You need to reply quote by quote it's hell to distinguish your lines from mine, this took me longer than usual to write due to that.
I listed the entirety of the Leclerc Series and Tranches as future reference for everyone out there, seeing most can't tell a tranche apart from another.
wargamer1985 wrote:Tranche 3: was the one intended for combat and deployed by the French Armed Forces.
And was made circa 1993, making it the most likely variant in game, and thus what we should judge the Leclerc by.
Actually I said that the Leclerc currently in-game must be the Serie 1 - Tranche 3 on my post. Production run for Tranche 3 started in 1992.
I also clearly stated stated that in order to fit the current timeline, the latest Leclerc tranche that could be added is the Serie 1 - Tranche 5.
wargamer1985 wrote:The Leclerc T5 added some armor, yes, but not nearly as much as you are inferring. If we are assuming the maximum armor load (considering this is a WWIII scenario after all) then we would see that the Leclerc has roughly 230mm RHAe against KE targets for the side armor (including skirt, wheels, and side chassis armor). Against HEAT it is raised to ~350mm RHAe, which means roughly ~10 side armor (230/30 = 7.67 = ~8.0, 350/30 = 11.67 = ~12.0.). But, the Leopard 2A5 also has similar protection on the side hull (~250mm hull KE, 340mm HEAT) and thus both vehicles would deserve the same side armor (disregarding the side of the turret as it doesn't seem to account for armor ratings in game).
So you agree with me Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 5: 24 AP (+2 AP ( OFL 120 F2) & 9 (+2) side armour for 180 points. I would explain the reasoning behind the extra 2 AP shortly.
Then I continued listing Series 2 and 3 for further reference. Not as a suggestion for these variants to be added to Wargame: Red Dragon. Again I was clear on that don't know why you tough otherwise.
wargamer1985 wrote:Even if we are using the OFL 120 F2, it would have ~1 AP less, since the OFL 120 F2 defeats 690mm RHAe @ 2km, while the DM53 (when fired from the L44) defeats 720mm RHAe.
My bad I meant DM43, that's on me I made a typo and wrote DM53. The DM53 is way OOTF with a 2000 introduction date. hence no MBT should use it in Wargame: Red Dragon.
OFL120 F1 (also know as LKE1 DM43) : introduced in 1994. Defeats 600mm mm RHAe @ 2km.
This would be the ammo used by the current Leclerc Tranche 3. Same ammo used by Leopard 2A5.
OFL 120 F2 (Depleted Uranium): introduced in 1996. Defeats 690mm RHAe @ 2km
This would be the ammo used by the Serie 1 - Tranche 5, hence the extra 2 AP.
Consequently the Leclerc's ammo is equivalent to the Leopard 2A5 ammo, and neither of these rounds are OOTF for prototypes.
Add to that the fact the Leclerc's cannon has more muzzle energy due to being longer (52 calibers), so there's no way I'm going to believe anyone saying the Leclerc should have worse AP than the Leopard 2A5.
Hell if we're talking OFL 120 F2, it should have higher AP than the Leopard 2A5, but that's not the ammo the Leclerc Tranche 3 would be using but a Leclerc Tranche 5.
wargamer1985 wrote:The Leclerc would have 2 AV less than the Leopard 2A5 (on the frontal arc) and 1 less AP, but it would have superior accuracy, stabilizer and ROF.
Again, Leclerc should never have less AP than Leo2A5.
How can the Leclerc have the superior accuracy and stabilizers it rightfully deserves in-game with all this goddamn accuracy creep 160+ points Blufor MBTs benefit from?!
Isn't it like 60% to 70% acc MBTs getting 95% first hit chance at elite vet?
Only way to implement this would be by nerfing every other MBT stabs and accuracy by 5%, with the exception of the M1A2 and the 1998
About the armour I've read opinions that the Leopard 2A5 "seems" to have slightly better frontal armour, but never saw any concrete proof backed by certified yet public data. This is more speculation than fact. The Tranche 3 was quite less armoured than the Leopard 2 especially at the sides and top, that's for granted but not the front.
A Leclerc Tranche 3 with 19 front AV?! No, 1 less AV than the Leopard 2A5 is about right.
Me Frencho "I don't know where you get that bullshit about the in game Leclerc using IRIS FCOS from 1997-2003, but the in-game Leclerc is using the excellent ATHOS FCS it came with when it was unveiled in 1991. Best FCOS at the time thermal, night-vision, laser range-finder up to 14x or 20x, semi-auto trackers for quick target acquisition, you name it."
Your reply Wargamer 85 Who are you directing this argument to? Seeing as above you insult me I would assume it is me, but I make no claim about the IRIS system being inferior to anything AT ALL.
What you (wrongly) said earlier in this thread about the Athos FCOS being OOT and 21st century, or either suggesting the Leclerc in-game is using OOTF Iris FCOS:
wargamer1985 wrote:[...]currently its ammunition is over modelled, because it is using OOTF ammunition to achieve 22AP.
Now, I would support the Leclerc getting an extra card, but I cannot support it getting a further buff to its stats, as of now it is using OOTF ammunition, FCS, and armor, and sure that's fine for the sake of balance but suggesting buffs for it and using reality as your evidence is quite ironic considering how unrealistic the tank is currently portrayed, if we were going off of realism it would have 19 FAV and 20 AP, but with 13 RPM. It would essentially be a faster ROF, more accurate, and better stabilized version of the Leopard 2A4, and thus could also go down to 145 points. If we are going to give the Leclerc special consideration we must also give other MBT the same luxury.
wargamer1985 wrote:I am talking T-72Bs, which would also be four times cheaper than a Leclerc and would be using the 3BM-42 "Mango" (19 AP) or 3BM-32 "Vants" (20 AP), and the Leclerc would have 19 AV and 20 AP, do you really want to go full realism? Gameplay comes before realism in Wargame, Eugen tries to address as much of the balance concerns while striving to be realistic but some choices must be made for the game, like giving North Korea the T-90S. Fact is, Eugen also bended the rules for the Leclerc, by giving it ammunition from the 21st century and a FCS from the same time period. You should be thankful for that, because if Eugen didn't France would lack any contender with most "super" MBTs.
Eugen bended no rules for the Leclerc, the French devs actually gimped it for the better part of the last year and a half, when comparing it to the reality. So much for French Bias
Both the ammo, armour modules and FCOS it's using in RD are well within the timeline for prototypes.
Yet we have MBTs from 1996-1998 for a select few and no one is up in arms calling them over-modelled hmm...
wargamer1985 wrote:It still does have strategic value due to its low weight for an MBT of its class.
At 50 tons, maybe 40-45 tons if naked, the Leclerc still can't be airlifted by the Atlas A400M.
That program had so many cost overruns and the current European fleet is notorious for reliability issues due to assembly flaws, see Seville crash, Spain, the UK and Germany grounded their A400M fleet last year for extensive inspection.
France has the largest fleet 12 or 14, currently deployed and the FrAF never had the occasion to ground them because we were engaged in 4 different Operations. So I would not load anything heavy and expensive like a Caesars or VCBIs inside of an Airbus A400M until the French heavy lift fleet gets a break and is thoroughly inspected for assembly faults.
If we're talking ships, for the same travel tonnage (freight) you might be able to load an extra Leclerc or two compared to M1A2s or Challenger 2s.
wargamer1985 wrote:I do not think anyone here on these forums are saying the Leclerc is crap, overmodelled for the timeframe variant? Maybe, but even then it is still a good tank.
I've seen such claims on a few older Leclerc or French deck threads since the last year and a half I've been active on the forums, mostly fanboys, bigots or trolls.
But then your suggestions to have the Leclerc under-modelled with 19 AV & 20 AP is basically a veiled attempt at calling it a crap tank. All in complete disconnect to it's real life performance.
The Leclerc is in the same caliber as the Leopard 2A5, the Kyu Maru and the T90s not any less.
Therefore I strongly disagree, the Leclerc is not over-modelled at all.
wargamer1985 wrote:I disagree entirely, the more we move to the modern setting the Cold War setting has less influence, which is something I think would harm this game. 1984 is the perfect time period IMHO and I think we should move the setting back instead of forward.
I'm talking about the current Wargame: Red Dragon RTT we actually play right now. And the majority of competitive units are post 1989.
So instead of pretending this is still a historically strict Cold War era game, lets embrace the alternate 1995 timeline.
Just like you I'm 100% on board for the next Wargame being strictly 1985-1989, but that's not the timeline Red Dragon was designed for when it comes to multiplayer.
Dragons and East Germany need even more OOTF stuff and over-modelling the be competitive.TL;DRBottom line; my proposal for a realistic Leclerc Serie 1 - Tranche 3 would be as follows:updated
Front AV: 21
Side AV: 7
Back AV: 3
Top AV: 3
AP : 23
(+1) so we can field one more as National French Deck. Is it possible or does the code refuse it?
Let's look at the competition: You get 1 card of 4 Challengers 2, 1 card of 2 Leopards 2A5 (NLs & WGer), 2 cards of 3 Kyu Maru for a total of 6, 2 cards of 4 STRV 121 for a total of 8, 1 card of 4 T-72M2 Moderna, 2 cards of T-90 (USSR & DPRK). This would even it out nicely.
Otherwise 2 cards of 2, for a total of 4 Leclerc Tranche 3.
But 4 total might be a bit too much when you compare to how few MBTs of the same caliber REDFOR can field besides the Eastern Block coalition, SOVKOR and USSR.
This is just for the lulz, I'm not advocating at all for it's inclusion. As I'd rather have the core French units buffed than get more unicorns to rely on, but