Posts: 59
Joined: Wed 5 Oct 2011 14:25

Re: Suggestions

Postby Looter » Thu 16 Feb 2012 02:17

I agree with socomseal, please allow the FOB to be resupplied for around 200 points so you can continue supply runs mid-late game. I dont really agree with lowering the amount of stars awarded though, I dont see why a level 8 player should not be able to have a very good deck?

Private First-Class
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed 15 Feb 2012 22:47

Re: Suggestions

Postby socomseal » Thu 16 Feb 2012 02:23

The reason why I feel you should get fewer stars. Is that, it removes the challenge from the game. If you can have a powerful deck by level 8, then what is the need to have levels higher than 30?

Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat 30 Jul 2011 14:17

Re: Suggestions

Postby DNAz » Thu 16 Feb 2012 02:33

socomseal wrote:The reason why I feel you should get fewer stars. Is that, it removes the challenge from the game. If you can have a powerful deck by level 8, then what is the need to have levels higher than 30?

To have many diverse and fun (Powerful or not) decks?

Posts: 54
Joined: Sat 11 Feb 2012 12:49

Re: Suggestions

Postby tals » Thu 16 Feb 2012 07:03

Even if stars did nothing people would still want them - level is everything :)

User avatar
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 136
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2011 10:25

Re: Suggestions

Postby animalshadow » Thu 16 Feb 2012 07:09

Few GUI Suggestions:


Here's an example of situation where this stuff is in need:
You have powerful ground recon, you put it in the bocage or little forest in front of your main forces.
All you need from this unit for now - forward observation.
So now you have to turn off it's weapon system and you can forget about this unit and if something happens and it will be attack by target in it's sight, unit will not return fire cause you have turned off it's weapons.
If there would be another trigger on unit weapons besides ON/OFF - it would be great.

This can help players with managment of rare weapon system and etc.


Here's an example of situation where this stuff is in need:
Everybody knows that moving by roads is faster. So if you need speed you use'em.
But sometimes you need force recon.
But that couldn't be done with ATTACK or MOVE FAST Buttons.
Cause Attack will use direct path and Move Fast will use roads, but your units will not stop to fire, they'll be firing on the way.
So, Attack-Fast Move button is needed in this situation.


It was asked on first beta, but still no answers(maybe I've just missed it) or progress :(
Please, add Ping button.
It's really hard to explain where you need your mate units by words in Teamspeak and I don't envy those who's only option for communication is game-chat OR if it's a problem to add such button add grid-layer(like in chess), so there'll be little sectors like A1,A2,...etc.

Helicopter airborne suggestion:
As far as I remember deploying units from helicopters was faster in first beta.
Now it take lot of time, especially if you have group by 2 helicopters, cause if first one landed it waits for second to land and only after that, infantry will be deployed from'em. So for now it's better to split your helicopters by one and land'em by one.
But anyway - is there a way to make fast rope?
Maybe for late modification helicopters only or as ability for special forces only.

Never apologize for being right!

User avatar
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2141
Joined: Mon 13 Feb 2012 08:40

Re: Suggestions

Postby Count » Thu 16 Feb 2012 08:22

Paradrop vehicles. ASU-85, BMD, Sheridan. These units should be transported by supply helicopters.
Swimming vehicles should swim.
Number and type of vehicles when selected multiple units. Units icons not enough.
Custom colors for allies.
Remappable keyboard.
Zoom to last event hotkey.
Key modificator to move vehicle backward.
Should be possible buy infantry without vehicles. If selected multiple infantry and transports Load/Unload button will force infantry unit to find nearest transport and load in.
Selected unit low ammo voice notification. Same for malfunction, critical damage, low fuel.
Proper 3D models for WP units.
Reduce stun/panic effect from basic AA guns to heavy armored units.
Change some WP objective names. Chariton>Hariton, Center>Caplya (often misunderstood with map center. Or move "Center" to map center :) ). Don't know why name Paul even there, probably should be Pavel.
First round loaded in to artillery unit after 1 minute (30sec, 2minute) after multiplayer game start.
More maps.

User avatar
diana olympos
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2357
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 23:34

Re: Suggestions

Postby diana olympos » Thu 16 Feb 2012 12:30

For chariton it is impossible, cause name ned to have their first letter the same in NATO and PACT...

User avatar
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed 15 Feb 2012 09:40
Location: Norway

Re: Suggestions

Postby Panzerspahwagen85 » Thu 16 Feb 2012 13:14

animalshadow wrote:

It was asked on first beta, but still no answers(maybe I've just missed it) or progress :(
Please, add Ping button.

There is one, it's just really bad and inaccurate

User avatar
Posts: 3939
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
Location: Slav inhabited Alps

Re: Suggestions

Postby praslovan » Thu 16 Feb 2012 14:04

C'mon people this is a suggestions thread not discussion about suggestions. Write down suggestions or stop clogging this thread. Mods make some rules, enforce some order in this anarchy... why do we have you here and your green font if not for that.

Posts: 16
Joined: Wed 15 Feb 2012 14:04

Re: Suggestions

Postby Skycom » Thu 16 Feb 2012 14:47

Thank you for your thoughtful replay, I have no complaints about the length. I however cannot agree with your conclusions.

First off I do not doubt the ability of Russia/soviet arms designers to produce good weapons, and I believe that a T80 with kontakt 5 and arena will give any western tank a fair fight despite being lighter.

The link about HE frag effects on armor was interesting, but it kept mentioning figures and graphs that I couldn’t see. I will note that each test was done with 50 or more shots on a target and the result was damaged via immobilization or gun destroyed, a mission kill but not a jack in the box explosion. Right now in game it takes 16 shots from a malka at range of <4km to completely destroy 4 heavy tanks.

One problem with this theory is the Yom Kippor war on the Golan heights. Besides the 4-1 tank advantage enjoyed by the Syrians, they also had 10-1 artillery advantage, and started the war with a 1 hour long barrage against Israeli fixed positions. The fixed positions were tank ramp firing platforms, designed to give the tank a hull down position and defense against shots coming from below the position, it provides no protection against shots from above. The Israeli’s won and had a 4 to 1 kill ratio with tanks killing 80% of the enemy, art/air power killing 10% and heat weapons the last 10%.

I think I may be stated my position on artillery poorly. I want either a return to the artillery system in ruse, where they could destroy everything except armored vehicles. Or for the developers to change the animation of the explosion to look like a cluster bomb and add a line of text to the manual about the ammo type and keep the current in game affects the same.

Your CIA link reinforces my arguments; it talks about atgm TOW having either a 50% chance to kill a basic t72 or 15% chance to kill an advanced model. That should mean that the tow should have an AP of 6. But it notes that the Tow 2, also ingame should be able to penetrate T80 so it should have an AP of 8-9. Pact atgm should also be nerfed kobra/shturm/bastion should also be AP 6-7. This will allow them to kill cheaper low armor tanks like weaker main guns, but correctly struggle against the newer high armor tanks, also like main guns.

Also note that my tactics of concentration or “balling” more or less fall in line with soviet thinking as quoted p21“they believe that a high density of attacking tanks can saturate the defense in any given sector.” A side note, I don’t have problems balling in the middle of the map as the Pact, since Nato artillery is too inaccurate to hit me from their starting location. I have smashed a number of players that spread out, with proper recon, this is called defeat in detail in military terms. See attachment for replays.

Here’s a website with estimated armor values of ww2 to modern tanks put together by fellow armchair generals who enjoy this stuff. Note that KE stands for kinetic energy (main gun) while CE stands for chemical energy (missiles atgm)

And then there’s Wikipedia which actually has the armor penetration values for most of the rpg type weapons, also of interest is that the accuracy drops dramatically after 200m.

Also note that polish troops are armed with the rpg2 and given an AP value of 10, when their actual penetration is about 180mm or 1/5 the armor value on modern tanks.

Rpg/atgm are like any other type of weapon, one is introduced that defeats known armor, so a new tank is made which is invulnerable to it, prompting a new rpg… and so on, all of this was mention in your link. The game should reflect this reality by having different AP values depending on the model rpg. For instance the rpg2 should have an AP of 2 and the rpg7 should have AP of 3.

To counter the new found strength of heavy tanks, infantry would have to rely on the time honored tactics developed and used from places like Chechnya to Iraq, you hit the tanks from the rear or the top.

I believe that the only reason people currently use heavy tanks is name recognition. There is no balance between heavy tanks and their counters because their counters are so numerous and a fraction of their cost. If you have a replay where heavy tanks managed to kill their point costs or some kind of theory that would make them worth while I would like to hear it.

All these purposed changes are so that heavy tanks can take their rightful place as kings of the battlefield, something the other player will have to struggle against and out flank to defeat, instead of the 600 point handicap it is now.

ikalugin wrote:
Sorry for the long reply, I will reply from realism point of view.

No, RHA penetration values for short range, unguided RPG is similar to ATGM of the same age, as those values are dictated by threats. So proper Rpg-7 round will also have good penetration.

This depends. If we scope this to real life, soviets will have a complete advantage (see the report attached), as TOW will be unable to penetrate T72/64/80 late variants, while soviet weapons would reap the M60 variants with ease. Also ATGM cannot kill inf. in game so you can use them to clear the ambushes (not to mention arty, as atgm needs to be stationary to fire)

This is ok, people should invest in lower tech armies if faced with spam (or work from ambushes or use arty/air power). Again it is within the overall framework of balance/realism thing. If you add in smoke you will be able to defeat non IR scopes tanks with ease by droping smoke rounds and driving T55/T62 into point blank range.

You can (and should) micro if in this situation (ie manually prioritize the T55 AMV). MLRS seams to be a good idea too (for a meat ball like this). Again, you can counter it with other means (from spawning expensive tanks). General balance idea is to get the tank that is just a bit better tech (this was mentioned many, many times). Also it is a good idea to move, as low tech tank have no stabilizer and atgm cannot fire on move.

They were against T72M variants (aka monkey models) with 70s munitions, without era or atgm, with complete air superiority, informational superiority. Even then a lot of those tanks (most of which weren't even T72 but earlier models) were killed with TOW from M2, not post cold war M1A2. The western perception of tech edge, especially tank wise within time period is incorrect, see attached articles.

No, as atgm were cheaper and in great numbers. Also it will destroy the balance in favor of heavy tanks.

You do not need direct hits to disable or even kill tanks. 105/122/152/155 guns have sufficient power to disable any tank in the period (especially Abrams, see the files attached) with the fragmentation, especially with radio fuse (ie set to explode above ground). Submunitions will be nice for MLRS but then it will be way too op.

You shouldnt keep your force in a blob - always keep a security detachment (reckon/antireckon) when moving fast on roads, when in combat - spread out. And yes, it is realistic as arty would kill any known, tight and slow moving/stationary target.

Yes this is silly but is made for balance. Otherwise MSTA-S will kill any offending MBT that tries to smash it and DANA will be one fast at spg XD.

Yes this is possible, but will make life even harder. Imagine being shot at with 4 MLRS onto your likely routes of advance/sectors? We can also remember BAT and other such things :). Still regular HE-FRAG rockets are powerful enough, especially when mass used (grad).

They designed to survive 23 mm munitions only in certain sectors. In general apachi was more of AT heli, and this less protected than Mi24 Mi28 and other heavy soviet designs and can be damaged by small arms fire (especially when concentrated). There is a reason why in combat pilots wear flak vest. And they do not fly in combat over 100m (in cold war scenario, not iraq/afgan), as otherwise irl Buk/other sam will get them with ease.

This is per player. I personally never runed out of my limit.

p.s. will post attached stuff a bit later.
win pact ball.rar
(38.37 KiB) Downloaded 22 times

Return to “Wargame : European Escalation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests