"Sins" of th Eugen - things which are forgotten...

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: "Sins" of th Eugen - things which are forgotten...

Postby hansbroger » Tue 21 Dec 2021 00:41

01 - Total inconsistency in ATGM missile range values vs air defense ranges.
+ availability of combat (or any helos)

I know every range value is abstracted in the game and compressed for air-SAM-AAA modeling.
But as made Eugen is plain bad.

TOW
RL 4.3 km
game 2625 m
vs
Shilka
RL 2.0-2.5 km
game 2800 meter

This is particularly annoying considering we have really great documentary breakdowns of how these ranges interact in modt cases (such as don't try to quick-draw with a ZSU-23-4 within 2500m but beyond that Pk drops below .2 for evading targets). Back when we only had 2450m/2625m ATGM's I always rationalized it as it being some kind of terrain abstraction, i.e. terrain did not allow target acquisition beyond those ranges but with ATGM ranges as they got late in RD I hope WARNO gets this abstracted a bit better. A gripe I may add is that SPAAG aim time never took into account factors like the 8-10s memory mode on SPAAGs like ZSU-23-4 etc. for target acquisition of evasive targets using cover, instead it treated each engagement like a completely new target and restarted the aim clock when in many cases helicopters were able to continue aiming on the fly via STABS.
See TRADOC Bulletin 4 on the ZSU-23-4
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA392785.pdf


----------------------
02 - ATGM speeds are totally inconsistent compared to each other and vehicles speed values.
It would be great to have a well set ATGM speed. Currently the 150 km/h (!!!) speed units simply can outrun a missile because they are so fast that moving outside the range of an ATGM.

The fact that roided up Malyutkas were outracing supersonic missiles like Kokons and Atakas was a highly annoying, especially for factions that rely on ATGM rather than gun power in the hi tier range.

-------------------------
05 - fantasy & unicorn units for minors

Pls. forget fantasy unicorn units for minor nations.
Minor nations should have cost effective units.
Currently to make them usable in A cat games YUG, FIN and other funny nations can have better weapons than US and USSR.

Amen. Every unicorn replaced something actually fun and quirky like a modern RR/FIST teams, innovative local modernizations and sheer mass that could have differentiated these factions and made them fantastic, if limited contributors in niche fields.

--------------------
06 - Total inconsistency in artillery modelling regarding dispersion and aim time.
Rocket arty has range dependent dispersion but tube arty does not have?

Also the dispersion difference between old and new arty is insane.
I can understand the aim time difference - which is also way too big -but I cannot that a 155 mm top tier arty at max range with corrected show has similar dispersion to a laser guided bomb is simply funny and 100% unreal.

Except 120 mm mortars and top tier arty every other thing is garbage. The whole 105 mm and older 155 mm arty. The 30 sec aim time is so high with so large dispersion that except 10 v 10 games with somehow static frontlines at least for a short time they can't be use.

I loved how the Sov-Bloc centralizing their computer controlled battery fire directing meant that PACT generally had to live with an aim time that assumes protractors and slide rules. I always found it a bit strange how little the automatic loading assistance on platforms like 2S1, 2S3, 2S5 got figured into the RoF calculations while M109... my goodness those things had crack crews.

I could have forgiven the 30s aim time if the 2S1/2S3 actually slammed rounds down range at the rate they could with their shell rammers and ammunition carousels but instead we didn't even get a meaningful abstraction of the difference between 105mm and 122mm howitzer ammunition, let alone an asymmetric difference in the volume of fire these semi-automatic loading platforms could send down range.

There was a selective bias towards actual tube accuracy that further pushed the already air challenged PACT into ever more reliance on unicorn protos instead of letting stalwarts like the 2S5, 2S3M/M1 and FROG-7 carry much of the strike load PACT/PLAN prototypes were forced to carry in RD. I really hope they do a more nuanced job of reflecting institutional differences in fire direction in the TOE and real RoF and dispersion for artillery (for example, the USSR might be slower at aiming but it is just as accurate and fires faster/larger sustained barrages than its quick firing NATO counterparts).

-----------------
07 - Counter artillery is based only luck

Nobody has time to check the flashes at very far from the combat to make a reflext counter arty.
So pls. make available on map to show arty launch or give a unit which allows that. Or something.
[/quote]
This is where Wargame with its unit variation could have really shined, bringing in counter battery radar vehicles which would place a time delayed indicator at an artillery firing site which would eventually decay (reflecting the diminishing accuracy of the fix over time). This would not be a huge leap as we already have ground reconnaissance radar vehicles in the REC section and it would have made the SEAD game a whole lot more fun as SEAD aircraft would double as a guardian of friendly artillery against these counter-battery radar systems.

It's a real shame that long range and IR SAM systems were not tied to dedicated radar trucks in order to enable them to engage at their full advertised range. Again that would have greatly increased the depth of the SEAD game, outright crippling systems like SA-6 & HAWK and severely degrading the engagement range of integrated TELs like SA-9, CROTALE and ROLAND. Again it would have created real incentives for active radar management and skillful employment of SEAD that could really impact games in a way we currently don't really see. I really hope they bring in more ancillary units like this as the unit sight mechanics of WARNO will really mesh well with visualizing the interaction of radar coverage with terrain and according restrictions on radar unit sight.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6768
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: "Sins" of th Eugen - things which are forgotten...

Postby molnibalage » Tue 21 Dec 2021 14:30

hansbroger wrote:It's a real shame that long range and IR SAM systems were not tied to dedicated radar trucks in order to enable them to engage at their full advertised range.

It would mean impossible micro to model these tings.


Again that would have greatly increased the depth of the SEAD game, outright crippling systems like SA-6 & HAWK and severely degrading the engagement range of integrated TELs like SA-9, CROTALE and ROLAND.

Roland has its own target. acq. radar. Crotale also has but on different vehicle.

Modeling the SA-4, SA-6 and HAWK like SAMs simply cannot be done otherwise as single launcher = radar equipped vehicle.
This is why I recommended to model them only on strat. map level in campaigns.
It would suppress the enemy air power or maybe it could down planes from a group.

This is where Wargame with its unit variation could have really shined, bringing in counter battery radar vehicles which would place a time delayed indicator at an artillery firing site which would eventually decay (reflecting the diminishing accuracy of the fix over time). This would not be a huge leap as we already have ground reconnaissance radar vehicles in the REC section and it would have made the SEAD game a whole lot more fun as SEAD aircraft would double as a guardian of friendly artillery against these counter-battery radar systems.

For counter arty the needed eq. shall be modeled I guess and some kind of automatization also should be allowed.

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: "Sins" of th Eugen - things which are forgotten...

Postby hansbroger » Tue 21 Dec 2021 21:49

molnibalage wrote:
hansbroger wrote:It's a real shame that long range and IR SAM systems were not tied to dedicated radar trucks in order to enable them to engage at their full advertised range.

It would mean impossible micro to model these tings.

I originally thought this as well but the functionality of commander units in the Steel Division engine made me curious if WARNO units could be provided with an alternative range scale much like what is done with the change in morale mechanics via proximity to a command unit in SD.

I think it could be possible with macros/suitable UI tools for managing grouped units (or at least worth seeing how bad the workload gets). Plus it actually provides a justification for a support deck (we'll see if that has a successor in WARNO) as it will require a player concentrating on said rear area micro to get the full effect out of their ADN vs this being an easy feature available to each deck specialization.

molnibalage wrote:
hansbroger wrote: ... crippling systems like SA-6 & HAWK and severely degrading the engagement range of integrated TELs like SA-9, CROTALE and ROLAND.

Roland has its own target. acq. radar. Crotale also has but on different vehicle.

My mistake. I could have sworn the Roland operated in concert with a higher order radar asset beyond the ~18km range MPDR-16 surveillance radar on the TEL. In the case of Crotale I think the concept holds pretty well, providing a rather short range engagement zone unless the battery is co-located with an emitting "command" vehicle, wherupon its range scale is amplified.

In WG-RD the 2K11 and HAWK were definitely beyond the engine mechanics but with the "proximity buffs" to unit behavior from "comnmnder" coded in with SD/SD2 it may just be possible to make them work in a more realistic fashion? I kind of want to see just how far that mechanic can be pushed.
Image


molnibalage wrote:For counter arty the needed eq. shall be modeled I guess and some kind of automatization also should be allowed.

This is where a RUSE style timed sector overlay mechanic would be an elegant solution. Spend some kind of activation points to scan a sector with counter battery radar for 5 min giving automated firing point indicators (on 8-10s delay) until the overlay times out. Could be balanced by AP and ability cooldowns.

I only wish it was unit based so it could be 1. LOS limited (best coverage may require proximity to the front line creating a safety+lack of micro vs coverage+benefit tradeoff which the SD engine lets us visualize) 2. Emitting target i.e. counterable by SEAD. 3. As a physical unit it can be locked into Support decks and require tradeoffs for that covenience of not hunting muzzle flashes rather than being a generic feature available to cherry picked non-spec battlegroups. (Maybe I just like the idea of someone not being able to micro a fully optimized ADN & counter artillery while simultaneously having bandwidth to micro frontline superheavies, jets and SF, forcing specialization and tradeoffs creates flavour)
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3426
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: "Sins" of th Eugen - things which are forgotten...

Postby chykka » Sun 9 Jan 2022 06:11

Hawk and 2K11 radar could be modeled some what abstracted but very possible without being complicated.
Honestly, lots of radar systems could be modeled with a radius, displayed.
Enables targeting within that range for units depending on that.

concept holds pretty well, providing a rather short range engagement zone unless the battery is co-located with an emitting "command" vehicle, wherupon its range scale is amplified.


Current engine no way, every unit os individual. It's probably trying to do too much. I'm not a programmer, and I don't imagine it'd be fun to program that. But a radar system would be welcomed indeed.
Image

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6768
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: "Sins" of th Eugen - things which are forgotten...

Postby molnibalage » Sun 9 Jan 2022 19:06

chykka wrote:Hawk and 2K11 radar could be modeled some what abstracted but very possible without being complicated.
Honestly, lots of radar systems could be modeled with a radius, displayed.
Enables targeting within that range for units depending on that.

concept holds pretty well, providing a rather short range engagement zone unless the battery is co-located with an emitting "command" vehicle, wherupon its range scale is amplified.


Current engine no way, every unit os individual. It's probably trying to do too much. I'm not a programmer, and I don't imagine it'd be fun to program that. But a radar system would be welcomed indeed.


The main problem that SP SHORAD is always can be considered as a single unit on field.
While in RL a Kub battery always would have 4 TEL unless the destroyed or can't move because of technical issues.

Only in such a special environment as AF in 1999 could happen that for ex. Zoltan Dani's unit carried only a single TEL. Because he judged well that simply was no possible to guide and launch more than one salvo because of the strong SEAD of NATO. So 2x missile + 1 spare on the 4 missile TEL. The rest was simply left behind.

But a 16 missile unit with 4 TEL and a radar would be quite a high cost thing with only a single target channel and guessing the current state of WG, with a highly compressed range.

User avatar
chykka
Brigadier
Posts: 3426
Joined: Wed 28 Nov 2012 14:55
Location: Canada, Alberta
Contact:

Re: "Sins" of th Eugen - things which are forgotten...

Postby chykka » Mon 10 Jan 2022 03:18

I don't imagine modeling every wave length and radar system viable.
Issue with that is something like the Nebo would just be either over or under modeled.

I do think Radar systems should be more integrated. The launchers and anti-SEAD tactics in wargame just are too abstracted from what it could be if Radar was a proper system. Although it risks creating real no-fly zones and would drastically hinder nations without mobile radar complexes for a game like wargame.

Unless of course they bring in some kind of other Early Warning systems and abstraction to the 'battle link' AEW could fill the gap. But it'd still maybe break things for minor nations which would be relying heavily on Air to Air interception.

Or create something much like RD Navel which is multi-national. Coalition wide. Ends up being fairly asymmetric due to doctrine difference between Nato and Russia. US Early warning systems have the edge airborne like P-8 Poseidon where Russia seems to have the edge in ground based systems. Although, most of it is classified. Ignoring propaganda, it's hard to judge the capabilities of these systems as little is known.

molnibalage wrote:Only in such a special environment as AF in 1999 could happen that for ex. Zoltan Dani's unit carried only a single TEL. Because he judged well that simply was no possible to guide and launch more than one salvo because of the strong SEAD of NATO. So 2x missile + 1 spare on the 4 missile TEL. The rest was simply left behind.

If there was a way to have Radar on for short moments. To spool up aim time, Then turn it back on again when prepared to fire. It could be the way to give such a system a chance against NATO SEAD.
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 23 guests