:: :: FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Join! (free) :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in ::
AI Values
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index -> archive of old projects and contests -> Forumini Armies Old
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject:  Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
8.  Double shot for MGs.  Sharpe says double shot for MGs under 20mm.  Zeus suggests reflecting the high rate of fire in the attack stats.  I don't mind either way.  Does anyone else have an idea on this?

9.  MG ranges.  I will stick to MG range bands independent of the HE range bands, as follows:
               point blank  (same hex)
               close           (1-2 hexes) (200 yards max) hull MG max
               medium       (3-5 hexes) (500 yards max) coax max    
               long             (6-8 hex)   (800 yards max) top of turret max
                                                   (pintle mounted or AA MG)
_________________
HHRgamer
PostSun May 31, 2009 4:27 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Zeus

 

Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received:

Posts: 240
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Those MG ranges look very good to me!

As for Double Shot: LMG's and SMG's don't get Double Shot even though obviously their rate of fire is a lot better than (bolt action or semi-automatic) rifles. HMG's do get Double Shot for being a very stable firing platform (or that's my interpretation anyway  Smile ).

A tank turret is no doubt a stable firing platform too, but not while the tank is moving. How about only allowing the second shot with MG's and 20mm guns if the vehicle didn't move in the movement phase?

As for allowing defensive fire against infantry even when the vehicle is in a cover hex: if you do this, tanks will probably become almost unstoppable to most infantry, as they can't get close. Historically, infantry used the terrain to try to get close, and usually succeeded in this in forests, towns etc. Also, it promotes the use of an infantry screen with your tanks when they have to move into towns or forests, which adds a tactical element.
PostTue Jun 02, 2009 5:49 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Glad you like the MG ranges.  They are based, in part, on statements taken from Panzers at War, by Michael and Gladys Green, at page 121. The Tiger B had three 7.92mm MGs:  

      1. front hull MG, operated by radio man with a hand trigger,
      2. coaxial turret MG, operated by gunner through a foot pedal,
      3. "commander's hatch" or "cupola mounted" MG on turret,
      operated by tank commander.

According to this source, the training manual stated:

    1.  hull MG useful "up to 200 meters against men, horses, and vehicles."
    2.  coaxial MG "up to 400 meters against men, horses, and vehicles.  If there's a lot of them, then at greater ranges.  Also for occupied houses and for enemy soldiers lying prone on the ground."
    3.  cupola MG:  ? [lost the exact quote, but effective at greater range as gun is even higher and unbuttoned commander has better view of targets.]

_________________
HHRgamer
PostSat Jun 06, 2009 4:23 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
P.S. still thinking about double shot, defensive fire, and other points.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostSat Jun 06, 2009 4:24 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
4th revision of Part ONE, principles for vehicle AI values, posted above, is now up. May be a bit ragged here and there, but I wanted to get it up for comment.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostSat Jun 13, 2009 11:28 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Zeus

 

Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received:

Posts: 240
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
I read through your post, and got the following questions / suggestions / comments:

Quote:
SA:  "Explosive" --  "When this vehicle attacks enemy soldiers
     with its main gun, the number that results from the target's
     cover roll is reduced by two."

I would call this SA "High Explosive", as that is the usual term for this. For the cover effect, couldn't you just use the familiar "the target gets -2 to its cover roll"?

MG ranges: the usual names are short/medium/long (you use close / medium / long). You could use close instead of point blank.

DF by Vehicles: just to make sure: when in cover, Vehicles can't make def fire attacks against Soldiers. They can always def fire against other vehicles.

Unbuttoned SA: as above, you use "the result of each attack die is reduced by 1". To keep it consistent this should be "gets -1 to each attack die".

Headshot SA: I would love an actual danger to firing the TT/AAMG, but make this part of the Unbuttoned SA.

Rear turret MGs: the SA description still mentions "the rear of the turret".

Rear hull MG: I think it should be able to fire in addition to other attacks the vehicle might have; if it's a matter of "instead of", it won't often add anything (as the vehicle could probably attack the target with its turret MG or main gun anyway).

These are all minor points, and overall it feels like it's shaping up quite nicely!
PostMon Jun 15, 2009 5:38 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Thanks for your comments.  I've been away for awhile and will be again soon, but I have not abandoned the project.  Once I get Part ONE edited again, perhaps I can finally get some specific numbers up for Part TWO.
   The rear turret and rear hull MG language was rough, and I'll try to take another run at it soon.
   I like "high explosive" also, but noted some other readers preferred a short one-word description.  If there is no renewed objection, I am quite happy to go with "high explosive."
    I like the MG range descriptions you propose, and will try to conform the language of the SAs to the standard language.
    Any other comments or suggestions?
_________________
HHRgamer
PostWed Jun 24, 2009 1:30 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Zeus

 

Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received:

Posts: 240
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Do we have an example card that shows the AI values of a vehicle?

I'm not sure what the latest version looks like, but maybe we can have two AI stat lines on all cards: one for MG's, and one for HE, with an appropriate icon. Not every vehicle will have both, and in that case the stat line is either empty or not present at all.

A blanket rule can then be added to the main rules that the HE stat line gives -1/2 to cover.

I think an SA that goes for almost all units of a certain type should become a blanket rule, to prevent card clutter.
PostWed Jun 24, 2009 5:50 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Fifth revision of Part ONE, "Proposed Guidelines for FA Vehicle AI stats—Part ONE," is now up on page 3 of this thread.  

One question left hanging is posted at  the end of the revised part ONE:  should double shot be given to all vehicle MGs and autocannon, or should there be a cutoff at a certain rate of fire?  

Zeus, thanks for your comments.  Sorry, but the two AI stat line idea was rejected earlier in favor of icons:

                Put the icon(s) [a turret and/or a hull with a prominent
                 MG] in the blank area left of the matrix.  

                Superimpose the attack values (8/6, 7/4. etc) over the
                icon or place them underneath.  We can put an          
                explanation in the rules where it explains the card.

(page 3 of this thread, May 22, 2009, Sharpe)

As to the current version of the proposed card, I am going by the version posted by Neural Dream on Jan. 5, 2009 in the general section of the FA forum. http://aaminis.myfastforum.org/ftopic5279-0-0-asc-.php  Perhaps once I join photobucket or another service I may be able to post it in this thread, but manipulation of the template to bring it up to date is presently a bit beyond me.  N.D., if you're watching, could you help out?  Thanks.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostSat Jul 18, 2009 10:17 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Zeus

 

Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received:

Posts: 240
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
To determine in which cases a unit should get Double Shot, we need to determine what exactly Double Shot represents.

I've always felt that Double Shot represents an MG being belt-fed, ie capable of sustained fire without having to reload every few seconds. Under my rules, an HMG that is fed by clips/strips/trays, like the Japanese Type 92 or the Italian Modello 37, does NOT get Double Shot.

IMO, Vehicle MG's that are fed by 10-30 round clips likewise don't deserve Double Shot (and I think that means most of them). In fact, because operating a belt-fed weapon on your own (as opposed to a 2 or 3 men crew like HMG's) is not very easy, you might want to consider forgetting about Double Shot for Vehicle MG's altogether.

Also, the official Doube Shot allows two completely separate attacks, for instance against one target in front of the vehicle, and another behind. No matter how high an MG's RoF might be, it doesn't speed up the turret traverse time Smile . So if you do want to use DS, the second attack should probably be restricted to targets to the same side of the Vehicle as the first target or something like that.

As for Double Shot for main guns, this would probably only apply to the 20mm gun which, while also being fed by clips, had a much higher RoF than other main guns.
PostMon Jul 20, 2009 7:24 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
I agree that for most vehicle MGS, double shot should only be allowed against the same target.  However, turret traverse time is irrelevant to turret top/ pintle-mounted MGs (TMGs) and AAMGs, isnt it? Didn't these weapons have a very large arc of fire?  Perhaps not 360 degrees, but much more than an HGM or CoAX.

Your distinction between belt-fed and clip-fed vehicle MGs for purposes of determining whether to give DS (Double Shot) sounds reasonable.  I will need help finding out which vehicle machine guns were clip fed and which belt fed. Here's a starter list, in which I have included some infantry MGs for comparison:

    MG                              vehicle       ROF          belt fed/DS?shot?
7.5mm Châtellerault
MAC31 "Reibel" (France) R-35        750 rpm      150 round drum

Degtyaryov 7.62 mm           T-34/76     ?                   ?
DP 27  (USSR)

7.7mm Type 97                 Chi-ha           ?          not a belt
(Japan)

BESA 7.92 mm                   Mk II-IV,        500-800      ?
(.30 cal)) (UK)                  Valentine +

7.92mm  MG 34                   Tiger I         800-900 rpm   ?

____ mm MG 42                  infantry      1550 rpm (infantry)   DS

M1919 7.62mm               M4A3 Sherman  400-600 rpm        ?
(.30 cal)                         CoAX & HMG

11mm Gras (hvy) Hotchkiss      infantry       450-600           DS

M2 12.7mm (.50 cal) (US) M4A3 Sherman    ?                    ?
                                            AAMG

Suggestions and additional data welcome.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostWed Jul 22, 2009 9:32 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Zeus

 

Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received:

Posts: 240
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Quote:
Your distinction between belt-fed and clip-fed vehicle MGs for purposes of determining whether to give DS (Double Shot) sounds reasonable.


As a matter of fact, I suggested to ignore the distinction, as handling a belt-fed gun on your own (and especially reloading it) is a lot harder than changing a clip... so the practical RoF won't differ much.

I would also forget about differentiating between different types of MG's in different tanks and/or for different countries. It would complicate things with little gain (as you can't have it differ much anyway, or you risk making the best one too good or the worst one too bad). Their effect must have been fairly similar.

I would love to see some cards based on the conversion rules you have now  Smile !
PostWed Jul 29, 2009 5:30 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Sorry for the confusion.    Your suggestion that DS should not be applicable to any vehicle machine guns sounds reasonable to me.  Also, giving the 20mm autocannon Double Shot makes sense in light of the very high rate of fire.  

I take it you still agree that it makes sense to differentiate between different MGs in terms of attack values.  

Before I post some proposed values, I am trying to find a way to compare them with AAM revised attack values.  The reason is that FA, at least in its first iteration, should not incorporate attack values which are so different as to radically change the existing play balance.  

It appears to me that the AAM system aggregates a vehicle's machine guns and the main gun in arriving at a single anti-infantry number for each range.  Compare the AI values of  the PAK 36 to the AI values of the early Pzs.  

Various vehicle machine guns are listed above in order of increasing attack value from top to bottom.  The order generally follows size of the projectile, but there are exceptions (.30 cal 1919 MG). The order is based on the sources and discussion appearing earlier in this thread.   

If anyone has different ideas as to the relative anti-infantry value of these MGs, or as to the general approach, please let me know.
_________________
HHRgamer


Last edited by HHRgamer on Sun Aug 09, 2009 1:54 am; edited 2 times in total
PostThu Jul 30, 2009 1:14 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Zeus

 

Joined: 22 Dec 2007
Likes received:

Posts: 240
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
My turn to apologize for the confusion  Smile . I'm only talking about vehicle MG's here, not infantry MG's.

I had typed a whole dissertation about there being no need to differentiate between different types of vehicle MG, but I'm slowly warming to the concept  Smile . Especially because the MG stats are separate from the HE stats, which makes differentiating between the MG's easier, and the differences between vehicles greater (rather then good HE and bad MG's, and bad HE and good MG's in the end resulting in the same AI stat line).

What would be your proposed stats for the different vehicle MG's?


Quote:
It appears to me that the AAM system aggregates a vehicle's machine guns and the main gun in arriving at a single anti-infantry number for each range.  Compare the AI values of  the PAK 36 to the AI values of the early Pzs.


I agree, although in your example it's more because the official AT guns have been assumed not to carry high explosive ammunition. I don't think a tank with basically the same gun (ie an early war Panzer III) would get only 3/3/3 for its HE attack, right? A better example might be the Sherman and the Panzer IV D: they both fire a low velocity 75mm shell with equal explosive filler, but still the Sherman gets higher AI stats, which must be because of its MG's.
PostThu Jul 30, 2009 5:53 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Neural Dream should be weighing in soon for help with the proposed vehicle stat card.

I have some proposed stats for different vehicle MGs, with reasonable differences between Coaxial, Hull, Turret, and AA MGs, but I am not satisfied with the overall balance between vehicle MGs and main guns (HE).  Thus I want to compare AAM revised's overall attack values for the vehicle against what  I propose for the HE and MG separately.  Especially in those cases where one or more MGs can fire simulatenously with HE, I want to make sure that I don't completely unbalance the game by making vehicles way too powerful with the combined HE and MG values.  

To make the comparison, I need to compare AAM rev. values for static guns against the overall values for vehicles carrying the same guns.  Zeus has suggested some comparisons above, and other suggestions would be most helpful.  

I am on vacation now, so don't have complete charts to list how the various MGs listed below were all employed (Hull, CoAX, TMG, AAMG), but I'd be interested in comments and suggestions:

MG                              vehicle       ROF          attack values
                                                                  close/short/med/long
7.5mm Châtellerault
MAC31 "Reibel" (France) R-35        750 rpm
                  CoAX      

Degtyaryov 7.62 mm        T-34/76     ?                  
DP 27  (USSR)

7.7mm Type 97                 Chi-ha           ?          
(Japan)

BESA 7.92 mm                   Mk II-IV,        500-800      
(.30 cal)) (UK)                  Valentine +

7.92mm  MG 34                   Tiger I         800-
                Hull

____ mm MG 42                  infantry      1550 rpm DS

M1919 7.62mm               M4A3 Sherman  400-600        
(.30 cal)     CoAX
                Hull

11mm Gras (hvy) Hotchkiss      infantry       450-600 DS

M2 12.7mm (.50 cal) (US) M4A3 Sherman    ?                    
                AAMG

Suggestions and additional data welcome.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostFri Jul 31, 2009 7:17 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Buzzkill

 Rehabbing from my plasticrack addiction!


Joined: 08 Mar 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 797
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
I am trying to catch up with the discussion but just a few thoughts for now. I think that the coax mg was often used as a sighting mechanism for the main gun rather than as an offensive weapon. Its slow traverse and limited elevation would make it fairly useless in close quarters fighting. The Hull MG would obviously be used to attack infantry, as would the commanders MG, but the commanders MG would require the crewman to expose himself (unless in a cupola) to fire it. The commanders MG would also be the AA MG, this was the common role of the M2 .50 mounted on Sherman tanks. A cupola mounted MG would not function as an AA MG due to its lack of elevation and mobility. There is also the practice of German PZ IV's (and probably other models) removing their hull MG and mounting it on the turret in an AA role, so they would typically have one or the other, but not both. Also, I don't think that a belt fed, or magazine fed MG should be differentiated. First, most MG's are belt fed, and many of the magazine fed were just a belt coiled up inside a drum, so essentially they were still belt fed. We are talking about several short bursts, not sustaining full-auto fire. Even a belt fed MG had to be reloaded after 100-200 rounds and continous fire would burn out the barrel in short order. So we are not talking about a signifigant difference in ROF. I like the though process, but I am afraid of overthinking this situation and making it a very cumbersome game mechanic with limited game value. Something simple like HE, MG and AA stats would probably accomplish what we are looking for. If HE is fired then the MG can be fired single shot, if no HE used, fire the MG's with double shot and assign a limited AA value to tanks that typically mounted a suitable AA gun on the turret. The odds of a single tank shooting down a plane should be pretty low. Now, a plane that buzzes a column of Shermans with all those Ma Dueces barking up at him, that is a different story!
_________________
Nuts! - General Anthony McAuliffe

PostSat Aug 01, 2009 3:24 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
I'm trying to avoid a cumbersome game mechanic by doing the thinking on the front end.  This ends up requiring that we spend some time running down blind alleys, and perhaps getting a sore brain, but I hope the result will be worth the trouble.  

I have edited the general principles posted at page 3 above to provide the following with regard to simultaneous firing of various vehicle weapons.  What do you think?

  3.  Simultaneous firing (of vehicle-mounted weapons).
   a.  general rules.  

              Main Gun + Hull MG OK.
Vehicles may fire the main gun and a hull mounted machine gun simultaneously during the same phase.

              Main Gun + other MG not OK.
Vehicles may not fire both the main gun and any other MG during the same phase unless an SA specifically states to the contrary.
     
                CoAX + Hull MG OK
A vehicle may fire its CoAxial MG simultaneously with the vehicle's (front) hull MG unless an SA specifically states to the contrary.

                 CoAX + AAMG or Cupola MG or Pintle mounted MG OK
A vehicle may fire its CoAxial MG simultaneously with its AAMG, cupola MG, or Pintle mounted MG.  

       b.  Other combinations
Whether vehicles may fire main gun simultaneously with rear turret MG or rear hull MG, or these MGs simultaneously with other MGs will be handled by SA.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostTue Aug 11, 2009 2:32 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Per Zeus's suggestion, in order to get down to specific numbers I have done a comparison of the AI values of 75mm guns mounted on vehicles and mounted on wheels. I believe the AI values of other gun sizes can be adjusted based on the conclusions reached from the comparison of 75s.  Once a reasonable composite AI value is reached for each gun or gun/MG combination, the MG components of those values can then be teased out separately if desired.  (yeah, yeah, I know I pushed for breaking out the MG AI values separately, but after 5+ months I'm not sure that I or anyone else on this forum has the energy to do all that work-- perhaps we could take a staged approach and do the easy thing first).

I have tried to get accurate data, but if you can spot errors in the list below, please let me know.

ANTI-TANK GUNS.

I think WOTC rates the Anti-infantry values of anti tank guns which were capable of firing HE too low. (I am assuming all the ATGs in WOTC can fire HE-- I stand to be corrected if anyone has the time to research the issue further).   The 17 pounder (=76.2mm), 3" gun M5 (76.2mm), and PAK 40 (75mm) all have an AI rating of 3/3/3, whereas the 75mm gun (75L46) mounted on a Marder II is rated 6/5/4.  Since the Marder II had no MG, the difference in values cannot be explained by the effect of a vehicle MG. Perhaps, as Zeus suggests, this is because WOTC assumes that ATGs are always firing armor-piercing shells rather than HE.  This is not historical.

The exception to this trend, in the 75mm range, is the US M20 75mm Recoiless Rifle, which gets an AI of 8/7/5.  This seems a little too high to me.  Is this an instance of the pro-USA bias that some posters have complained about?  Perhaps a 7/6/5 AI value would be appropriate if the PAK 40's AI value were raised to 7/6/5.

Do members agree that the crew of an anti-tank gun of MG has a better view and a more stable firing platform than crew members firing the same gun or MG from a vehicle?  Do members agree that, aside from the M20 and possible out-liers at other calibers, WOTC's ATG anti-infantry values should be elevated across the board for FA?  For instance, what do members think of either lowering the Marder's AI value to 5/4/3 or raising the PAK 40's AI value to 7/6/5?  

VEHICLE MOUNTED GUNS.

As to vehicle mounted guns, sometimes WOTC seems to include the value of the vehicle MGs in its composite AI value, and sometimes it doesn't. For example, the Marder, with a 75L46 but no MG, gets a 6/5/4 AI value, whereas the PzIVD--F1, with a 75L24 plus CoAx and Hull MGs, gets 7/7/6.  

      75mm, no MGs.

On the other hand, the 76.2mmL41 on the Su 76 M also gets a 7/7/6, even without any MGs at all. I realize the barrel of the Su's gun is longer, but I thought that only helped with high velocity (armor piercing) shots.  Also, the Pz IV F2, with a 75L43 gun (longer than the SU's), plus 2 MGs, only gets a 7/7/6.  Is the SU's gun, or are its HE projectiles, really so superior to both the 75L24 and the 75L43 as to merit giving the SU the same AI rating even though the SU had no MGs?  Should the SU's AI value be reduced to something like 6/6/5?  

Sticking with the SU for a moment, why should it get a 7/7/6 AI value when the Archer and the Jagdpanzer IV, with the same caliber gun (17 pounder = 76.2 mm, 75L48 for the Jagd), both get only 5/5/4?  None of the three vehicles has MGs.  Should the Archer's and Jagdpanzer IV's AI both go up to match the SU 76's AI value?

      75mm + 1 MG

Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer, 75L48 + 1 MG = 6/6/4
Compare Jagdpanther, 75L70, + 1 MG =  6/6/4
    with Panther D 75L70 + 1 MG = 7/7/6, and
    Cromwell IV, 75L38 + 1 MG = 7/7/6.  -Why the difference?

Compare M18GMC 76L52 + AAMG = 6/6/4,
     with M18 Hellcat, 76.2 + Hull MG = 6/6/4. - An AAMG is better
     than a Hull MG, so shouldn't M18's AI value be higher than that
     of the Hellcat?

     75mm + 2 MG

Pz IV D, IVE, IV F1 75L24 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
M24 Chaffee 75L38 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
Pz IV F2 75L43 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
Panther G 75L70 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6

     -longer barrels make no diff. on AI value, which seems correct

BT-7A 76mm + 2 x DTMG = 7/7/6 (I think both MGs Hull MG's)
T-34/76 76L30 or 41 + 2 MG = 7/7/6
Comet 77mm + 2 mg = 7/7/6
Compare:  Sherman VC Firefly (17 #/ 76.2mm) + CoAx + AAMG
               = 7/7/6
          -CoAx + AAMG should be better than CoAx + Hull MG, so the
            Firefly's AI value should be higher than that of the vehicles
            listed above.  8/8/7?

KV-1/42 76L39 + CoAx + Hull = 9/9/7  
           -Why should the KV's AI values be so much higher than
            those of other vehicles carrying 75mm guns and 2 MGs?
            Reduce to same or slightly lower than Firefly, say 8/7/6?
 
     75mm + 3 MGs
Sherman DD  75L38 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 9/9/7
M4A1 Sherman 75L38 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 9/9/7
M4A3E8 Sherman (Easy Eight) 76L52 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 7/76
   - why is the Easy Eight so much lower than the Sherman DD
    and  M4A1? Would 9/8/7 be appropriate for all in this group?

     75mm + 4 MG
T-35  76.2mmL26, 2 x 34L46 + 4 MG = 10/10/8
      - can't really complain about this value too much-- what a
       battle-wagon!

I would appreciate feedback from anyone who is still interested in moving FA forward. Now we are into numbers, so perhaps we're getting close.  Thanks.
_________________
HHRgamer
PostSat Aug 22, 2009 10:54 pm
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Sharpe

 I'm Sharpe, dammit.


Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Likes received: 2

Posts: 8796
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
HHRgamer wrote:
Per Zeus's suggestion, in order to get down to specific numbers I have done a comparison of the AI values of 75mm guns mounted on vehicles and mounted on wheels. I believe the AI values of other gun sizes can be adjusted based on the conclusions reached from the comparison of 75s.  Once a reasonable composite AI value is reached for each gun or gun/MG combination, the MG components of those values can then be teased out separately if desired.  (yeah, yeah, I know I pushed for breaking out the MG AI values separately, but after 5+ months I'm not sure that I or anyone else on this forum has the energy to do all that work-- perhaps we could take a staged approach and do the easy thing first).

I have tried to get accurate data, but if you can spot errors in the list below, please let me know.

ANTI-TANK GUNS.

I think WOTC rates the Anti-infantry values of anti tank guns which were capable of firing HE too low. (I am assuming all the ATGs in WOTC can fire HE-- I stand to be corrected if anyone has the time to research the issue further).   The 17 pounder (=76.2mm), 3" gun M5 (76.2mm), and PAK 40 (75mm) all have an AI rating of 3/3/3, whereas the 75mm gun (75L46) mounted on a Marder II is rated 6/5/4.  Since the Marder II had no MG, the difference in values cannot be explained by the effect of a vehicle MG. Perhaps, as Zeus suggests, this is because WOTC assumes that ATGs are always firing armor-piercing shells rather than HE.  This is not historical.


I think the WoTC ratings were game-based, not historical.

For high-velocity 75's, what if the ratings looked like 4/7/5 instead if they have HE ammo?  88's might be 4/9/7.  My instincts tell me that hitting a closer target with a high-velocity, flat trajectory weapon might be difficult.

Lower-caliber, lower velocity would be 6/5/4 unless they have canister.


HHRgamer wrote:
The exception to this trend, in the 75mm range, is the US M20 75mm Recoiless Rifle, which gets an AI of 8/7/5.  This seems a little too high to me.  Is this an instance of the pro-USA bias that some posters have complained about?  Perhaps a 7/6/5 AI value would be appropriate if the PAK 40's AI value were raised to 7/6/5.

Do members agree that the crew of an anti-tank gun of MG has a better view and a more stable firing platform than crew members firing the same gun or MG from a vehicle?  Do members agree that, aside from the M20 and possible out-liers at other calibers, WOTC's ATG anti-infantry values should be elevated across the board for FA?  For instance, what do members think of either lowering the Marder's AI value to 5/4/3 or raising the PAK 40's AI value to 7/6/5?  


I agree they need change.  Any 75mm HE round from a non-vehicle/ non-RR should be minimum of 7 at optimal range.  High-velocity vehicle weapons should be lower.


HHRgamer wrote:


VEHICLE MOUNTED GUNS.

As to vehicle mounted guns, sometimes WOTC seems to include the value of the vehicle MGs in its composite AI value, and sometimes it doesn't. For example, the Marder, with a 75L46 but no MG, gets a 6/5/4 AI value, whereas the PzIVD--F1, with a 75L24 plus CoAx and Hull MGs, gets 7/7/6.  

      75mm, no MGs.

On the other hand, the 76.2mmL41 on the Su 76 M also gets a 7/7/6, even without any MGs at all. I realize the barrel of the Su's gun is longer, but I thought that only helped with high velocity (armor piercing) shots.  Also, the Pz IV F2, with a 75L43 gun (longer than the SU's), plus 2 MGs, only gets a 7/7/6.  Is the SU's gun, or are its HE projectiles, really so superior to both the 75L24 and the 75L43 as to merit giving the SU the same AI rating even though the SU had no MGs?  Should the SU's AI value be reduced to something like 6/6/5?  

Sticking with the SU for a moment, why should it get a 7/7/6 AI value when the Archer and the Jagdpanzer IV, with the same caliber gun (17 pounder = 76.2 mm, 75L48 for the Jagd), both get only 5/5/4?  None of the three vehicles has MGs.  Should the Archer's and Jagdpanzer IV's AI both go up to match the SU 76's AI value?


The USSR used the SU-76 as mobile light artillery against soft targets once its TD days were over.  I think this merits consideration and possibly validates the rating, though it might be 4/7/6 as I recommended above.

No MG's/High Velocity vehicles might go 4/6/5.

HHRgamer wrote:


      75mm + 1 MG

Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer, 75L48 + 1 MG = 6/6/4
Compare Jagdpanther, 75L70, + 1 MG =  6/6/4
    with Panther D 75L70 + 1 MG = 7/7/6, and
    Cromwell IV, 75L38 + 1 MG = 7/7/6.  -Why the difference?

Compare M18GMC 76L52 + AAMG = 6/6/4,
     with M18 Hellcat, 76.2 + Hull MG = 6/6/4. - An AAMG is better
     than a Hull MG, so shouldn't M18's AI value be higher than that
     of the Hellcat?  


Close range should be MG, I believe.  AAMG might be more effective than coax, but hazard of firing it might cancel out advantage.  Medium and long range should be cannon.  Medium range cannons would probably be equal to MGs.  Hull MG should be DF SA.

Over all the numbers will have to be recalculated for different increments, but I think those make good guidelines.

HHRgamer wrote:

     75mm + 2 MG

Pz IV D, IVE, IV F1 75L24 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
M24 Chaffee 75L38 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
Pz IV F2 75L43 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6
Panther G 75L70 + CoAx + Hull = 7/7/6

     -longer barrels make no diff. on AI value, which seems correct

BT-7A 76mm + 2 x DTMG = 7/7/6 (I think both MGs Hull MG's)
T-34/76 76L30 or 41 + 2 MG = 7/7/6
Comet 77mm + 2 mg = 7/7/6
Compare:  Sherman VC Firefly (17 #/ 76.2mm) + CoAx + AAMG
               = 7/7/6
          -CoAx + AAMG should be better than CoAx + Hull MG, so the
            Firefly's AI value should be higher than that of the vehicles
            listed above.  8/8/7?

KV-1/42 76L39 + CoAx + Hull = 9/9/7  
           -Why should the KV's AI values be so much higher than
            those of other vehicles carrying 75mm guns and 2 MGs?
            Reduce to same or slightly lower than Firefly, say 8/7/6?
 
     75mm + 3 MGs
Sherman DD  75L38 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 9/9/7
M4A1 Sherman 75L38 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 9/9/7
M4A3E8 Sherman (Easy Eight) 76L52 + CoAx + Hull + AAMG = 7/76
   - why is the Easy Eight so much lower than the Sherman DD
    and  M4A1? Would 9/8/7 be appropriate for all in this group?

     75mm + 4 MG
T-35  76.2mmL26, 2 x 34L46 + 4 MG = 10/10/8
      - can't really complain about this value too much-- what a
       battle-wagon!

I would appreciate feedback from anyone who is still interested in moving FA forward. Now we are into numbers, so perhaps we're getting close.  Thanks.


I had to guess which KV-1 they're using, but I like the M4A1, PzIVC/D and KV-1 (short-barrel 75's) having higher AI values, especially at close range.  Easy Eight had a high velocity gun.

Excellent analysis, much better categorical thinking than I can do.  Thank you.

Principles I suggest:
1.  Short barrels are better at AI than long, especially at short range.
2.  Long barrels do better at medium/long AI than short.
3.  Coax MG counts same as AAMG.
4.  MG's don't count over 200m.
5.  Two MG's (coax and/or AAMG) give only a very small advantage over one
6.  Hull MG's are an SA
7.  All WoTC ratings should be reconsidered
8.  Non-vehicle guns are better than vehicle
9.  Numbers should be calculated by probable success by that weapon system vs a 4/4 infantry unit.  (10+=very probable kill; 9=probable kill; 8=probable kill or disrupt; 7=slight kill or possible disrupt; 6=improbable kill or less probable disrupt; 5=unlikely kill or slight disrupt; 4=unlikely disrupt)  I try to imagine what effect that weapon might have against formed cautious infantry.

I'll do some more thinking and see if I can add more.  Please let me know if I wasn't clear.  Feel free to disagree or to point out if I misunderstood something.

PS--After we calculate the gun value, we'd replace the close range with MG values if they were higher.

Thank you again.
_________________
PostSun Aug 23, 2009 4:26 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
HHRgamer

 

Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Likes received:

Posts: 164
FLAGS




Post subject: Reply with quote   (Liked by:0)  Like this post
Thanks for the feedback.  I'll have to think some more.  For now, I just want to make sure that we're comparing apples to apples.  Sharpe wrote:  "PS--After we calculate the gun value, we'd replace the close range with MG values if they were higher."

Were your suggested numbers based on the main gun alone?  The numbers I included in my examples were intended to represent  not just the main gun, but the gun plus whatever added AI effect the MGs (if present) would have at the appropriate ranges.  WOTC's values for some vehicles seem to include both an MG and an HE component.  I think this approach is realistic.  Even though the main gun and certain MGs could not fire simultaneously, both could fire alternately during the course of a phase, which nominally lasts one minute.   Presumably while the main gun is being loaded, the gunner or another crew member would be able to give a burst from the MG.  Thus while the MGs may not add anything at long range, they could do so at close or medium range. Would it help to posit, for each range where the MG adds to the gun, the amount of the increase?  

By the way, during my arduous attempt to develop some proposed separate Hull, CoAx, AAMG, and HE values, on the theory that the vehicle would have to use either MG or HE, but not both, I did notice that on some vehicles the player would be confronted with an interesting choice when firing at infantry in cover.  The MG value was sometimes 1 point higher than the HE, thus providing one extra throw of the die.  On the other hand the lower HE value gave the benefit, if the target was hit, of a -2 to cover.  I think one could develop a playable version incorporating this mechanic, but it would require an additional level of complexity.  Using blended values is more consistent with KISS, and with keeping some momentum going with this project.

More later.  I hope others will join in the discussion so we can turn this corner and get some vehicle cards going.


_________________
HHRgamer
PostMon Aug 24, 2009 2:38 am
Back to top View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next



   Axis & Allies ForuMINI Forum Index » archive of old projects and contests -> Forumini Armies Old

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Editor's Choice
Forumini Generals
All AAM cards
All AAAF Cards
All War At Sea Cards
Forumini Admirals
A20 World Rankings
1. Jcmonson 1066
1. Bean965 1038
3. Vergilius 1024
WAS World Rankings
1. Admiral Wannabee 1240
2. mnnorthstars 1170
3. Azrael 1120
AAM World Rankings
1. Lil Snips 1096
2. Tripwire 1021
3. Kawolski 1010
Friends
Official WoTC site
Richard Baker's new Blog
Le Forum de A&ANM
Riverside Gaming
A&A Underground
Top posters
Brigman 42738
weedsrock2 36854
Flakstruk 35335
RAEVSKI 26750
firesdstny 26685
Asbestos 24554
SWO_Daddy 23223
Solomiranthius 19325
NeuralDream 18234
nrnstraswa 17161
herky80 16512
Lt_V 16301
jfkziegler 15353
Swished3 14762
carrion 14490
LcdrSwizzle 13698
packertim 13611
DaJudge 13360
mnnorthstars 12784
The_lucky_Y 12511
danaussie 12161
Shinnentai 11688
hokiepastor 10867


Forumini Newsletter
Issue #10 (Sep. 2013)
Issue #9 (Sep. 2012)
Issue #8 (Dec. 2011)
Issue #7 (Sep. 2011)
Issue #6 (Apr. 2011)
Issue #5 (Christmas 2010)
Issue #4 (Dec. 2010)
Issue #3 (Jul. 2010)
Issue #2 (Apr. 2010)
Issue #1 (Feb. 2010)


Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Theme by: :: Cosmic Distortion ::
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum