Absolutely. None of this is meant as criticism, at all. I've done a moderate amount of work in the gaming industry writing and editing/proofreading products for various companies. I know from personal experience that you can never catch all the errors. I find that once I've read something a few times (or worse, written it), I start seeing what I *know* is supposed to be there, instead of what is actually there. There's also never, ever enough time or people for proofing. Another factor is that word-processing, while making publishing much easier (indeed, making publishing possible at all for small industries like gaming), also makes it much easier to make mistakes. I once edited a product that wound up going to publication with two entire incorrect chapters from an earlier version of the file.I'm very favorably impressed with ODGW's work, and the quality of these products - I've found a very low error rate, and what errors I've found are generally inconsequential and easily corrected by the user. My efforts are merely in the pursuit of perfectionism, not meant as complaints.-Kle.Greetings,Both the advantage and disadvantage of having a comprehensive Databook is that there is lots of information presented. Practically all of it can be accurate, but with myriad sources, gaps in information for equipment now sixty-plus years old, and that inescapably imperfect human factor, there can be just a few errors and they seem like a lot. Britannica Bob has done an absolutely fantastic job of putting together the Databook, pretty much on his own. Given the amount of info, I think it is amazing and a tribute to his efforts that there are not more questions.Cheers,Gregory
Newbie equipment Questions
#21
Posted 06 April 2007 - 06:10 AM
#22
Posted 06 April 2007 - 08:52 AM
#23
Posted 06 April 2007 - 02:11 PM
#24
Posted 07 April 2007 - 06:10 PM
#25
Posted 08 April 2007 - 12:51 PM
The dates were left off since the infantry stand types are actually semi-generic and not totally based on the actually listed weapon. The stands would be available for the entire war for all countries.General:Why aren't there any availability dates for the various infantry stand types, was it a space issue? It's fairly easy to figure out in a non-specific way, but I can imagine some new-to-the-period gamers getting confused.
This should have been the IR Equipment note.Pg. 4:PzKpfw V D Panther - has 'note 10', early Panther breakdown. Shouldn't this note be for the Panther A, and the D gets 'note 11', IR equipment ?
Yes actually it should. The special rule is actually called "PzKpfw VA (Panther A) and Elephant High Breakdown".I'll go over all the rest as I get time. Just glancing over your posts leads me to believe that you have found many an oops that I have missed or caused over the past year or two. Thanks again for your input! ;)Elefant / Ferdinand - should this have 'note 10', early Panther breakdown?
#26
Posted 09 April 2007 - 01:42 PM
I was mostly wondering about the German and Soviet assault rifle stands - if they aren't actually weapon-specific than it isn't really a concern.The dates were left off since the infantry stand types are actually semi-generic and not totally based on the actually listed weapon. The stands would be available for the entire war for all countries.General:Why aren't there any availability dates for the various infantry stand types, was it a space issue? It's fairly easy to figure out in a non-specific way, but I can imagine some new-to-the-period gamers getting confused.
Happy to be of help. I only got the WW2 itch recently, and I hadn't heard of MP until early February. I haven't played microarmor in probably 20 years...-Kle.I'll go over all the rest as I get time. Just glancing over your posts leads me to believe that you have found many an oops that I have missed or caused over the past year or two. Thanks again for your input! ;)
#27
Posted 10 April 2007 - 08:26 AM
#28
Posted 10 April 2007 - 01:50 PM
#29
Posted 10 April 2007 - 01:59 PM
Can you tell me exactly where to look? I found the PDFs of all the individual countries from the Data Book (and the other DB material), but the Bonus Countries section is showing 0 files/ 0 folders...-Kle.You did such a great job on this would you mind looking at the Free Update Countries that are in the Free download section also?
#30
Posted 11 April 2007 - 05:21 AM
#31
Posted 11 April 2007 - 06:04 AM
#32
Posted 11 April 2007 - 10:01 AM
Sorry, thought I was being dense - I didn't mean to sound like I was nagging.Whenever they're ready, I'll be glad to take a look.-Kle.Well, I guess I will have to get them finished then. In the haste to get the WW2 Data Book done the Update countries were not completed so I will post you when these become available. :)
#33
Posted 11 April 2007 - 11:43 AM
I have nothing but respect for the Jane's organisation, but if these are either the originals or the reprints from the wartime JFS, they're much more error-prone than the modern equivalents.The reach of both telecommunications and the Jane's organisation were both much more limited back then. The world's navies were also enormously secretive compared to the standards of today, and Jane's did a commendable job, considering.-Kle.Hmm... The Janes WW2 Ships book has it with 6 x 8" guns. I double checked with a couple other sources and you are right. Janes has a typo. :blush: Made the correction. CORRECTEDActually a couple of the Heavy Crusier DV values were off (Whichita, Portland and Pensacola if I remeber correctly). I corrected these. The rest are as advertised according to the Janes book I have. CORRECTEDPg. 10:Australia and Canberra had 8 8" guns.
#34
Posted 11 April 2007 - 05:46 PM
The M3A3-M3A5 in my Docs has a speed of CC4 R 6. Another Conversion error...The PDF is what was used for the print copy so that would explain why they are the same. I believe in the rush to get everything done by Cold Wars we had some QC issues with some of the formatting. We are looking into getting them corrected and you have helped identify much of these problems. Thanks! :)In the hardcopy and the PDF from the website, the M3, M3A1-A2, and M3A3-A5 all have 3cc pips and 5 road pips.
Well, we are at Cold Wars, Historicon and Fall-In so I am sure we'll catch you at one of them. :)I'd like to go to Historicon, and I've been looking into it. I expect that I won't be able to afford it especially since it's so close to GenCon, where I'm minion-ing for some friends. One of these days, though - Lancaster's an easy drive.
#35
Posted 12 April 2007 - 06:40 AM
I had addressed this earlier, but wanted to mention that I did add notes to the German and Russian Infantry Tables that defined the availability dates for the Assault Rifles for each country. The German FG 42 is 1942, the German MP44 and its additional entries with LMGs is 1944. The Russian Federov Automat is 1940. CORRECTEDAgain, the reason for the removal of the date column was due to the generalization of the stats, but to keep the flavor of the game, the names of the predominant weapon type at the start of the war were used. As Kle pointed out, the New Zealand army has the Krag-Jorgenson rifle listed yet they did use the Enfield SMLE. I used the Krag because it was the first available rifle the Kiwi army at the outbreak of the war. The stats we use now only differentiate with gun calibre and ROF where applicable. So the Krag and the SMLE will have the same base stats. Meine Truppen, when released, will have a more in depth firearms table that takes into account many other weapons statistics and will have a more detailed weapons list and their appropriate availability dates.General:Why aren't there any availability dates for the various infantry stand types, was it a space issue? It's fairly easy to figure out in a non-specific way, but I can imagine some new-to-the-period gamers getting confused.
Yep you are correct. CORRECTEDAustralia:Pg. 1:Troop Type Cross Reference Table, last row; Infantry/Cavalry - should that be Infantry/Armor? Cav seems covered by the 1st row.
Not sure why it was there!?! Note removed. CORRECTEDFree France:Pg. 2:Fusil modele 1931 heavy weapon stand shows note 1, cullin hedgerow device.
Another of those mysterious Jon formatting errors. All of my Docs look fine.A side note also. While going over Kle's edits I found that the Sherman tanks, for all countries other than the US, lacked the appropriate Wet Ammo Storage Note. So I fixed them all as follows:Any British/ British Commonwealth Sherman with the 76mm gun (Sherman IIIA and Sherman VA if I remember correctly) and any of the US Shermans serving with Belgium, Free France and any others I may have missed, will have the Wet Stowage Note.Thailand:Pg. 2: Infantry Upgrades header typesetting typo.
I never take possible errata as criticism. It allows me to verify that the data I used was correct, explain my logical (I hope anyway) reasoning for my choice and possibly clear up some misconceptions that tend to gravitate around some WW2 equipment. I try to use as many sources as possible and I weigh the data and their sources to come up with a consensus for the stats. Having run into situations where many sources gave the exact same info and finding out that these sources were all based on the same source makes one realize that digging can be a mixed blessing and that the results should be weighed appropriately. Ah, ZEN researching... :laugh:Absolutely. None of this is meant as criticism, at all. I've done a moderate amount of work in the gaming industry writing and editing/proofreading products for various companies. I know from personal experience that you can never catch all the errors. I find that once I've read something a few times (or worse, written it), I start seeing what I *know* is supposed to be there, instead of what is actually there. There's also never, ever enough time or people for proofing. Another factor is that word-processing, while making publishing much easier (indeed, making publishing possible at all for small industries like gaming), also makes it much easier to make mistakes. I once edited a product that wound up going to publication with two entire incorrect chapters from an earlier version of the file.
Thank you for the kind words! :blush:The WW2 Data Book has evolved dramatically since Jon's original work started in 1996 and I have and had a lot of fun filling it out and updating it over the years. I have found that I like doing the research but hate being unable to find information I need to complete a project. I view the book as a collaborative effort since Jon provided the basis for me to start and yourself, Gregory, Trotsky, Sacha and the host of others listed on the credits page as integral parts of getting this book done with the most accurate data available to us. During this project and the other Data Books I have done, I have learned a lot about research, publication formatting using Adobe Acrobat and MS Word and printing. An enlightening experience indeed! I would like to thank Jon for this experience. Thanks Jon! ;)Now I want a raise! :laugh:I'm very favorably impressed with ODGW's work, and the quality of these products - I've found a very low error rate, and what errors I've found are generally inconsequential and easily corrected by the user. My efforts are merely in the pursuit of perfectionism, not meant as complaints.-Kle.
#36
Posted 11 May 2007 - 06:04 PM
#37
Posted 17 May 2007 - 12:58 PM
Okay, I looked at the file to get my bearings. The Cromwell IV, V and VIII had the 75mmL38 gun which is the same gun as the Churchill VI, VII and X. These I confirmed with my multiple sources (Guns vs. Armor website and US and British Tanks in WW2 by Chamberlain to name the outstanding ones that I remember) as an AP of 8 (Actual penetration is 68mm @ 30 degrees at a range of 500yds). After a go around with data on the 6-pounder the AP of 10 (Actual penetration of 81mm @ 30 degrees at a range of 500yds) is also correct as per the same sources with these numbers. The 95mm howitzer does have a HEAT round listed (under the Offensive Stats section HT OV column) with a 13 AP rating. The 75mmL38 gun is on par with the US 75mmM3 gun which was a general purpose gun with low velocity but with an adequate, for the time it was released anyway, AP round and a good HE round. This made the gun a capable all purpose gun but definitely not a true tank hunting gun. "Want to kill an Elephant, get an Elephant gun!" :laugh:Here is an FYI for you on how the numbers are derived. The published AP numbers are the actual penetration number multiplied by a slope modifier, to account for the sloping in the stats when listed, then round .5 and higher up then divide by 10 to get our final value.I hope this gives some light to your questions. :)I noticed on the British charts that the Cromwell seems undergunned. The 75mm gun listed on the Cromwell is the same as in the Churchill. The 75mm on the Cromwell was different from Churchill. The performance of the 75mm is on par with the 6-pounder except it did not have a HVAP/APDS round. The 95mm howitzer version had a HEAT round available that could penetrate 110mm of armor. You can refer to Osprey Book - New Vanguard 104 Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942–50.
#38
Posted 30 May 2007 - 10:05 PM
#39
Posted 30 May 2007 - 10:13 PM
#40
Posted 31 May 2007 - 05:04 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users