Faith in the game.

[MaxDamage]

Sometimes i just cant have faith in this game.

Lets take a simple example.

9 veteran chieftains vs 10 regular t80bv.

armor 25 vs 35
ap 29/42 vs 38/37/47
no reactive armor vs reactive armor level 2
etc

Now, these tanks cost nearly the same with ~74 vs ~84 cost. Chieftain's cost due to the thermals i guess.

If you try a test game with these two forces going against each other, chieftains always wil with 2-9 tanks remaining alive. (both sides 100% ready at the beginning)
I find this hard to believe. There is a generation gap between chieftain and t80.
For some reason soviets are gifted with low morale and bad training, too.

[Lowlaner2012]

Hi Maxdamage...

I believe these results are ok, due to the superior veteran crew rating and the thermal imaging system, plus the fact that reactive armor is not very effective at stopping apds rounds mean the Chieftains have the advantage in a fight with the T-80bvs...

What were the parameters of the test? Terrain, distance etc.

Cheers

[battlerbritain]

I'm doing something similar with a simple scenario of a T-80 Regiment attacking an M-1IP tank Co, 1985.

Terrain is near Hunfeld with M1s defending some villages with T-80s approaching over hills about 4km away. Terrain between villages and hills fairly flat and there's a couple of VP locations behind the M-1s.

I know the M-1s will lose, I just want to see how the AI plays it on both sides and what the losses are.

So far if the AI plays the T-80s I've had it lose up to 75 tanks before all M1s are taken out, or about 1:4.5 loss rate.

Playing as human controller and holding back, reducing exposure, the T-80s have had results of between 1:1 and 1:4 losses, ie x1 M1 to x4 T-80s.

I think the key is reducing exposure time.

Early days but interesting experiment never the less.

[Tazak]

there is no such thing as a simple example....what results were you expecting??

what was the situation:
weather conditions - TI would give the Chieftains a first spotting ability in poor weather
was it a meeting engagement or attack/defend
how much readiness was lost by each side before the engagement

you mention the chieftains have TI - this makes them the Mk11 upgraded versions which included the stillbrew composite armour upgrade (denoted by ACA4 in the data files) and TOGS gunnery system (which was used in the challenger 1) combined with a 120mm main gun makes them capable of destroying the latest (at the time) soviet tanks, the stillbrew and TOGS would in effect reduce any generation gap.

The morale and training differences are down the scenario creator but it is generally accepted that NATO forces have higher levels mainly due to the soviets using a conscript army stationed in poor conditions with limited training and equipment vs the NATO mainly volunteer armies with better training

[MaxDamage]

ORIGINAL: Tazak

there is no such thing as a simple example....what results were you expecting??

what was the situation:
weather conditions - TI would give the Chieftains a first spotting ability in poor weather
was it a meeting engagement or attack/defend
how much readiness was lost by each side before the engagement

you mention the chieftains have TI - this makes them the Mk11 upgraded versions which included the stillbrew composite armour upgrade (denoted by ACA4 in the data files) and TOGS gunnery system (which was used in the challenger 1) combined with a 120mm main gun makes them capable of destroying the latest (at the time) soviet tanks, the stillbrew and TOGS would in effect reduce any generation gap.

The morale and training differences are down the scenario creator but it is generally accepted that NATO forces have higher levels mainly due to the soviets using a conscript army stationed in poor conditions with limited training and equipment vs the NATO mainly volunteer armies with better training

It is a meeting engagement in absolutely even terms and at ANY range from 1000 to 3000m the result is no diffirent. And it is a very simple example where an obsolete tank beats a modern tank 9/10.

Stillbrew is steel+rubber combination designed to protect against t62 ammo. it is 100% inadequate for 1985 year technologies.

It is impossible for a chieftain 11 to be a better tank then a t80bv it is just nonsense im not buying it. I also cant agree that the training levels and morale levels should be like that this seems like an ideological dogma we have better training and morale.

And this is my problem with the game its just a turkey shoot.

[CapnDarwin]

Nor have we mentioned stability of weapon systems and who is moving. There are a ton of factors involved and setting up a "test" case needs to factor all of them in. Beyond that, one case will never tell the whole story. Units on the move versus well positioned defenders, even in mixed terrain will give the Defender a better chance to hit than the exposed moving attacker. Technology differences can shift that bias. We have spent a lot of time working on the combat model and it's not perfect, but it does do a good job of of hitting the outcome based on the factors at that moment. We will be more than happy to test out your test case scenario to see what is going on. Post it for us if you like. [8D]

[MaxDamage]

ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin

Nor have we mentioned stability of weapon systems and who is moving. There are a ton of factors involved and setting up a "test" case needs to factor all of them in. Beyond that, one case will never tell the whole story. Units on the move versus well positioned defenders, even in mixed terrain will give the Defender a better chance to hit than the exposed moving attacker. Technology differences can shift that bias. We have spent a lot of time working on the combat model and it's not perfect, but it does do a good job of of hitting the outcome based on the factors at that moment. We will be more than happy to test out your test case scenario to see what is going on. Post it for us if you like. [8D]

Noone is moving and everyone is sitting at 20% cover terrrain in hold.

[MaxDamage]

ORIGINAL: battlerbritain

I'm doing something similar with a simple scenario of a T-80 Regiment attacking an M-1IP tank Co, 1985.

Terrain is near Hunfeld with M1s defending some villages with T-80s approaching over hills about 4km away. Terrain between villages and hills fairly flat and there's a couple of VP locations behind the M-1s.

I know the M-1s will lose, I just want to see how the AI plays it on both sides and what the losses are.

So far if the AI plays the T-80s I've had it lose up to 75 tanks before all M1s are taken out, or about 1:4.5 loss rate.

Playing as human controller and holding back, reducing exposure, the T-80s have had results of between 1:1 and 1:4 losses, ie x1 M1 to x4 T-80s.

I think the key is reducing exposure time.

Early days but interesting experiment never the less.

Well ofc... 1:4.5. you can make it 1:45 easy. its just a single digit of a diffirence.

[CapnDarwin]

Max, what range was the test? Have you tried putting both sides to the same training and morale? Are the British all in the same hex? Weather?

[MaxDamage]

3000m test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65R7RiC ... e=youtu.be

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage

It is impossible for a chieftain 11 to be a better tank then a t80bv it is just nonsense im not buying it.

So then, the Centurions and Super Shermans the Isreali's used in their wars vs Soviet equipment lost all their engagements and Israel is now Arab right?

I also cant agree that the training levels and morale levels should be like that this seems like an ideological dogma we have better training and morale.

And this is my problem with the game its just a turkey shoot.

Is this a custom made scenario you created? Because the scenarios I created for the game have the Soviets with reasonable training and morale levels. Overall, if you don't count the best Soviet units their training and morale would not have been high. Their front line units would have been slightly lower than NATO nations; more or less.

Good Hunting.

MR

[MaxDamage]

1000m test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMRcHhc ... e=youtu.be

How cant t80bv see the tanks at 1000m?

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage

1000m test

How cant t80bv see the tanks at 1000m?

???

They see them. They fire and kill British tanks. Are you asking why they didn't spot at the exact same time?

Good Hunting.

MR

[MaxDamage]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage

1000m test

How cant t80bv see the tanks at 1000m?

???

They see them. They fire and kill British tanks. Are you asking why they didn't spot at the exact same time?

Good Hunting.

MR

Yes at exact same time they couldnt see them. They cant see the tanks at 1000m if they arent firing.

[Mad Russian]

Time to have a discussion about game design philosophy. There are various design philosophies in the world about everything. Gaming is one of those. In our little corner of gaming you have the extremes of all game to all simulation; and everything in between. We lean more to the sim side but still retain some game aspects to keep the game as fun as possible while making it as realistic as possible.

Our philosophy also heavily leans on Murphy's Law. There is a chance that nothing works as intended. For weaponry that was used in combat somewhere and we could get hard data for, that was used, otherwise we reduced the manufacturers stated results. We found that virtually nothing performs as advertised. So, most of the effectiveness in the game is conjecture. An educated guess if you will. Using as much relevant data as possible to make that 'guess'.

That goes for spotting units in cover, effect of whether there is a hit, the effect of the hit if you do get one, the weather, etc.

In your example, the two units are not equal. The Soviet unit moves up onto a higher level into the view of a unit that is already sitting there. That is comparing apples to oranges and if the British didn't see and open fire on the moving Soviet unit first there would be a real issue.

Hope this helps.

Good Hunting.

MR

[MaxDamage]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

ORIGINAL: MaxDamage

It is impossible for a chieftain 11 to be a better tank then a t80bv it is just nonsense im not buying it.

So then, the Centurions and Super Shermans the Isreali's used in their wars vs Soviet equipment lost all their engagements and Israel is now Arab right?

I also cant agree that the training levels and morale levels should be like that this seems like an ideological dogma we have better training and morale.

And this is my problem with the game its just a turkey shoot.

Is this a custom made scenario you created? Because the scenarios I created for the game have the Soviets with reasonable training and morale levels. Overall, if you don't count the best Soviet units their training and morale would not have been high. Their front line units would have been slightly lower than NATO nations; more or less.

Good Hunting.

MR

There is a small problem with this argument. It is not arab-israeli war or anything similar.
Soviets themselves were very discontent with fighting abilities of arab armies they assisted.

[MaxDamage]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Time to have a discussion about game design philosophy. There are various design philosophies in the world about everything. Gaming is one of those. In our little corner of gaming you have the extremes of all game to all simulation; and everything in between. We lean more to the sim side but still retain some game aspects to keep the game as fun as possible while making it as realistic as possible.

Our philosophy also heavily leans on Murphy's Law. There is a chance that nothing works as intended. For weaponry that was used in combat somewhere and we could get hard data for, that was used, otherwise we reduced the manufacturers stated results. We found that virtually nothing performs as advertised. So, most of the effectiveness in the game is conjecture. An educated guess if you will. Using as much relevant data as possible to make that 'guess'.

That goes for spotting units in cover, effect of whether there is a hit, the effect of the hit if you do get one, the weather, etc.

In your example, the two units are not equal. The Soviet unit moves up onto a higher level into the view of a unit that is already sitting there. That is comparing apples to oranges and if the British didn't see and open fire on the moving Soviet unit first there would be a real issue.

Hope this helps.

Good Hunting.

MR

Um no. We reverse it with the soviets taking the ground a few minutes before and what we have now lol haha... this is ridiculous. You can as well label the tanks t34. They still cant see anything and still take a horsekicked from invisibility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F0co4_ ... e=youtu.be

[MaxDamage]

Oops i ll remake it. it was raining this time. Wait a little.

[Mad Russian]

You have an entire company of British tanks firing. There has never been a time in the history of the Soviet Union when their moral and training could go 1 to 1 against anyone. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges.

NATO was designed to have platoons stand up to Russian companies. Use that scale in your testing.

However, if you think the values are too skewed you can always adjust them in the game and create a data base yourself.

Good Hunting.

MR

[MaxDamage]

There you go. I think you guys have a serious problem with your game. It destroys realism and gameplay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=965ROXI ... e=youtu.be