New Russian OOB (or SPR OOB)

[DRG]

It never ceases to amaze me the length people will go to argue useless trivialities. We are discussing a weapon than may or may not have been used or may or may not have been captured German war booty and since no real combat occurred where we could read historical references we'll never really know for sure. We DO know there was SOMETHING named "RPG-1" and it MAY have referred to a native Russian weapon or it MAY have referred to capture German weapons or it MAY actually refer to both. ....or neither

Some years ago a Russian presented us with info on a variety of Russian WW2 SP guns we didn't have in the game. These were rare types but because they "existed" we were asked to include them for "historical accuracy" so we did and spent some time researching and creating unit icons to match . Two years later ANOTHER Russian comes along and tells us we MUST remove all those units as they were experimental or never made it beyond a small handful of units.

So we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Keeping Russians happy seems to be a no win situation in regards to what ever we do with the Russian OOB so perhaps it's just as well you have created your own OOB. I have NO idea who included the "RPG-1" and although the "historical record" is more than just a little vague I suspect there are people on both sides of this issue ( trivial though it is ) I will consider it's removal when I get to the end of all the other work I have to do on this and the WW2 game

Don

[politruk]

Ok, DRG, what is your OWN opinion - are such experimental weapons needed in game or not??

You are Master of the WinMBT And I think you have got concepcion of game's design - or we (players) will see experimental weapons (and units) at the game (especially at 'historical' years) or not?

And don't concentrate attention on nationality please.
We can be Russians, or Italians or Dutch... But we does our work to help you to do this game more realistic.

[Warhero]

I have followed this topic a long time and came to think this:could (Don? Andy?) make "sticked" topic into main forum about to warn players to restore original stuff before adding any modded OOBs/icons/etc.? Like "read this before d/l any modified files" or something?

Sorry if it's already exist. I just had not seen anything like this yet...

[DRG]

Warhero said:
I have followed this topic a long time and came to think this:could (Don? Andy?) make "sticked" topic into main forum about to warn players to restore original stuff before adding any modded OOBs/icons/etc.? Like "read this before d/l any modified files" or something?

Sorry if it's already exist. I just had not seen anything like this yet...

It's certainly worth considering. We have posted an error reporting procedure but few pay any attention to it anymore though for awhile it was being followed. Sometimes adding more info means less people will read it. The sheer number of posts on this forum must be daunting to anyone new to the game and logging on for the first time.

Don

[DRG]

It really depends on the weapon and it's use. We have taken a number of units in both games that are questionable and put them into the Misc section of the OOB's as "prototypes". These are usually tanks and are put there for any number of reasons. I recently put the T-84 Yatagan from the Turk OOB into a Prototype unit class as it looks unlikely to be adopted but it's not certain it won't be. When it was added it seemed like a good possibility it would be purchased.

The "Black Eagle" in South Korean OOB is now also in a "prototype" formation in misc as well. When it was added it also seem possible it would be introduced but now that the K2 has been announced it seems unlikely but not so unlikely to remove it altogether. The Russian OOB for WW2, as I have mentioned previously has nine vehicles in an "experimental" formation now and four in "Prototype" class that had been in the OOB's because someone had insisted we include them to make things "more historically accurate" we removed them later for the same reason !

The "RPG-1" was added because a LOT of information we could find at the time hinted at it's existence but gave conflicting info if it was a Russian devise or a renamed German Panzerfaust but it did seem that SOMETHING had existed that was named "RPG-1" and at the time we really....and I mean REALLY had NO idea anyone would complain about it being there since it gave the Russians an infantry anti tank device to use up to the introduction of the RPG-2.

The bottom line here is at the time we had more info that said something existed than not so it was put in. It was one unit and one weapons slot so what harm could it do and since the PRG-2 was named "RPG-2" that was no doubt because there was a "RPG-1"....... Yes? As the info above indicates. It DID make it through the development stage and to "large-scale tests " and as far as "and complex acceptance was planned for arms " so it WAS accepted and HAD there been a conflict there is little doubt it would have been used but in the end the problems were too much and it appears all efforts were concentrated on the RPG-2. Your sources say it was never issued. That's fine. We did not have access to that source and in the end, it's just one source that conflicts others . Am I to assume then that you believe that only Russian Language sources are to be deemed correct for Russian weapons ?? Russian sources cannot be wrong?

The internet ( and printed books ) are not immune to error and neither are acclaimed "experts" I can easily find a half dozen sources that give conflicting information about the Carl Gustav and that weapon wasn't developed in secret under Stalin's rule.

However, it would appear that given all the evidence ( conflicting though it is ) that this weapon was unlikely to have been issued to front line units except maybe to test and that it's remove may be justified but in my case ( unlike third party Modders ) I can't just rip it out without considering the effect it's removal might have on any scenario that uses it so EVERY scenario needs to be checked for dates this unit might be used and then if a scenario is found with this unit it would need to corrected and rebuilt and then the picklists would need to be checked and altered because that would leave the Russian AI without an infantry AT unit for it's infantry AT formation from 1/46 - 12/48. That's another issue few consider when they make OOB "corrections" in third party OOB's

IF I have time I will consider this but I'm already putting in 10-12 hour days on these patches and I still have a number of other issues that need considering but it's "removal" is now on the list for consideration

Don

[KraMax]

DRG said:

We did not have access to that source and in the end, it's just one source that conflicts others . Am I to assume then that you believe that only Russian Language sources are to be deemed correct for Russian weapons ?? Russian sources cannot be wrong?

Don

DRG, we do not think that one source of data can be better than another. Also we do not think that Russian sources NECESSARILY better or more precisely English-speaking sources. But we think that the information on Russian weapon is easier and faster and more precisely it is possible to find in Russian sources.
We also use the special literature, sites on the Internet, etc., we try to process as much as possible information on the weapon and armies.
In game, in our OOB, it is a lot of discrepancies and we wish to help to make real OOB our armies. What in it bad? Certainly these changes can lead to changes in game scenarios, but we also think that accuracy more important and we are assured that it is necessary to make once global changes in OOB. We also understand that you do not wish to do global changes OOB which can lead to changes in scenarios. Therefore we wish to show to you as we should look OOB. Certainly to decide personally - to accept to you changes or not.

We hope for your understanding.

Best regards.

p.s. sorry for my bad English