The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6731
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby molnibalage » Mon 10 May 2021 14:38

Long time ago I found this.
Of course anybody can argue about the values of the curve.
Image

Therefore I made a stat. calculation using the measuerd dispersion of the M392A2 shell based on hundreds of shots.
Here are the facts about the dispersion.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a031639.pdf

I considered only the 37 mil dispersion.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GJzwEbZkiWg/ ... ersion.png

This is the L7A1, the dispersion is liner up to 2000 m and just a bit worse above that.
http://www.kotsch88.de/tafeln/st_105mmheat.htm

Here is the result.
Image

The TARDOC values are lower because my model consider ONLY the natural dispersion of the gun. But in real life there is measuring accuracy and many random factors which lower the real first chance to hit. But the char. of the curve is 100% the same in case of the TARDOC and my calculation.

What is the point of this? The base ACC values in RD are insane comparing to what were in ALB.
Even in ALB the beset MBTs maybe had too high but at least ATGMs had a real range advantage and real CTH adtantage over tanks. This simply gone in RD.

IMHO the ALB far, far, far better represented the long range advantage of the ATGMs. Except the very old ones.
If you ask me the whole land based modeling of the RD is close to being garbage to ALB...

(Also the range modeling of helo ATGM vs SAMs.
But that is another topic...)

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6731
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby molnibalage » Mon 10 May 2021 21:22

30 mil vs 37 mil, chance of first hit.
0 aiming error against R = 1.2 size target.
Image

So this is why was far better the ALB. Only a very few tanks could achieve at 2275 range above 50% hit and only with very high XP
was serious the deviation. For example the M1A1 with 10 = 50% base ACC with 4XP (* 1.36) and 5XP (*1.60) calculated ACC.

Literally this curve should be the max achievable CTH. Because this is against R = 1.2 m size target with 30 mil dispersion. This is what is achievable in RL.

This would clearly make different the guns and ATGMs. The latter needs min. eng. range at 500 meter but they should have close to constant CTH. Because they are GUIDED. No ATGM not evne MCLOS should have smaller than 50% base ACC.

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby chykka » Tue 11 May 2021 04:29

Molni, Curious what you know about Unit size and how it effects hit rate? Does distance and cover even play into that or unit size is almost useless stat? Also, in testing it's a lot different than targets that are trying to not be spotted I am sure :)
What is the point of this? The base ACC values in RD are insane comparing to what were in ALB.
Even in ALB the beset MBTs maybe had too high but at least ATGMs had a real range advantage and real CTH adtantage over tanks. This simply gone in RD.

Yeah I agree. That's why Infantry Atgm are really twice as effective in RD due to survivalbility. The DLC and faster ATGM are actually decent but most don't have that high of AP. Interesting you bring up T62 was best atgm tank in EE and ALB. in RD it is pretty much the Dyna.
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6731
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby molnibalage » Tue 11 May 2021 10:08

chykka wrote:Molni, Curious what you know about Unit size and how it effects hit rate? Does distance and cover even play into that or unit size is almost useless stat? Also, in testing it's a lot different than targets that are trying to not be spotted I am sure :)

What is the point of this? The base ACC values in RD are insane comparing to what were in ALB.
Even in ALB the beset MBTs maybe had too high but at least ATGMs had a real range advantage and real CTH adtantage over tanks. This simply gone in RD.


In case of guns? I can calculate the CTH against any size of circular target which can represent the main size of the target.
This is R = 1.2 m on T-72, that was I used for the diagrams above.
Image


When the main size of a target is below the size of the CEP the CTH becomes quite low.
Because of this if I set R = 1.0 meter the CTH drop significally at long range.

The point that the whole RD is simply broken.
Guns are way too accurate, ATGMs are too inaccurate.

Just considering a single game and especially compared to ALB.

In ALB except a very few tanks even the 2275m A cat ones many times had only 6-7 base ACC. This is 30%-35%. Even with 3XP their CTH against large tanks was smaller than 50% at the edge of their max. range. As should be according to RL. ATGM units mostly had real acc advantage because with 40-50% base ACC or even higher (TOWs) at 2275 gun range they simply outperformed the guns as should be. Only tanks with 9-10 base ACC violated hard the physics.

While in RD a C category Leo2A0 simply more accurate than a ATGM. Than a GUIDED missile.
While in RL even assuming 30 mil dispersion the CTH is much lower against a T-72 size target.

Guns are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to accurate compared what should be the maximum. What you can see in the diagram is the possible highest CTH. Because this is the effect the dispersion of the gun + ammo. You cant avoid this. So not even a Leo2A7, an M1A2, or ANY tank in the world can't be more accurate than this.

Of your on trial test with specially treated munitions, new gun barrel and so and maybe you can achieve maybe 25 mil but this in to a real field capability. The doc what I linked shows the reality. 37 mil should be for that gun + ammo the requirement and many cases failed to achieve that...

The base ACC of ATGMs in many cases are simply laughably low in RD.
No ATGM should be under 50%. None. We are speaking about guided missiles. Even MCLOS missiles are fare more accurate than this but because of gamebalance and combat stress we can live with this.

Yeah I agree. That's why Infantry Atgm are really twice as effective in RD due to survivability. The DLC and faster ATGM are actually decent but most don't have that high of AP. Interesting you bring up T62 was best atgm tank in EE and ALB. in RD it is pretty much the Dyna.
[/quote]

In fact in RD the T-62MV-1 is the one of the best Soviet ATGM platfrom.
21 AP, 2800 m ant is is armored and can be used against anything with gun.
While the Sturm ATGM is 50CP with no gun, no armor, no machine gun and has only 20AP.
It does not matter that has 12 missiles. It has simply no chance to use it.

And the speed of ATGM is way to slow compared to how insanely buffed the speed of the vehicles even on terrain.
Best tanks get in range and almost instakill non armored ATGM platfroms. A tank with 60-70 km/h speed against 2626 m ATGM can fire with gun before the ATGM reaches its target.

Considering that in RL tanks very rarely moves faster than 30-40 km even on flat terrain the speed of ATGM and initial accel should be boosted to about 66-100% to RL. to compensate this effect. This means for ex the TOW 600 m/s. From 2400 range it should reach its target about 4 seconds.

If I knew how can be do simply by changing many stat values we can get a far, far more real AND balanced game that current.
The RD is simply so flawed that if I ever play against with WG it will be ALB regardless all of its shortcomings.

The ACC and range abstraction of RPG type weapons is also flawed in my eyes. Insane range and insane base ACC.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6731
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby molnibalage » Tue 11 May 2021 20:52

In short, it would be great if Eugen or anybody asked real experts before make a more or less high fidelity Cold War RTS.
Maybe it was just pure lack that ALB stats were far better what RD got.

But airplane loadouts also still quite funny in many cases considering RL vs reality and balance...

An so on...

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby chykka » Thu 13 May 2021 04:49

After all these years Molni, you are still making high quality posts. I never learned more about air to air missiles when I wasn't looking for it :D.
But yeah I agree with you. ATGM speed is too slow when compared to ground vehicle speed.. This especially is a big deal. I know Ranges are compressed and terrain is simplified. However, The terrain is not even off road. heavy vehicles don't feel as heavy as they should. Yeah they got a lot of tourque. But from standing still to some how seeing the glimmer of the ATGM over 2km away throwing it in reverse and getting the 54.5 tons of metal out of range of the weapon is just ridiculous. (Yes LWS are on tanks now) But again Tow is not even Laser guided. That is like Shkval on Ka-50 is however. But LWS will not allow you enough time to retreate out of LOS you need to pop smoke. Which should be a thing for tanks. Also to be noted is how stealthy atgm actually can be due to the range they can operate from.

I also agree with you. if ranges were scaled appropriate. Ground vehicles with guns would have a lot harder time hitting targets at max range. Simply because of size of the target and conditions. Guided munitions however, like ATGM can be corrected in flight to adjust for a moving target. Unlike APFSDS, you have to deal with drop, and potentially wind. Your own vehicle moving for instance. And even at high ranges even the earths rotation.
As crazy as it sounds you probably have the commander un hatched with one of these bad boys
Spoiler : :
Image[Making sure that any external factors won't effect the gunners aim. lol


I agree guns are waaay to accurate. Yeah at short ranges it would make sense. But with Soviet Doctrine of low down hulls and just the size of infantry. SD is hopeful there will be a time change in load swiching for HE and AP rounds but honestly autoloaders have gotten pretty good. But none of this always having the right round pre-loaded.

Also, Aim time. I am guilty of abusing this since EE. If a gun is loaded and your tank crests a hill, peaks from forest, or smoke. It finds a target and fires so fast. It's insane. This is unrealistic. If you are not in a defensive position how can you roll back and forth to the point where you can't see a target. Than back out of cover. Locate a new target. Put a round down, and hit that target in about a second or less. Just outstanding. It's like they have super optics, and the turret starts to rotate faster than the loader can clear the breach as soon as a target is spotted. Just not how real tank combat would play out. I know BMS are new technology. I am not sure how good and speedy they actually are. But I know for a fact Soviets would not be able to afford a high quality BMS in every tank from T64 to T80.

Also, helicopters. Vastly a big change could be made with ATGM increases in range. Helicopter sight lines, and buffing Radar AA vs Helicopters while giving Helicopters IR counter measures. It would make the game feel much more realistic. Give much more presence to them and make them assets to combined arms. As it stands now Helicopters kind of are an Extra. A back leg in defense, a way to pick off squads or support forest fights. But for open field operations they strangely don't operate at the same time. While tanks are doing a lot of the front line work. Slightly over represented where the weakness of a hull down weapon like a tank don't really show all that well in RD.

But I get it. The tank will spot the infantry in the forest. Because how can it not? lol
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6731
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby molnibalage » Thu 13 May 2021 10:47

chykka wrote:After all these years Molni, you are still making high quality posts. I never learned more about air to air missiles when I wasn't looking for it :D.


In fact I made the model for calculating the difference between the conventional AAA and AHEAD AAA.
It worked just as good as in this case if you have real data. I can share the result of the calculted Pk of the AAA CIWS :)

https://www.quora.com/What-is-your-opin ... 8462810626

The model 100% well explained why a pair of AK-630 is installed on Soviet ships while the Phalanx CIWS uses a single Vulcan gun.

BTW plant to continue the video series about SAMs on mine channel. ;)
(Militavia)


But yeah I agree with you. ATGM speed is too slow when compared to ground vehicle speed.. This especially is a big deal. I know Ranges are compressed and terrain is simplified. However, The terrain is not even off road. heavy vehicles don't feel as heavy as they should. Yeah they got a lot of tourque. But from standing still to some how seeing the glimmer of the ATGM over 2km away throwing it in reverse and getting the 54.5 tons of metal out of range of the weapon is just ridiculous. (Yes LWS are on tanks now) But again Tow is not even Laser guided. That is like Shkval on Ka-50 is however. But LWS will not allow you enough time to retreate out of LOS you need to pop smoke. Which should be a thing for tanks. Also to be noted is how stealthy atgm actually can be due to the range they can operate from.

Yes, especially how the cover is modeled in RD. A mech deck is simply impotent because if you reverse just a bit your tank into a forest weapons still can fire and unit in the forest still can be attacked but as you goes deeper just a but the max. range drops to below 2000 m. Gun instakill any ATMG platfrom. The only thing what you need to do is just go, fire, back, fire and ATGMs became useless... I know because I have experienced.


Also, Aim time. I am guilty of abusing this since EE. If a gun is loaded and your tank crests a hill, peaks from forest, or smoke. It finds a target and fires so fast. It's insane. This is unrealistic.

Plus the rotation of the turret...

Check mine video. As I can remember maybe I set 50% speed...
Fire, turret rotation and fire again. During move, such speed.
The aim time is too fast.
https://youtu.be/OiOBGKOETIM?t=67

In fact the whole pace of the RD is too fast. Aim happens with light speed and ACC values are insane. Everything instadie. In ALB this was not the case...

If you are not in a defensive position how can you roll back and forth to the point where you can't see a target. Than back out of cover. Locate a new target. Put a round down, and hit that target in about a second or less. Just outstanding. It's like they have super optics, and the turret starts to rotate faster than the loader can clear the breach as soon as a target is spotted. Just not how real tank combat would play out. I know BMS are new technology. I am not sure how good and speedy they actually are. But I know for a fact Soviets would not be able to afford a high quality BMS in every tank from T64 to T80.


BMS?

Also, helicopters. Vastly a big change could be made with ATGM increases in range. Helicopter sight lines, and buffing Radar AA vs Helicopters while giving Helicopters IR counter measures. It would make the game feel much more realistic. Give much more presence to them and make them assets to combined arms. As it stands now Helicopters kind of are an Extra. A back leg in defense, a way to pick off squads or support forest fights. But for open field operations they strangely don't operate at the same time. While tanks are doing a lot of the front line work. Slightly over represented where the weakness of a hull down weapon like a tank don't really show all that well in RD.


The modeling of helos currently is almost just as flawed as ships...

While in RL the best ATGMs outranges almost every IR and RAD SHORAD in WG universe now 2-3 km range SAM and AAA outranges or match with the 4 km range ATGM. This is simply insane.

Even just the possibility of the helo spam is funny. Comparing to land vehicles helos are rare and very valuable assets. While in WG universe a force many times uses more helo than land units.

WUT?????

The combat helos should be just as rare and powerful as fighter planes. They have very high range of ATGMs since the late '70s (4 km+ up to 8 km like the AGM-114) they can have RWR and dispensers.

While in RD even a f***** C cat Crotale brakes the whole game.
2800 m range for AGM-114. A Shilka can down easily the helo while in RL it got the 8 km to plane the AH-64A outside the range of the Osa-AKM and the 2K22M just barely could engage helos at 8 km...

As I played more and more with RD I found how broken it is.
Because of the insane land unit speed mostly using helos to moving troops is simply not worth is. In fact following a first land how many times moved the inf ANYBODY? I have never done it because mostly they simply die.

The real mobility advantage of helos over land units simply not exist in the WG because the too fast pace of the game.

Eugen created a more or less good engine but it was just a random thing that ALB was quite good. They simply ruined almost the whole conception by buffing too many units to insane level. While many of them simply was forgotten like the 105/122 mm guns. But viva le 120 mm mortars with their 10 sec aim time.

Faceplam

Even just by some minor exe chance + DB changes we can have a TOTALLY different WG. Which I would buy any day.
But what we got is a new nation DLC...

LOL...

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6731
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby molnibalage » Thu 13 May 2021 11:50

The lower CTH in ALB even with the "universal" ammo leaded many case that my tanks ran out of ammo.
This never happened in RD...

If we had AP / HEAT shells (50-50%) and lower CTH it would make more important te logistics and it would limit the insane OP factor of superheavies. In fact I simply do not get it why decided Eugen not to distinguish the AP and HEAT shells...
It made simply OP tanks with lots of ammo and they always have the right type of ammo regardless the type of the target.

Just imagine if a tanks would have only about 20 shells and at max range the hit ration can't he higher than 40-45% against a T-72 size target. Against small jeep the CTH is at best 30% or even lower.

I have a wet dream how should look what modeling values the units in RD to make it great.
It is very far from the current.

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3406
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby chykka » Fri 14 May 2021 05:13

A lot of good suggestions you made. ALB even had forced Veterancy levels. Unlike EE CTH was a lot lower if you are not paying for veteran units. If you want that high CTH in EE it costs you A lot of points and it's still lower like 166 for level 4 T80 Anyway. Yes EE and ALB I noticed way more enjoyable engagements. for reasons you mentioned. Also with units getting sniped on First hits from super heavies and tank Destroyers. You have engagements that look more like a poking match than a sustained battle. Unlike Alb and EE where fights can end in a lot more back and forth.

(Also the range modeling of helo ATGM vs SAMs.
But that is another topic...)

Spoiler : :
BMS = Battle Management System. Also many new systems like Russian Ka-52 are integrating across units. So for instance in a KA-50 in DCS you can mark and designate a target. Be it Ground target, Anti-Air, you can specify the target type and location. Send that information to near by units (other Ka-50). Which than a attack strategy can than be implemented as a unit. Kind of like how the flawed Recon system works in RD. Like every unit has a BMS and they are all light speed and all encompassing systems.

Even the infantry have them lol and antenna's powerful enough to tell the plane overhead the precise location and Identification of the units they are engaging.

The combat helos should be just as rare and powerful as fighter planes. They have very high range of ATGMs since the late '70s (4 km+ up to 8 km like the AGM-114) they can have RWR and dispensers.


in Game they are even more rare. How often do I never see an Apache or Ka-50 called out for support. Where it's a hell of a lot safer to rely on ground troops. (I have had games where I get good vision even take out a Tung-M with a Recce where than a Kiowa Warrior can come in and snipe tanks) But other than that the Helicopters are forced to take a back seat. Usually, Tip for some guys reading near commands to stop infantry from sneaking up on them.

While in RD even a f***** C cat Crotale brakes the whole game.
2800 m range for AGM-114. A Shilka can down easily the helo while in RL it got the 8 km to plane the AH-64A outside the range of the Osa-AKM and the 2K22M just barely could engage helos at 8 km...

Yeah, a Cat C Crotale is perfect example of why Helicopters in Wargame are just in a really bad spot. With Active Guidance. People seem to forget IR is a passive system and can be fooled. It works damn amazing when it does but again it is limited to shorter ranges and things like sun blinding and all the other factors that can mess with Passive sensors. With the advantage of being Stealthy +

Where Active Guidance like ATGM can correct for a lot of the errors of a passive system. Even correct errors in guidance and adjust the payload accordingly. If wire guided it's stealthy if Beam riding / Laser. It is not as stealthy.
Think Iraq war. The Apache Longbow., Literally from Way out of range from Iraqi forces US could Decimate them with Hellfire missiles. Not an extra 700m out of range of the tanks lol.
The point that the whole RD is simply broken.
Guns are way too accurate, ATGMs are too inaccurate.

Think back when Tanks could fire on Position a Helo. Remember those days. Because I do lol.
in EE there was no differentiation between IR and Radar. Only range. Somewhere along the line Radar became useless on Helicopters. Which is odd to say the least as it's a BVR system. Of which a Helicopter is much bigger than a bird and often if your mask angle is too high you don't get the early warning against planes anyway. An arbitrary balance for some reason. When everyone Spams IR AA and ignores Radar for the most part.

I think Helicopters like you said are at good price point for gunships. Could even be more for both Planes and Gunships. While increasing their Range of weapons, and potentially speed. in relation to ground units as a ratio maybe you are right.

Or the maps are too small or the roads are too abundant. Or the Terrain is too smooth and gentle. Either way the mobility of Helicopters and planes does not really become evident when every one of the maps are completely accessible to ground units with a couple of exclusions.

I think though definitely Buff Radar Range. Buff Air plane altitude. And Give helicopter ATGM more range. Limiting them to 2800m is sad. And frankly the hugest thing holding them back.

For instance in DCS you can engage targets at 3Km with Rocker pods quite Easily as Skval on KA-50 adjusts for drop and gives you a corrected target. Unlike something like su-25 where the Optics and technology were not there. Yet iRD pretty much overstates accuracy IMHO. Where Ka-50 and Apache are understated in Range.
Much like many Tube launched atgm from helo like TOW system. In little helicopters is not actually as accurate as Apache and Ka-50 due to various factors. There is reason US army does not use Tow missiles on any Helicopters anymore.
For Apache and Hellfire. I know the US is far more advanced in this. Even A10 is very advanced for optics and targeting.
KA-50 sure you can spot stuff 15 Km away if you are lucky but no way can you engage it. the 2.8km max range is actually more like the highest hit probability for something like a KA-50. Where actually anything less than 2km is actually worse off due to how much more movement your tracking needs to do to track a moving target. Where at longer ranges it's more like they are standing still.

If by comparison Tank gun ranges stayed constant. I'd like to see
Ground atgm at 3.25Km.
Helicopters atgm at 5km. Maybe nerf their AP a little for gameplay purpose.
Radar Ground to Air missiles at 4-8 km depending on system. excluding unicorn systems like Patriot and S-400.
While leaving rocket pods alone. Increasing planes speed and altitude maybe - low altitude bombers + ground attack planes. will get hit hard by radar buff but again that is what SEAD missions are for.

If new engine changes.
Infrared Protection systems for Gunships and expensive transports. Cheaper IR missiles and more readily available to squads. (yes)
Hard kill protection on ground vehicles (With limits)
Reworked ranges. (Increased stealth for infantry)
Improved Concealment system
Increased cost of exceptional Recon units
Radar Vision mechanic Where Radar coverage =/= missile range. A proper Radar system.

(with the range changes a proper Era system would add so much flavour think of the Su-25 I mentioned earlier with poor optics.)


again like we mentioned Ammo limitations on tanks. HE, APFSDS, and even HESH.

Also, Raising atgm range would deal with tanks being able to push into ATGM and snipe them. Again we don't want a ATGM camp fest either. But it's true a lot of the modeling is flawed. I just would like to see a situation where the presence or absence of critical assets such as Gun ships or Radar AA make a huge difference in the game pace.
I figure increasing Radar range would be a good way to allow ground units still get into range to engage. While buffing atgm range would be key regarding Tanks at 2200m just absorbing a missile and than killing the atgm unit. Or worse splitting to dodge or again rocking in and out of cover to expend ammo.

I think reducing Gun accuracy on tanks at high ranges would be great. But I don't know if Wargame scales with range all that well. The Base accuracy stat will impact the shorter ranges as well. Unfortunately that is where RD is at right now But to be fair at short ranges the tanks probability to hit is pretty much over 100% a lot of the times lol. To be fair Higher ranges on tanks usually means expensive tank and expensive tank means higher accuracy. Both of which pretty much scale their accuracy to the levels we see now. If you held Accuracy stat steady at 40% a tank with higher range would still be more accurate. It also has the advantage of having more AP and higher armour. Of which all the other tanks with 40% accuracy still would be same boat. Only difference is engagements would maybe not just be first hit . \
If your max range increases your accuracy also does. Which is an interesting thing where tanks at high ranges are typically the most accurate it's actually insane how accurate they are under max range. It's very evident in forest fights. Tanks almost never miss.

Or like your first post kinda eluded to. First hit probability is a lot lower than second shot. That would be cool as engagement lengthens chance to hit increases.Improving ATGM range as well only means at shorter ranges their accuracy would be increasing. Which I think would feel quite nice as long as max range is not hitting all the time. It's a max range for a reason as any further and it wouldn't be worth the shot. Like current max range makes it look like they could hit stuff at twice the range with an acceptable probability seeing the accuracy currently on Super heavies.
When the main size of a target is below the size of the CEP the CTH becomes quite low.
Because of this if I set R = 1.0 meter the CTH drop significally at long range.

Often a target will not present it's lower hull at max range. so a R=1.2m is actually very generous. Considering Soviet Doctrine of low turrets. The probability to hit under combat conditions with moving targets and max range and not fully visible targets. Is probably lower than the control graph you posted against stationary targets.
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6731
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: The flawed gun and ATGM modeling in RD

Postby molnibalage » Fri 14 May 2021 12:51

chykka wrote:Unlike Alb and EE where fights can end in a lot more back and forth.

Exactly. In RD even in a long range gun engagement almost everything is instaide.

It is also was quite a shocking experience that length of infantry combat is also totally different in ALB.
In ALB even militia was useful. While in RD anything which is not shock of SF is literally just a cannon fodder. Infantry cannot retreat in RD. Especially because of the insane gun acc...


BMS = Battle Management System. Also many new systems like Russian Ka-52 are integrating across units. So for instance in a KA-50 in DCS you can mark and designate a target. Be it Ground target, Anti-Air, you can specify the target type and location. Send that information to near by units (other Ka-50). Which than a attack strategy can than be implemented as a unit. Kind of like how the flawed Recon system works in RD. Like every unit has a BMS and they are all light speed and all encompassing systems.

Even the infantry have them lol and antenna's powerful enough to tell the plane overhead the precise location and Identification of the units they are engaging.

This is an issue in every game. The information spreads with light speed.

The ID capability of the units is also quite OP. Nobody can distinguish from 2 km+ a T-72A from a T-72B.
While in WG universe this is totally possible. Only in rare cases has effect the small uncertainty what the game models.

in Game they are even more rare. How often do I never see an Apache or Ka-50 called out for support. Where it's a hell of a lot safer to rely on ground troops. (I have had games where I get good vision even take out a Tung-M with a Recce where than a Kiowa Warrior can come in and snipe tanks) But other than that the Helicopters are forced to take a back seat. Usually, Tip for some guys reading near commands to stop infantry from sneaking up on them.

I simply do not use helos in 99% of cases. Because the air defense is simply OP against them. The only thing what helos can do in RD calling them as spam unit when the opponent has already lost. The 2800 m + range SAMs simply breaks the game as long as in RL 8 km long ATGM have also 2800 m range.

I can't recall when could use anybody against me a helo before I downed it.

It is also quite "funny" that the Kokon with 5 km RL range has the same range in WG as a 8 km range AGM-114. :roll: :shock:
Any yet Eugen simply even today make a new 100% useless DLC instead fixing things which means only some stat value changes.
Great...

Yeah, a Cat C Crotale is perfect example of why Helicopters in Wargame are just in a really bad spot. With Active Guidance. People seem to forget IR is a passive system and can be fooled. It works damn amazing when it does but again it is limited to shorter ranges and things like sun blinding and all the other factors that can mess with Passive sensors. With the advantage of being Stealthy +

Many SHORAD unit is modeled as plain bad without using the same standard...

2K22, 9K33 Osa, 9K331 Tor-M1, Roland and Crotale in RL use radio command guidance.

While the 2K22 and Crotale are immune to SEAD even they emit radio waves just as the rest. Just because...
The Osa AKM has the same optical tracking capability what the 2K22 has while only the Tunguska is immune to SEAD.
In fact the 9K331 Tor-M1 also can use optical tracking.

The game is filled with such nonsense and double standard...

Think back when Tanks could fire on Position a Helo. Remember those days. Because I do lol.

I do too.

in EE there was no differentiation between IR and Radar. Only range. Somewhere along the line Radar became useless on Helicopters. Which is odd to say the least as it's a BVR system. Of which a Helicopter is much bigger than a bird and often if your mask angle is too high you don't get the early warning against planes anyway. An arbitrary balance for some reason. When everyone Spams IR AA and ignores Radar for the most part.

EE is an old and very primitive thing. Compared to even just ALB you simply can't believe that EE is the predecessor of the ALB.

I think Helicopters like you said are at good price point for gunships. Could even be more for both Planes and Gunships. While increasing their Range of weapons, and potentially speed. in relation to ground units as a ratio maybe you are right.

Another funny point for the helos. Ground units are start and stop almost without transition while the helos moves without any acceleration rescaling. 100% idiocy. Yes, I knot it would look funny but insane fast GUs looks just as funny...

Or the maps are too small or the roads are too abundant. Or the Terrain is too smooth and gentle. Either way the mobility of Helicopters and planes does not really become evident when every one of the maps are completely accessible to ground units with a couple of exclusions.

Because of the pace of the battle the GU speeds are simply too high. On average maps units can reach the combat within 2 min. But this scarifies the point of the helos. Except opening moves they are worthless. Except recon and 15 man elite SF inf. I NEVER used them. These are time critical units but for general inf. they have simply no role. The transport is more expensive than the transported unit.

I think though definitely Buff Radar Range. Buff Air plane altitude. And Give helicopter ATGM more range. Limiting them to 2800m is sad. And frankly the hugest thing holding them back.


The whole AAA and SHORAD and long range SAM had to be rebalanced.

It is very funny that 20 km+ range SAMs can't shoot down planes before they use their 4-5 km effective range ATGMs.
Every long range SAM should make more expensive but much longer range.
An out of scale SAMs simply should be banned. My eyes on you Patriot.

Also quite funny that WPACT got the SA-3 / S-125 as an army air defense SAM which is 100% unreal. Especially the SEAD immune variant. While the SA-4/2K11 Krug simply missiles which in RL had such feature which made it close being immune against AGM-45 and only AGM-88 worked...

Also it is untolerable such range setting for SAMs that one variant simply has longer range against helos and one against plane.
Just because.
This is 100% stupid.
The range values have to represent the reality.

9M33
Helo 2800m
Plane 2275m

Osa AK
Helo 2450m
Plane 3150m

Osa AKM
Helo 2800m
Plane 3500m

How and why lost range the AK against helos? Just because...?
Things like this simply should be forgotten. This has nothing to do with reality. The kinematics of the missile was unchanged therefore not the range but the ACC has to be different.


the 2.8km max range is actually more like the highest hit probability for something like a KA-50.

If you say this regarding the RL range this is simply not true. '80s Sturm and many other ATGMs were in service in Hungary. 2.8 km range is a piece of cake even for a Sturm. The KA-50 and easily can hit anything from much, much farther.

If by comparison Tank gun ranges stayed constant. I'd like to see
Ground atgm at 3.25Km.

There are too many kind of ATGM in the game to set only a one range value for all of them.

Helicopters atgm at 5km. Maybe nerf their AP a little for gameplay purpose.

Just as above. There is a very huge gap between a Malyutka and AGM-114 to use such approach.

Radar Ground to Air missiles at 4-8 km depending on system. excluding unicorn systems like Patriot and S-400.


While leaving rocket pods alone. Increasing planes speed and altitude maybe - low altitude bombers + ground attack planes. will get hit hard by radar buff but again that is what SEAD missions are for.

In fact the unguided rocket and gun range on helos should be much closer just setting the dispersion what is needed.

Somehow the world of RD is shy to use low ACC value at long range. Somehow the cretors thought that advanced gun weapons are super accurate at long range.Just let use the 30 mm gun on helos from 2 km but set low ACC and have the same acc at 1525 m as today. And follow this principle on anything. Yes, long range fire is possible. Long range hit CTH? Nope, it is not possible.

If new engine changes.
Infrared Protection systems for Gunships and expensive transports.

If the current engine can set constant RoF for autoloader capable tanks it is not a problem to set different ECM value against IR missiles and radar missiles. Helos simply should get ECM value against IR missiles.

Cheaper IR missiles and more readily available to squads. (yes)

MANPADs are quite cheap. Only their range and HE value is problematic in many cases.

Hard kill protection on ground vehicles (With limits)

?????
During Cold War such thing did not exist.

Reworked ranges. (Increased stealth for infantry)

Yes and maybe yes.

Improved Concealment system

In ALB were much more cover they than in RD...

Increased cost of exceptional Recon units

Why? Compared to ALB even exceptional optics units are literally blind in RD.

Radar Vision mechanic Where Radar coverage =/= missile range. A proper Radar system.

In fact the range modeling has to be rethink because of longer range missiles. Currently if the launch happens at 7999 m for a 8000 m range against an escaping target the missile follows up to ANY distance. The kinematics of the missiles are simply not considered. At all.

again like we mentioned Ammo limitations on tanks. HE, APFSDS, and even HESH.

AP + HE would be just fine. The HESH was a so rare thing compared to other types which is not worth to model.

Also, Raising atgm range would deal with tanks being able to push into ATGM and snipe them. Again we don't want a ATGM camp fest either.

It would make useful the smoke...

I figure increasing Radar range would be a good way to allow ground units still get into range to engage. While buffing atgm range would be key regarding Tanks at 2200m just absorbing a missile and than killing the atgm unit. Or worse splitting to dodge or again rocking in and out of cover to expend ammo.

ATGMs with current modeling values are mostly fine, only the very old ones needs buff and all of needs minimal range. Simply the guns should return to ALBs level or even lower base ACC.

No tanks should have higher CTH than 40% at 2275m against a med size target. This has to be a hard cap against a stationary target from a stationary platform. Because this is the reality. With perfect aiming the best what can you get. The dispersion of the gun is a hard cap. Period. You can't avoid it.

I think reducing Gun accuracy on tanks at high ranges would be great. But I don't know if Wargame scales with range all that well. The Base accuracy stat will impact the shorter ranges as well.

ALB did this well. 30% base ACC with 2275 m range results with 3XP against a Leo2 size big target ~ 40% CTH.

The main problem that Eugen simply can't forghet such thing that 5% increment and 5CP cost step because it looks nice. But it has simply has no sense. It allows way too less steps. Or make the 30% base ACC at 2275 m range the new 100% and start scaling from this.

In fact the XP should have very large impact on aiming, reload and much less on ACC. You because you have elite crew the dispersion of the gun remains the same. But the process of the aim, decisions and every related thing what are XP based.

If you held Accuracy stat steady at 40% a tank with higher range would still be more accurate.

Exactly.

It also has the advantage of having more AP and higher armour. Of which all the other tanks with 40% accuracy still would be same boat. Only difference is engagements would maybe not just be first hit . \


The lower ACC and AP/HE shells modeling means the best tanks can't fight against close to infinite qty. of low cost units. Today a simple superheavy can block even a 500 CP blob with 100CP units. Because for ex an M1A1 almost instakill any T-72B, T-64V and so on which can impact close to 0 dmg. Even lots of ATGM units with smaller HE AP can cause a single HP dmg. But as dies units close their morale goes low ---> CTH drop below the gun.

LOL

While a superheavy tank has INSANE amount of AMMO and INSANE level of ACC and INSANE level of AP. And in case maybe, maybe the enemy can approach very fast all what the SH tank has to do perform a reverse. With can do it almost with full speed...
In WG it is almost impossible to chase the opponent.
LOL

If your max range increases your accuracy also does.

Nope. In fact it would be a quite an interesting thing to allow guns to fire above 2275 meter range just with larger dispersion and low CTH. ALB used this approach but I think today it was just a coincidence. Because best blue tanks harmed this "rule".

A tank with 30% base ACC 3XP (*1,26 as I can recall) against a med size target had 37% CTH. Which is preatty real. Even with 5XP 30*1,6 = 48% was not insane level of ACC. In fact i just bring what I calculated above. This is close the the MAX. POSSIBLE CTH with close to 0 aiming erro.

But in case 50% base ACC even in ALB you had issues. 50*1,6 = 80%.
Uh....
But in ALB such tanks were expensive and came with small avail. Even a 17AV M1A1 was not an issues for the 20AP HEAT especially if you could utilized the 2800 m range Sturm.

The gap between the best and worse tank was much smaller.

Or like your first post kinda eluded to. First hit probability is a lot lower than second shot. That would be cool as engagement lengthens chance to hit increases.

Maybe I misderstand the comment.

The single CTH is the same in every fire.
Just if you fire more the cumulative CTH increases.
So just because something fire again the CTH for that shot has to be the same.

Often a target will not present it's lower hull at max range. so a R=1.2m is actually very generous.

Yes it is, and even with 0 aiming error I get the presented CTH above.

If I knew how could be done I change and test some of my changes...
But I have 0 idea how can be modded WG RD.
I could make such a MOD which simply would mean a new game.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 38 guests