20 pounder vs. T54's front hull

[Mobhack]

Every army (and navy) had different criteria to determine what was considered as "penetration". It could range from the tip just cracking the back of the plate through to 100% chance of it passing fully through. Some may require the projectile to both pass through and penetrate a certain thickness "witness plate" a certain distance behind the test plate as well (I.e. have some useful remaining energy post penetration).

So you need to know what particular test criteria was used for any given figures. Same goes for angle - some used 0 degrees as vertical, some used 0 as horizontal. Also, what was the target plate (RHA, Harvey steel, wrought iron etc). And was the penetration an average of several hits, or the best (or least) of several firings.

Loads and loads of variables. There is no one "true figure" for the penetration of anything really!.

We use the system SSI used for the original game, and that wont be changing.

[Aeraaa]

The best option for the game as it is now is IMHO to increase tank toughness for tanks fighting in early Cold War. Late 40ies-early 50ies tank toughness should be 140 for Russian vehicles, 120 for NATO ones (due to Russians using shells that work a bit better against slopes). Late 50ies-early 60ies Russian tank toughness 120, NATO same (the introduction of L7). After that, tank toughness 100 for both (APFSDS and HEAT rounds have very little degradation by sloped armor). Now my suggestion isn't without flaws, namely the fact that turrets become tougher than they should be and HEAT rounds are also affected when they shouldn't. About that I do have a request to make for a future update. How possible is it to include another option in the preferences screen, something like "HEAT tank toughness" that would be different than regular tank toughness? By fine fine tuning that we can make a better approximate of the probably behavior of tank armor vs every shell of the era.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Andy is absolutely correct, the variables in testing penetration levels and or protection against penetration are numerous and would drive the ordinary person "nuts" with mind bending overwhelming data with which I would be happy to provide to make the point, however, I believe one or two people out here would rather I didn't knowing my penchant for data collection going back to the ERA issue we had out here a year or two ago.

I can say all the usual things "We do the best we can." We have game limitations" "We will never really know all the true data results." etc. etc.

And unfortunately we'll never satisfy every developer, campaign/or scenario designer or player it just won't happen. We're from different countries, cultures, sexes and personal backgrounds/life experiences and up bringing. But that doesn't matter as we welcome everyone that comes along-regardless.

What we have all in common is generally we love to play wargames and to a lesser degree many of us have/had a military background. Some I suspect even had actual game design backgrounds either professionally or in consulting.

So my point takes me back to my Middle School/High School years to probably the most advanced game of it's time related somewhat to our current game(s). This game is the one that got me in my "research mode" as it had around 50 or so blank counters to update equipment with or add new ones, like most all games from this company had at the time using the existing counters as a rough baselines.

What's important is the issues were about the same to vary degrees the game would be designed by one of the best in the industry at the time. The year is 1972 and I'll start with a direct quote from the designer...

"The reason for this rather negative attitude lies in the fact that tactical games are extremely difficult to design with a large degree of realism. This was readily apparent while designing PanzerBlitz. We went through a good half dozen approaches. The one we finally arrived at was not, in our opinion, the best one. In other words, the research and development on tactical game designs could not stop with PanzerBlitz...The Tac3 approach was ultimately a blind alley. It could really go nowhere. In order to add any more realism to a game using this approach required enormous sacrifices in playability. A breakthrough, we feel, came with the development of a workable simultaneous movement system.

...The most important thing needed for the redesign of Red Star/White Star is the use of a simultaneous movement system...Of course...we could not merely be 'adding' simultaneous movement. Many other changes will be made also. This is, of course, because no game is ever finished as far as its design goes. Not only does the state of the art change and improve, but the historical data becomes more abundant, more insightful, and more useful, the longer the game is out. A game, after all, is a research tool...4"

Now I can really relate to those last couple of sentences. It almost even sounds like me-scary!

So there you have it SPI's Red Star/White Star the lessons from 1972 are essentially the same as we're dealing with 44 years later with our games the challenges remain the same and the hard work continues.

I hope you'll take the time to read the following it's worth the perspective it might hopefully give and reading the previous posts my mind immediately jumped back to this game of my youth.
http://tacticalwargamer.com/boardgam...rwhitestar.htm

For further insight you could go back to my first wargame and still one of my favorites for ease of play and just plain fun!
http://tacticalwargamer.com/boardgam...z/tacgame3.htm

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

I can say all the usual things "We do the best we can." We have game limitations" "We will never really know all the true data results." etc. etc.

And unfortunately we'll never satisfy every developer, campaign/or scenario designer or player it just won't happen. We're from different countries, cultures, sexes and personal backgrounds/life experiences and up bringing. But that doesn't matter as we welcome everyone that comes along-regardless.

What we have all in common is generally we love to play wargames and to a lesser degree many of us have/had a military background. Some I suspect even had actual game design backgrounds either professionally or in consulting.

This also points out one of the great strengths of the WinWW2/WinSPMBT games, they are user modifiable. If for whatever reason you don't agree with or like the default weapons/units/formations/game settings you can change them to your hearts desire.

When I first discovered the game I was thrilled, and disappointed. While the weapons represented in the USMC OOB were accurate (or at least game standard) and most of the units were pretty darn close (tho a few left me scratching my head) the formations were a complete mess (excuse me Andy/Don). It was obvious someone looked at the paper TO&Es and assumed that like most military organizations the TO&E represented the combat organizations used. Unfortunately the USMC is one of the odder ducks in the pond.

So as a personal project I rebuilt the OOB (not including picklists because at the time I had no clue how they worked) and decided to put my PERSONAL OOB up on these forums for anyone else that wished to to use. With the standard, and necessary, disclaimer that they were not official. One thing led to another and now it is. But it was not because my alterations had any effect on basic game mechanics (and probably because they didn't). Those are, and should be, the perview of Andy and Don alone because only they have intimate knowledge of, and access to, the game code.

Yes, the game tends to incorporate accurate representations of real-life equipment capabilities/stats when possible. But as has been stated conflicting data is the norm not the exception. And there are as many personal interpretations of this data as there are people looking at it. Some people, for various personal/professional reasons, are use to dealing with this sort of thing.

But that is totally irrelevant. Andy and Don are the guys behind the game, if for whatever reason they disagree with, or feel something is to difficult to implement (in the ancient and not terribly well written/documented game code) it won't be, no matter how much data we present them.

Feel free to present whatever you wish here, and to make a personal version of any OOB(s) you want and post it. Hell, the game encourages that! But once the official foot has come down (and Don has stomped me into the dirt repeatedly over aircraft issues) don't beat a dead horse.

One thing many people proposing alterations to game mechanics often fail to appreciate is WinSPMBT is first and foremost a game not a simulation.

[Aeraaa]

Necro'ed the thread because there are two more interesting simulations below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vporVkAUvbM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBPWS3WJ1b4&t=7s



And it confirms my assumption about how tough T54's hull really was vs. early Cold War projectiles (if anything I was proably too lenient on the 20 pounder). T-54 can easily kill early Centurions, although the Mk5 onwards should be way tougher and need HEAT ammunition.