M1 Abrams baseline

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3619
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Gopblin » Mon 6 May 2013 22:10

Radioshow wrote: This is an alternate universe, all units may not be that same as real world counterparts and PACT was not the military super power everyone thinks it was. They had quantity not quality.


That's a new excuse I haven't heard before!

You're saying that even though NATO wasn't OP in real world, we should invent a different reality to justify making it OP in game, whereas PACT should be some sort of North Korea grande?

And we should do that because... that's the only way your erotic fantasies of one Abrams roflstomping hordes of Asian untermenschen become possible?

Just wow.

Best wishes,
Daniel
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

User avatar
Radioshow
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon 18 Jun 2012 00:40
Location: Canada

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Radioshow » Mon 6 May 2013 22:18

Really? NATO is not OP, and never said PACT was OP.

But this is a game and regardless of reality it needs to be playable from both sides. And I beg to differ that the Soviet equipment should be better on every front.
NATO should not be better either. But from reading these post some people seem to think its ok to have one side supremely OP just because, well, they think they were in reality.

NATO had supremacy in deliverable Nuclear warheads and Solid fueled missiles(soviets had mostly liquid fueled), this is not modeled and is a reason NATO was not too worried as they were expected to have to nuke them anyway.

This is a game that only models some aspects of a greater picture. Some units like T80u's should be beasts, but not every friggin unit in PACT's arsenal was godlike!
Last edited by Radioshow on Mon 6 May 2013 22:36, edited 2 times in total.
[EUG]MadMat wrote:Radioshow is not a troll, he is our resident Doom Prophet.

Image

Michael
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun 21 Apr 2013 17:20
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Michael » Mon 6 May 2013 22:21

I can't speak for real world capabilities, but the basic M1 Abrams is overpriced, considering its somewhat limited in-game capabilities. It should be more like 80 or 85 points.

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3619
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Gopblin » Mon 6 May 2013 22:30

I'd say ATM, in large games, PACT has better AA, Arty, and slightly better MBTs. NATO has better air, infantry, vehicles, and more MBTs per deck. Large games feel balanced.

Maybe once low-point games become truly possible, some units will need to be reexamined - e.g. 8 BMPT aren't that big of a problem when there are blobs of 30+ MBT on both sides, but in a 1000 point game they could be very effective.

But at the moment strengths and weaknesses are relatively balanced, e.g. PACT pretty much lost all the cheap ATGMs that were its backbone in WEE, and 4 T80U aren't that big a deal when NATO can field 40+ high-tier MBTs.

Best wishes,
Daniel.
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

User avatar
Boogie Van
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4212
Joined: Fri 17 Feb 2012 03:45
Location: Some crappy North American desert
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Boogie Van » Mon 6 May 2013 23:16

Michael wrote:I can't speak for real world capabilities, but the basic M1 Abrams is overpriced, considering its somewhat limited in-game capabilities. It should be more like 80 or 85 points.


This is the point of the thread. I don't give two flying what you think its real life capabilities are, I'm interested in the tank being useful at its price.

The M1 Abrams, as well as the T-80 baseline, are kind of crappy when compared to the available tanks for about 1/4th of their price: the T-72B1, the T-64B, and the T64BM all blow these tanks out of the water, and are extremely cost efficient by comparison. If increasing AP to something closer to W:EE levels or better does not suit your tastes, then the tank should be made cheaper.
Last edited by OpusTheFowl on Tue 7 May 2013 05:36, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Language

User avatar
Graphic
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10587
Joined: Mon 30 Apr 2012 10:18
Location: Battle Born
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Graphic » Mon 6 May 2013 23:26

Fri13 wrote:
Graphic wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JJ700tVT_0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpdJuix5ndA


Funny, you must be a little self aware of how worthless your input is if you automatically assumed that was meant for you.
k

User avatar
Gronank
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2486
Joined: Tue 8 Nov 2011 23:40
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Gronank » Mon 6 May 2013 23:27

Well, you know, the utility of the armament is slightly worse and the armour is about the same as the BMPT so Im thinking a cost of about 50 would be all right.
Image

Bastables
Warrant Officer
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri 30 Mar 2012 05:49
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Bastables » Tue 7 May 2013 02:39

SaitoHawkeye wrote:
Fri13 wrote:T-72 (40p) vs M1 Abrams (100p)

Armor 11 vs 15
AC 3 vs 8
AP 12 vs 13
1925m vs 2100m
Does anyone see the bias?

When M1 Abrams was 1979 taken in service, it had 105mm cannon.
When T-72 was 1973 taken in service, it had 125mm cannon.


USA made tests with M1 Abrams against T-72 and it found one thing. It could not penetrate its front armor from any range. It was catastrophic as M1 Abrams was ~5 times more costly than T-72. Enemy had thousands of T-72 ready and M1 Abrams production was just started.

T-72 had top of the art stabilization system what was even better than in M1 Abrams (until Leopard 2 was taken in service with same but improved stabilization system than what T-72A used. T-72 problem was having a low turret).
T-72 was faster on rough terrain, had longer range and way smaller profile.
T-72 included as well a dynamic range calculator based distance traveled toward target (once you set distance it kept it running).
T-72 problem was it did not have laser range metering or it did not have thermal imagine system but only a IR vision system (but it was fixed in T-72A).
T-72 had only partial hunter-killer feature (TC could command tower to turn his target, but couldn't not fire the cannon or set the cannon vertical aim).

What we do have in game?
M1 Abrams can penetrate T-72 from front at max range, while T-72 needs to get below 1575m range to get 1HP off, when M1 Abrams gets already 6.
M1 Abrams is 10km/h faster than T-72
M1 Abrams has same size as T-72
M1 Abrams has "Normal" stabilization level, T-72 does not at all.
M1 Abrams has 3 times better accuracy. Having TIS would give a 1 AC more, having a laser range metering 1 AC more. But T-72 is not 2 AC lower, it is 5 AC lower.

And here we are, how M1 Abrams is so bad and needs +2 AP or 85p price range, while it was won by almost all levels a MBT what was 6 years older.

How about making M1 Abrams what it really should be? Don't try to transfer M1A1 effectiveness to M1 or M1IP.


Well, on the balance side you can buy 2.5 T72 basic models and swarm an Abrams all day.

The caliber of the cannon isn't as relevant as the ammunition in it anyway - I've not seen a source saying the original T72 gun is superior to the L44 Rheinmetall.

And the tests you speak of - were they not done in Germany, rather than the US? And on T72 models bearing composite armor, rather than the plane RHA of the original T72 Ural?

Plus, on the operational side you need to take into account that with 2 rather than 3 men and a much more complicated and cramped interior, it's harder to operate the T72 in combat conditions.

The T72A and B could be pretty scary, but the basic T72 had a lot of flaws and is probably fairly modeled. Though I do think 3 ACC is kinda too low.


I've pointed out why you've been unable to find a citation for an straw man argument you came up with.

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13579
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Killertomato » Tue 7 May 2013 03:03

Fri13 wrote:
M1 Abrams has 3 times better accuracy. Having TIS would give a 1 AC more, having a laser range metering 1 AC more. But T-72 is not 2 AC lower, it is 5 AC lower.


You think thermal sights and a laser rangefinder don't make that much of a difference? :lol:
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
katt
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4060
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 20:42
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby katt » Tue 7 May 2013 03:08

Gronank wrote:Well, you know, the utility of the armament is slightly worse and the armour is about the same as the BMPT so Im thinking a cost of about 50 would be all right.


~80 points would be better balance.

BMPT is currently an 85 point vehicle, tbh.
Last edited by katt on Tue 7 May 2013 03:19, edited 1 time in total.
Image
人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests