Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Beachball
Specialist
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue 8 Apr 2014 12:18

Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Beachball » Sat 21 Feb 2015 10:35

The range reductions for scale favour the REDFOR, and this is why I think so:


The Invar, or 9M-119M, which is fielded on the T-80UM was rated to have an effective range of UP TO 5000m [1]. This is portrayed in game as 2800m. So with calculation, 2800÷5000 = 0.56 x 100 = 56, or 56%. That means 2800 is 56% of the original range 5000m. So the Invar in game was decreased 44% to suit map sizes, and balancing and what not which is fine BUT when you apply the math to the Hellfire.

The Hellfire, or AGM-114A Basic Hellfire which is seen on most US attack chopper such as the AH-64A Apache, and so forth has an effective range of UP TO 8000m [2]. With the math applied 2800÷8000 = 0.35 x 100 = 35, or 35% of the original range which means the AGM-114 loses 65% of it's real life effective range where-as the Invar only loses 44%. WHY?... Why does the US attack helicopter get different deductions than the USSR tank? Why don't we compare these deductions to USSR attack helicopters, see if perhaps theres a bias?

The comparable USSR attack helicopter that's situated on par with the AH-64A is none other than the Mi-28, they both cost 130 points and both field an array of air-to-ground capable weapons. As mentioned above the AH-64A's main ATGM is the Hellfire which also previously mentioned had a reduction of 65% when scaled down to in game ranges. What did the Mi-28 get? The Mi-28's main capable ATGM is the Ataka V, or the 9M120 which is a series of missiles developed since the latter 1980s. The one featured in game is the original variant which has an effective range UP TO 5800m [3] This is less than the AH-64A firing the AGM-114A Hellfire but they have the same range in game? with the appropriate math, 5800÷2800 = 0.48275862069 x 100 = 48.275862069 or roughly 52%. That is a 52% reduction from the real life effective range to the in game effective range. Let me arrange this in a conclusive matter to place emphasis on the gross innacuracy

AH-64A Apache fielding the AGM-114A "Hellfire": Real life range: 8000m. In game range: 2800m (65% reduction)
T-80UM fielding the 9M-119M "Invar": Real life range: 5000m. In game range: 2800m (44% reduction)
Mi-28 Havoc fielding the 9M120 "Ataka": Real life range: 5800m. In game range: 2800m (52% reduction)

Why does the AH-64 get nerfed harder than the others? I thought this game was meant to be accurate?

NOTE: before people flock to Wikipedia ready to defend the Mi-28, and T-80UM I sourced information for the specific weapons fielding in game. The designations are different and the ones listed on Wikipedia would be the most modern.


[1] http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/ARM/atgm/ammo.html - Source in which information relating to the MAX EFFEC. range of the 9M-119M was gathered from

[2] http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-114.html - Detailed page regarding AGM-114A, and its maximum effective range.

[3] http://www.zid.ru/eng/products/90/detail/212 - Page which discloses accurately the statistics and capability of the 9M120 Ataka missiles series.

User avatar
Mark1157
Sergeant Major
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu 25 Jul 2013 09:11
Location: Classified
Contact:

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Mark1157 » Sat 21 Feb 2015 10:56

Standardization of weapon ranges happened. It's easier to balance AA against set ranges like 2800m.

If the hellfire range was increased, then all subsequent AA pieces would have to be buffed in range to compensate. Helicopters cannot use nap of the earth navigating in this game to their advantage. Because of this, all ranges have to be compressed and simplified. Most maps are relatively flat and an increase in AA ranges would significantly hinder older systems. There would be a point where the AA bubble would stretch half the map.

Also, you cannot compare TGMs with air launched Hellfires. There was not a deliberation at Eugen to buff one side in favor of another. There are plenty of underbuffed and overbuffed BLUEFOR ATGM systems as well.

Maybe in a future wargame we will have realistic ranges and engagement envelopes, however this is a game and balancing takes priority.

Besides, the 2800m Hellfire out-ranges most AA platforms already.
Spoiler : :
ImageImage

Beachball
Specialist
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue 8 Apr 2014 12:18

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Beachball » Sat 21 Feb 2015 11:11

So when REDFOR ATGM's can strike further than BLUFOR ATGM's (Konkurs M + Invar hitting further than TOW) It's called 'Realism'.
BUT.... When BLUFOR AGM's can strike further than REDFOR AGM's they HAVE to be nerfed for 'balancing' purposes.

User avatar
Mark1157
Sergeant Major
Posts: 278
Joined: Thu 25 Jul 2013 09:11
Location: Classified
Contact:

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Mark1157 » Sat 21 Feb 2015 22:27

Beachball wrote:So when REDFOR ATGM's can strike further than BLUFOR ATGM's (Konkurs M + Invar hitting further than TOW) It's called 'Realism'.
BUT.... When BLUFOR AGM's can strike further than REDFOR AGM's they HAVE to be nerfed for 'balancing' purposes.


Invars barely hit anything with their accuracy, and are only equipped on high-tier high-cost soviet tanks. Realism was never used as an argument for those ranges in the first place.

I would bet that two Bradleys w/ Tow-2s (even though they're slow) would beat a T-80U over open ground. A 70% accurate missile on a relatively cheap IFV w/ armor hits way above its weight.
Spoiler : :
ImageImage

User avatar
hansbroger
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sun 28 Jul 2013 03:45
Contact:

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby hansbroger » Sun 22 Feb 2015 00:59

Do not compare systems across types, helicopter atgms are scaled differently than ground atgms which are scaled differently from aircraft launched ATGMs.

This is done for game balance purposes to make them play better with AA systems, both aircraft and HELO atgm systems have compressed range scales (as do many missile AA systems). It's all done so the ecosystem meshes better together.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
Countess Bathory
Colonel
Posts: 2919
Joined: Sun 3 Nov 2013 14:09
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Countess Bathory » Sun 22 Feb 2015 03:32

Show us where the Invar touched you.
Image
Accept Roki Vulovic as your Lord and Saviour today and beware of the false prophet, Jesus Christ

Beachball
Specialist
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue 8 Apr 2014 12:18

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Beachball » Sun 22 Feb 2015 03:49

No. I hate the argument of being balanced as a reason for inaccuracies. If it was 'Balanced' the Mi-28 would have the exact same stats as the AH-64, but instead it's faster and has better weaponry. Why is hit and miss ? Why do some units get inaccurate stats and others don't. Considering both cost the same amount it just seems like EUGEN is trying to glorify the Mi-28. I won't stop here. I'm currently at university and will be doing a full analysis when I get home

Lord Helmchen
Major-General
Posts: 3887
Joined: Tue 5 Mar 2013 00:23
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Lord Helmchen » Sun 22 Feb 2015 03:55

Countess Bathory wrote:Show us where the Invar touched you.


Image
Image

User avatar
Rorschach
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4237
Joined: Tue 19 Feb 2013 18:57
Contact:

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Rorschach » Sun 22 Feb 2015 15:35

Not only are you comparing weapon systems cross platform (Aircraft missiles are scaled down much more than infantry RPGs, for example), but you are somehow constructing a biased argument out of the scattering of 'evidence' you've collected.

This is a game, not a simulator. Ranges are balanced as per the ecosystem of AA ranges, ATGM ranges, accuracy etc, so that everything has a counter.
A brilliant plan from the dirtiest euro-hippie: get US players to pay me for a game that I then show them how much their military sucks so I can feel better about being a communist.

User avatar
Grabbed_by_the_Spets
General
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40
Contact:

Re: Unfair reductions of range favouring the Russians

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Sun 22 Feb 2015 15:50

You say that Hellfires have a range of 8km, remember that Tunguska's have a range of about 10km.


Things are scaled down and standardized for simplification and balance, there is no bias towards PACT or NATO in either case.

Except Leclerc honhonhonhon
Image

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests