Steel Panthers MBT

[Al]

The modern version of Steel Panthers is now available for download at this site & it's free!

http://www.wargamer.com/spcammo/

[Cyber_Ghost]

25% Downloaded allready. The site is so loaded that I get only 8.4K/s

[MrOuija]

It looks pretty good, a huge improvement over SP2. The OOBs are extensive. There are 70(?) countries available in the first version, so if anyone finds any especially interesting ones, share with the group.

[nyati]

Originally posted by MrOuija:

It looks pretty good, a huge improvement over SP2. The OOBs are extensive. There are 70(?) countries available in the first version, so if anyone finds any especially interesting ones, share with the group.

 

According to the screen shot on the website they have Tanzania, Uganda, and Somalia, but NO KENYA!!!!!! what the hell!!!!!

I'll install tonight and see if that's true. If so, I'll have to email them an OOB of the Kenya Army to include.

 

Jeremy

[Cyber_Ghost]

I love this game... played a few hours and it rocks.

I love the Israeli OOB, it has Merkava mk4 and M1A1, M1A2.

The choppers are nice and all inall IT's GREAT.

[alamaniac]

Steel panthers is awesome, anyone who hasn't played should try it. I played some scenarios regarding Vietnam, did get boring cus mainly my guys stepped on mines and VC squads in ambush. Anyway, has anyone played World at War? Another WW2 adaption of Steel Panthers, it is awesome has like everything you could know about WW2.

[MrOuija]

I love the Israeli OOB, it has Merkava mk4 and M1A1, M1A2.

 

The new icons for the Merkavas look so cool, the best MBT's iv'e seen so far. Back to my glorious Cuban army..

[Paul Lakowski]

I feel compelled to note that I'm disappointed in the armor values...most are still the values in SP and some are worse...too bad, it other wize looks like a great effort!

[Matt Urbanski]

The game can be a lot of fun, but did these guys forget to put turn limits on some of these scenarios? I'm playing as West Germany repulsing a massive Russian attack, I'm on turn 25 and the scenario is showing no signs of ending... I've pretty much managed to stop them cold, I still hold the majority of victory locations and I even managed a couple of limted counter-attacks. Problem is, two thirds of my remaining tanks are either immobilized, have lost their main guns, are out of ammo, or some combination of the above, and the game is showing clear signs of lasting forever

[Cyber_Ghost]

Check the turn limit, first of all it can be at the 30-40 turns range, or sometimes ending the game may take longer than the limit.

Originally posted by Matt Urbanski:

The game can be a lot of fun, but did these guys forget to put turn limits on some of these scenarios? I'm playing as West Germany repulsing a massive Russian attack, I'm on turn 25 and the scenario is showing no signs of ending... I've pretty much managed to stop them cold, I still hold the majority of victory locations and I even managed a couple of limted counter-attacks. Problem is, two thirds of my remaining tanks are either immobilized, have lost their main guns, are out of ammo, or some combination of the above, and the game is showing clear signs of lasting forever  

[Amedeo Matteucci]

SPMBT managed to improve the old SP2 engine with a series of niceties that will allow to depict modern weapons and miltary gadget in a much better way. I'm also impressed by the great number of OOB/Nations now included in the game

 

The big drawback is that, as Paul already pointed out, not very much was done to correct/improve armour and penetration values from SP2. And this is, IMHO, a serious problem

 

 

Regards,

 

Amedeo

[alamaniac]

Too bad about the armor penetration values- could have been better, and too few scenarios in V1. But they are pretty good, and and the game was a great effort. The planes and helicopters look nice, too, and playing Israeli is cool. Out of the topic, but SP World At War is THE WW2 war game to have, and it's FREE and available for download [albeit 500 megs or what] from matrixgames. There are like a few hundred scenarios from WW2 AND spanish civil war and 1925. Extensive encyclopedia with pictures for the actual infantry too, and everything is excellent, has a few flaws but which game doesn't? Even has massive invasions like D day and Iwo Jima, definitely something that will keep playing for a long time to come.

[Paul Lakowski]

Yes its unfortunate about the armor and its not likely to change either. Some Brit tanker gave some valuable info on the fact that Challenger-2 survived hits by its own CHARM ammo @ 1500m range which points to a much higher armor level than the 60 given in the game.....

 

They're response to him is that they will look at this and if they agree they change it.

 

This unfortunately sounds like dogma....

 

IE there's an Apriora assumption on what the balance should be and nothing that upsets that balance will be allowed....too bad its a very good looking game!Since the armor & penetration balance plays a critical role in determining the out come of battles , this is an unfortunate over site.

 

My estimate based on the tech puts the values at >90cm. We know that the Challenger is rated as the best protected tank in NATO and the LEO-2A4 is rated at 700mm KE & 1000mm HEAt while the A5 model has several hundred mm more KE * HEAT resistance. Thus this suggest that the Challenger-2 and these other tanks are in the 90cm region.

 

 

It looks like the Russian armor is rated on the maximum reported values while the NATO values are on the minimum reported side.

 

For example the T-64/70s have hull values in the 41cm KE resistance when we all know the lower hull is only 20cm LOS , while the upper hull is 41cm....

 

Strictly speaking an average should be 30cm -34cm [depending on a 50-50 split or 2/3 - 1/3 split].On the other hand LEO-1 is given a hull value of 12cm when its well documented in JANEs and other places that the lower hull is 12cm LOS while the Glacis is 14cm [ 70mm @ 55 & 60° respectively].

 

The front turret is even worse...in the game its rated at 9?????

The reported thickness is 60mm at compounded angle of 65-70°, which equals ~140-180mm...on early APDS/APC/Steel APFSDS the severe angle more than offsets the low t/d and cast armor,resulting in resistance in the 18-20cm region.But to make matters worse the Munster museum clearly shows the LEO-1 mantle resembles the Tiger-1 albeit allot thicker...in the 40cm region over all with numerous airgaps...the solid thickness is ~ 25cm region.

 

This is critical because this thick spaced armor mantle dominates 1/2 the LEO-1 turret profile and is ignored..but the heavy armored sections of Russian tank turret which also dominates only about 1/2 the turret profile is treated as the only value for there tanks! Sounds like a bias.

 

We have the T-10 with a front hull KE resistance of 40cm in the game....where does that come from???? Every thing I've seen puts the glacis @ 120mm @ compounded angle of 64-65° ~ 27-28cm.

 

Unfortunately , I don't expect to see much change soon

 

[Edited by Paul Lakowski (15 Jun 2002).]

[alamaniac]

Oh yeah and I forgot to mention about the scnario advance on kabul, november 2001. It seems that afghanistan is not a listed country in the game, or the taliban or northern alliance or anything, yet they have their own id tags and units. Someone plz explain this to me.

[TonyE]

delete

 

[Edited by Tony Engelsen (15 Jun 2002).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Stuart Galbraith:

Paul where have these discussions been taking place, id like to have a look at some of their design discussions. I think they still have some work to do on the missile accuracy too, i was plinking of about 8 milan rounds and got about 3 hits. Even allowing for battle stress and newbie soldiers, thats still way too low, and appears unchanged from the original sp2/3(this was the first thing i tried put right in my sp3 database). Dont know if its me but vision appears improved, ive been plinking tank like noones business and they have a hard job picking mine up (at least when they are crewing t64s) Toes (at least as far as brits are concerned) look fairly accurate, with only a couple of gaffs that i can see (spartan mct available in 1983, should be 86, phantoms still doing strike roles they gave up in 1980). So good and bad points aside, it still looks an improvement on sp2, but still work to be done if they want to create another tacops. Ill reserve judgement till ive seen v2.

 

BTW paul, got any more info on those challenger2 tests? I assume this was tests, and not someone getting trigger happy at the C/O  

 

Stu , its on the Yahoos group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SPMBT

 

 

BTW Cordesmann reports 25-30% for Milans and TOWs used in battle...but theres a bug in the game , apparently the troop quality settings are frozen on the 1946 settings?

 

Just played the Egyptians at the Suez canal 73 , not bad . runs smoothly and few problems...Map looks to simplistic [ have a 50,000 scale 2 meter contour map and it doesn't look the same]and the Egyptians force should be a brigade by my reading...looks more like a battalion to me.

 

I like the fact that they quote book sources even if its OBallance!!!This is something I've been doing on my scenarios for years. But I found that untill you get several books from each side & several maps , you can't get a good picture of the battle.

 

Looks good but I intend to beat those guys over the head on the armor issues

[MrOuija]

The armor formula isn't so bad as it can be changed. For individual tanks like say a Leo2A4 this is a snap, since you only have a couple OOBs to change. The real problem in my opinion is the whacky prices. 448 points for a single M1a2 ?! I could buy 49 rifle squads for that ! For generated battles this seems really poorly thought out. Technically superior forces are forced to suffer an inferiority in numbers due to those high prices, even when they shouldn't be. I just can't see going through 70+ OOBs and tweaking prices..

[Paul Lakowski]

Stu his quote is below and its quite instructive!!

 

"Having been a Challenger 2 Troop Sgt involved in armour trials I totally agree with your armour package assesment the biggest threat to CR2 is top attack. CR2 has sustained numerous direct hits in its frontal arc by 120mm APFSDS charm3 at 1500mtrs and only suffered  minor cosmetic damage. Obviously a morale boost for those that crewthe MBT.Of course I havent been involved with DUAPFSDS trials!"

 

Now the Charm 3 does 700mm @ 2000m with a 50% ballistic limit. I got a similar figure using Andersons...going on that @ 1500m the penetration should be...

 

Muzzle [ 1700m/s] 81cm ±12cm @ 0°& 84cm ± 12cm @ 60°

1000m [ 1640m/s] 76cm ± 11cm @ 0°& 79cm ± 11cm @ 60°

2000m [ 1580/s] 70cm ±11cm @ 0° & 73cm ± 11cm @ 60°

3000m [ 1520m/s] 65cm ± 10cm @ 0°& 68cm ± 10cm @ 60°

4000m [ 1460m/s] 60cm ± 9cm @ 0°& 63cm ± 9cm @ 60°

 

~ 75cm ± 11cm LOS...since as he reports the armor survive without too much problem that suggest much more than 86cm KE resistance through the front turret!!!!

 

My estimate put the Challenger-2 front turret @ 96cm KE resistance, but thats an old estimate and I just got a new research paper from the armor institue @ 'Chobham' that allows a simpler mass efficency figure to be developed...I'll report back when I get a figure!

[Amedeo Matteucci]

It looks like the Russian armor is rated on the maximum reported values while the NATO values are on the minimum reported side.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Paul Lakowski (15 Jun 2002).][/i]

 

IMHO the dubious armour values in SPMBT are more a reflection on realiance on the old SP2 values than bias toward Soviet AFVs for play balance... otherwise we wouldn't find a T-80U without the Kontakt-5 or the T-64s with worse protection than the T-72s.

Regards,

 

Amedeo

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by Amedeo Matteucci:

It looks like the Russian armor is rated on the maximum reported values while the NATO values are on the minimum reported side.

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Paul Lakowski (15 Jun 2002).]

 

IMHO the dubious armour values in SPMBT are more a reflection on realiance on the old SP2 values than bias toward Soviet AFVs for play balance... otherwise we wouldn't find a T-80U without the Kontakt-5 or the T-64s with worse protection than the T-72s.

Regards,

 

Amedeo[/i]

 

 

Stu what have you heard about CHarm-3 actually only using Charm-2 Penetrator???? Never heard anything about that one?

 

Amedeo some thing I noticed when studing there armor values....

 

 

LEO-2 front turret 40 rating ....my studies show the armor mass on this area to be ~42-43cm steel mass, using LEO-1A3 as a base line.

 

LEO-2A5 front turret is given a rating of 60 which is also the armor mass 42-43cm + 20cm applique that I came up with.

 

Challenger 1 front turret is rated at 50 in the game...my analysis put the armor mass at 49cm using Chieftain as base line.

 

There Challenger-2 front turret is rated at 60 in the game ...my analysis put the armor mass at 60cm using Chieftain as base line.

 

There is not account for the reported mass effectiveness of these types of armors.

 

Just noticed the M-1 is rated at 33 front hull and 35 front turret....these are the armor masses 33cm steel on the front hull and 35cm on the front turret. The M-1A1 front turret armor mass is 40-41cm steel when the game value is 40.

 

 

The LEO-1 is 9 front turret???? but the LEO-1A5 is 15...I caluctate that the armor mass increase between these to models is ~ 6cm steel.

 

 

 

 

[Edited by Paul Lakowski (16 Jun 2002).]

[Matt Urbanski]

Dunno much about actual armor values but I have to admit to feeling a bit dubious when setting up to play a battle as Poland and seeing the PT-91 has higher armor values than the Leo 2A4...

[Amedeo Matteucci]

Paul,

this confirms my point, in fact all the values you quoted are the same used in the last patch of SP2 that used early '90s consensus data for western tanks and Zaloga's values for soviet ones. Of course now we know that all those figures are not fully correct.

 

In SP2 I used, as a stopgap solution, to play with Western tank toughness increased by 10-20% and decrease Soviet built tank thoughness by 10%, but the best solution would be to modify the MOB files from scratch.

 

Regards,

 

Amedeo

[Brad Edmondson]

Arrrrgh! No OOB for Canada until version 1.2

[John T]

Hi Paul.

You started to make suggestions a couple of weeks before the deadline on the MBT board and Yes your ideas where not implemented nor was the release date delayed by a number of months to accomodate your ideas. OK, but that does not, in my humble opinion, makes some of your comments fair.

 

Release 1 is a fairly consistent set of OB's

Now starts the tuning of the system and the game.

 

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Yes its unfortunate about the armor and its not likely to change either. Some Brit tanker gave some valuable info on the fact that Challenger-2 survived hits by its own CHARM ammo @ 1500m range which points to a much higher armor level than the 60 given in the game.....

 

They're response to him is that they will look at this and if they agree they change it.

 

This unfortunately sounds like dogma....

 

I see no other way to answer without lying.

Right now the ability of SP-Cammo to quickly answer users and at the same time check claims and convert those claims to consistent data is not limitless.

SP-Cammo is a dozen people having wargaming as a hobby and we does ask for help. I am sorry if we ever made the impression that all changes that will (hopefully) come in later releases should matertilise the first weekday after V1 release.

 

May I ask how long time it took you to get the database you have today?

 

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

IE there's an Apriora assumption on what the balance should be and nothing that upsets that balance will be allowed....

 

If you did closely follow the evolution of SP:WW2 you would probably attack us the other way round, few things where static and based on matematical functions. In lack of the matematical function that truthfully simulates tactical warfare on the level of the two games (SP:WW2 and SP:MBT) the modelling of many aspects have been redone and refined as historical data proved that the model was less than perfect. BUT in the case of SP:WW2 it did take a number of years to get there.

 

The only thing that we does really have a fixed and solid apriora about is that this is first and formost is a game.

 

Then there are a number of things that we believe are modeled good enough for a company/battalion level game. Like C&C and measuring armour in centimeters rather than milimeters.

These are not laws written in stone but we have not yet found a solution that was much superior, gameable and without too high cost in development so we improve other things.

 

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

too bad its a very good looking game!

Thanks, lets make it better.

 

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Since the armor & penetration balance plays a critical role in determining the out come of battles , this is an unfortunate over site.

 

Unfortunately , I don't expect to see much change soon

 

<font size=1>[Edited by Paul Lakowski (15 Jun 2002).]

 

If you please make you input in a format that corresponds to the current armour model I can guarantee that your data will be seriously considered.

 

 

Cheers

/John T

[Dan Weaver]

I just fought a 2007 battle between Russia and France. The T-80UM2 is a monster! Arena, advanced ERA, and a gun second to none - one T-80UM2 took on an entire platoon of Leclercs for two rounds at 300 m, killing one and only dying when the Leclercs got lucky and put a shot into its top!

 

Lots of fun ... I'm glad that a new version of one of my all-time favorite games has been released.

 

EDIT: Some more thoughts after a 1985 game between US and Soviets.

 

- .30 and .50 cal MGs are too weak. .50 cals should kill BTRs with ease, but never seem to penetrate or do damage.

- Tank coax MGs less accurate than AAMGs. Huh?

- AI artillery use not so swift.

 

My comment above still stands, though...great orders of battle and still lots of fun after all these years. I'm very pleased to see SAM effectiveness increased! No more gallivanting about with scout choppers!

 

[Edited by Dan Weaver (18 Jun 2002).]