Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

We need to buckle down and get serious.

Discussion in 'Forum Gaming' started by Danyel Phelps, Oct 16, 2005.

  1. Danyel Phelps

    Danyel Phelps Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,357
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United States
    via TanksinWW2
    Alright. Time to get a few things straight.

    It has come to my attention that there are some disagreements about Nations using another nation's component/sub-component.

    Look, when I designed this game I really wasn't expecting something like this. In Game 2 when we had to design AA tanks, I found a Canadian design using components America could theoretically get their hands on to produce a Sherman with a quad AA cannon mounting. Once I saw this, I had to make a moral decision and chose not to blur the rules by ripping off Canadian equipment.

    The way this game is heading, there will be no point in choosing a nation to play as. Technically, if we want to do what we're doing, the Soviets are going to use every German design ever used because they had captured examples of everything. Americans are going to be pumping out T-34's and Tigers, and Britain is going to do much the same thing.

    We need to open a discussion, gentlemen, and get this issue resolved so we can revise the rules.

    Another issue I wanted to bring up was completely designing major components for yourself. When I allowed this, game 3 was comprised of tanks that looked like they would be more at home in the 1970s. This rule needs to be rewritten, but I’m not going to do so without input from the you guys. It apparently doesn't work that way.

    The issue is GOING to come up that i'm trying to bend the existing rules to better suite me. I haven't said it officialy, but i've been really bussy the last few weeks and i'm backing out of this contest and all others after this untill a later date. I already went over this with my partner and he's happy with it.
     
  2. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    I think your complaints about the way this game has turned out are perfectly reasonable, and it would not so much change the rules to suit you as it would simply make the game match the ideas of its creator once more. Obviously there should be some sort of national frame, and also the components used should be based on what the country at the time in question actually had in store. This would rule out "projects" like Oli's mounted 3.7inch gun but also Germany's entry for the armoured car game (as it uses a French chassis).

    However, it is a historical fact that some countries sometimes used the chassis of other nationalities' vehicles to create their own designs upon. Some examples are the Germans using French chassis for various vehicles and the Russians using the Panzer III as a chassis for the Su-76i. In the cases where these countries are involved, I'd say it is at least more excusable that the teams that represent them cross national borders looking for parts. After they occupied Czech, the Germans simply made Czech tank factories churn out vehicles for them; nobody objected to Team Germany using a Czech chassis for the first game. My view on this is therefore that generally, people should stick to their nationality and to the game timeframe when looking for parts, but there are some situations in which historical accuracy actually allows some "international" parts.

    I'm sorry to hear you can't participate in the games yourself in the near future. :(
     
  3. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    I concur.
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Agreed. Maybe Germany using a French chassis was pushing it a little...
     
  5. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    OK, if that's the general view but
    the 3.7 was considered for tank use, it was in service (although not as a tank gun), and I used Cromwell components.
     
  6. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    How about something like:

    The basic chassis and armament has to be those actually used by (and preferrably built by) the nation you represent.

    That would rule out simply making up a new design, or using 'captured' material (but would allow Germany the 38(t) for example). Is that suitable?
     
  7. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    My own thoughts:
    indigenous design and/ or production (which would allow Czech stuff for the Germans) but allow chassis/ weapons that had been proposed/ studied even if not built or introduced into service.
    I'm a big fan of "what if's" and cancelled projects, hence the bias...
     
  8. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Agreed, but the fact that this gun was never used on a tank is quite a notable condition on your tank design. It would require a breakthrough in British tank design before this gun would be mountable on a tank, a breakthrough which the British during WW2 were unable to achieve. This does not go for smaller guns for which solutions are plenty, of course, but for a gun that big and heavy there has to be a reason to assume that it can actually be used on a tank. It would be like team Germany mounting twin 128mm AA guns on a Panther chassis.

    I agree with Ricky's rule, though, which means Germany's entry in the most recent game should not be considered. I'm sorry. :(
     
  9. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Hmm... If a project made it to prototype stage, then we can use it.
    If it was simply a drawing board dream, then no.
    So a Maus is ok, but The E-50 is not.
     
  10. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    I used the gun proper only (barrel, breach etc). The 3.7 as a 3.7 AA with shield had been mounted on a Ram chassis by the Canadians, directly in place of the turret, so I reasoned that properly mounted (ie the gun as a gun only with a tank-type recoil mechanism would work - Shermans later went up to 90 mm and beyond so I figured 94 mm wasn't overstretching a lengthened Cromwell.
    http://members.tripod.com/~chrisshillito/a39/a39txt.htm indicates that the 3.7 was studied and something built in 1942, and that one proposal was for a 55-pounder :eek:
    I looked at it from an engineering point of view and I consider that rather than a case of something we couldn't achieve, it was more that we saw no real need to... The Tortoise apparently wasn't the weight it was because of the gun, but rather that it was decided that due to the weight it had (because of armour) that anything less than a 32 pr (3.7 in) would be wasting the design.
    Anyhow, what's the consensus? Built but not studied is OK? Or are we waiting for more input?
     
  11. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Umm, sorry to jump in again but
    So if we're working in say '41 for a design to enter in late '42 we can't use a 75 L/70? :lol: (Extreme example and I haven't checked the design date for the 75). The difference between a drawing board dream and actual hardware is a matter of choice by the policy makers AT THE TIME. (In my opinion). A drawing-board dream (love that term) is as much a candidate as what turned into hardware since we, as the national design teams, decide which proposal to submit, no?
    If someone asks for a design to enter service in 46 then E-100 would be acceptable, wouldn't it?
     
  12. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Ok, first, I personally reckon that the 3.7 inch (32pdr) is ok, as it was mounted in an AFV (Tortoise).

    Second, we cannot use equipment that was not in use by the date set (ie: a 1939 requirement cannot use the Churchill).

    In a 1946 scenario, then yes the E-series is ok, as who knows what Germany would do post 1945 - and after all, the E-series were planned to enter production in 1946!

    I suggest that the following rules be added:

    The basic chassis and armament has to be those actually used by (and preferrably built by) the nation you represent.

    Experimental vehicles that were actually constructed as prototypes, or whose development was stopped due to the war's end are allowed.

    Any weapon actually used by a nation's armed forces is allowed, providing no major mofications are made (ie: turning an L/48 gun into an L/70 gun).

    You must stick to the year specified.

    If anbybody disagrees or thinks these should be changed post away!
    Danyel, do you think this will be suitable?
     
  13. Oli

    Oli New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Scunthorpe, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Suits me.
     
  14. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky

    Even they you were not asking me, they sound quite good.
     
  15. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    I think due dates should be stricter.
     
  16. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    Zhukov_2005
    Why do you think that?
     
  17. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Well, we do always end up extending the deadline by up to a week... :oops:
     
  18. Man

    Man New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Norway
    via TanksinWW2
    I think it's OK... we have a lot of busy members with much to do, and a not so easily foreseeable schedule. We do this, mainly, for fun. I don't see anything wrong with the current deadline format. :)
     
  19. Zhukov_2005

    Zhukov_2005 New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,652
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toothless Capital of the World
    via TanksinWW2
    Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with extending the due date if problems occur, and I know people are busy, but I think it's unfair to the rest of us when one person is holding everything up even after extra time has been given.

    I'm not trying to single anyone out, and if everyone else is ok with the situation, I won't worry over it. :D
     

Share This Page