Question to Volcano RE : New MG44 ALT ART/SCENARIO

Peter777 · 07-07-2006, 09:16 AM,

Hi Volcano

I have just down loaded your new MG44 ALT art and scenario pack.

LOOKS GOOD BUT A FEW QUESTIONS AROUND THE
-major overhaul of alternate scenarios; instituted Project McNamura

Why have the Allied Fighter Bombers been so reduced in fire power?

Also the Britsh Para's all seem a little weaker, why?

Cheers

Peter777

Volcano Man · 07-07-2006, 02:51 PM,

You are correct about the allied airstrikes. They have been reduced somewhat but there are also subtle changes to them as well. Overall their soft attacks have decreased (on some) but for others their hard attacks have increased.

As far as why... I can only say that I used the references from other games including CS and TOAW and others and compared aircraft ratings to come up with formula to standardize the PzC ratings. Often, the aircraft ratings in the PzC series are abstract and they differ from title to title in most cases (and this is fine since the airstrikes in general is a rather abstract part of the series). But my intent was to create one common rating where if you saw an artillery gun or airstrike in one then it would be the exact same in another. So in many cases the ratings were either someones best guess or something to create an effect but my approach is again about the specrum of values based around a widely accepted unit rating (I cant remember if it was the Stuka or the He-111).

As for the British Paras, actually all the infantry units in the game are weaker, but you must just be looking at them. I mentioned that in the next update, all the units in PzCs that have the "HW" company mixed into the battalions will get a 18% increase in firepower. This applies for B44, MG44, S42, K43 (basically all the ALT scenarios I just posted). The problem was that I was using a value that was based upon games like N44 and T41 where the infantry units are "pure" and there is a seperate mortar / MG heavy weapons company present.

But since all the units on both sides would get the increase I dont think it will drastically change anything until it gets fixed. Another thing to keep in mind is that you should also look at the British para's defense rating. You will see that they are more defensive. So, all the units have subtle changes.

Hope that helps.

Volcano Man · 07-07-2006, 03:12 PM,

I forgot to add, you should also notice that (using your example) the British para's have higher assault and defense ratings than they had before, so you have to look a bit deeper than the attack values. The result is that while they might be slightly less effective in ranged fire (generally all infantry is anyway because losses accumulated at an alarming rate in some cases) but the British paras should be able to hold ground longer and should be able to assault eastwards to Arnhem more effectively.

But these were not values that I made up, I just took them from several sources and converted them into PzC terms.

Peter777 · 07-07-2006, 05:34 PM,

Thanks Volcano.

For the Para's I did notice the changes to defense and assault values and I will be interested in how they play out vs the old MG44 versions.

Same goes for the Fighter Bombers.

Thanks for the feedback, I like most of what you have changed. So it will be the total effect that will tell. I will let you know how it goes vs the older system.

Cheers

Peter777

Mike Bowen · 07-08-2006, 08:23 PM,

I look forward to trying this. One question on this topic have you any idea how the changes will affect victory points and therefore game results in general terms?

Also will you be doing the same for the modern games and if so what will be the data used?

Regards and the utmost respect

Mike Bowen

Volcano Man · (This post was last modified: 07-09-2006, 06:13 AM by Volcano Man.)

Engelbrekt · 07-11-2006, 05:10 AM,

Volcano Man · 07-11-2006, 10:12 AM,

The reason I will not lower it to 0 is because they can still cause fatigue or disruption (and kills on lighter armored threats). It is not much of a change from before if you look at it from the perspective that you would only see *maybe* a 1 vehicle kill from artillery only now instead of the guaranteed kill every two or three volleys you instead cause fatigue in its place or disruption.

Now, I can see where you are coming from but, again, it is not as if the artillery was particularly deadly versus tanks before. You could still consider the original opportunity artillery fire vs. tanks mostly ineffective to a degree.

Engelbrekt · 07-12-2006, 12:15 AM,

Just some thoughts,

Volcano Man Wrote:The reason I will not lower it to 0 is because they can still cause fatigue or disruption (and kills on lighter armored threats).

In an East Front title I would agree, a value of 1 or so is OK, but this is the tiny western front and those few artillery that I have are badly needed. We have not played much yet so if my artillery does cause some fatigue or disruption soon I will rejoice and perhaps agree with the current value of 1 instead of 0. But as it is now my artillery is a non-factor, wasting their fire and my supply to no effect.

/E

Engelbrekt · 07-12-2006, 12:16 AM,

Just some thoughts,

Volcano Man Wrote:The reason I will not lower it to 0 is because they can still cause fatigue or disruption (and kills on lighter armored threats).

In an East Front title I would agree, a value of 1 or so is OK, but this is the tiny western front and those few artillery that I have are badly needed. We have not played much yet so if my artillery does cause some fatigue or disruption soon I will rejoice and perhaps agree with the current value of 1 instead of 0. But as it is now my artillery is a non-factor, wasting their fire and my supply to no effect.

/E