Page 7 of 8

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Tue 7 May 2013 14:14
by Fri13
SaitoHawkeye wrote:When and where did the US test the original M1 against the original T72? I can't find anything :(


Sorry, not USA but USSR and Germany has done those, using shells what NATO used and same cannons (you don't need same MBT to fire same cannon to your armor).

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Tue 7 May 2013 19:04
by ericdude88
M1 Abrams could use a price decrease to 85, but it should not be just as cost efficient as Soviet tanks. The US faction was not meant to face premium Soviet armour head on, and Eugen reflects that well. After all it was a monster of an expensive tank IRL, the T-72B1s were like 5 times cheaper to make.

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Tue 7 May 2013 20:38
by REDDQ
ericdude88 wrote:M1 Abrams could use a price decrease to 85

Might be tough to do as it pushes a lot of tanks below that are worse but already with that price..

With new income system I think that prices of better tanks will rise to 180-230.


PS. Where is Tac Error with popcorn?

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Tue 7 May 2013 20:42
by Guggy
With many glaring irregularities in unit stats and capabilities, I think its a bit presumptuous to declare what Eugen's "vision" with any particular faction was this early in beta.

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Tue 7 May 2013 20:49
by Tac Error
REDDQ wrote:PS. Where is Tac Error with popcorn?


Image

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Tue 7 May 2013 21:04
by REDDQ
Tac Error wrote:
REDDQ wrote:PS. Where is Tac Error with popcorn?


Image

There :3

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Wed 8 May 2013 00:14
by Bastables
Fri13 wrote:
SaitoHawkeye wrote:When and where did the US test the original M1 against the original T72? I can't find anything :(


Sorry, not USA but USSR and Germany has done those, using shells what NATO used and same cannons (you don't need same MBT to fire same cannon to your armor).

Do you mean the Haide tests? weren't those were conducted with DM12 HEAT and DM33 APDSFS 10,5cm and 12cm vurses the NVA T72 M's (No ERA armour)?

http://www.angelfire.com/mi4/armania/ar ... T72M1.html

Hull was vulnerable to both HEAT and AP. Front turret was proof Versus DM12 HEAT and DM33 only started to penetrate at below 1500m ranges.

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Wed 8 May 2013 00:32
by Radioshow
Brutoni wrote:
tiago wrote:
Radioshow wrote: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!



Was not worried? That is why they spend more on weapons than in education , health etc?


Your twisting the words of his post. I notice a lot of people who are arguing for no changes what so ever to the game often do that. NATO operated trip wire policy until quite late in the Cold War. Due to this the strength of conventional PACT forces while concerning was not a critical component. Instead the capability of PACT to react in the nuclear scale was more important. This did change when policy went back to nuclear escalation in the hope that a diplomatic resolution could be achieved before convention warfare and tactical nuclear went to strategic nuclear.

The main part of this persons post was concerning balance. This is a game. We can argue the merits of cold war policy from each country and the respective military and who had the best strategic vision and direction (Arguably NATO as they won the cold war because PACT collapsed). However that is not the point. We need to achieve a balanced game.

Currently USSR is very close to being OP or IS OP. The selection of good quality units that out perform NATO with ease of "chaff" means that it is very difficult to stop a competent USSR player from achieving total dominance due to the limitations of game engines and micro management coupled with certain NATO strengths in the game (air) not being modelled particularly well with issues like those seen on the F-15 Strike Eagle and the range of air launched weapons compared to the godly BUK choice. Time will tell if we just need to get used to a new game but the sheer hostility and general refusal to look at balance changes in a BETA (the whole point of a BETA) from PACT players while moaning about things like swingfire ATGM's so they get balanced changed (funny yet another option to stop your tank rush reduced!!) makes me believe you just want to sit fat, dumb and happy.


Exactly Brutoni. If Fri13 had his way it would be impossible to beat PACT. NATO may have not been able to beat PACT in a conventional war, we will never know for that period. But to say you know for sure is arrogance of the highest order. Half of all this is speculation.
You want total realism for one part of the game, then throw it out for others. You cannot simulate everything in this "game" therefor you have to make compromises, approximate or remove features altogether.

If someone made a game where one side was completely OP you would never have any opponents regardless of whether or not it's realistic. Alot of this game is not realistic, but If you think it should be then oh my it better be.

And telling me a unit is ok to be OP because it can be killed is bullcrap. I have no issue with units being close to reality and the T80U being the best tank is fine. But there has to be parity in other areas to compensate. We should not have to use and co-ordinate every tool at our disposal to kill every tank.

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Wed 8 May 2013 00:34
by Gopblin
Interesting, so basic T72M is actually more armored than the game gives it credit for?
How does DM33 compare to say M829?

Also, I think the crew survival concerns, while important on the scale of the overall war (and extremely important to the crew!), don't matter that much on a game scale. While more wounded crew might survive in a Western MBT, it's not like they will be able to keep fighting after a 125mm penetration.

Best wishes,
Daniel.

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Posted: Wed 8 May 2013 00:34
by Bastables
ericdude88 wrote:M1 Abrams could use a price decrease to 85, but it should not be just as cost efficient as Soviet tanks. The US faction was not meant to face premium Soviet armour head on, and Eugen reflects that well. After all it was a monster of an expensive tank IRL, the T-72B1s were like 5 times cheaper to make.

The problem is that the M1 is a monster to pre 80s soviet armour but is really outclassed in capability and price by the 80s stuff like the T72B's or the T64B's which tend to start at 80 points. So why buy a MI when you'd be better off grabbing a Leo 2 or a M1IP/A1, or counter spam with much more cost efficient AMX's/Chiefs/Centrions/Leo1s.

As it stands the M1 is a more counter to low tier tanks (15 to 55point range 55/62) but still outclassed when confronted with cheaper 80s soviet tanks. So why not just get more Leo1, AMX that can at least outnumber and flank the 80s soviets while also dealing with 55/62s

85 80 points sounds much better compared to the 72B and 64B's.