2.09 Beta2 - Your thoughts...

[CapnDarwin]

Once you get it running let us know the good the bad and hopefully not the ugly. [:D]

[Tazak]

Did you do any tweaks to the AI controlling towed mortar's (the situation where the soviet towed mortars rush headlong into the front line)

[CapnDarwin]

Tazak, I will check with Rob. I'm fairly sure we made some range to setup adjustment. The ultimate fix will be a change in mechanics of support based and overwatch based units in 2.1.

[cbelva]

I have seen Soviet's mortars stop and setup behind the main element and fire when their formation runs into enemy forces.

[Ginetto]

No ugly thoughts. The game runs smoothly and is one of my favorites.
One thing struck me, though: the virtual invulnerability of Soviet helicopters. I was playing 12 Bravo today as the American and had clouds of Hinds chugging all over the map shooting up my guys. The American units were shooting back - the AD guys with Stingers I believe - and did manage to knock down relatively early in the scenario two Hinds. But that was it. The only way I could swat them away was for my artillery and mortars to lay smoke screens. Then the Hinds appeared to be annoyed and would decamp. HE was always ineffectual.
I seem to remember that when the US gave Stingers to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan the Soviet Hinds became much more discrete after several of them were shot down.
Also, how come that if the game algorithms have helos usually fly nap-of-the-Earth, an arty HE barrage-a heavy one-is always ineffectual. If a 155mm shell explodes next to a helicopter flying 30 ft above the ground something has to happen. In another scenario I had two Luftwaffe Alphajets attack a hex with a gaggle of Hinds. Big explosions, but nothing else.
Any ideas?
Can't wait for 2.1.

[ivanov]

I'm absolutely convinced that the Hinds are too effective. Keep in mind that they aren't a state of art, dedicated attack helicopters like Apache, but rather a primitive gunships. Yet in the game they routinely engage in duels with the AD assets and in most of the cases they get the upper hand.

I'm not complaining because I am not able to win as NATO. I mostly play as WP. It just seems to me very unrealistic.

[ivanov]

Are you planning to reintroduce the fixed "on call" order for the ground units and helicopters in 2.1 ?

Ps. I'm testing the waypoint delays - it works much better than before, but I still have seen cases, when the added delay was corrupting the timing. I'm going to play a whole game now and see how it works in a broader context.

Ps.2. The helicopter missile launch sounds like it was taken from an 80s' Casio computer game. Why not to replace it with a real sound sample?

[CapnDarwin]

Katukov,
1. No, on call will be a support unit type only order going forward. The big chane we are talking about for 2.1 is setting delays based on the distance of the moving unit to the command level. So small move will fall to the immediate HQ with very short delay (assuming high readiness exists at that level) and delay time will grow as moves step up the chain of command with increased distance covered.

2. I'll see for 2.1 if I can get a few new sounds. [;)] For now, check out Mod Guide 3 and place your own sound in. Just be mindful of the format and time limits stated in the guide.

[Ginetto]

Any chance to tweak the Hind behavior?

[CapnDarwin]

Hinds are "behaving" as they should as attack helos. What I plan to do for 2.1 is go back through all aircraft and helos and rework PF values. That will change some numbers down and other may creep up depending on the new system. There will also be some changes in the helo code in 2.1 to improve pathing, have some SOPs for how they engage, and other adjustments.

Right now, the Hinds do not see the lackluster NATO AD as much of a threat in most cases. We have tweaked some AI parameters and other factors in the past few updates to make helos move more when under fire. Still some things we can make better down the road.

[wodin]

I was always under the impression that anti tank missiles were pretty lethal and until recently with new defence systems it was pretty much game over when fired at you? In the game I'd say 1 in 5 or 6 is lethal if that. Weren't they as accurate back then?

I also agree with others Infantry still need more work esp when in built up areas they should be quite lethal to armoured units with restricted vision like tanks. I also feel at times Helicopters seem to hard to hit with SAMS. I had a unit that fired about 15 SAMS (prob been more) at a Russian recon Heli that hadn't moved hex for about two hours and was making my life difficult bringing in Arty. I know it could be just peeping over a hill and moving around within the hex but it did start to feel a tad annoying.

Just wondering if Fuel is monitored for Heli's? I've no idea of he fuel consumption of them to be honest.

[Ginetto]

Thanks Jim.Sounds good.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I was always under the impression that anti tank missiles were pretty lethal and until recently with new defence systems it was pretty much game over when fired at you? In the game I'd say 1 in 5 or 6 is lethal if that. Weren't they as accurate back then?

I also agree with others Infantry still need more work esp when in built up areas they should be quite lethal to armoured units with restricted vision like tanks. I also feel at times Helicopters seem to hard to hit with SAMS. I had a unit that fired about 15 SAMS (prob been more) at a Russian recon Heli that hadn't moved hex for about two hours and was making my life difficult bringing in Arty. I know it could be just peeping over a hill and moving around within the hex but it did start to feel a tad annoying.

Just wondering if Fuel is monitored for Heli's? I've no idea of he fuel consumption of them to be honest.

ATGMs are lethal...if they hit. Particularly in the time frame of this game, there's a fair degree of operator skill and concentration needed to make sure missiles actually impact the target. Smoke, stress, people shooting at you, enemy countermeasures or movement can all make it hard to actually hit the target I'm guessing.

I'm not aware of any real-world examples of intense ATGM use in a full-on combat environment against massed armored forces, so I'm not sure how we'd fact check any of this. From what I can gather, in terms of second generation and later ATGMs, the only real examples we have much info on come from lower intensity conflicts where generally irregular forces are using them in piecemeal engagements. Goodness only knows how it would be with hundreds of units duking it out.

[cbelva]

I have actually seen ATGM operators miss stationary targets in live fire demonstrations. In the book "Lessons of Modern War Vol I" on the Arab Israeli wars, it stated that out of 6000 to 8000 ATGMs fired by Egypt and Syria that the IDF could only account for 30 to 40 tank kills by ATGMs during the 73 war. I realize that the legality and accuracy of ATGMs increased dramatically between 73 and 89, but it does show that they are not 100% effective. As Wombat stated above, there are lots of factors that can affect the operators ability to hit the target.
 
The problem that we have in this game is that we are modeling a war that was never fought so that there is no way of knowing for sure whether some of our opinions about how the various weapon systems would have actually worked are correct or not. There is a lot of guess work involved on all sides.

[Flef]

ORIGINAL: cbelva

I have actually seen ATGM operators miss stationary targets in live fire demonstrations. In the book "Lessons of Modern War Vol I" on the Arab Israeli wars, it stated that out of 6000 to 8000 ATGMs fired by Egypt and Syria that the IDF could only account for 30 to 40 tank kills by ATGMs during the 73 war. I realize that the legality and accuracy of ATGMs increased dramatically between 73 and 89, but it does show that they are not 100% effective. As Wombat stated above, there are lots of factors that can affect the operators ability to hit the target.

The problem that we have in this game is that we are modeling a war that was never fought so that there is no way of knowing for sure whether some of our opinions about how the various weapon systems would have actually worked are correct or not. There is a lot of guess work involved on all sides.

The "weapons and tactics of the soviet army" of David Isby may help you
As well as the Armies of NATO : Central Front.

.

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: wodin

I was always under the impression that anti tank missiles were pretty lethal and until recently with new defence systems it was pretty much game over when fired at you? In the game I'd say 1 in 5 or 6 is lethal if that. Weren't they as accurate back then?

The actual effectiveness of ATGMs was much lower, than declared by the manufacturers. Here's a CIA estimate from the early 80's. T-72 – LB means lower bound and UB upper bound.



imagen jpg


So you can see, that an estimated probability of killing an early version of T-72 by TOW was between 18-42%. Now imagine, what would be the probability of killing a T-80 equipped with a reactive armor.


The tank had a very good chance of survival against an ATGMs belonging to the same weapon generation. Here's an example of an Iraqi T-72M hit by the M47 Dragon during the Gulf War.



imagen jpg


The turret of the T72M wasn't pierced, despite the declared effectiveness of >500 mm RHA of the M47. In fact the real effectiveness of the Dragon was about 450mm RHA.

It's also worth noting that the German and French ATGMs like Milan or HOT were more effective than their American counterparts.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Flef


The "weapons and tactics of the soviet army" of David Isby may help you
As well as the Armies of NATO : Central Front.

We started with those but went far beyond those two references.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: katukov

So you can see, that an estimated probability of killing an early version of T-72 by TOW was between 18-42%. Now imagine, what would be the probability of killing a T-80 equipped with a reactive armor.


The tank had a very good chance of survival against an ATGMs belonging to the same weapon generation. Here's an example of an Iraqi T-72M hit by the M47 Dragon during the Gulf War.


The turret of the T72M wasn't pierced, despite the declared effectiveness of >500 mm RHA of the M47. In fact the real effectiveness of the Dragon was about 450mm RHA.

It's also worth noting that the German and French ATGMs like Milan or HOT were more effective than their American counterparts.

That chart is missing the most important piece of information... the range.

Good Hunting.

MR

[CapnDarwin]

Also be nice to know the type of T-72 also.

[ivanov]

Gentlemen, please take a look at the CIA report in question here. You may find it useful.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/f ... 066239.pdf

Declassified in 2004