US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

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

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby hansbroger » Fri 7 Oct 2016 09:14

QUAD wrote:Also, BMP-2 fuel is inside the troop compartment. Overall BMP2 being more survivable and having equal optics to an M2 Bradley is literally the most absurd relationship in Wargame. The autocannon should be better, but the optics and survivability should not be at all.


Caveat, comparative "survivability" is almost irrelevant in a high intensity conflict in my opinion, the GCV/FCS debacle clearly shows that creating a survivable, resilient IFV is cost+weight prohibitive to this day. Simply put the Bradley is just as vulnerable as the BMP series to the spectrum of non hmg/small arms threats it was/is likely to encounter. More lethal yes, but the marginal superiority in survivability held by the Bradley pales to insignificance when the nature of the threats facing it is considered.

I would probably say BMP-1/2 is as survivable in a conventional, relatively symmetrical high intensity conflict (or simply put, both are equally unsurvivable). Outside of that I'd say Bradley is more survivable in all other types of operations and it's in these less traditional, assymetric operations with a narrower spectrum of less capable threats that the Bradley's superior protection really makes a difference.

Simply put, in a high intensity conflict, both IFVs are incapable of defending their passengers against a vast majority of the anti tank threats arrayed against them. In this the BMP's small size and signature is great because any hit with AT weaponry is likely to cause serious casualties among crew and passengers. The Bradley needs its sensors because frankly it's as tall as school bus and needs the eyes to see the enemy before they see it, hit it and write off most of the crew and passengers like in BMP.

Bringing up the location of fuel in the BMP is relatively useless anyway as any hit that reaches the fuel has likely hit ammunition ready racks and turned half the occupants into hamburger on the way there. The Bradley honestly isn't much better, once you get past the KPVT/autocannon class weapons any penetration reaching the crew/passenger compartment will be devastating.

That being said it would be interesting to mod good optics onto all Bradleys to check it out. I think it would work out rather interestingly
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2788
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby HrcAk47 » Fri 7 Oct 2016 09:41

wargamer1985 wrote:
HrcAk47 wrote:How does a 25 mm aluminium slab deserve 5 FAV?

What are "advanced electronics"? Details on the FCS?

Can you bear the fact that Bradley of the period was F-35 of the day - an expensive and useless stillborn only saved by the fact it no longer had to fight anything capable.

Firstly, even the basic M2A0 has far more than 25mm of aluminum, and a certainly better protected against most threats than a BMP-2. Secondly, while monetary investments in the Bradley were large, they eventually bore a product that is still on par with other top of the class vehicles, and is certainly not "useless."


Can we get some proof on that "far more" armor?
Note: RHAe of emotions is negligible.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

SMB Yugoslavia Retexture Mod, now released, v.1.0

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby Fade2Gray » Fri 7 Oct 2016 09:51

hansbroger wrote: "survivability"


Only the topic of just how tough Brads ane BMPs are, BMPs are rather notorious for not exactly having great crew survivability, and tend to explode catastrophically when hit. Brads on the other hand, while being big, have significantly higher crew member and passenger survival rates.

Don't get me started on what the BMP-3 does when it gets hit. The FRG dropped BMPs even after a serious retrofit for good reasons.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Fri 7 Oct 2016 09:53

hansbroger wrote:
QUAD wrote:Also, BMP-2 fuel is inside the troop compartment. Overall BMP2 being more survivable and having equal optics to an M2 Bradley is literally the most absurd relationship in Wargame. The autocannon should be better, but the optics and survivability should not be at all.


Caveat, comparative "survivability" is almost irrelevant in a high intensity conflict in my opinion, the GCV/FCS debacle clearly shows that creating a survivable, resilient IFV is cost+weight prohibitive to this day. Simply put the Bradley is just as vulnerable as the BMP series to the spectrum of non hmg/small arms threats it was/is likely to encounter. More lethal yes, but the marginal superiority in survivability held by the Bradley pales to insignificance when the nature of the threats facing it is considered.

I would probably say BMP-1/2 is as survivable in a conventional, relatively symmetrical high intensity conflict (or simply put, both are equally unsurvivable). Outside of that I'd say Bradley is more survivable in all other types of operations and it's in these less traditional, assymetric operations with a narrower spectrum of less capable threats that the Bradley's superior protection really makes a difference.

Simply put, in a high intensity conflict, both IFVs are incapable of defending their passengers against a vast majority of the anti tank threats arrayed against them. In this the BMP's small size and signature is great because any hit with AT weaponry is likely to cause serious casualties among crew and passengers. The Bradley needs its sensors because frankly it's as tall as school bus and needs the eyes to see the enemy before they see it, hit it and write off most of the crew and passengers like in BMP.

Bringing up the location of fuel in the BMP is relatively useless anyway as any hit that reaches the fuel has likely hit ammunition ready racks and turned half the occupants into hamburger on the way there. The Bradley honestly isn't much better, once you get past the KPVT/autocannon class weapons any penetration reaching the crew/passenger compartment will be devastating.

That being said it would be interesting to mod good optics onto all Bradleys to check it out. I think it would work out rather interestingly


The Bradley also has more side armor ingame so that kind of abstracts superior provisions for mount/crew safety. Still, the fact that the BMP-2 costs more points than the M2 Bradley ingame is ridiculous as well; the Bradley costs as much as an Abrams tank to produce, and the BMP-2 is much cheaper. Strengths of the Bradley, other than the TOW series, is just not portrayed.

imho, bumping all Bradley optics up +1 level and maybe marginal increases to side or top armor would be enough, though then all that would have to be done is to make their mounts actually viable via either giving out the M60E3 (plausible) or just buffing the M60.

A Bushmaster aim time buff or +10 accuracy buff would be nice as well.

Ofc these buffs would result in price nerfs, which is good because as of now M2A2 blobs are surprisingly effective, and these buffs would be an excuse to increase prices and reduce availability on the M2A2.

I also think that the BMP-2 having the same stealth rating of the Bradley is equally absurd, stealth rating for non VEH, non RECON tab vehicles should be predicated on audio signature and size, which would mean the BMP-2 should obv be sneakier than the Bradley. Though this opens up a can of worms.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby throwaway » Fri 7 Oct 2016 13:07

M8 AGS back to 50pts tbh

The issue with balancing gimmicky units to their strongest use is that they pay for their strongest use by being gimmicky in all other cases. M8 AGS may be worth 55pts in some optimal position but most of the time it isn't.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Fri 7 Oct 2016 13:24

throwaway wrote:M8 AGS back to 50pts tbh

The issue with balancing gimmicky units to their strongest use is that they pay for their strongest use by being gimmicky in all other cases. M8 AGS may be worth 55pts in some optimal position but most of the time it isn't.


compare ags to ikv series, it seems fine imo.

Also on Bradley; bushmaster has higher muzzle velocity than 2A42 and give or take equivalent penetration given equal ammo.

Changes: Bradley Series:
aim time decrease on Bushmaster

M2 Bradley Changes
"medium" optics//+1 AP (25 points)

M2A1 Changes
"medium" optics/TOW 2/+1 AP/ +10% 25mm acc, 5% stabs (30 points)

M2A2 Changes
"good" optics/no armor changes/+5 kph speed/+10%, 5% stabs 25mm accuracy (35 points)

Riflemen '90 gain M60E3 used by Delta with identical stats. There, now USA has a rock solid mechanized core that specializes in maneuvering and fighting at max range.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby throwaway » Fri 7 Oct 2016 13:29

Lowtier bradley price increases are counterproductive if you're trying to buff US, it's already hard enough to field robust fire support. I'm relying on m163cs more than on bradleys because there's just no cheap autocannon in the line. The m2a1 getting cheaper was a welcome change even with the optics nerf, as the base m2 is both expensive and unable to win against common autocannons without careful player intervention.

As for AGS, I can compare it to the far more useful vickers, but there's little point in between-coalition comparisons. Fact of the matter is the thing costs almost as much as a super m60 and doesn't do its job so much better that its worth enduring its low armor.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Fri 7 Oct 2016 13:36

throwaway wrote:Lowtier bradley price increases are counterproductive if you're trying to buff US, it's already hard enough to field robust fire support. I'm relying on m163cs more than on bradleys because there's just no cheap autocannon in the line. The m2a1 getting cheaper was a welcome change even with the optics nerf, as the base m2 is both expensive and unable to win against common autocannons without careful player intervention.


Rifles 90 with an M60E3 and Bradley's with faster aiming, more accurate autocannons, and higher AP are a combo that doesn't need cheap autocannon support. Artificially nerfed Bradley's are a gimmick because you build a fuckton of them just for the TOW2.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

throwaway
Lieutenant
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri 27 Feb 2015 21:23
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby throwaway » Fri 7 Oct 2016 13:41

If you're trying to fight 25pt bmp-1 and kafv 25 with 40-50pt bradleys, try norad with th495 instead. It will change your life and your opinion of cheap autocannon support.

40-50pt combos are not useless, but they're an entirely different niche that US already covers well with the tow 2 bradley. What US doesn't cover is the cheap buy that you send to fight off attacks or initiate pushes all over the map. Your proposal makes that aspect of the deck even worse.

User avatar
QUAD
Colonel
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013 21:17
Contact:

Re: US Changes: The Compiled and Proposed

Postby QUAD » Fri 7 Oct 2016 13:50

throwaway wrote:If you're trying to fight 25pt bmp-1 and kafv 25 with 40-50pt bradleys, try norad with th495 instead. It will change your life and your opinion of cheap autocannon support.

40-50pt combos are not useless, but they're an entirely different niche that US already covers well with the tow 2 bradley. What US doesn't cover is the cheap buy that you send to fight off attacks or initiate pushes all over the map. Your proposal makes that aspect of the deck even worse.


decks are balanced at coalition level, and USA has the TH-145 and even marines/SMAW/eyrx for that.

lack of cheap good vehicle units is also a historical weakness, just like accurate (within reason) Bradley's as proposed are an historical strength. I'm also proposing buffing Rifles 90 to be a Fusilier 90 analogue, with better MG but worse LAW.

Overall it seems your trying to mold a unit into an arbitrary role defined by the meta that said unit is just not designed to fill.
Mobile Units Operational :!:

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests

cron