BGForums

BattleGoat Studios
It is currently Nov 20 2017

All times are UTC-05:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Aug 29 2017 
Offline
Brigadier Gen.

Joined: Nov 29 2010
Posts: 515
Human: Yes
Yeah. I mean, I do sympathize. People have this image of tanks as being supremely bad***. You have expectations for them, and then you finally get them and put them in the field and they do..... what? lol. But the simple truth is that it's not altogether inaccurate. As Nerei pointed out previously, they had a much stronger psychological impact on the battlefield than a physical one. It's an incredible innovation which will eventually surpass artillery as the king of the battlefield, but that day is a long way off and they're very much in their infancy. I'm perfectly comfortable with the stats for the Mark 1 personally.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sep 01 2017 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Jul 01 2017
Posts: 9
Human: Yes
ok, technically:
standard mouser K bullet is capable in chances one of three to penetrate 10-12mm armor from 100m
mark I tanks have 8-12 armor, which is completely immune to standard (non K) bulelts.
if you consider 12mm armor thin, consider that armored cars had 4-9 mm armor with average of 6mm.
If tanks were susceptible to artilerty, cars should behave worse than infanrty.
...so if tanks were destroyed with MG fire, so does cars.
54 cars in battalion? up to 10 crew per vehicle, but both battalions (in game) have only ~260 personel and historically there was ever less than 50 E/V cars ever produced. Those were given one by one to support infantry battalions at first. Maybe later in war if ever their number rouse to 54/battalion. Citation Needed.

...and AP bullets were first used in 1917 not early 1916, by the time of Mark IV. I suppose you are citing Historical stuff only when it suits your arguments.

@way2co0l, Stats are ok? i disagree.
Hard attack up, soft attack down, soft/hard defence up but indirect bombardment down. Also if possible, less fuel.
That would make my day and we could switch to talk about ships and supplies, since those are pretty important.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sep 01 2017 
Offline
General

Joined: Dec 08 2007
Posts: 1722
Location: Tipton, UK
Maybe just bumping the numbers of tanks to a higher figure would do?

_________________
My SR:U Mesh Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=24412


Top
   
PostPosted: Sep 01 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 480
Human: Yes
1: We are dealing with alternate history. This is a game where I can develop nuclear weapons as republic Spain in the 1930's, get a man on the moon by 1945 and then proceed to conquer the entire world should I feel like it. In such a situation are we seriously going to argue about if a bullet is introduced in 1916 or 1917?
There would be nothing technical to prevent me from researching K bullets or anything else like that in 1914 should I feel like it.
The far more potent .50 BMG is largely just an upscaled 1906 bullet so the technology definitely is there to produce a MG bullet that will easily pierce the front armour of a Mk. 1 or Mk. 4 tank at over 500m range.
The reason I brought up the K bullet is simply that it is a rifle bullet that has a decent chance to pierce the armour of a Mk. 1 tank to prove that it is not this armoured titan on the battlefield that is completely immune to anything but concentrated AT fire from a large bore cannon. It is a weakly armoured vehicle that can be defeated by AP ammunition fired by small arms.
Further I am pretty sure what you have going on there is a quite ahistorical british landing so why should germany should Germany be completely bound to history?

2: You said Mk. 1 tank is immune to MG fire. I said that is wrong. How resistant an armoured car is to MG fire is 100% irrelevant to that.
Also I never said armoured cars where not susceptible to MG fire. I said great war tanks like the Mk. 1 was which again it is.

3: I mentioned spalling did I not? If you want to absolute historical accurate you need to consider that every MG bullet impacting the armour of your tank has a decent chance to make it spall. Spalling kills people.
It is possible to kill every single person in a Mk. 1 tank with MG fire simply through spalling without ever piercing the armour. Volley of fire with a MG definitely will work on such vehicles.
I do not care if I penetrating the armour if they die from the spalling. MG fire is not going to make the tank blow up in any case. If a person is manning a gun it means absolutely nothing if he is killed by a bullet or the spalling produced by said bullet. He is still dead!
4. Further if you want total accuracy for the Mk. 1 you also need consider that it was a noisy inferno possibly reaching upwards of 50C with poor visibility where the crew was possibly subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning and other toxic gasses. Such conditions tend to degrade combat performance quite a bit if not outright disable or kill the crew!
Expecting any kind of accurate fire over any significant distance especially considering the general condition of the battlefield is quite optimistic.
Yes having confused, semi-conscious crew that have no idea what anyone else is doing that have very limited vision in the best of situations should greatly affect the vehicles ability in combat.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sep 01 2017 
Offline
Corporal

Joined: Jul 01 2017
Posts: 9
Human: Yes
again you are using whatever suits your arguments:

1A. no not really, tanks were designed in the way they did, just becouse there was NO K AMMUNITION at this time. You are insinuating you researched armor piercing ammo before i researched armor. read that twice or thrice before you answer and think about your life. Following your line of though, nothing technically prevents me researching tanks immune to K-ammo or even hovering railgun magic transformers of death and destruction.

1B. 100m, 1 of 3 goes in. how did you preserve energy to do that with copper on range of about 500m i have no idea. My hobby is marksmanship. From my calculations, if you want to do that, with standard issue rifle of this time, you would need ballistic coefficiency of more than 0.950. Modern 7.62x63 aka .30 govt ( .30-60 springfield ) has BC of around 0.46 to 0.5. I am using .408 CT and even with BC of above .940 it looses 2,700KJ (thousands of Jouls, 25%) of its energy on distance of 500m. I tried calculating this with 0.950, and its one of 12 at best getting inside, with armor of around 10mm.

2A. yes, it was almost immune to MGs that were deployed at this time.
There are written documents about crew members having issued helmets to protect them from led splatting on the armor. Amount of led is mostly irrelevant since its more elastic and soft metal than even pig iron. I literally want to see you doing this in real life. I dare you.

2B. I brought up armored cars since those are always winning one on one with tanks so yes i think its quite relevant. Those have ingame similar statistics to defence and tanks are one thing that can literally stop them in normal battlefield, but not in SR

3A Spalling works with artilery, grenades and explosives, not with led bullets of this era and not on the distances you would imagine. "spalling kills people", really dude? also trench foot and diarrhea and angry neighbors.

3B "something something spalling hes dead (TL;DR)" really, again, also trench foot and diarrhea. Find me historic sources where at this time people were firing MGs at tanks to cause spalling. Was this looking like those (attachment) by any chances? Operator of the gun killed by spalling? I read stories they, that couldnt reload because bullets were splashing inside the cannon, they died because they unlocked breach and someone was shooting inside the barrel. Not one mention about brave MG crew spalling tank to death.

4. i really honestly believe you were not inside real tank, even modern, not even once. Nor you served in army. Imagine everything at this time sucked equally, artillery, personal weapons, cars, trucks, ships, submarines, trains, zeppelins, aircrafts, livestock, washing powder... everything, including trench foot and diarrhea of course. You saw maybe trench mortars? You know why there are very little of those in museums now? because those EXPLODED while in use, remaining ones was scrapped and nobody was ever talking about those again. If no units gets debuffs from reliability, so shouldn't tanks, if you want to debuf those based on their reliability, then other units gets also debuffs from their efficiency. German units had ammunition problems, canadians were misequipped with useless trench shovels, romanian and french rifles shoot rifle bolt in shooter faces. Uk's trucks got their wheel axles broken pretty easily. Is that what you want? i only just started... Same rules for everyone, and things will get nasty.

Also semi-conscious crew? on the distance of those 1-4 miles they can be dead for what i care. Tanks are support, in this era, not assault units. Tanks were used because of their defensive qualities. Those were basically mobile shields for infantry, and means to get through barbed wires, nothing more really. Tanks were new, noone really knew how to fight those. there were no weapon to really damage tanks over long distances, nor there were any reasonable targets for those tanks,
that is why I proposed:

* lowering soft attack, (no time worthy targets)
* and increasing hard damage. (58mm canons, duh)
* soft defence higher than armored cars (around 30% more armor by thickness, 50% per weight)
* hard defence up ( i guess, pretty good against cars that have hard attack)
* indirect bombardment defence down ( spalling, explosives and artillery)
* lowering fuel capacity ( high fuel demand, less than 5 km, range of one hex )

if you want to argue by all means, but find better arguments that those above.


Attachments:
File comment: crew apparently, gets "spalled" by MGs
article-2445626-188B7A3700000578-401_634x475.jpg
article-2445626-188B7A3700000578-401_634x475.jpg [ 107.55 KiB | Viewed 148 times ]
Top
   
PostPosted: Sep 01 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jan 11 2016
Posts: 480
Human: Yes
And I could say that at times you are barely even reading what I am typing.

Yes there where no K ammunition in 1916. That does not mean it is impossible to make similar ammunition in 1914. This game is alternate history with real weapons. Please get that part the argument. It is fairly central to this entire franchise.
This game has quite the habit of going extremely a-historic so saying it is X year is less relevant. You might actually face K bullets or similar in 1915 in this game. Knowing this game you might face Armatas well before 1975.

As for penetrating the armour at 500m that is with a bullet like the .50 BMG not a standard 7.92mm rifle bullet. I said it was possible to make such a projectile which it is not that it was possible with a K bullet. Would such a projectile be considered overkill in 1914? Absolutely but again this is alternate history.
I actually said that I brought up the K-bullet specifically as it was capable of penetrating the armour which you yourself have agreed with. That was just to show how small arms can do it. If where available at a given date is not really relevant as technological progression is driven by choices made by the player and AI not a list of dates.
This is a game where if you start in 1914 can get the internet before 1945 if you really want!


With regards to armoured cars have you considered their stats might be too good and there might be too many of them not that the Mk. 1 tank is too bad? Armoured cars are basically mechanised infantry with the representation that BG has picked. Yes I do consider that a problem. Personally I would have made them recon units with far lower unit count.
I actually said that I would not specifically judge if the battle result was accurate or not in my initial replay if you read that part in part due to how I find the entire representation of armoured cars wrong.
What I took isse with was that the Mk.1 tank was immune to MG fire and that the armoured cars should not be able to do anything basically as it is 1916.


Spalling is entirely possible with something smaller than an artillery shell. A reversed bullet hitting a steel plate is entirely capable of producing it and yes in that case the spalling is among the desired results intended to incapacitate the crew. It is a modification that can be carried out quite rapidly even.
As for finding sources again please just get that this game is not going to have history be 100% accurate. It really is not so please stop expecting it.
Germany did use such bullets with their standard service rifles until better tools came along. Given that this game is alternate history it is entirely feasible to assume they might do it with MG's too.

Believe it or not I have no problems with equipment being penalised for being bad. Not really sure how you would do most of what you have brought up within the mechanics of the game though. You might need to abstract it like say lowering movement speed for british trucks to simulate breakdowns. Again I find that to be okay. If a unit is bad it "should" be bad.

In any case you have said your piece and I have said mine and I think we will leave it at that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sep 01 2017 
Offline
Colonel

Joined: Jun 27 2015
Posts: 462
Human: Yes
In the end it all comes down to gameplay. I got bored with SR'36 after 2 games. 1 game as the Japanese which explained in hundred of topics is unrealistic. 1 game as the US. Was quite interesting as i suported 3 invasions of the UK, invaded Africa and Sicily and all Germans focused on me, but in my first game i noticed tanks and planes are useless. The only thing they do is drive up market demand for military goods since they need to repair after every run doing no damage at all, if they even survive. Basicly all you need is a combination of hard and soft infantry suported by anti air and artillery, entrench the cities and you win.

CW and modern campaigns are far more interesting in my opinion and it's not due to the fact i have no interest in history, for all sake i worked in a musuem. Atleast ships and planes are usefull.

Now that's what all games are about, breing the best of that period above with nice gameplay. If we look at that instead of what could do what, and see how we can balance that, then we can go somewhere.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sep 01 2017 
Offline
Brigadier Gen.

Joined: Nov 29 2010
Posts: 515
Human: Yes
Yeah, I think we definitely need to start by trying to calm things down here. People are going to disagree, and that's fine. At the end of the day it's not really a big deal. Everyone's said what they wanted to say, and I think it's best to move on.

BG may decide to change some stats for the tank, or they might leave it exactly the way it is. And of course, if anyone disagrees with what BG ultimately decides, they can always mod the files themselves. :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Oct 04 2017 
Offline
General

Joined: Dec 08 2007
Posts: 1722
Location: Tipton, UK
Out of interest, I think the capital ships of this era need reviewing completely and their stats fixing. Some of the battlecruisers have really low speed for example. I think a few could also do with indirect fire stat too.

_________________
My SR:U Mesh Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

viewtopic.php?f=79&t=24412


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

All times are UTC-05:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited