Vehicle Size- Does size matter?

[DRG]

I'll keep this simple

1/ We are NOT going to implement a mathematical formula to determine vehicle size in the game. It is an enormous waste of time and man hours for more reason than I care to itemize but for one ANY "information" used to determine vehicle length would have to EXCLUDE gun overhang and a high percentage of specs give the maximum length that includes gun barrels and gun barrels don't figure in to a size calculation like that. What you will end up with is, in the vast majority of cases, the same numbers we already use as you have already discovered. I didn't need all the math to know that.

2/ I said "1-6 is the standard for tanks since SP1" as in little tankettes are one and a Koenigstiger is 6 and everything else fits in between with something extraordinary like the Maus being a 7 with most tanks fitting into the 4 -5 range.

3/ All of that diverts away from that "Most OOB's have many size discrepancies between vehicles and countries with same equipment" claim and I'm still waiting for the list.




Don

[EOT]

What attracted me to the SP series 15+ years ago was how realistic the equipment specs/capabilities were and the seamless simulation between the different units. If we sound like were harping on you/game, that's not the goal. We have guide lines for non-vehicle units. We can do the leg work for the specs on the hull lengths, vehicle width and height.

1)I found the hull lengths quite easily.

2)It would be useful to have a hard rule to refer to, that would end arguments over a units size. If I'm the first one to have brought this issue forward then I guess it's not an issue.
I will then just edit the OOB's im my copy of SP.

3) "Most OOB's have many size discrepancies between vehicles and countries with same equipment" I apologize for this blanket statement as I didn't mean a vehicle such as a T-72 from country A was not the same size as country B. The point I was trying to to make was some vehicle units were either too large and/or too small within OOB's.

What kind of ideas or input are you looking for or not for possible future upgrades? I'm only guessing your the upgrade Jedi?

My next thread was going to be on Artillery guns ranges for counter battery, I guess no point in arguing about base charge ranges,base bleed ranges, Excalibur GPS type rounds and more OOB's with airburst (VT) rounds.

[Richard_H]

Don, understood, I'll bear it in mind. I'm hoping that the only Load Cost items I've brought up re vehicles are where it's been under 10.

@ EOT - if you search the forum, I think you'll find that all sorts of 'smart' shells have been discussed before. Trying to add base bleed ranges and different ranges for different charges will (IMHO, of course) only succeed in clogging up what in some cases are already nearly full weapons rosters.

Richard H

[EOT]

Don't need to add any more ranges except airburst (VT) for more OOB's. Just checking to see if the base ranges and extended ranges whether they be rap/bleed are accurate enough. Anyone find their countries off-map artillery ranges too long or short of a range?

[Pibwl]

I don't feel that sizes need general changing, but only my 3 cents: most important IMO should be height and "fullness" of silhouette (say, boxlike APC should be bigger target, than a tank with low hull and only streamlined turret reaching the same height, as APC's roof). Barrel is IMO negligible.

Tanks similar to T-54 are size 4, tanks similar to M-48/Centurion/Leo-II are size 5 and it seems OK. There will be always problems with border cases, and it's subjective. Mathematical formula won't help much, because a difference of 10 cm might decide, if it's 4 or 5. (I've had a similar problem long ago, when I was modifying aircraft sizes in SP-I).

Having said this, I think, that PT-76 is too small (3), comparing to T-54.

Michal