Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles

 
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] >> Armored Brigade >> use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/20/2018 4:13:37 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
hi... i just realized that tanks would waste an APFSDS round on a BTR or an m113... is there a way to specifically use HEAT or MPAT vs such vehicles as to not waste an APFSDS round?
Post #: 1
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/20/2018 5:19:03 PM   
varangy


Posts: 92
Joined: 11/1/2018
Status: offline
As of now, no.

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 2
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/20/2018 5:22:14 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
honestly that sucks... hey devs can you adjust the unit AI in order to do so? or at least to give the option to do so?

(in reply to varangy)
Post #: 3
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/20/2018 5:39:49 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 757
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Dusty town, somewhere inside central valley of CA
Status: offline
From SOP, use slow fire rate, and make tanks/ATGM vehicles never engages to soft targets, or use different set range against soft target and hard target. Use effective range from SOP, or use 'set range' upto proper distance to have good accuracy.

While we can't prevent the consumption of penetrator to soft skin vehicles, those actions would be helpful to save some ammo.

< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 11/20/2018 5:40:39 PM >

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 4
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/20/2018 6:21:49 PM   
Adam Rinkleff

 

Posts: 371
Joined: 7/24/2007
Status: offline
I've had some frustration with similar issues as well, although also some pleasant surprises. Like an infantry squad that wasted its AT rockets firing at a bunker, but then on the final shot they blew it up! So maybe they had the right idea after all. Some of your concerns could be alleviated by modding, I think ammunition levels are a little low, so its maybe more frustrating than it needs to be when your troops are wasting ammo.

Also the SOP options are pretty complex, and I still haven't fully explored them, so I think quite a bit can be done there to optimize your performance.

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 5
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/20/2018 7:19:23 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
ammunition being low is realistic however tanks should have the option to retreat to resupply in larger games...

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 6
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/21/2018 1:30:24 AM   
Werezak

 

Posts: 97
Joined: 4/11/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Adam Rinkleff

I've had some frustration with similar issues as well, although also some pleasant surprises. Like an infantry squad that wasted its AT rockets firing at a bunker, but then on the final shot they blew it up! So maybe they had the right idea after all. Some of your concerns could be alleviated by modding, I think ammunition levels are a little low, so its maybe more frustrating than it needs to be when your troops are wasting ammo.

Also the SOP options are pretty complex, and I still haven't fully explored them, so I think quite a bit can be done there to optimize your performance.



It would be nice if there was somewhat more sophisticated AI ammo selection so that the AI opponent could benefit from it too, though.

(in reply to Adam Rinkleff)
Post #: 7
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/22/2018 11:25:57 PM   
Veitikka


Posts: 1054
Joined: 6/25/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline
There has been discussion about this. Currently the engine doesn't categorize ammunition as 'APFSDS' or 'HEAT', or vehicles as 'tank' or 'light vehicle'. What we have is different levels of penetration and protection. In many cases the target is unidentified so there's no way to know its armor, without cheating. So how should this ammo selection algorithm work? Analyze all vehicles in the battle and use the best ammunition against 'strong' targets and the worst ammunition against 'weak' targets?



_____________________________

Know thyself!

(in reply to Werezak)
Post #: 8
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/22/2018 11:33:25 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
Hmm the engine recognizes CE and KE damage right? For identified vehicles It could fire apfsds against strong and heat against weak targets....

As for unidentified vehicles it might be doable to link it to the SOP that ways the player can decide what ammunition to fire

(in reply to Veitikka)
Post #: 9
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/23/2018 1:22:08 AM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 7534
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: online
It should not be a perfect numeric calculation. It should be a function of target identification level, crew training, and current crew state. Mistakes should be made, bad shots taken, to keep it a realistic simulation.

_____________________________

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 gbem)
Post #: 10
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/23/2018 2:40:36 AM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
Curious... should untrained crew more likely fire HEAT? Or just go fakit and fire apfsds... or even he for that matter?

(in reply to CapnDarwin)
Post #: 11
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/23/2018 8:14:57 AM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 399
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: online
Slow down, slow down.. And what about 1960s when HEAT was primary (and rare) AT round?

The system must be more complex than that.

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 12
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/23/2018 8:21:38 AM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
hmmm maybe reverse the situation depending on the era? then again the game starts at 65... at that point the first composite armor tanks (T-64) had already popped up

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 13
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/23/2018 10:56:53 AM   
PoorOldSpike


Posts: 224
Joined: 4/19/2008
From: Plymouth, England
Status: offline
In the real world tanks go into battle with an AP-type round in the breech as default in case they meet enemy main battle tanks.
This means that if they spot a lighter fast-moving AFV they simply don't have time to extract the AP round and load an HE round, so they'll let fly with the AP round.
In other words, they've got the shot so they take it before the AFV vanishes out of sight, and if Armored Bde tanks fire AP at light AFV's I think I can live with that.
PS- also, AP shells fly faster on flatter trajectories than HE shells, so they're more accurate especially at longer ranges, another reason for using AP instead of HE.

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 14
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/25/2018 5:28:30 PM   
PoorOldSpike


Posts: 224
Joined: 4/19/2008
From: Plymouth, England
Status: offline
Here's a screenshot from an AB game today which illustrates what was said earlier about how real-life tanks often can't identify whether a target is a tank or light AFV. My two Challengers on the left see enemy vehicles but don't know what they are, so they realistically fire APDS as insurance in case they're tanks, bless their little AI hearts..:)



< Message edited by PoorOldSpike -- 11/25/2018 5:30:14 PM >

(in reply to PoorOldSpike)
Post #: 15
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/25/2018 6:55:26 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
and what about already spotted BTR`s or M113`s? should my T-80/M1 waste APFSDS rounds on those?

(in reply to PoorOldSpike)
Post #: 16
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/25/2018 7:14:46 PM   
PoorOldSpike


Posts: 224
Joined: 4/19/2008
From: Plymouth, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gbem

and what about already spotted BTR`s or M113`s? should my T-80/M1 waste APFSDS rounds on those?


I'll run some tests to try to find out what type of shells the AB AI uses against different targets.
Logic tells me that in real life tanks can't waste time switching from AP to HEAT in case the moving light-armoured target has vanished from LOS by the time the HEAT round has been loaded.

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 17
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 11/25/2018 9:15:09 PM   
CapnDarwin


Posts: 7534
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: Newark, OH
Status: online
You shoot what's in the tube, then if there is an identified target or second shot required you can engage a softer AFV target with HEAT or HESH.

_____________________________

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 PoorOldSpike)
Post #: 18
RE: use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles - 12/16/2018 10:28:58 AM   
Mark Florio

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 12/26/2013
From: Connecticut
Status: offline
the SOP was Heat for soft targets but sometimes you had to fire the round in the tube first to clear it. Thus, you often would expect a SABOT first shot at BMP's for example, with load HEAT for the next round. We had 90%+ first round hit capability even at night and on the move w the M1A1.

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 19
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> use of HEAT/MPAT vs lighter vehicles Page: [1]
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

0.117