield 1903 with 5x Lyman and Winchester A5 scopes. During WW2 and later they mostly used Springfield 1903A1 rifles with the 8x Unertl scope and Springfield 1903A4 with the same scopes than the US Army (M73B1) and in WW1 and the interwar years the US Army used the Springfield 1903 as well so there's your "sniper rifle". It doesn't matter one iota if snipers did or didn't "enter into the picture in any quantity for the US until AFTER D-Day" The point is they DID exist and are in the OOB.

Even suggesting that the decision to make all sniper rifles equal is the same as "saying a Sherman tank is equal to a Tiger tank is equal to a T-34 is equal to a Churchill" is complete and utter bull**** as is the remark "You wouldn't want a Tiger tank to pop up in 1939 would you?". Neither remark as ANY bearing on sniper rifles and does nothing to advance the idea that they are so it's trolling simply to stir up [censored].

Go away. You're really starting to piss me off.

Don

[Deputy]

DRG said:
Dep, you're a troll and I'm calling you on that. You twist every perceived "error" to prove your point but the argument is totally bogus. We stated right from the beginning that "in this game a "sniper rifle" is the same no matter who's using it" I said you could think of it by any name you like . You twisted that into some kind of damning evidence that we are providing "a sniper rifle available months or even years before they were even produced " when in fact snipers and "sniper rifles" have been used by the US Army and USMC in every war it participated in in the 20th century. During WW1 the USMC used the Springfield 1903 with 5x Lyman and Winchester A5 scopes. During WW2 and later they mostly used Springfield 1903A1 rifles with the 8x Unertl scope and Springfield 1903A4 with the same scopes than the US Army (M73B1) and in WW1 and the interwar years the US Army used the Springfield 1903 as well so there's your "sniper rifle". It doesn't matter one iota if snipers did or didn't "enter into the picture in any quantity for the US until AFTER D-Day" The point is they DID exist and are in the OOB.

Even suggesting that the decision to make all sniper rifles equal is the same as "saying a Sherman tank is equal to a Tiger tank is equal to a T-34 is equal to a Churchill" is complete and utter bull**** as is the remark "You wouldn't want a Tiger tank to pop up in 1939 would you?". Neither remark as ANY bearing on sniper rifles and does nothing to advance the idea that they are so it's trolling simply to stir up [censored].

Go away. You're really starting to piss me off.

Don

Don,
I congradulate you and others on making a "perfect" sim that functions in WinXP . In the future I will consult with other users in PM who feel the same as me concerning OOB and other errors. Goodbye.

Dep

[DRG]

Thanks. It's just about the best Christmas present I could ask for.

Now..........if anyone else thinks the game has "death rays attached to the bombs" or that "The P-51 Mustang seems to be a flying Tiger tank. " or that "the OOBs slanted so much at an Allied advantage in WinSPWW2 that altering the Preferences makes no difference whatsoever" or that even when the game user preferences are reduced to the lowest possible number for the US side you think that " Even with those changes in the preferences, the US Infantry appear to be supersoldiers." or that you totally misinterpret the help manual info that... "HE Kill - the value of the round at killing soft targets. Bigger is better!." and then jump to the conclusion that this means "it's only measuring the size (diameter) of the projectile vs it's damage to humans" ( HE kill has nothing to do with warhead size if this is too confusing ) and then claim " the OOBs are going to need some major reworking to get them correct. " or if you want try to make the point that there is ". No way!! " the " Thompson and MP38/40 is shown as having a 3 hex range." because you think "each hex is 250 meters across " ( it's fifty and always has been and even SP3 was "only "200 yards across ).......IF any of you reading this believe all that ( or even some of it... ) Please follow Dep off this forum.

........and all that came out in less than 40 posts

I am quite willing to discuss real or imagined flaws in the game but all this was so over the top as to be trollish.

Don

[Deputy]

DRG said:
Thanks. It's just about the best Christmas present I could ask for.

Now..........if anyone else thinks the game has "death rays attached to the bombs" or that "The P-51 Mustang seems to be a flying Tiger tank. " or that "the OOBs slanted so much at an Allied advantage in WinSPWW2 that altering the Preferences makes no difference whatsoever" or that even when the game user preferences are reduced to the lowest possible number for the US side you think that " Even with those changes in the preferences, the US Infantry appear to be supersoldiers." or that you totally misinterpret the help manual info that... "HE Kill - the value of the round at killing soft targets. Bigger is better!." and then jump to the conclusion that this means "it's only measuring the size (diameter) of the projectile vs it's damage to humans" ( HE kill has nothing to do with warhead size if this is too confusing ) and then claim " the OOBs are going to need some major reworking to get them correct. " or if you want try to make the point that there is ". No way!! " the " Thompson and MP38/40 is shown as having a 3 hex range." because you think "each hex is 250 meters across " ( it's fifty and always has been and even SP3 was "only "200 yards across ).......IF any of you reading this believe all that ( or even some of it... ) Please follow Dep off this forum.

........and all that came out in less than 40 posts

I am quite willing to discuss real or imagined flaws in the game but all this was so over the top as to be trollish.

Don

I just wish there was some way to send this crappy game (with the designer's attitudes it doesn't deserve to be called a "simulation") back for a refund.

[RVPERTVS]

DRG said:
Thanks. It's just about the best Christmas present I could ask for.

Now..........if anyone else thinks the game has "death rays attached to the bombs" or that "The P-51 Mustang seems to be a flying Tiger tank. " or that "the OOBs slanted so much at an Allied advantage in WinSPWW2 that altering the Preferences makes no difference whatsoever" or that even when the game user preferences are reduced to the lowest possible number for the US side you think that " Even with those changes in the preferences, the US Infantry appear to be supersoldiers." or that you totally misinterpret the help manual info that... "HE Kill - the value of the round at killing soft targets. Bigger is better!." and then jump to the conclusion that this means "it's only measuring the size (diameter) of the projectile vs it's damage to humans" ( HE kill has nothing to do with warhead size if this is too confusing ) and then claim " the OOBs are going to need some major reworking to get them correct. " or if you want try to make the point that there is ". No way!! " the " Thompson and MP38/40 is shown as having a 3 hex range." because you think "each hex is 250 meters across " ( it's fifty and always has been and even SP3 was "only "200 yards across ).......IF any of you reading this believe all that ( or even some of it... ) Please follow Dep off this forum.

........and all that came out in less than 40 posts

I am quite willing to discuss real or imagined flaws in the game but all this was so over the top as to be trollish.

Don

WOW Don this guy really pissed you off!! I get your point.

Perhaps the main issue is that Deputy totally missed the fact that SP is indeed a game depicting miniature wargaming with virtual (and far cheaper) units and terrain and the PC runing the combat throws, arty routines and morale checks(which makes it a more practical depiction of the tabletop) just as Andy says, not a simulation.

Big fact indeed because I haven´t yet seen any simulation played in turns

Keep up the good work!
Robert