Thread: Scenario 1 Organized Chaos 8/39
View Single Post
Old April 26th, 2013, 08:47 AM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
Shrapnel Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 10,862
Thanks: 2,600
Thanked 4,069 Times in 2,030 Posts
DRG will become famous soon enough
Default Re: 1 Organized Chaos 8/39

Originally Posted by BigDuke66 View Post
I don't look thru what's wrong here but just check out the German infantry that uses OOB 98 for example unit E1, right click on it it shows an MG 34 but when I go for more information the encyclopedia entry shows me MG 42 instead.
Question is if the "Infanterie Grp"(OOB 98) is correct here at all as that unit is listed as available from 12-43 to 12-46.


I'm making this a Sticky because there seems to be some misconceptions about the game and how it works

There is NOTHING wrong here. I'm not quite sure why all of a sudden there is a feeding frenzy of questions revolving around the data of a unit in a scenario and what the encyclopedia reports but here we are....maybe it's just that people have forgotten or don't understand how the game works but this is bedrock basics of Steel Panthers

FIRST OFF......"Infanterie Grp"(OOB 98) makes no sense unless I stand on my head and squint. There is no "(OOB 98)" in winSPWW2 but there is a UNIT 98 in OOB 16 which is what I ASSUME you mean.

Yes, in the scenario that unit has a MG34 and it shows an MG42 in the encyclopedia for that unit. There are TWO reasons why this could be and neither of them are "wrong"
  • 1/ The scenario designer could have decided that he wanted that unit to carry an MG34 for whatever reason he decided that. The tools to change a wide range of unit characteristics can be found when you go into the in game editor and click on the "Modify current units data" button found on the DEPLOY menu of the scenario editor. For reasons that are obvious this is not available in a regular battle.
  • 2/ At some time between when the scenario was first designed and now we altered the OOB to re-distribute section LMG's and the original MG34 was replaced with an MG42 AND we altered the start date. This is confirmed when I open a copy of that OOB from 2002 where German unit 98 has a service date of 7/41-12/43 and it carries an MG34 and 2 years later it's service date is 12/43 - 12/46 and it's carrying an MG34

Now you might point out that the scenario is dated September 1939 and at no time was that unit available given the information I provided but the scenario designer has the power to change dates to whatever he wants to pluck a unit from a later time period and place him in the scenario for WHATEVER REASON HE CHOOSES.

In this case the unit in the scenario that is being questioned is carrying a tellermine. In the current OOB it's carrying a Geballte Ladung but back before 2002 that unit was carrying a generic "anti-tank mine" and THAT, could be ONE REASON why the scenario designer reached ahead in time and put that unit in the sceanrio provide that unit with some sort of AT capability he could not find in a unit for that date and that's his prerogative to do so even though the Poles have no tanks in that sceanrio

SO. what we have is a unit that is carrying the following kit

1/ 98K rifle which is perfectly OK for September 1939
2/ A MG34 LMG.. ditto
3/ Hand grenades.. ditto
4/ An Anti tank mine the Poles have nothing they can use it on so it's superfluous

I offer a more detailed explanation for information purposes only. The bottom line is you will quite frequently find units in sceanrios that DO NOT match what's in the OOB's currently... this is normal

in "Grudge Match at Kapelsche Veer" 25 pounders have been replaced with 4.2 inch mortars.... perfectly OK for a scenario designer to do that. In 116 Langemarck at Narva, Day 4 7/44 there are "wounded" that have had unit details changed....this is normal just as it's normal that over the 15 years we have been doing this the OOB's have evolved and been refined and details have changed...... this is normal as well.


Last edited by DRG; April 26th, 2013 at 04:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DRG For This Useful Post: