Faith in the game.

The new Cold War turned hot wargame from On Target Simulations, now expanded with the Player's Edition! Choose the NATO or Soviet forces in one of many scenarios or two linked campaigns. No effort was spared to model modern warfare realistically, including armor, infantry, helicopters, air support, artillery, electronic warfare, chemical and nuclear weapons. An innovative new asynchronous turn order means that OODA loops and various effects on C3 are accurately modeled as never before.

Moderators: WildCatNL, cbelva, IronManBeta, CapnDarwin, IronMikeGolf, Mad Russian

MaxDamage
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:19 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by MaxDamage »

I dont think this is reasonable.

between 1:3 and your tested 1:6 to 1:12 there is 2-4 times the diffirence.

Can you find the tanks with 1:3 ratio?
battlerbritain
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:11 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by battlerbritain »

Nope, don't have any info for that, just what I've quoted in the examples, which is as close to 'actual' as I can get.

If you've got a real world example of a 1:3 ratio please produce it.
Somerset, Uk
User avatar
Stimpak
Posts: 737
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:07 pm
Location: BC, Canada

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by Stimpak »

I've had trouble in the past before with situations that would lead me to believe that there was a heavy NATO bias in the game.
The current combat model is, however, much more fair than it previously was. Versions up to 2.0.10 had the Soviets very strong. Early versions of 2.0.11 were actually fraught with bugs that could make some battles impossible for the Soviets. Most of these issues have been fixed and I am currently enjoying a relatively balanced game.

And as the devs themselves have commented, outside factors and situations make a huge difference. You're having trouble using T-80BVs to deal with Chieftain Mk.11s - I've had T-72M1s club them like baby seals. 75% of the battle is the conditions that existed before, or as Sun Tzu put it, the battle is decided before it is even fought. The game is heavily abstracted and getting 100% accurate results can be difficult.


And, as others have pointed out, if you disagree with the base attributes of units, then you always can adjust their values in the data folders. I know I have, plenty of times.
battlerbritain
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:11 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by battlerbritain »

Yes I'm really pleased with how the game has been growing and changing with the updates.

I'm also happy at changing the hardware values of the vehicles in the data files.

However I think the main source of what I'm seeing here is the 'software' values of the simulated crews, ie how their responsiveness rating is affecting their rate of fire, or rate of engaging.

I think I'll try reducing the defenders initial responsiveness percentage, increase the attackers slightly and see what happens then.

The test scenario I've got I'm pretty happy with as a basis. But re-examining what's going on in it I actually have 60 T-55s attacking 3 Centurions and 30 T-55s attacking 5 Cents.

The 5 Cents regularly cleave their way through the 30 T-55s but the 3 Cent group also regularly cleave their way through the 60 T-55 group, without loss and within 13 minutes. A bit of super-hero syndrome I think.

I'll tweek the responsiveness values and see what happens.

It's good fun anyway and gives me a better understanding of what is going on under the hood of the game.
Somerset, Uk
MaxDamage
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:19 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by MaxDamage »

ORIGINAL: Stimpak

I've had trouble in the past before with situations that would lead me to believe that there was a heavy NATO bias in the game.
The current combat model is, however, much more fair than it previously was. Versions up to 2.0.10 had the Soviets very strong. Early versions of 2.0.11 were actually fraught with bugs that could make some battles impossible for the Soviets. Most of these issues have been fixed and I am currently enjoying a relatively balanced game.

And as the devs themselves have commented, outside factors and situations make a huge difference. You're having trouble using T-80BVs to deal with Chieftain Mk.11s - I've had T-72M1s club them like baby seals. 75% of the battle is the conditions that existed before, or as Sun Tzu put it, the battle is decided before it is even fought. The game is heavily abstracted and getting 100% accurate results can be difficult.


And, as others have pointed out, if you disagree with the base attributes of units, then you always can adjust their values in the data folders. I know I have, plenty of times.
The game apparently thinks 1 cheiftain = 2 t80 bv which is a complete NATO bias and compeltely unbelievable. The devs argue how stillbrew should be able to explain it etc. The problem with this is that stillbrew is useless against t80 as it was the upgrade which protected the tank against t62 ammo.

I would believe it if 1 t80bv was worth 2 chieftain 11 at open ground and daylight. You see there is ~4 times the diffirence between believable results and the game. I would understand if the diffirence was 1.5 times but not 4

There is a super hero syndrome for NATO yes. When you say how it is a complete BS they just argue how Russia is worse then NATO end of story etc. At this point we re running in circles and the game will apprently always be like this. You can trade 50 t55 against 5 pattons with a poker face and they ll tell you how it is fair.
battlerbritain
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:11 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by battlerbritain »

Yep, winding down the defenders initial responsiveness to about 50% and upping the attackers starting responsiveness from ~90% to 100% is having a big effect on the scenario, but quite a good one. [:)]

Now the defenders aren't firing as often and the attackers are actually firing back.

The 8 defenders are now being beaten with attackers losing around 50, so around 1:6/7 ratio overall.

The 3 defenders on the left flank are succumbing within 13 minutes-ish taking out around 20 attackers, so about 1:6/7 as well.

This feels about right, or at least seems to be going in the right direction.

MaxDamage: try adjusting your Chieftain/T-80 scenario to reduce the responsiveness of the Chieftains and up the T-80s. See what that does. You can do that in the Scenario editor by selecting the unit and right-mouse click 'Update parameters for this unit'.

Hope this helps, B
Somerset, Uk
MaxDamage
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:19 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by MaxDamage »

https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.ru ... ambol.html

T-80BV


In 1982, the newly introduced T-80BV came endowed with a heavier, but more effective double sandwiched laminate array design for the upper glacis. Instead of a single layer of STEF between two steel plates, the new array is composed of two thinner layers of STEF sandwiched between three steel plates.


Thanks to the implementation of new thermomechanical processing techniques in tandem with the inherent simplicity of applying such heat treatments to thinner steel plates, the steel used in the T-80B's glacis is most likely of the extremely hard variety. The high hardness of the plates combined with the steep slope of the glacis grants not only better overall protection, but adds the additional benefit of increased deflection when attacked by APDS and even APFSDS munitions.


This new layout could offer comprehensive protection from the latest 105 mm APFSDS shells including the M111 Hetz and the DM23 (105) based upon it, M774, M833, OFL105F1, and also the 120mm DM13 APFSDS shell.

MaxDamage
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:19 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by MaxDamage »

In other words, NATO tanks equivalent to t80 BV are challenger 1 or leopard 2a1 or m1ip.

But t80bv would eat a chieftain for breakfast 24/7
Tazak
Posts: 1461
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:57 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by Tazak »

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage

But t80bv would eat a chieftain for breakfast 24/7

thanks for providing a good laugh and cheering up my sunday........I'll bite as to why you think a T80BV would eat a Chieftain Mk11 for breakfast





AUCTO SPLENDORE RESURGO
Lowlaner2012
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:18 pm

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by Lowlaner2012 »

Hi MaxDamage and co...

Let me say that Ive been playing the game for last few hours and its playing better than it ever has, I'm playing a time to dance and the M1A1(HA) which are holding in forest terrain taking as much punishment as they are dishing out to the attacking T-80Us...
User avatar
jack54
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: East Tennessee

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by jack54 »

Edit deleted double post
Avatar: Me borrowing Albert Ball's Nieuport 17

Counter from Bloody April by Terry Simo (GMT)
User avatar
CapnDarwin
Posts: 9254
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Newark, OH
Contact:

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by CapnDarwin »

Most of the issue here is trying to say tank A is as good as (X) tank Bs. This logic does work in a general sense of fighting over a series of ranges and conditions. At 1500m or less it does not matter if your tank is 10 time better in apparent capability if both gun systems can hit and kill. Which in the OP case is what we are looking at. The fight at that point is going to fall to who is better in quality at that moment (Training, Readiness and Morale) and which platform has a better sighting/targeting system. Also RNGesus. Sometimes you lose the die roll and get hammered and other time you make it and manage to walk away. There is no secret NATO bias magic number in the game engine. For every player saying there is NATO bias we have one saying there is Soviet bias. It comes down to how people perceive the capabilities of the equipment involved. We can't fix that. One thing we can and will do from all of this discussion is make sure we take a deeper hard look at how the code looks at spotting and then the transition to shooting and see if things can be done better or in a different way to cover these quick-draw cases. We have already started design discussions on both sighting and combat and there will be changes with the Southern Storm engine to deal with things here and a number of other areas to make a better product with as realistic an outcome as we can get for the inputs known.

So try to enjoy the whole game for now and keep talking about these things in a civil manner and we will keep listening to the inputs and information as we go forward.

Thanks guys! [8D]
OTS is looking forward to Southern Storm getting released!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC
User avatar
jack54
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:25 pm
Location: East Tennessee

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by jack54 »

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Hi MaxDamage and co...

Let me say that Ive been playing the game for last few hours and its playing better than it ever has, I'm playing a time to dance and the M1A1(HA) which are holding in forest terrain taking as much punishment as they are dishing out to the attacking T-80Us...

+1 better than ever

I've been playing Pied Piper and Black Horse. There seems to be so much involved in each exchange: sometimes my Abrams win, sometimes NOT. It's part of what I love about the game. My Leo 1's explode... so it looks like the Chieftain my have been superior. The Chieftain had a good gun; I believe the same as Challenger 1.

Max I'm not saying you're wrong I just don't believe it's any sort of bias... I think we all want an accurate simulation.
Avatar: Me borrowing Albert Ball's Nieuport 17

Counter from Bloody April by Terry Simo (GMT)
User avatar
Stimpak
Posts: 737
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 4:07 pm
Location: BC, Canada

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by Stimpak »

A lot of people don't get how huge of a deal thermal imaging is... having used them and fought against them in commercial simulators, as well as reading and listening to testimonies of people who have worked with the actual equipment, the sighting advantage alone decides a battle easily 9 times out of 10.

A proud company of T-80s can roll through the terrain with their heavy armor and big gun, but if they can't see that buried Chieftain platoon maybe even 1500 meters away, then by virtue of not being able to see what's hitting them, they're easy targets for the British.

I myself ran a series of tests to see the balance:
In all 3 tests, both crews are Veteran with equal (85) Morale and readiness.

-1st Scenario, 3 Chieftains and 10 T-80BVs deliberately move onto an elevated field and shoot each other at 3000 meters. Chieftains get the first shot but don't claim any kills until the second volley. All 3 Chieftains go down, while also claiming 3 of the 10 T-80BVs.
-2nd Scenario, 9 Chieftains and 10 T-80BVs are ordered to assault in each other's general direction over the same territory, starting at 3000 meters. Again, first shot goes to the Chieftains. Light rain begins, giving the British another sighting advantage. Notoriously poor Soviet accuracy takes it's toll on the T-80s and they lose 4 tanks before closing into 1500 meters, at which point they suddenly take out 8 of the 9 Chieftains while losing the remainder of their number in the process. That's a pretty good trade for the Russians!
-3rd Scenario, 9 Chieftains ordered to assault a position where 10 T-80BVs deliberately move onto and Hold. This time the Russians get the first shot! The first volley is an ATGM shot that immediately erases one of the 3 British platoons. Return fire destroys a single T-80. The T-80's second shot - guns this time, destroys 2 more Chieftains. All further British return fire is ineffective and the last Chieftain goes down at 1500 meters.

In armored warfare, the dug in and hidden defending force almost always beats the exposed, attacking, and moving (Thus imposing a stabilizer penalty, Russian stabilizers are still noticeably poor even in newer T-72B models) force, even if the attackers are larger in number. Historical examples of this were witnessed multiple times in the middle east and were taught to US commanders (A good video on this is seen here).

How tanks perform on paper just does not have that much influence in actual combat.
Otherwise superior Iranian Chieftain Mk. 5s were beaten by better trained and lucky Iraqis in monkey-model T-62s.
Even back to WW2, experienced T-34 crews could easily knock Tigers out of play.
US Commanders in Desert storm have remarked that they could have swapped equipment with the Iraqis and still have won.
T-34s have confirmed kills on T-72s in Yugoslavia.
Young Chadian soldiers beat out the entire Libyan military with just Toyota trucks.

You could throw an M1A1 at, say, a BMP-2. If that BMP crew has more training, readiness, morale than that Abrams - then they will find a way to knock it out. With their autocannon.

I firmly believe there is no NATO bias, if any at all among the devs at OTS. They have tried their hardest to represent a realistic, albeit heavily abstracted battlefield, and FPRS is still by far my favorite wargame. Never mind the heap of changes planned for Southern Storm, which will be amazing to see when it drops.
Lowlaner2012
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:18 pm

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by Lowlaner2012 »

I agree Stimpack, the game is well balanced at the moment, if there were any change in favor of the Soviets the game would become unbalanced again...

Cheers
battlerbritain
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:11 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by battlerbritain »

I like this game but I'm not 100% comfortable with some of the results I'm seeing.

I think that defending tanks are shooting too fast and too often.

I don't think attacking tanks are firing as often as I think they would do.

The reason I'm saying this is that from observing the engagements between test formations and tweeking the responsivenes percentage of each side I think I've gotten a better understanding of how the game is working internally, and I could be waaay wrong here but just humour me.

I think the game works on an internal clock that ticks over every minute. On every new minute the game scans through each unit in play and does a check based on that units current resposiveness rating and if the unit passes its' resposiveness rating check then the game does something with it.

With units that have spotted enemies this usually means that they shoot at them, which means minute on minute the units will shoot every minute if they pass responsiveness checks. That's where I have the problem.

I don't think that actual tank units would do that, because to do so would mean that they are more exposed to return fire.

What I think defending tanks actually do is make as much use of cover as possible and go turret down, with the commander scanning for targets.
At an opportune moment they would then 'pop-up' to expose themselves and their gun and engage a target, usually as quickly as possible, and then drop back down again. Exposure is minimised and hence any return fire minimised.

Once dropped back down they often move to a new position ready to pop back up again. The new position could be just a few yards away, but enough to force an attacker to alter aim. And it would take a few minutes to move to the new position, so no chance of a responsiveness check.

I don't think they would sit up constantly exposed and constantly engaging targets, unless they were in a position such that they couldn't avoid being exposed, eg very close range enemies.

What I'd like to see in the game is units, say, on Hold orders also have an option of, say, 'Minimise exposure' or 'Ignore exposure'. I think the current Hold orders equate to 'Ignore exposure'.

For an example of what I think happens in real life here's an excerpt from a post on a forum I saw years ago from someone that knew more on this than I do:
The post was on round penetration vs armour, but it is very relevant:
"Davout: "A better wording would be that from 1970- mid 1980s Nato tank guns would have had a difficult time piercing the frontal armor of the most modern Soviet tanks."

Exactly. But the point is that the unit of analysis is formation on formation, not tank vs tank duel. The individual M60A1 and crew or M1 and crew might be better than any particular T-72 and its crew. But the point of the debate on M833 lethality is how many rounds on average must a formation of say 10 defending M60s or M1s must fire in order to dispatch enough of an attacking formation of say 30 T-72s to defeat its attack.

Operations Research has found that the defending tank's exposure to risk is an exponential function of its exposure time. Consider just one small segment of the NATO front in say 1980 or 84. If on average only 1 or 1 1/4 hits apiece on average are needed to dispatch an attacking tank then the defending tanks would need to achieve say 25 hits in order to knock out 20 of the 30 attacking tanks and thus defeat the attack in a single exchange at say the optimum range of 1500m (NATO's fervent hope). This might requre say 50 rounds being fired. Five rounds apece though pretty much calls for a 2 phase engagement with one at say 1500m and the other at about 1100m. Each exposure would amount to 11 or 12 seconds firing and 5 or 6 seconds partial exposure to return fire while moving up and then back down from the firing position.

Against the T-62 this did not involve much risk but against the T-72 some risk would be involved. The T-62's 1500m pK was 0.20 when firing at a hull down M60 with a pH of between 0.26 and 0.28. But the T-62 would not begin engaging until after the first NATO salvo because it didn't have a truly stabilized search function. Yes, there would have been a "battalion azimuth" warning but the gunners wouldn't have seen a target. With the T-72 things change. In fact because of the stabilized gun sight the gunner was called a 'gunner-observer' and could inititiate fires--especially long range ones--himself. The same pH is 0.46 and pK well over 0.40 or double that of the T-62. More importantly, the formation would have a much higher activity level of return fire because a few gunners, with stabilized sights, would happen to have a defending MBT in its field of view AND see it as it emerged from cover. So a number of "Company Azimuth's" would have been called out. I estimate that a T-72 formation in such a scenario would have 3 1/2 times the effective return firepower of a T-62 formation. OK, so 1 or 2 NATO tanks get hit. Well big deal, that's war.

Now throw in the fact that say 40%, or even just 30%, of the defenders hits are shrugged off by the attacker's tanks. Then all of a sudden the defenders must either increase their individual engagement times by 40 or 50% or put off until 700m a final decisive engagement. Well the 50% exposure time increase option does not increase exposure to risk by 50 % but by 100 or 125%. Thus in our little segment of the battlefield, losses would have been 4 or 5 of the defenders in the first 2 engagements and their inflicted casualties would not be 20 but more like 10 or 12 of the 30. That would set up a 700m exchange of about 5 or 6 defenders against 18 to 20 attackers. NATO simply can not plan on winning many such exchanges. And the other option of putting everything additional off to a 700m exchange would see 7 or 8 defenders facing 22 to 24 attackers. At 700m also not a good idea. Not a good average situation for NATO.

So this is the effect of having some 105mm hits be totally defeated. Exposure time. "

Hope this helps,

B
Somerset, Uk
Lowlaner2012
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:18 pm

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by Lowlaner2012 »

Well like I said last night, I played a time to dance and my m1s took as many hits as they were dishing out, so if the devs raise the attacking fire and decrease the defense fire the game for me and others in this thread will be unbalanced and the Soviet tanks will always steamroll over NATO forces everytime...

I think you seem to want a cold wargame where tank (a) will always regardless of terrain, conditions and training beat an inferior tank (b), that would make for a very boring chess like game...

Like it has been said in the posts above, you can edit and change the game to your individual liking...


MaxDamage
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:19 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by MaxDamage »

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Most of the issue here is trying to say tank A is as good as (X) tank Bs. This logic does work in a general sense of fighting over a series of ranges and conditions. At 1500m or less it does not matter if your tank is 10 time better in apparent capability if both gun systems can hit and kill. Which in the OP case is what we are looking at. The fight at that point is going to fall to who is better in quality at that moment (Training, Readiness and Morale) and which platform has a better sighting/targeting system. Also RNGesus. Sometimes you lose the die roll and get hammered and other time you make it and manage to walk away. There is no secret NATO bias magic number in the game engine. For every player saying there is NATO bias we have one saying there is Soviet bias. It comes down to how people perceive the capabilities of the equipment involved. We can't fix that. One thing we can and will do from all of this discussion is make sure we take a deeper hard look at how the code looks at spotting and then the transition to shooting and see if things can be done better or in a different way to cover these quick-draw cases. We have already started design discussions on both sighting and combat and there will be changes with the Southern Storm engine to deal with things here and a number of other areas to make a better product with as realistic an outcome as we can get for the inputs known.

So try to enjoy the whole game for now and keep talking about these things in a civil manner and we will keep listening to the inputs and information as we go forward.

Thanks guys! [8D]
Yes yes yes better training etc. But no to the degree that 3 worse tanks beat 10 better 90% of the time.

Detection system. You can test it easily, tanks without thermals can detect each other on the move in the open ground and clear weather typically at 1500m (NATO) or 1000m (Warpact). That is 2 or 3 hexes. Thermal sight tanks have infinite detection ranges up to 6000m even in a city hex and every time they hit you from invisibility they get a HUGE backstab bonus. Thermals = a lot of backstab attacks and free kills. It really means that 3 tanks are better then 10 in the game. All we have now in the game is how all the soviet tanks get killed for free from invisibile backstab alpha strikes. That is literally 50% of gameplay at the moment.

I have no problem with this if it is realistic but i doubt it is realistic i cant believe it. If you could prove it is i would have no problem with the game and i would gladly play it over and over again but right now im having some problems.

Can you tell me how large and realistic is this backstab bonus? and how realistic is 1000-1500m detection range without the thermals?
User avatar
Mad Russian
Posts: 13255
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:29 pm
Location: Texas

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by Mad Russian »

I did not use the default settings for Soviet experience in the game scenarios. If you use those when you do your custom scenarios they will indeed get hammered. I think for the default they are a bit low. That's why I increased them for the scenarios I've created.

Crew quality makes a huge difference in the game.

Good Hunting.

MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
MaxDamage
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2015 6:19 am

RE: Faith in the game.

Post by MaxDamage »

ORIGINAL: Stimpak

A lot of people don't get how huge of a deal thermal imaging is... having used them and fought against them in commercial simulators, as well as reading and listening to testimonies of people who have worked with the actual equipment, the sighting advantage alone decides a battle easily 9 times out of 10.

A proud company of T-80s can roll through the terrain with their heavy armor and big gun, but if they can't see that buried Chieftain platoon maybe even 1500 meters away, then by virtue of not being able to see what's hitting them, they're easy targets for the British.

I myself ran a series of tests to see the balance:
In all 3 tests, both crews are Veteran with equal (85) Morale and readiness.

-1st Scenario, 3 Chieftains and 10 T-80BVs deliberately move onto an elevated field and shoot each other at 3000 meters. Chieftains get the first shot but don't claim any kills until the second volley. All 3 Chieftains go down, while also claiming 3 of the 10 T-80BVs.
-2nd Scenario, 9 Chieftains and 10 T-80BVs are ordered to assault in each other's general direction over the same territory, starting at 3000 meters. Again, first shot goes to the Chieftains. Light rain begins, giving the British another sighting advantage. Notoriously poor Soviet accuracy takes it's toll on the T-80s and they lose 4 tanks before closing into 1500 meters, at which point they suddenly take out 8 of the 9 Chieftains while losing the remainder of their number in the process. That's a pretty good trade for the Russians!
-3rd Scenario, 9 Chieftains ordered to assault a position where 10 T-80BVs deliberately move onto and Hold. This time the Russians get the first shot! The first volley is an ATGM shot that immediately erases one of the 3 British platoons. Return fire destroys a single T-80. The T-80's second shot - guns this time, destroys 2 more Chieftains. All further British return fire is ineffective and the last Chieftain goes down at 1500 meters.

In armored warfare, the dug in and hidden defending force almost always beats the exposed, attacking, and moving (Thus imposing a stabilizer penalty, Russian stabilizers are still noticeably poor even in newer T-72B models) force, even if the attackers are larger in number. Historical examples of this were witnessed multiple times in the middle east and were taught to US commanders (A good video on this is seen here).

How tanks perform on paper just does not have that much influence in actual combat.
Otherwise superior Iranian Chieftain Mk. 5s were beaten by better trained and lucky Iraqis in monkey-model T-62s.
Even back to WW2, experienced T-34 crews could easily knock Tigers out of play.
US Commanders in Desert storm have remarked that they could have swapped equipment with the Iraqis and still have won.
T-34s have confirmed kills on T-72s in Yugoslavia.
Young Chadian soldiers beat out the entire Libyan military with just Toyota trucks.

You could throw an M1A1 at, say, a BMP-2. If that BMP crew has more training, readiness, morale than that Abrams - then they will find a way to knock it out. With their autocannon.

I firmly believe there is no NATO bias, if any at all among the devs at OTS. They have tried their hardest to represent a realistic, albeit heavily abstracted battlefield, and FPRS is still by far my favorite wargame. Never mind the heap of changes planned for Southern Storm, which will be amazing to see when it drops.
I cant really believe your 3rd test. Soviets never get first shot unless the NATO tanks emerge in sight at 2 or 1 hex and the soviets are in hold. Thermals give first attack at all ranges and even against troops stationed in high covered terrain.
Post Reply

Return to “Flashpoint Campaigns Classic”