Development questions, please respond.

[RecruitMonty]

Ok, a couple more questions. How do you translate real world weights into game weights? How do you come up with values for weapons if they never got off the drawing board? I have a 105mm KWK, a 150mm KWK and a 175mm KWK that I need to integrate into the game. I have started playing around with the figures from guns that are similar but I need to know if there is a more sensible solution.

[RecruitMonty]

For the 175mm I have this, thus far.

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 12
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 9
HE Pen.: 4
HE Kill: 25
AP Pen.: 35 (ish)
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: -
Sabot range: -
HEAT Pen.: -
Weapon range: 120

For the 105mm I have this, thus far.

Weapon class: 7
Accuracy: 13
Weapon size: 12
Warhead size: 5
HE Pen.: 3
HE Kill: 11
AP Pen.: 18-20 (ish)
AP Kill: -
Sabot Pen.: -
Sabot range: -
HEAT Pen.: -
Weapon range: 100

What do you think?

What if the weapons were upgraded post WWII? What would the Sabot and HEAT figures look like? As this is for the German OOB should I just use the available 105s or develop new ones?

[Marek_Tucan]

Back in SP2 times I figured the in-game weight is 0.75 of real weight (metric tonnes) so I do use that still.

As for the 105mm, I have found for 105mm FlaK-39 (105/63) 140mm at 1000 meters.

[PlasmaKrab]

I think you can get some good refernce points for the 105mm ammo by looking at how 105mm direct-fire weapons through the times are modeled in the game(s).
Use the names and IOC dates of the relevant weapons and their penetration stats to figure out which ammo version they actually stand for, and relate that to the level of technology you want your weapon to use.
For HEAT rounds, the penetration is related only to caliber and tech level, count about 3*cal for 40s to 70s rounds, up to 5* (10* in some rare cases) for more modern ones.
As for sabot rounds, you should try extrapolating from similar rounds, either in caliber or technology. If you feel like it, work it all the way down to the technical values (penetrator shape, mass, hardness, propellant energy...) using one or several of the formulas available.

[PlasmaKrab]

Marek, if you read what has been posted by the team recently, weight shouldn't be thought of as directly related to unit mass in tons. Most likely, since you're building a whole new range of equipment here, think of 10 as minimum vehicle weight and 55 as the max you can stuff in a transport of any kind (100 absolute max) and scale your vehicles relatively within this range. Since there is some really heavy armor involved, I'm not sure proportional weight will give you enough flexibility.

[Marcello]

Game weight and carry capacity is more about preventing an helicopter which can carry a BMD from being able to lift a Maus as well, rather than an accurate reflection of actual weight/carry capacity. Tentatively one ton equals one point IIRC, but this is more a starting point for further fine tuning than an hard value.Also crew is added to the weight for carry capacity IIRC, so keep that in mind.

"How do you come up with values for weapons if they never got off the drawing board?"

Without a penetration table I would not dare to touch the issue with a barge pole, but if you have worked out the AP penetration the rest is relatively easy. HEAT has already been dealt with. For Sabot do you mean APCR or proper APDS?
What's the timeline?

[RecruitMonty]

Regarding Sabot rounds I am fairly sure we are dealing with APCR/(APCNR) rounds. As far as I know that is what the Germans use. However having said that they did pinch the early design, the APDS, from the French they could also use that I suppose. Which is better?

IIRC? (Probably a stupid question but...).

As for the 105s, I have decided to just use the Leopard 105s for anything after the mid 50s.

Could you explain what "3*" or "10*" mean? I have never come across this before. (Stupid question perhaps).

[Marcello]

"Which is better?"
APDS and APCNR are both better than APCR. Between APDS and APCNR it is a bit harder to say. APCNR is a one trick pony, in the sense that you can only fire efficiently AT rounds (the HE shell sucked, especially for the small calibers, given that it had to fit a taper bore barrel) and you have to deal with higher barrel wear. Further you need a secure supplies of tungsten for the rounds (and managanese for the barrel); while with a conventional gun you can supplement your APDS with conventional AP this isn't as easy with a taper bore design.An APCNR might,but I am not sure, be lighter in construction; this would be handy for a towed antitank gun, like the PAK 41 was. But for large caliber tank guns I think you are much better off with a conventional barrel and APDS rounds. Frankly I am not even sure a 150mm taper bore design would be feasible in first place.

[Marcello]

And thinking about it, what is a 175mm tank gun for?
The Pak 44 with an APDS should be able to deal with pretty much everything that the russians can field. But a 175mm? the HE shell for that caliber weights nearly 67 Kg. How are you supposed to load it?

[RecruitMonty]

Thankyou for your answer.

I should think it would be used with an Auto-loader. The Germans had a semi-auto loader, in as much as it still required help from a crewman or two to get it to function. An auto-loader was not beyond them. As for its function, well I suppose it is an overkill weapon. It was after all intended for the next generation Jagdpanzers. We all know those things were monstrously huge.

Yes, an overkill weapon. Lets be honest, the 150mm and 128mm would likely be the mainstay of the jagdppanzer force. The 175mm would be the extra big piece wheeled out on special occasions to cause terror in the enemy ranks.

Any more answers, to the other two questions?