Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Faith in the game.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> RE: Faith in the game. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 12:00:56 AM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cbelva

I did some testing of the combat model this afternoon to check to see if there is any basic for the concern. I have been running tests for several years now on the combat model and so I just applied the same tests I have used over the years. Overall, I don't see a problem. I am checking for consistency when all things are relatively equal. I used the same map and position that MaxDamage used. In my test I used a company of T-80BV(m) and a plt of Chieftain Mk 11. That is really fairer for the Soviet than 3 plt of Chieftain against a lone Soviet company. In the test, with both sides having equal change of spotting and firing, the Chieftain would normally fire first and get the first kill--not unexpected. However, the Soviets would recover and take out the Chieftain plt after that. I noticed in MaxDamage scenario, besides the bad visibility for the Soviets, they were also walking into an ambush. They were moving up on a ridge where the Brits were waiting in defilade. The three British Chieftain plts were waiting on them and all three basically opened fired on the Soviets scoring hits before the Soviets could answer.

I also ran some independent tests on a different map checking for how the units faired at different distances. I also ran some test with Challengers for the Brits to compare with how well the Chieftains did. The distances I used were 3000, 2000, and 1000. At all ranges the T-80BV(m) bested the Chieftains. The Challengers had the upper hand distance. As they were moved closer together, the advantage fell to the T-80s. This is all in line with what I would expect and in line with the way our combat model has shown in the past.

Here the bottom line in all this. This was a war that was never fought and no one knows for sure use how these machines would have performed against each other. From day one we have had people who have disagreed with our model. That is ok, and we expect that and welcome it. Most of the complaint have been from those who believe that the Soviets were too powerful. We will never please everyone and thankfully we will never know since this war never fought.

mm whats wrong with you people? You re saying that its fairer to do 3 chieftain vs 10 t80bv?? do you realise that IRL t80bv is a world ahead of a chieftain. This is a complete BS i cant really take this game seriously, rather count it for ideological comic book cheering for NATO.

Tell me what magic allows 3 chieftains equal 10 t80bv? Democracy coating? Game stats seem to have no effect on outcome.

< Message edited by MaxDamage -- 10/29/2016 12:05:21 AM >

(in reply to cbelva)
Post #: 31
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 1:24:21 AM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 752
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: online
quote:

mm whats wrong with you people? You re saying that its fairer to do 3 chieftain vs 10 t80bv?? do you realise that IRL t80bv is a world ahead of a chieftain.


No, you're wrong sir. There are lots of relative problems and weak points in T-80BV when compared to western MBTs at the moment. Most serious ones are inferior FCS, and autoloader (forcing to use two-pieced shell) Rapira cannon is reliable until 1500m, but not at longer distance. Overall, both tanks would be very comparable against each other with their own pros & cons. T-80BV would never be a world ahead of Cheiftain. Battle would greatly depends on crew veterancy, and commander's ability.

quote:

This is a complete BS i cant really take this game seriously, rather count it for ideological comic book cheering for NATO.

I disagree.

quote:

Tell me what magic allows 3 chieftains equal 10 t80bv? Democracy coating? Game stats seem to have no effect on outcome.

Well, even though if that is true (of course it is not), it would be still better than "Stalinum" from some different game franchise, you may know.



You know what? I can kill all 10 T-80BVs without a single casualty of Chieftains. I can put smokes on my tanks, sniping those approaching T-80BVs from long range. Veteran crews would be much better at killing, with higher accuracy.

On the other hand, I had some fun with T-64BVs against Chieftains in Hells Highway scenario in PBEM. Get the marginal victory, and I managed to wipe out British guys from the highway and most of the city blocks. Managing 200+ tanks was not easy though. I agree that the learning curve of this game would be more steeper for PACT than NATO, but that never means that this game is totally off from real world. Actually, I think the data of this game is overally good.

What I wish to tell you is that the battle, and the war, is not a competition of which tank has better catalog specs. There are lot more than that.

< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 10/29/2016 6:30:16 AM >

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 32
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 1:27:54 AM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 7525
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
Okay, we need to back up to the very beginning of this thread. First thing is you data does not match the latest in game data. See the picture below. The Chieftain is 105 VPs and a 31 AP. Your data is old. Pre 2.06 old I think. Now that does not swing things to far off as the armour numbers are correct. I would suggest updating your game again because something is off and your EXE may be out of date too.

As for the shooting and results, what Charles was doing was eliminating the 2 extra platoons to look at thing one unit versus one unit. If the other two units were there for the Brits they would have fired as well and killed a similar number of T-80s. At 1000m both guns are very capable of killing the other tank. The Brits with better crew and fire control will gain an advantage in hitting over the regular crews of the T-80s. The T-80 has an advantage in getting a kill on a hit wit the better pen vs armour rating. HEAT rounds will be less effective versus both based on composite and reactive armours so AP is probably the preferred shot. Getting off the first shots is most likely going to the better crew with thermals. The better crew has an advantage in ROF and the "close" nature of the fight will punch up the ROF a bit for both sides. Once losses set in and readiness drops it really comes down to that first shot or exchange. Also another overlooked item in this is the terrain. We don't have "clear" terrain. It's not a sheet of glass with open visibility. Our clear terrain has a mix of rolling hills, trees, even a building or two. We just don't detail down to that level. It's mixed but not dominated by features.

IRL this fight would end the same way. The better, faster crew with better fire control is going to win the majority of these fights. We have no NATO or Soviet bias. In fact most people thing we have a Red side bias. Is everything we have in data perfect? I'll be the first to say nope, but it's the best information we had at the time and we are updating as better sources pop up. Is our combat model the end all of models. Nope, but it does a good job of getting things done in a manner we believe is realistic. Beyond that we can't help the results. The nice thing is the game is very open for modding so you can always go in a nerf or boost those thing you think are wrong and build scenarios to fight it out.

And now the side by side on the tanks.








Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Work on Southern Storm continues and we will hopefully have news about our new website and even whispers of Beta Testing soon!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 33
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 1:33:17 AM   
wodin


Posts: 9974
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
I suppose as long as your tank can fire a round that will penetrate the enemies armour it will then all be down to who was the quickest to spot and react..no matter how many years there might be between the tank types.
However just going by the amount of tanks I imagine 3 chieftains vs 10 T80BV may well in the first volley the Cheiftain crews spot first and react quicker and with good training could well take out a tank each before the Russains have got their sh#t together..then it's 7vs3 and I imagine things then don't start to look good for the chieftains.. just over 2:1 odds they will need some luck I feel.
Most likely best using hit and run tactics than slug it out..

< Message edited by wodin -- 10/29/2016 1:42:58 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 34
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 1:44:16 AM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 752
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: online
http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/8286-greek-tank-trials/

This would tell you the problem of accuracy of T-80s

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 35
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 3:07:30 AM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 7525
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
I think on thing that get's overlooked in a game like this is it's not just the machine. Having good toys helps, but there is a major player in the people that run the gear and the environment that everything is sitting in. The best example is during the Korean war and F-86s are fighting Mig-15s. The US get's it hands on a Mig and they run it out to Edwards (well Edwards later in life) and Chuck Yeager and another pilot take them up to mock dogfight to check out performance. Yeager tears up the other pilot in the Mig. They land and the other pilot says the F-86 is a superior plane. So they swap rides. Again Yeager eats the other guys lunch. The point; given relatively even equipment, the better trained fighter can and will win. The same thing is going to happen in the game. Regular NATO versus Vet Soviets, the pendulum is going to swing in Reds's favor most of the time. No magic. No bias. Just numbers trying to simulate an outcome.

Off the soapbox. Have a good evening folks and play nice with each other.

_____________________________

Work on Southern Storm continues and we will hopefully have news about our new website and even whispers of Beta Testing soon!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 36
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 4:08:48 PM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: offline
In Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army by Isby he gives a table that the Soviets' used for indicating the likelihood of an attack succeeding.

It gives it in terms of Tank to AT weapons per km of front.

The lowest it goes is for 5 AT weapons against 15 tanks and it gives the chance of success for that as 50%.

For 10 AT weapons against 30 tanks it also gives a 50% chance of success.

This is regardless of crew quality, defensive preparations, weather, vehicle sights or any other conditions: just pure ratios.

Hope this helps, B

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 37
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 5:30:19 PM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: battlerbritain

In Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army by Isby he gives a table that the Soviets' used for indicating the likelihood of an attack succeeding.

It gives it in terms of Tank to AT weapons per km of front.

The lowest it goes is for 5 AT weapons against 15 tanks and it gives the chance of success for that as 50%.

For 10 AT weapons against 30 tanks it also gives a 50% chance of success.

This is regardless of crew quality, defensive preparations, weather, vehicle sights or any other conditions: just pure ratios.

Hope this helps, B

In the game the chance to win 3v1 in the beforementioned tests isnt 50% but rather 5% probably. Also, this is in even terms meeting engagement and not attack.

To have a 50% chance to win in attack you will need ~7+ times more soviet tanks then chieftains, not 3.

< Message edited by MaxDamage -- 10/29/2016 5:31:57 PM >

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 38
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 7:18:13 PM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
I have a question about the "stealth" attack bonus. in the manual it is stated "The defender is also penalized if he has not sighted the attacker - surprise is assumed for the first few shots".

This mechanic plays a huge role in the game at the moment. My tests show that anywhere beyond 1500 m soviet tanks cant spot nato moving in an open road at daylight and perfect weather. Is this an intended behavior? This means 1500m is really a maximum range for the soviet tanks.

When advancing against nato tanks even if they are in the open, they just keep "blinking" in and out of invisibility possibly repeatedly getting stealth attack bonus (is this true?). They can be shot back at once for ~every two shots they do at you but they disappear repeatedly up until the 1500m mark (3 squares). At this point they stop blinking and can be constantly seen and attacked (possibly negating any stealth bonuses they ve had before).

Thermals allow auto detection of any soviet tanks in covered posture even in 80% terrain if there is no additional obstruction at the ranges up to 5-6km at day.

1) Is the stealth bonus applied every time a unit goes invisible and attacks again on the next turn?

2) With a LOS ruler you can check visibility for chieftain and t80bv. There is a percentage diffirence for hex visibility in favor of the former. I d like to ask what does this mean? It has better optics and magnification(lets ignore thermals for a second)? It has a better FCS? Does this number affect the final hit chance? (hit chance = accuracy*hex visibility?)

< Message edited by MaxDamage -- 10/29/2016 7:19:55 PM >

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 39
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 7:24:00 PM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: offline
Yes, I'm going through the closest I can get to 'real' engagements equivalent of what we're doing here in this game, and that's comparing to Golan Heights 1973, and running scenarios in FPRS to see if I can get a match.

From Osprey's Centurion vs T-55 there's some examples of engagement results, although they are just from the Israeli side so there is a chance of 'embellishment'.

Example 1:
A single Centurion destroyed 35 T-54/55 and 'numerous' APCs in 2hrs using most of the 72rds it carried, apparently using 1.5 rds per enemy vehicle destroyed.

Example 2:
An Israeli Centurion platoon (x3 vehs) engaged a Syrian T-55 Company (x10 vehs) crossing an MTU bridge and destroyed the Syrian Company 'in minutes'. Lets say 3 minutes, or x3 tanks per minute from x3 vehs engaging, or x1 veh taken out per minute by engaging Centurions.

Example 3:
Khalani destroyed x5 T-62s in 5 minutes, or 1 a minute.


The book also says that 70% of all engagements took place below 2000m, that Syrian tanks hit by 105mm fire were penetrated 50% of the time and that 'most' vehicles then caught fire. Let's say that 33% of hits on Syrian tanks caused a fire, or that x3 hits to get a KO? Maybe 1.5 rds per KO at close range?

Of Centurions hit by 100mm/115mm fire 29% were penetrated of which 25% then caught fire, or about 7% of hits on Centurions caused a hit big enough to cause the Cent to catch fire. That's approx 14 hits required on a Cent to cause a KO? Seems a bit high. Centurion armour is thinner than a T-55/62's but it is better protected in terms of ammo storage so maybe x6 hits per KO?

The thing for me is the rate of fire.

Defending Israeli vehs seem to have achieved a rate of fire of about 1 round fired per 20 secs, which is pretty good, using approx x3 rounds to take out a vehicle.

That means a x3 Centurion platoon could, at best, achieve a rate of about x3 Syrian tanks taken out per minute. But more than likely the rate of fire was much slower.

Reason for that is that over the length of a unit engagement covering hours the limiting factor to rate of fire was the number of rounds carried, ie they didn't fire like crazy but conserved ammunition. Hence Example 1 and that was done over 2 hours. Let's say Example 1 took out 40 vehs in 2hrs which is, on average, 1 vehicle every 3 minutes.

The thing I'm seeing in FPRS is that defending vehicles fire really fast with no real regard to conserving ammo. I also see that advancing tanks don't seem to fire that often, or not as often as I'd expect. Hence they don't wear down the defenders as much.

Setting a scenario in FPRS for 1973 but using Brit Centurions and Soviet T-55s or T-62s I ran an engagement of x3 Sov Bns (x90 tanks) attacking a x8 Centurion Company defending in a Town, not even in prepared positions as the Israelis were, with starting distance of ~3km. Brits running the Centurions were Veteran and Soviets were Regulars.

Some example results are:
x36 T-55s taken out for x3 Centurion losses in 13 minutes
x47 T-55s taken out for x4 Centurion losses in 34 minutes
x29 T-55s taken out for x5 Centurion losses in 14 minutes


I'd expect the T-55s to take losses, but are these losses too high? - Discuss....

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 40
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 8:48:28 PM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by MaxDamage -- 10/29/2016 8:51:41 PM >

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 41
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/29/2016 9:31:48 PM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 42
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 2:30:56 AM   
Stimpak


Posts: 466
Joined: 8/23/2015
From: BC, Canada
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 43
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 10:13:06 AM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Stimpak)
Post #: 44
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 11:58:24 AM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by MaxDamage -- 10/30/2016 12:01:38 PM >

(in reply to Stimpak)
Post #: 45
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 12:08:12 PM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: offline
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

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 46
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 1:59:02 PM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.ru/2016/02/t-80-gambol.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.


(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 47
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 1:59:49 PM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
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

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 48
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 5:10:50 PM   
Tazak

 

Posts: 1054
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 49
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 8:43:55 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 706
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline
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...

(in reply to Tazak)
Post #: 50
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 10:23:41 PM   
jack54


Posts: 1282
Joined: 7/18/2007
From: East Tennessee
Status: offline
Edit deleted double post


< Message edited by jack54 -- 10/31/2016 2:46:02 PM >


_____________________________

Avatar: Me borrowing Albert Ball's Nieuport 17

Counter from Bloody April by Terry Simo (GMT)

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 51
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 10:30:06 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 7525
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: offline
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!

_____________________________

Work on Southern Storm continues and we will hopefully have news about our new website and even whispers of Beta Testing soon!

Cap'n Darwin aka Jim Snyder
On Target Simulations LLC

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 52
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/30/2016 10:36:18 PM   
jack54


Posts: 1282
Joined: 7/18/2007
From: East Tennessee
Status: offline
quote:

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.


< Message edited by jack54 -- 10/31/2016 2:29:08 AM >


_____________________________

Avatar: Me borrowing Albert Ball's Nieuport 17

Counter from Bloody April by Terry Simo (GMT)

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 53
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/31/2016 3:22:09 AM   
Stimpak


Posts: 466
Joined: 8/23/2015
From: BC, Canada
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to jack54)
Post #: 54
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/31/2016 9:10:43 AM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 706
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Stimpak)
Post #: 55
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/31/2016 11:54:09 AM   
battlerbritain

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 11/2/2013
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Lowlaner2012)
Post #: 56
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/31/2016 12:24:52 PM   
Lowlaner2012

 

Posts: 706
Joined: 11/20/2011
Status: offline
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...




< Message edited by highlandcharge -- 10/31/2016 12:26:49 PM >

(in reply to battlerbritain)
Post #: 57
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/31/2016 1:01:02 PM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline
quote:

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!

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?

< Message edited by MaxDamage -- 10/31/2016 1:08:13 PM >

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 58
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/31/2016 1:14:14 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 13250
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to MaxDamage)
Post #: 59
RE: Faith in the game. - 10/31/2016 1:19:53 PM   
MaxDamage

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/3/2015
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to Stimpak)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series >> RE: Faith in the game. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.168