[Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3045
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: [Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by kondi754 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:21 pm

1. I think that it was really good idea to introduce levels of unreliability but like CoolDTA wrote earlier "don't think we'll see it"
2. Bru, spotted that you changed early StuGs (with short barrel) from "tank" to "anti-tank" class. Of course, it's your decision, but in my humble opinion Devs were right that they assigned them to "tanks" (in the sense that they served as infantry support in the fight against enemy infantry, MGs and fortifications), StuGs began to play the role of infantry support against Soviet tanks, only from 1942, since the introduction of the long-barreled versions. Wehrmacht met the Soviet KV and T-34 tanks during Barbarossa and then OKH demanded that the Reich Armament Office and the Ministry of Industry create anti-tank support vehicles for infantry. For various reasons, it was decided to adapt the assault guns to this function.

terminator
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2994
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm

Re: [Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by terminator » Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:36 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:21 pm
1. I think that it was really good idea to introduce levels of unreliability but like CoolDTA wrote earlier "don't think we'll see it"
I had the same idea that CoolDTA to introduce levels of reliability (but this subject had become for me too passionate to want to get involved).
I was thinking of two types of "Unreliable" trait: "Light Unreliable" for medium-sized vehicles and "Heavy Unreliable" for very heavy vehicles.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3045
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: [Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by kondi754 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:48 pm

terminator wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:36 pm
kondi754 wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:21 pm
1. I think that it was really good idea to introduce levels of unreliability but like CoolDTA wrote earlier "don't think we'll see it"
I had the same idea that CoolDTA to introduce levels of reliability (but this subject had become for me too passionate to want to get involved).
I was thinking of two types of "Unreliable" trait: "Light Unreliable" for medium-sized vehicles and "Heavy Unreliable" for very heavy vehicles.
It would be good solution, too

CoolDTA
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:52 am

Re: [Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by CoolDTA » Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:36 pm

The idea was actually Kondi's. :) I like it and like terminator's variant also. But for now let's be happy with the current version and that it stays.

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm

Re: [Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by bru888 » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:13 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:21 pm
2. Bru, spotted that you changed early StuGs (with short barrel) from "tank" to "anti-tank" class. Of course, it's your decision, but in my humble opinion Devs were right that they assigned them to "tanks" (in the sense that they served as infantry support in the fight against enemy infantry, MGs and fortifications), StuGs began to play the role of infantry support against Soviet tanks, only from 1942, since the introduction of the long-barreled versions. Wehrmacht met the Soviet KV and T-34 tanks during Barbarossa and then OKH demanded that the Reich Armament Office and the Ministry of Industry create anti-tank support vehicles for infantry. For various reasons, it was decided to adapt the assault guns to this function.
Kondi, thanks. I searched for where I picked that up and it might have been here. Upon second look, though, I believe I misinterpreted what terminator meant; I believe he was saying the same thing that you are, it subesquently got corrected, and I restored the error! Those entries in my units.csv will be edited back to their 8.1.0 original. Anything else you see in that list that's inaccurate? The changes to Australian and Finnish infantry, and to gunboat and light cruiser, are just my own preferences. All the rest is from looking through threads.

Heh, I bet you are glad that I decided to [re-]cross the Rubicon, eh? As you know now, I did not advocate for it to be officially removed and I'm still not altogether comfortable with it, but I will live with it in the interest of being able to talk about my martial prowess on equal terms with the rest of you guys. If I ever sandbag my Shermans, though, it will be strictly in a defensive battle. (A scenario is looming in my mind; something about a band of intrepid Sherman tanks defending a key desert oasis from a horde of Panzerkampfwagen.) :wink:
- Bru

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3045
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: [Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by kondi754 » Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:20 am

bru888 wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:13 pm
kondi754 wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:21 pm
2. Bru, spotted that you changed early StuGs (with short barrel) from "tank" to "anti-tank" class. Of course, it's your decision, but in my humble opinion Devs were right that they assigned them to "tanks" (in the sense that they served as infantry support in the fight against enemy infantry, MGs and fortifications), StuGs began to play the role of infantry support against Soviet tanks, only from 1942, since the introduction of the long-barreled versions. Wehrmacht met the Soviet KV and T-34 tanks during Barbarossa and then OKH demanded that the Reich Armament Office and the Ministry of Industry create anti-tank support vehicles for infantry. For various reasons, it was decided to adapt the assault guns to this function.
Kondi, thanks. I searched for where I picked that up and it might have been here. Upon second look, though, I believe I misinterpreted what terminator meant; I believe he was saying the same thing that you are, it subesquently got corrected, and I restored the error! Those entries in my units.csv will be edited back to their 8.1.0 original. Anything else you see in that list that's inaccurate? The changes to Australian and Finnish infantry, and to gunboat and light cruiser, are just my own preferences. All the rest is from looking through threads.

Heh, I bet you are glad that I decided to [re-]cross the Rubicon, eh? As you know now, I did not advocate for it to be officially removed and I'm still not altogether comfortable with it, but I will live with it in the interest of being able to talk about my martial prowess on equal terms with the rest of you guys. If I ever sandbag my Shermans, though, it will be strictly in a defensive battle. (A scenario is looming in my mind; something about a band of intrepid Sherman tanks defending a key desert oasis from a horde of Panzerkampfwagen.) :wink:
Yes, I'm glad that you re-cross Rubicon :)
I'm glad that so many people here like history and like to apply rules based on the realities of World War II in the game.

I also noticed that you removed "ersatz" from specs/traits for Pz IVJ?
What does it mean? Because this is also based on history - Pz IVJ was made with inferior quality materials, substitutes (1944 - strategic bombing of German industry)
The best versions of the Pz IV are G and H, the last version (J) was unfortunately a lower quality vehicle

(BTW, I plan to include it in unit.csv file when it comes to this tank model)

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm

Re: [Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by bru888 » Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:32 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 9:20 am
I also noticed that you removed "ersatz" from specs/traits for Pz IVJ?
What does it mean? Because this is also based on history - Pz IVJ was made with inferior quality materials, substitutes (1944 - strategic bombing of German industry)
The best versions of the Pz IV are G and H, the last version (J) was unfortunately a lower quality vehicle

(BTW, I plan to include it in unit.csv file when it comes to this tank model)
Well, the word itself means "artificial and inferior" but you probably know that already. I picked this up in the same thread, here:

Image0199.jpg
Image0199.jpg (152.32 KiB) Viewed 178 times

Based on those statements, I figured to remove it from units.csv just in case it had unexpected consequences.
- Bru

GabeKnight
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2352
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: [Re-]Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by GabeKnight » Sun Sep 01, 2019 3:06 pm

bru888 wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:26 am
You've got to be kidding. With all of your advanced knowledge of the game (I'm speaking seriously), you didn't know this? Although I will grant you, it is easy to overlook/be unaware of. It took me a long time to find it (I think somebody else mentioned it here) and I still forget about it until I remember it again.

Well, if you're not kidding, you're welcome, sir. :)
I was not; thanks again. How should I have known to click on the label of the terrain field... :roll:
But it's not really important nowadays, as I have my mod's units Excel-sheet with all the stats/traits.

kondi754 wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:21 pm
2. Bru, spotted that you changed early StuGs (with short barrel) from "tank" to "anti-tank" class. Of course, it's your decision, but in my humble opinion Devs were right that they assigned them to "tanks" (in the sense that they served as infantry support in the fight against enemy infantry, MGs and fortifications),[...]
Yeah, I guess most people concur with this assessment. I've changed the StuGs in my mod to the anit-tank class nonetheless, mainly to preserve the upgrade path (and to make them a bit more useful in the supporting role). And I do not regret the decision. :wink:

prestidigitation
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 1:24 am

Re: Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by prestidigitation » Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:24 pm

bru888 wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:26 am
GabeKnight wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:33 pm
bru888 wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:03 pm
[...] do you click on the terrain hex type window to change it to unit traits every time you move a unit?
I'll be damned. Thanks Bruce! I was looking for this since the beginning.
And I've always wondered how they could've forgotten to put in the unit's trait info... turns out, they didn't.. :roll: :oops:
You've got to be kidding. With all of your advanced knowledge of the game (I'm speaking seriously), you didn't know this? Although I will grant you, it is easy to overlook/be unaware of. It took me a long time to find it (I think somebody else mentioned it here) and I still forget about it until I remember it again.

Well, if you're not kidding, you're welcome, sir. :)
I've been playing this game since it was OOB:P and I had no idea you could do that. I've always used the purchase screen to find out info on traits.

Is it possible to do the same to see terrain when air and ground unit are stacked? Terrain is so critical but it is often super hard to determine what the terrain is in a dense environment.

bru888
Order of Battle Moderator
Order of Battle Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:39 pm

Re: Crossing the Rubicon on "Unreliable"

Post by bru888 » Tue Sep 03, 2019 5:36 pm

prestidigitation wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 4:24 pm

I've been playing this game since it was OOB:P and I had no idea you could do that. I've always used the purchase screen to find out info on traits.

Is it possible to do the same to see terrain when air and ground unit are stacked? Terrain is so critical but it is often super hard to determine what the terrain is in a dense environment.
Well, I'm glad I mentioned it as it seems to have been a revelation to others as well as me. :)

In a scenario that I am currently looking at, I temporarily introduced a German plane over a German tank (to my chagrin, given the ferocity of the resulting aerial attack - it barely survived Turn 1!). I was able to view everything with a few clicks.

Click the plane, it shows plane first, tank second:

Screenshot 7.jpg
Screenshot 7.jpg (483.31 KiB) Viewed 113 times

Click the spot again, and the order is reversed:

Screenshot 8.jpg
Screenshot 8.jpg (478.64 KiB) Viewed 113 times

Move the mouse away (but don't click for the move) and the underlying terrain is revealed:

Screenshot 9.jpg
Screenshot 9.jpg (478.38 KiB) Viewed 113 times

Keep the mouse moving to the console and click the name of the terrain for the Unit Traits window for that unit:

Screenshot 10.jpg
Screenshot 10.jpg (476.28 KiB) Viewed 113 times

Go back, click the hex once more, and move off to see the Unit Traits for the other unit:

Screenshot 11.jpg
Screenshot 11.jpg (482.65 KiB) Viewed 113 times
- Bru

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”