Tunguska&Tunguska-M

AmberT
First Sergeant
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri 20 Sep 2013 10:46
Contact:

Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby AmberT » Sun 25 Dec 2016 13:01

Reasoning to buff:

1) NSWP and mostly USSR have no viable option to deal with aggresive Longbow openings. The only AA capable to stop it and protect the ground forces are Tunguska (but it dies almost every time) and Tunguska-M (50:50 chance to survive versus Longbow). However, these AA systems are currently overpriced for their capabilities in our opinion. Next reasons will show why:

2) Basic Tunguska 85 pts (-15 points).
Tunguska is a combination of SPAAG and SAM. However, it cant shoot both gun and rocket weapons at the same time. So we look at the two OPTIONS we have. If used as SAM, its performance can be estimated somewhere between AMX-30 Roland (45pts) and Chaparral (55pts) Yet the firing pattern is worse than both of these SAMs. The SPAAG capabilities are comparable to the FlakPZ.Gepard (55-65pts). We consider that Tunguskas strongest capabilities lies in its guns and its main function is SPAAG. So the possibility to turn into subpar SAM is only a little addition comparable having ATGM on a tank (T-72B), so the price increase should be minimal. At this point it is very important to make clear that for most “combined“ SPAAG the charge for having MANPADS mounted is only around 5 – 10 pts, and they are capable shooting both guns and rockets at the same time. (FlakPZ.Gepard A2 is basically armed with additional 45pts Avenger that costs maximum 10 points not considering the gun upgrade over basic A1 version)

3) Tunguska-M 100 pts (-15 points).
The main reasoning is same as the 2nd point about basic Tunguska, also same price difference between basic and M variant of tunguska should be maintained. Tunguska-M has similar SPAAG as Gepard A2, but SAM is now comparable to Crotale (60pts). And it still can work only one at a time. So Tunguska-M is either a 65 pts Gepard or “65“pts Crotale (with more rockets but tracked) And here is another approach to our problem we pay whole 35 points for the OPTION to chose between SAMs or SPAAG. Even if the price would be decreased to 85 it would still be additional 20 points for this OPTION.
nande wrote:.....the tung missile has a 3s reload. Crotale, adats, stormer, pgz-95 etc have 1s.


Conclusion: Now, Tunguskas look pretty overpriced in comparison with their role-analogues: Stormer HVM, Crotale, Machbet and other long-range anti-helicopter AA and long-range SPAAGs. We think that pricing made on summing the price of components for Tunguskas is unfair and not represented in other combined units. With this pricing model the expected price for FlakPz. Gepard A2 would be at least 90pts (=55pts [gepard] + 35 pts[avenger]) and even here it would be more justified because both weapons can be fired simultaneously. Our hopes are to see their price decreased to 70 points for Basic Tunguska and to 85 for Tunguska-M in upcoming patches.
Last edited by AmberT on Sun 25 Dec 2016 20:34, edited 9 times in total.

User avatar
Coal143
Master Sergeant
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed 27 Aug 2014 11:09
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby Coal143 » Sun 25 Dec 2016 13:03

no))
Image

User avatar
Erich Honecker
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 631
Joined: Wed 28 Oct 2015 11:58
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby Erich Honecker » Sun 25 Dec 2016 13:50

no)) -5 would be fine but not -15

BTW Make TOR F&F
Last edited by Erich Honecker on Sun 25 Dec 2016 14:04, edited 2 times in total.
Image

User avatar
Ribar
Warrant Officer
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 09:27
Location: Belgrade,Serbia
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby Ribar » Sun 25 Dec 2016 13:51

+1
Image :mrgreen:

User avatar
Azaz3l
Brigadier
Posts: 3272
Joined: Sat 1 Oct 2011 10:38
Location: Bus 410
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby Azaz3l » Sun 25 Dec 2016 13:53

This. Tunguskas atm are hella overpriced, you basically pay for the guns that will be turned off most of time anyway due to them being RADAR and Tunguska having low availability/costing a lot to lose.
Image

User avatar
Sweedish_Gunner
Brigadier
Posts: 3105
Joined: Thu 25 Apr 2013 20:23
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby Sweedish_Gunner » Sun 25 Dec 2016 13:53

Maybe a -5 would work but not -15. These are very capable systems.
Image

User avatar
Greyhound
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 377
Joined: Sun 9 Aug 2015 16:47
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby Greyhound » Sun 25 Dec 2016 14:08

Sweedish_Gunner wrote:Maybe a -5 would work but not -15. These are very capable systems.

This.
Image

User avatar
Markenzwieback
Captain
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue 27 Oct 2015 17:06
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby Markenzwieback » Sun 25 Dec 2016 14:09

At max. a -5 points for both systems. If any really.

Your argumentation is super flawed though. Comparing base Tunguska with AMX-30 Roland? Like really? 7HE, slightly better accuracy, better ready missile count (AMX-30 has to reload after two shots) and better range alone without even counting best SPAAG guns in game.

Tunguska-M is very expensive because it combines a) best SPAAG guns in game and b) 7HE, 3325m, 60-65% (don't have the armory at hand) and very good ready missile count. There is no better non-radar missile in game. There simply isn't. The only thing that is on the same level is the ADATS.
Image

GARGEAN
Brigadier
Posts: 3496
Joined: Wed 9 Apr 2014 14:19
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby GARGEAN » Sun 25 Dec 2016 14:19

Erich Honecker wrote:BTW Make TOR F&F

Why the hell Tor should be F&F? It's command guided.

User avatar
Mister Maf
Lieutenant
Posts: 1417
Joined: Sun 15 Dec 2013 23:15
Contact:

Re: Tunguska&Tunguska-M

Postby Mister Maf » Sun 25 Dec 2016 14:47

P L E A S E space out your paragraphs in your post. This is hell to read.

Anyway...

As Markenzwieback said, your argument is flawed. You base it on the assumption that the Tunguska's weaponry are comparable to other systems, but they aren't.

The DPS on the twin 2A38M cannons is just silly, capable of effortlessly downing just about any but the most heavily armored planes by themselves. They are in no way on the same level as the cannons on the Flakpanzer Gepard. No, they are leagues above.

Meanwhile, the missiles on the Tunguska-M are — bar one — the absolute best guided SAMs in the game. Only the ADATS edges it out by 5% accuracy, and the ADATS costs even more than the Tunguska. Fragile BLUFOR helicopters stand no chance against these things, and unlike most other systems (and especially the Roland in particular since it was your own very erroneous example), the platform has all 8 ready to go without having to reload between shots.

The base Tunguska's missiles aren't quite as good, but they're still nothing to scoff at with 2975m range. We're talking the lesser of two giants, here.

The Tunguska isn't a best-in-class unit. It's in a class entirely of its own, an air defense net by itself. There's nary a single air threat it can't take on. Discounting either one by 15 points would just be silly.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests