Matrix Games Forums

Some increase was to be expected. In the latter part of World War II, and continuing on into the years of the Cold War, the effectiveness of antipersonnel munitions increased. However, TOAW versions beyond TOAW 1, in rating the antipersonnel effects of some tank / antitank guns, seem to have sought out the most destructive projectiles a selected gun could fire. Problematically, the selected projectiles do not represent typical tactical situations, and thus result in distorted antipersonnel ratings (a thermobaric projectile, for example, while hugely effective in confined spaces, would not typically be employed in gun fire against troops deployed in open terrain.) Even more problematically, the focus of TOAW 2 was on post-World War II operational warfare, so the antipersonnel ratings of tank guns greater than 76-mm in bore diameter exhibit these distortions, while older tank guns do not … a data inconsistency brought forward to the equipment database of TOAW 4. As well, the TOAW 1 convention that MRL artillery be given the same rating as artillery of the same bore diameter, was abandoned. While a German 28-cm MRL in TOAW 1 was rated for an antipersonnel effect of “22”, a Chinese 273-mm MRL in TOAW 2 was given an antipersonnel rating of “50” (an increase of over three times if these were expressed in the TOAW 4 rating scheme). Other examples of the “promotion” of antipersonnel ratings for MRL systems in TOAW 2 are evident, giving the impression that whoever rated these pieces o

TOAW 2: Some variation, and some arbitrary changes Before any commentary regarding antipersonnel ratings used in TOAW 2, it is of importance to note that, as games, TOAW 1 and TOAW 2 existed in distinct parts of the wargaming universe. In other words, the antipersonnel ratings assigned in one of these two games did not impact the ratings and functioning of the other. Apart from sharing to a great extent the same code base, TOAW 1 and 2 were different games. However, one cannot ignore the influence of TOAW 2 antipersonnel ratings on later releases of TOAW: in many cases, the antipersonnel ratings of TOAW 2, multiplied by 8, are those found in the equipment database of TOAW 4. For reasons unknown, there was a shift in antipersonnel ratings in TOAW 2. As an example of this shift, the antipersonnel rating of 75-mm artillery pieces changed from 14 (TOAW 1) to 11 (TOAW 2). This rating (actually closer to 11.25) may be compared to the TOAW 4 equipment file rating of 90, yielding a factor of 8.18. The antipersonnel rating system for indirect fire equipment in TOAW 2 was a direct forerunner of the system used in TOAW 4, with the exception that the “times 8” factor was not yet applied. There were, however, other changes to antipersonnel ratings that are less easily explained. In one case, the antipersonnel ratings for selected tank guns increased dramatically. 90-mm guns, for example, had an antipersonnel rating of “6” in TOAW 1, while in TOAW 2, their antipersonnel rating was “20”. St

Mortars and infantry guns are rated differently, probably because their range was limited compared to that of regular artillery pieces. However, mortars of a bore diameter of 107-mm or greater were rated like artillery pieces, with a ROF of 0.667. Of particular note is that multiple rocket launcher AP ratings in TOAW 1 matched those of artillery pieces of the same bore diameter (with one exception, see below). The number of tubes for a rocket launcher played no role in determining its antipersonnel rating. The one exception is the German 15cm Nebelwerfer. It follows the first system (with a ROF of 0.667), and produces an antipersonnel rating of 39. It is unclear why it was not rated like other 15cm weapons (AP rating of 35). This example highlights the operational focus of TOAW: Logistically, there is no difference between a single- and multiple-barrelled weapon. For whatever logistical system exists in a given battle, there is a finite number of projectiles that can be transported to the firing weapons, and, over the period of time associated with operational warfare, tactical rates of fire are not of significance. Thus, the “rate of fire” mentioned by Norm is more correctly thought of as a “unit of fire” -- a quantity of projectiles fired over time (not the typical tactical ratings given as “rounds per minute”) by a given piece of equipment. Moreover, given the elastic scale of duration that a turn in TOAW may represent, this “quantity of projectiles fired over time” is act

The second system requires one to know the weight, in kilograms, of the bursting charge of a given projectile. This seems to have been applied to selected artillery pieces with a bore diameter ranging from 150-mm to 170-mm. In this case, the ROF is determined with the formula: ROF = 929.03 / ( r * r * π ), where r is the radius, in centimeters, of the projectile. 929.03 is not an arbitrary constant. It is (very closely) the number of square centimeters in a square foot. A square foot was used here, apparently, as a “notional pallet” to determine how many projectiles a given artillery piece could fire. It is of note that this system imposes a logistical constraint in that larger projectiles have lower “rates” of fire. A second item of note is that 15cm pieces were apparently assigned the same antipersonnel rating as 152-mm pieces (AP rating of 35). As an example, consider the German 17cm (field) gun. The calculated ROF is 4.09, and the weight of the bursting charge of its HE projectile (17 cm K Gr39) was 7.35 kilograms. Multiplying these numbers results in an AP rating of 30.08, or, rounded down, 30. The exception to these rules appears to be the Soviet 180-mm gun rating, which is rated at 23. It is not clear why it is an exception, although the data used regarding the bursting charge weight may have been in error.

How artillery was rated in TOAW 1 Given that TOAW is now in its fourth major iteration, one might wonder what the ratings system of TOAW 1 have to offer. What it offers is insight into the original designer’s intent regarding antipersonnel ratings for indirect fire equipment. Norm Koger (“Norm”) emphasized the importance of rates of fire (ROF) in determining the antipersonnel effect of indirect fire weapons. There appear to have been, in the TOAW 1 equipment database, actually two systems used for quantifying antipersonnel effectiveness of indirect fire equipment, and both use a ROF factor. Of the two systems, one depended on knowing only the bore diameter of the equipment; while the other required also knowing the weight of a projectile’s bursting charge in kilograms. It is curious that both of these systems were used because the second system actually rates the antipersonnel effect of specific projectiles, while the first system provides a generic rating for artillery pieces of a given bore diameter. The second system (a forerunner of the ratings system employed in TOAW 4) seems to have only been used for 150-mm to 170-mm artillery pieces. Let us examine the first system. Apart from the bore diameter range of 150-mm to 170-mm, artillery pieces derived their antipersonnel rating thusly: The bore diameter of the artillery piece or mortar, in centimeters, was raised to the power of 1.5. For pieces with a bore diameter less than 150-mm, this result was then multiplied by two th

Please zip up and attach both the pre-save and after save and let me know what hex to look at for the combat. You can also email the files to 2by3@2by3games.com if you prefer. Thanks.

Miss. Intercept this ground strike? Germany has a six, five, and four strength that can counter.

I've played PBEM the first few months now 4 times on both sides. Palma doesn't fall unless it runs out of supplies. That's the only way to take it. Assuming nothing at all gets through it takes to about November for the supplies to run out If the Nationalists can get supplies there, it's impossible to take....best you can do is lock them in the port and occupy the airbase

This is T35 just north of Rostov right now. The front lines are bent and complex but I'm making slow progress pushing to the east toward Stalingrad .

An alternate history for War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition — scenario 105 Two navies spent twenty years planning one battle. This is the war in which they get to fight it. Kantai Kessen is a full alternate-history scenario built on Conkristador's Realism Scenario 1.1. It runs 7 December 1941 to 31 March 1946 on the standard map, and it is self-contained — you do not need CRS installed, and no map, art or pwhexe.dat file is touched. It adds files numbered 105 and nothing else. It is not a list of unit tweaks. It asks one question and follows it everywhere it goes: what does the Pacific War look like if the naval treaties never happened? DOWNLOAD : CRS KANTAI KESSEN KantaiKessen.pdf The premise — six changes Versailles, 1919. Japan is given German New Guinea outright rather than as a C-class mandate. Rabaul has been a Japanese naval base for twenty-two years, and it is fortified. Washington, 1922. The conference collapses, and the London treaties of 1930 and 1936 never follow it. Nineteen years of unrestricted building by everybody. Tokyo, 1937. The high command reorganisation works. Japan gets escorts, tankers and a real pilot training programme. Saigon, 1940. Governor-General Catroux refuses the Vichy recall and takes Indochina over to de Gaulle. Japan's southern springboard is hostile ground. Washington, August 1941. The Selective Service extension fails by the one vote it historically survived by. Berlin, 11 December 1941. Hitler says nothing at all. The trade at the ce

I'd like to also hint at the AA effectiveness. I may provide pictures in the comming days, but until then I would point towards 2/3rds effectiveness of AA during night as during day. In the AA setup I used some posts above for A2A (but without A2A). The damage done by AA to planes during day in the setup is about 1k-1.1k while during night it is about 700-800. So -33%. Not sure in how far that would be appropriate when you are already changing 20-30% Mission effects for 1-3% in favor to avoid AA. It is possible that Flak in Uraban areas performs differently during night than in a normal Hex due to search lights, ...at least that is something I would expect Gary to have added. I did not test this yet.