STEEL PANTHERS ENHANCED // NORTH AFRIKA

Dedicated site for the SP: Enhanced, North Afrika, American Civil War, and Vietnam mods. Hosted by freeforums.org
It is currently Wed Jun 28, 2017 6:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Welcome
WELCOME TO THE STEEL PANTHERS ENHANCED & NORTH AFRIKA MODS FORUM.

You are currently viewing our boards as a Guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have

* access to post topics and messages
* communicate privately with other members (PM)
* respond to polls
* upload content
* access many other special features and forum areas


Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join us and take advantage of the benefits the Steel Panthers Enhanced community has to offer you.


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Cannon Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 7:39 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 464
Location: Playing In the Sandbox
I agree. But remember these are tanks. The best way to kill a Russian KV with it's massive
armor is not to try and get a lucky hit on it. The best way is to shoot at it until the crew bails
out and then kill the crew. We can not have that happen to the ships. Nor can we have them
taking a lot of rifle fire and running away if suppressed to much. They need to stand in there
and fight to the death (which really is something I don't like to say) but a ship is not going to
break out of a battle and flee because the crew is scared. The winds and the will of officers is
what keeps it in the fight.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 7:54 pm 
Offline
Assistant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:27 am
Posts: 239
Location: Behind The Stone Wall
I disagree, to a point, only because there are historical examples.

I've probably mentioned the 1864 battle of Calcasieu Pass in Lousiana. Two Union gunboats, Granite City and Wave, were at anchor inside the pass. The garrison from Fort Manhassett, Sabine Pass, TX, and Niblett's Bluff, LA, attacked the gunboats with about a regiment's worth of infantry and four cannon. The gunboats were taken totally by surprise and had no steam in their drums, so were immobile. The Rebs lined up on the bank and peppered them with musketry and cannon fire for about an hour until the boats surrendered. Every time a gun crew would try get back on a cannon, they would be sniped. I seem to remember another case of this happening on the James River in Virginia later in the war.

If I dug into it, I could find more historical scenarios, but I've at least seen period drawings of sharpshooters firing at gunboats from the shore. There was also a case, mostly likely fiction, but plausible, where a Union gunboat, the Dan, was anchored off the Sabine Pass lighthouse and would lob cannonballs into the town, devoid of soldiers because of yellow fever, and its crew would go on foraging raids upriver during the daytime. One night a boatful of Sabine Pass Confederates rowed out to the boat and threw torches onto the deck. The boat supposedly burned to the waterline.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 8:39 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 338
Location: Combat Information Center, Sir!
I've held off on the garrison guns because they are going to be similar to the shipboard guns; once we get the ship armour and AP Penetration models working, I can "port" the data into the Columbiads. There were only a few variations of them anyhow... I'm also planning to make their Weights just large enough that they won't be able to be carried by anything short of a rail car; right now the Bullock Team carries a '220", enough for the larger field and some siege guns. I am thinking of upping the weight of the 13in Mortar so it can't be "trucked" around the field either; it should be a garrison weapon, emplaced during Deploy and not moved afterwards. It's also found on the Mortar Schooners and other siege boats.

This would allow me to set the weights of the various Columbiads and garrison guns at 225 or higher, up to 255, making them damn near immobile.

_________________
"I Can Haz Cheezburgr?" :taz:
Image..Image..Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cannon Combat Results Discussion
PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:26 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:44 pm
Posts: 464
Location: Playing In the Sandbox
Historical examples don't mean squat to the games engine. While I would love to have everything
historically correct we have to deal with what we have. When you cite a historical example to
make a point for something that is one thing. But the game has to interpret that effect or we
can not use it. That is the bottom line. The case your citing is two ships with no steam to move
and were at anchor or dock. The effects we can create are ships with no movement allowing
what you cite to occur. Ships at sea with movement can not be allowed to flee at a low enough
level that ground troops can drive them off if enough suppression is created. The numbers we
set in the Mech and prefs are going to control this. We can not set each ship to a different level
other then giving or taking 10 points of exp and or morale from them. We can not accept ships
that can be driven off by 1 turns suppression from snipers or land based units. That just did not
happen. I am more then sure it took a lot longer then 4 or 5 minutes to encourage those ships
to surrender. We also can not model surrender of a ship It is either there or destroyed. No
historical event can alter that. Lets face it we have a lot of limits to what we can and can not
do here. This will never be perfect or historically correct in everyone's mind. I am more then
sure we will hear all about that from a number of people who think that we suck because we did
not make something they know happened. The historical it happened stuff is worth only so
much. It comes down to can we make it happen or not.

Now a ship can be made with a proper sized crew some in the hundreds who can come ashore
and fight or can come ashore and be shot to hell since they lack weapons if that is what you
want to see happen. But the ships itself could not be destroyed in this manner and there is no
way to capture it or surrender it individuality so they will either have to leave or stay and fight
that choice is up to the player. We should not allow the computer to make that choice based
on a single turns suppression created using weapons that could not harm the ship only the
crew who accepted that risk and exposed themselves to it in order to fight back. We can have
ships docked (no movement) ships with reduced movement (low steam or wind) and normal
ships (normal full movement) There we have C&C which means a ship could be set to Defend
stance when docked so orders have to be spent to move (but this is a rule and not enforceable)
and in every case but the ships with no movement the game can cause them to rout if we allow
it to happen. We can not let that happen on the enemy players turn. That needs to be a player
choice. Stay and fight or run away.

This very idea is what prompted me to ask Flash to pull the Marines out of the Naval oobs and
put them in the land oobs so that if we need to boost the mech numbers for the ships we could
do that with out effecting the fighting abilities of the marines who might be on the ships.

IF we do allow dismounted crew to come ashore we will have to set a number of how many
and give them reduced weapons since they will carry the mech numbers for the ships with them
making them possibly much more mean and nasty then they should be. This can only be done
once we see how the ships themselves work out and if the mech numbers need to be altered.
Then we can look at what a dismounted crew can do since it will be possible to take them ashore
if done at a dock or other shallow water area. This means we have to be careful not to allow
a 300 man crew (single unit) so setting crew sizes will be a fudged number too.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


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:  
cron
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred