spob34

[DRG]

Arralen said:
Some issues from the Italian OOB spob34,
game version v3.00 (OOB version "April 2008" .. no version number given any more, contrary to the manual?!)

****** No...... we have always given a date as the version number but we used to include the actual day the OOB was altered and now we just go by the month and the Year so what you used to see as "Version 28/April/06" was NOT "version 28 produced on April 2006". It was produced on April 28, 2006. I dropped the day to save space on that info line and to simplify it as the actual day is unimportant.

Arralen said:
U#423 "3RO 75L46"
SP-AT Vehicle [Type 52] ... but 0 AP/Sabot/Heat ammo

******Yep, and it's been that way for years ( over 6 years at the very minimum )My first guess is it should have AP but seeing as it's been that way for quite awhile I will assume instead that I'll need to dig into it a litte deeper

Arralen said:
U#497 "TL-37 75L27"
same type [52], same gun (75L46)
- there's no 75L27 gun in the italian OOB, but doubt L46 and L27 are anywhere similar in performance! Btw., I googled for 75L27 and came up with nothing?

********** I'll look into it.

Arralen said:
U#484 "Tl-37 AS-20"
same autocannon (W#005 Breda CM 20L65) as U#475, yet it has the 40HE/5AP ammo loadout of inf/AA guns instead of a 20HE/25AP loadout.
Both are SP-AT Vehicle [Type 52], btw. ...

***** I'll look into it

Arralen said:
U#57 "3RO 90L53"
is [UnitClass 19 =Tank Destroyer Tank Clone] but should be [UnitClass 52 =AT(Wheeled) Wheeled vehicle AT type] as it is wheeled, unless this is an formation issue ?!

*********** If you look at that unit more closely you will see the moveclass IS "wheeled" for that unit. It will be a formation issue and exact unit class name is irrelavant.

Arralen said:
misc. :
There are tons of weapon-specific bunkers and generic "Art Costiera" ... plus ONE "Art Marittima" (sea arty) and "Difesa Costiera" (coastal defense) each [Type 254]
.. and some generic fortifications [Type 0] .. maybe throw out 50% of them unless you need them for the AI ?!

*******No chance of that happening. Why would more choices be an issue ? It seems we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If I took them out ( and I have NO intention of doing so ) someone else would ***** that they we removed them.

Arralen said:
U#86 and U#135 are basically the same tank, one available from 6/42-12/42, the other one in 46. Why not extend the first from 6/42-12/46 ?

********* The version in Unit 86 was added sometime between now and Dec 2002 as a replacement for another unit that was removed and that provided rough continuity in the OOB on the remote chance that unit had been used in a sceanrio. Yes, it is somewhat redundant but to anyone actually playing the game it means absolutely nothing at all.

Arralen said:
Why is "semovente" some abbr. as SMV and sometimes spelled out completely ?

*******Becasue sometimes we need to use the appreviation to fit the unit name into space available. Unit 86 is a prime example "Semovente M.42 75L34" is too long a name so in that case "SMV M.42 75L34" is used. Sometimes we have the space and that's why Unit 89 is "Semovente M10" instead of "SMV M10"

Don

[Arralen]

Actually, there seems to be some mixup regarding Inf/AT/AA guns in the Italian OOB.
Might even go back as far as May 20, 1943 http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/t...lled-guns.html

The report mentions 2 truck-mounted 75/27 guns and claimes one is an AA gun made by Krupp. Yet, as far as I could find out from various sources on the net, the L/27 build by Krupp was a export model Inf gun. It was obsolete in WW2, but the Italians had nothing to replace it with and developed a HEAT shell to make it more usuable against (british) tanks.
Wasn't able to find the (horsedrawn) 75/L27 Inf gun in the OOB, and the self-propelled versions lack the HEAT ammo.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/show...?t=4443&page=2
http://www.comandosupremo.com/forum/...hp?f=20&t=2527


U#497 "TL-37 75L27" (from posting above)
- uses 75mm L46 M34 gun (w#124) instead of the indicated 75mm L27 Mod.34 (w#102)

I doubt L46 and L27 are anywhere similar in performance, yet they and some more are in OOB 34 ... . I think the L27 is the inf gun, and the L46 and L60 are the AA guns. Their (obviously) generic performance values should be tweaked accordingly.

U#008 & U#010 "Ceirano 75L27" uses 75mm L27 Mod.34 (w#102)
PEN 2:10 Range 75:46

U#423 "3RO 75/L46" uses 75mm L46 Mod.34 (w#124)
PEN 2:10 Range 75:46

U#425 "Ansldo 75mm M34" AA/AT gun uses 75mm L60 Mod.34 (w#115)
PEN 2:10 Range 90:46 .. btw., it's "Ansaldo" and this abbr. to squeeze the name into 15 characters is plain ugly ..

Btw, those sources hint the existance of HEAT shells for inf guns (not that high numbers where actually delivered, though .. italian crews improvised by firing HE shells without fuze?). I would suggest adding low numbers of AP and HEAT shells to the guns in question. Obviously, somebody already tried this, but why SABOT ammo was chosen I don't know ... the HEAT shells where streamlined! [ U#321,323,325,327,329 ]



Some more possible errors :

U#517-519 "Pattuglia" (Patrol) is size "1"
Should be "0" .. e.g. USMC (OOB013) patrol U#053 is size "0" but carries many more weapons and ammo ..

U#332 "C/C 50L60 PaK" has radio code "0"
Yet, #330 and #331 have code "1".
Looks like someone tried some wizardry to make the smaller guns sometimes show up later in the war, when the PaK 50 was already available but maybe in insufficent numbers .. With AT guns spread out to "Anti-Tank Guns", "AT-Guns" and improvised AT guns (inf guns), I wonder if this really works out ... .

[thatguy96]

Arralen said:
U#517-519 "Pattuglia" (Patrol) is size "1"
Should be "0" .. e.g. USMC (OOB013) patrol U#053 is size "0" but carries many more weapons and ammo ..

Its the other way around. The USMC one should be size 1. 6+ men are size 1, 5 or less are size 0. At least this is the convention.

[Arralen]

thatguy96 said:

Its the other way around. The USMC one should be size 1. 6+ men are size 1, 5 or less are size 0. At least this is the convention.

Oh, really?
Then why are all those 8-men HMG squads size "0" ?!

[thatguy96]

I'm waiting for an answer on that as well, because those should also be size 1 according to the convention. My feeling is that when those units were created they were copy-and-pasted from 3- or 4-man single HMGs, and while everything else was increased, the size wasn't. I could also be that there's a size 0 convention for infantry weapon teams, but I doubt it. Look to see if other MG squads (6+ men) are size 0 or 1 in other OOBs.

[Mobhack]

The smaller ATG (not 17 pdrs etc) and all M/HMG teams have always been size 0, because these were deemed easy units to conceal. Mortars were not - because these are crewed standing up.

For scout teams and so forth, only those under 5 men in size are allowed size 0 - as far as I recall, in the original SP series all Japanese rifle sections were given size 0, but that bonus has been removed a long time ago.

As far as M/HMG sections of 2 or more guns being super-deadly because they have size 0 - I really don't find that to be the case myself. They may get a round or 2 off undetected but if you keep firing from the same position you soon get spotted. But the best counter is just to stop advancing for a move or 2 if under MG fire and call in mortar fire on the general location you think the fire is coming from.

If you think the multiple gun sections need to be size 1, then by all means try it out in your OOBS with Mobhack, after running it through the points calculator to remove the size 0 added cost and see if it makes any real difference.

Cheers
Andy

[Marek_Tucan]

Personally, I had no problems with size 0 MG units. They can be effective if used wisely, but they are no superweapon and the size 0 gives them (with splash damage effect) just enough punch to be actually worthwhile (in pre-splash days the MG's were really quite underpowered IMO).

[Sniper23]

They are size 0 to represent easily camouflage/hidden MG I think

[DRG]

Originally Posted by thatguy96

Its the other way around. The USMC one should be size 1. 6+ men are size 1, 5 or less are size 0. At least this is the convention.

Correct. All the "patrol" units in the game that are 6 men are size one EXCEPT the USMC ( the USA "Fighting Patrol" is 6 men and size 1 as well) so it's the USMC unit that's the error ( now fixed ) and not the Italian Pattuglia. There are three scout units in the OOB's that were six men and size zero as well and those have now been corrected

Don

[Mobhack]

Btw, those sources hint the existance of HEAT shells for inf guns (not that high numbers where actually delivered, though .. italian crews improvised by firing HE shells without fuze?). I would suggest adding low numbers of AP and HEAT shells to the guns in question. Obviously, somebody already tried this, but why SABOT ammo was chosen I don't know ... the HEAT shells where streamlined! [ U#321,323,325,327,329 ]

Sabot, as explained in the Mobhack help, is simply AP shell number 2. Many field gun types in the OOBS have a full range for the main HE shell, which uses (shares) the same range as the AP round, as explained in the mobhack help files. The sabot shell has its own AP range - which can be shorter or longer than the HE, HEAT and AP rounds which all use the one shared range.

Take the AP round for the UK 25 pounder - the ATG version of this is still useful for potting things with HE at distances, but if the AP round was given the same range as the HE round, it would be incredibly effective with its 200+ hex maximum range!. Same as for the little 37mm French tank popgun - a useful HE range, but a short range AP round using the sabot slot as it was not very effective at AP at all.

So - these units use a sabot round with a short range to allow the full HE range, but a short range AP shell of some sort as the "sabot". Could be an unfused HE round, who either knows or cares - only the OOB designer, and unless he put that in an info screen, we (Don and I) don't know either since these OOBS have been worked on by multiple persons for well over a decade.

If you need the nuts and bolts details, and one of those guys is still available you can discuss it with him as he may know why he made some decision or other. It could be because he copied the stats for the existing Umty-Flumpty model 543 howitzer as an improvised ATG, and wanted to retain the useful HE range, so gave it a short-ranged AP round if the original Umpty-Flumpty 543 did not have this, or he simply copied the existing Umpty-Flumpty 543 (which has a sabot as the shorter ranged AP round as howitzers usually do) and reclassed it as an ATG for the improvised ATG class?. If the OOB designer that did it is available - he may well be able to tell you. Otherwise your guess is as good as anyone else's - including us.

Cheers
Andy