The inestimable Mr.Elliot said:
" I checked back on my WW2 stats for DS2:
Sherman: Size 3, Armour 2, Slow Tracked, Stealth 0, ECM None, Firecon
Basic, 1 * KEC/3 or KEC/4 in turret, 2 * APSW.
Panther: Size 3, Armour 3, Slow Tracked, Stealth 0, ECM None, Firecon
Basic, 1 * KEC/4 in turret, 2 * APSW.
The Panther has better armour and the Sherman only has as good a main weapon
as the Panther when it represents the Firefly with a 17pdr gun.
Perhaps in retrospect the Sherman should be Size 2 - but that would
actually make it harder to hit.
Sorry, Tom, don't know why you think I rated them the same?"
[Tomb] -- Okay, first, the Panther is (AFAIK) noticeably faster than the
Sherman. You might argue the granularity of the conversion doesn't allow us to
represent this difference but I think it should be there somewhere because it
was a signficant difference in the period in question. One of the
shortcoming of DS2 is the class based qualification - very much like the
old hull classes in FT. If DS3 is ever released, I'd hope to see this
artificial boundary approach banished. Then you could see something like a
Sherman and a Panther represented by a difference in mobility speeds within a
tracked mobility type.
Also, I don't suppose I'd realized that the KEC/4 was the Firefly and I
thought a KEC/4 for both was selling the german long 75 short if you
were comparing it with the normal Sherman weapon which was rather inferior in
comparison. My fault for not catching that (which is not entirely obvious
without being stated, but after you say it I see it). If I'd realized your
selection of KEC/4 was the Firefly with its far better main gun, I'd
have had a moderated sentiment. I thought when I read this that you just
hadn't made up your mind on the conversion and were suggesting it might be
equivalent to the German 75 on the Panther! :-)
Like the Russians, the American forces wouldn't win on a 1-1 with the
German tanks like the Panther. OTOH, they both usually brought (in the late
war)
some pretty potent air assets and tanks in the large numbers - I've seen
camera reels of US forces using Shermans in line as almost an artillery
battery - quantity has a quality all its own.
Tom,
Thanks for your comments and I take your point about the speed of the Panther.
The only option we have in DS2 as it stands is to make it Fast Tracked rather
than Slow. Otherwise, it would be necessary to define a new
Mobility Type - "Medium Tracked"? You pays yer money....
Anyway hope your WW2 games work out OK.
Cheers Mike
The inestimable Mr.Elliot said:
" I checked back on my WW2 stats for DS2:
Sherman: Size 3, Armour 2, Slow Tracked, Stealth 0, ECM None, Firecon
Basic, 1 * KEC/3 or KEC/4 in turret, 2 * APSW.
Panther: Size 3, Armour 3, Slow Tracked, Stealth 0, ECM None, Firecon
Basic, 1 * KEC/4 in turret, 2 * APSW.
The Panther has better armour and the Sherman only has as good a main weapon
as the Panther when it represents the Firefly with a 17pdr gun.
Perhaps in retrospect the Sherman should be Size 2 - but that would
actually make it harder to hit.
Sorry, Tom, don't know why you think I rated them the same?"
[Tomb] -- Okay, first, the Panther is (AFAIK) noticeably faster than the
Sherman. You might argue the granularity of the conversion doesn't allow us to
represent this difference but I think it should be there somewhere because it
was a signficant difference in the period in question. One of the
shortcoming of DS2 is the class based qualification - very much like the
old hull classes in FT. If DS3 is ever released, I'd hope to see this
artificial boundary approach banished. Then you could see something like a
Sherman and a Panther represented by a difference in mobility speeds within a
tracked mobility type.
Also, I don't suppose I'd realized that the KEC/4 was the Firefly and I
thought a KEC/4 for both was selling the german long 75 short if you
were comparing it with the normal Sherman weapon which was rather inferior in
comparison. My fault for not catching that (which is not entirely obvious
without being stated, but after you say it I see it). If I'd realized your
selection of KEC/4 was the Firefly with its far better main gun, I'd
have had a moderated sentiment. I thought when I read this that you just
hadn't made up your mind on the conversion and were suggesting it might be
equivalent to the German 75 on the Panther! :-)
Like the Russians, the American forces wouldn't win on a 1-1 with the
German tanks like the Panther. OTOH, they both usually brought (in the late
war)
some pretty potent air assets and tanks in the large numbers - I've seen
camera reels of US forces using Shermans in line as almost an artillery
battery - quantity has a quality all its own.
------------------------------------------
Thomas R. S. Barclay
Voice: (613) 722-3232 ext 349
e-mail: tomb@bitheads.com
2001: To the New Millenium! The next thousand years are MINE.
------------------------------------------
************************************************************************
**
Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained
in
this e-mail. This e-mail is for the use only of the intended addressee.
If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for
delivering it to the intended addressee, you may not copy, forward, disclose
or otherwise use it or any part of it in any way whatsoever. To do so is
prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you receive this e-mail by mistake please advise the sender
immediately
by using the reply facility in your e-mail software.
Bull Information Systems Limited may monitor the content of e-mails sent
and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with its
policies and procedures.
This message is subject to and does not create or vary any contractual
relationship between Bull Information Systems Limited and you.
Bull Information Systems Limited. Registered Office: Computer House, Great
West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9DH. Registered in England. Registration
Number: 2017873
Thank you.
> Mike.Elliott@bull.co.uk wrote:
This is precisely the design houserule I used with some of my DSII vehicles.
It works out very well.
According to George Forty's book "World War Two Tanks" the top speeds of the
vehicles being discussed were 29 mph for the Pzkwgn V (all versions) and 24
mph for the M4, while the M4A2(76)W is listed as 30 mph. Granted the Panther
has lower ground pressure and could still move in terrain that would bog the
Sherman down, but the unreliability of the Panther (even the later marks, when
compared to that of the Sherman) may call for the operators to use a bit less
than top speed to keep strain on parts down. At the level of detail present in
DS2, this may mean that the speeds would be equivalent. In other words, I
don't think these figures really support a big difference
in game speeds--the difference would just be below the granularity level
of the game.
Other top speeds listed in the book: German PzKpfw II (all marks except Dand
E) 25 mph
PzKpfw II D and E 35 mph (I suspect this is a typo as the weight/power
figures are too similar to the other models to allow this much difference)
PxKpfw IV 20 mph PzKpfw VI E 23.75 mph UK A13 Cruiser Tank 30 mph Matilda Mk
II 15 mph Valentine Mk III 15 mph Cromwell 40 mph US
M3/5 Stuart 36 mph
M3 Lee/Grant 21 mph
Russian
T-60 27 mph
T-70 32 mph
BT-1 40 mph
T-34(/76 and /85) 31 mph
KV-1 22 mph
French Char D2 20 mph Char B1 17.5 mph AMR 30 mph H39 22.5 mph Italien
M13/40 20 mph
CA P 26 22 mph Japanese
HA-GO 25 mph
KE-NI 31 mph
CHI-HA 24 mph
Czech LT vz 35 and 38 25 mph Swede
m/38 28 mph
m/42 30 mph
There are other tanks in there, but the speeds are not listed for all. Plus
this leaves out the fastest tracked AFV of WW2--the M18 Hellcat (a
personal favorite of mine). Anyway, back to the point:
I started this thinking that there should be only about two classes of
tracked movement--slow and fast to take into account the mid-20 vehicles
and
the mid-30 vehicle speeds. But it looks like I've just argued myself
into
supporting either three tracked speeds (slow for the sub-20 speeds,
medium
for the 20's, and fast for the mid-30's and beyond) or the ungraded
approach--though I suspect that the ungraded approach would not really
be worth the additional complication.
Oh well, just more stuff to think about, I guess.
Rob
[quoted original message omitted]