What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12409
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby Mike » Fri 30 Dec 2016 03:14

codextero wrote:
kiheerSEDMAN wrote:Would point out (a little late) but apparently M829 was originally supposed to be 20 AP, but was dropped to 19 for balance in ALB.


Never got why they did that, since ALB M1A1 got ploughed all the time by T-80U.

M1A1 right now could use 20 AP and +5 points, since it's a mediocre tank ATM.


The M1A1 was a solid third in ALB behind the T-80U and Leopard 2A4.
Image
Courtesy of KattiValk

User avatar
another505
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13128
Joined: Sun 21 Jul 2013 05:18
Location: Hiatus
Contact:

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby another505 » Fri 30 Dec 2016 04:14

codextero wrote:
kiheerSEDMAN wrote:Would point out (a little late) but apparently M829 was originally supposed to be 20 AP, but was dropped to 19 for balance in ALB.


Never got why they did that, since ALB M1A1 got ploughed all the time by T-80U.

M1A1 right now could use 20 AP and +5 points, since it's a mediocre tank ATM.

I remember there were arguments of m1a1 shouldnt be able to penetrate t80u at max range
Though i cant remember if that lead it 19qp
Image
Of Salt

Steamfunk
Lieutenant
Posts: 1470
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2014 06:19

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby Steamfunk » Fri 30 Dec 2016 04:42

The M1A1 had better accuracy than any other tank in ALB - 11 compared to 8 for the T-80U, for example. Anyway, back to Finland - what would be the disadvantage in giving their T-72s the latest ammo?

Again, these are my estimates -

T-72A/M - 16
T-72M1 - 18
T-72S - 19 (with buffs elsewhere)

codextero
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2334
Joined: Sat 13 Dec 2014 02:52
Contact:

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby codextero » Fri 30 Dec 2016 06:21

Steamfunk wrote:The M1A1 had better accuracy than any other tank in ALB - 11 compared to 8 for the T-80U, for example. Anyway, back to Finland - what would be the disadvantage in giving their T-72s the latest ammo?

Again, these are my estimates -

T-72A/M - 16
T-72M1 - 18
T-72S - 19 (with buffs elsewhere)


flava. Those states make them state clones of the NSWP T-72M/M1, which Poland has.

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

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby hansbroger » Fri 30 Dec 2016 07:53

Mike wrote:
codextero wrote:The M1A1 was a solid third in ALB behind the T-80U and Leopard 2A4.


Yeah they had plenty they could have done with M1A1HA, M1A1HC, I have to say the M1A2 would have been perfectly reasonable if they hadn't gone nuts with the ammo.
Projectnordic in game! will likely see you on pact/red dragons/french!
Image

Seryn
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 360
Joined: Mon 5 Dec 2016 06:00
Contact:

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby Seryn » Fri 30 Dec 2016 10:24

Steamfunk wrote:The M1A1 had better accuracy than any other tank in ALB - 11 compared to 8 for the T-80U, for example. Anyway, back to Finland - what would be the disadvantage in giving their T-72s the latest ammo?

Again, these are my estimates -

T-72A/M - 16
T-72M1 - 18
T-72S - 19 (with buffs elsewhere)


Finland only has a T-72M (old as crap), and 2 homebrewn upgrades, the first being literally glass. -72M1 and S are Poland and CSSR.
Pretty sure only T-72A user is Soviets anywho

Remember what nations you are referring to.....

Col_Sandfurz
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 573
Joined: Wed 25 Apr 2012 18:19
Contact:

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby Col_Sandfurz » Fri 30 Dec 2016 12:01

FrangibleCover wrote:If we want to play Cold War What If then the next game should bring the timeline up to 1995/6 and that's IT! Finito! You can have the army your country wanted to have in 1995 back in 1991 when you had funding (and in some cases, a country) and then you stop. If there's some sort of system that you wanted to get into service in 1997 then I guess that's too fucking bad, better nip into your Tardis and go back in time to the late 80s to slap the Economy Minister (or local equivalent) about and get him to release some funding for it.


That is too simple.. You have to give some additional years to, simply because the defence spending sank rapidly in europe (and the US, too) and the USSR's economy collapsed. Some contrys are given more "what if" units, some less but based on clear rules that can be seen by everyone in the forum and that assists new or natinalistic posters to not post BS.

So take a easy example: West Germany. It did not break up as its brother but also would have held its defence spending and developement high if cold war continues (Remember, it had the second largest tank army after the US in NATO with over 2000 Leopard 2, not counting the 1800 Leopard 1).
A lot of projects where put on halt or developement time streched and some things never aquired.
To name quite a few that only came after 1996 or never because of this:
- Leopard 2A5 only from 1995 onwards, would have been much more available in 1995 did the CW not end
- Leopard 2A6 (about the WRD M1A2 maybe +5% acc)
- Marder 2 (well, here EUG was geneous :D )
- PZH2000 (same as AS90)
- G11 for more than one unit (though not all of them)
- G41 (modernized G3 in 556 for 90' line inf)
- Eurofighter (special case as it would have the ASRAAM and AIM-120 as the british, too)
- PAH-2 Tiger with 8xHOT-2 (or even PARS 3 LR/Trigat-LR)
- Tornado IDS with ASSTA upgrade to carry LGBs

Or the US:

- ADATS on Bradly (they even started training their soldiers within time frame)
- Javelin (i know, left out b/c of balancing)
- Maybe F-22, as you do not know if the reduced funding was the reason its maiden flight was in 1997 or it may have been brought operational much sooner

Or USSR with the Kornet or some fancy super tanks

You have to consider that and it is considered by the new DLC nations and some old nations who completely disappeared like East Germany getting Tunguska, Tor and MSTA-S or Yugo getting M-91(A Vihor) and DRUG etc
But unforunately this "what if" rule is not applied equally to all nations

I would love to see the time frame expended to 1995 with quite some "what if" for Wargame 4.
MadMat could build a story around this and the old USA = Air Dominance (F-22) and USSR = Ground Dominance (T-95 or whatever Obj. XYZ) game could be introduced.

This scenario is afaik not used by any game/movie so far and would still

It would require only a manageable amount of new models that may lead to the quality of new models being the same as in the Nations DLC's.
More time could be spend in advanced or new game meachanics (better UI in game, better AI of your troops, multi tageting/target sharing for SAM and Longbow/PAH-2 w Trigat, decrease of accuarcy if target is moving, SACLOS/SALH ATGMs reaquireing target if LOS has been lost for short time, maybe recovering vehicles to get a small deployment piont bonus, more extensive terrain, maybe even destructable with artillery craters not be passable for wheeled vehicles, destroyable cover, extensive town fighting and many many more)
Image

User avatar
FrangibleCover
Lieutenant
Posts: 1465
Joined: Mon 14 Nov 2016 21:34
Contact:

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby FrangibleCover » Fri 30 Dec 2016 12:58

FrangibleCover wrote:You can have the army your country wanted to have in 1995 back in 1991 when you had funding (and in some cases, a country) and then you stop.

Col_Sandfurz wrote:You have to give some additional years to, simply because the defence spending sank rapidly in europe (and the US, too) and the USSR's economy collapsed. Some contrys are given more "what if" units, some less but based on clear rules that can be seen by everyone in the forum and that assists new or natinalistic posters to not post BS.

I took that into account :). If the defence white paper said "We'll have 500 of the new SAMs in service by 1995" and what your nation managed was 2 vehicles or becoming 6 nations or yelling "PEACE DIVIDEND YEAAAAAAH" at the tops of their lungs and strapping some Stingers to a Bradley then in WG4 you'd get 500 vehicles (Well, 2 cards of 6).

More time could be spend in advanced or new game meachanics (better UI in game, better AI of your troops, multi tageting/target sharing for SAM and Longbow/PAH-2 w Trigat, decrease of accuarcy if target is moving, SACLOS/SALH ATGMs reaquireing target if LOS has been lost for short time, maybe recovering vehicles to get a small deployment piont bonus, more extensive terrain, maybe even destructable with artillery craters not be passable for wheeled vehicles, destroyable cover, extensive town fighting and many many more)

Destructable terrain has been repeatedly denied but I think it would be okay so long as infantry get cover bonuses in craters. Otherwise I don't know about you but I'm opening with 9 napalm planes and a superheavy :lol:. The rest is nice, although I'm not sure about going full Modern Warfare Mod with networked targeting on stuff. I've seen a properly modelled Longbow and a properly modelled Patriot in an RTS and let me tell you right now that you want no part of that if you want tanks and infantry to remain fun.

But that's WAAAAY off topic.
What if Wargame stuck to timeframe?
Image

User avatar
Tiera
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2344
Joined: Tue 28 Aug 2012 00:08
Contact:

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby Tiera » Fri 30 Dec 2016 13:27

Seryn wrote:Finland only has a T-72M (old as crap), and 2 homebrewn upgrades, the first being literally glass. -72M1 and S are Poland and CSSR.
Pretty sure only T-72A user is Soviets anywho

Remember what nations you are referring to.....

Finnish models are all T-72M1s...
Image

FOARP
Sergeant
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed 21 Sep 2016 18:38
Contact:

Re: What is the reason for Finland's glass cannon tanks?

Postby FOARP » Fri 30 Dec 2016 13:36

Col_Sandfurz wrote:
FrangibleCover wrote:If we want to play Cold War What If then the next game should bring the timeline up to 1995/6 and that's IT! Finito! You can have the army your country wanted to have in 1995 back in 1991 when you had funding (and in some cases, a country) and then you stop. If there's some sort of system that you wanted to get into service in 1997 then I guess that's too fucking bad, better nip into your Tardis and go back in time to the late 80s to slap the Economy Minister (or local equivalent) about and get him to release some funding for it.


That is too simple.. You have to give some additional years to, simply because the defence spending sank rapidly in europe (and the US, too) and the USSR's economy collapsed. Some contrys are given more "what if" units, some less but based on clear rules that can be seen by everyone in the forum and that assists new or natinalistic posters to not post BS.

So take a easy example: West Germany. It did not break up as its brother but also would have held its defence spending and developement high if cold war continues (Remember, it had the second largest tank army after the US in NATO with over 2000 Leopard 2, not counting the 1800 Leopard 1).
A lot of projects where put on halt or developement time streched and some things never aquired.
To name quite a few that only came after 1996 or never because of this:
- Leopard 2A5 only from 1995 onwards, would have been much more available in 1995 did the CW not end
- Leopard 2A6 (about the WRD M1A2 maybe +5% acc)
- Marder 2 (well, here EUG was geneous :D )
- PZH2000 (same as AS90)
- G11 for more than one unit (though not all of them)
- G41 (modernized G3 in 556 for 90' line inf)
- Eurofighter (special case as it would have the ASRAAM and AIM-120 as the british, too)
- PAH-2 Tiger with 8xHOT-2 (or even PARS 3 LR/Trigat-LR)
- Tornado IDS with ASSTA upgrade to carry LGBs

Or the US:

- ADATS on Bradly (they even started training their soldiers within time frame)
- Javelin (i know, left out b/c of balancing)
- Maybe F-22, as you do not know if the reduced funding was the reason its maiden flight was in 1997 or it may have been brought operational much sooner

Or USSR with the Kornet or some fancy super tanks

You have to consider that and it is considered by the new DLC nations and some old nations who completely disappeared like East Germany getting Tunguska, Tor and MSTA-S or Yugo getting M-91(A Vihor) and DRUG etc
But unforunately this "what if" rule is not applied equally to all nations

I would love to see the time frame expended to 1995 with quite some "what if" for Wargame 4.
MadMat could build a story around this and the old USA = Air Dominance (F-22) and USSR = Ground Dominance (T-95 or whatever Obj. XYZ) game could be introduced.

This scenario is afaik not used by any game/movie so far and would still

It would require only a manageable amount of new models that may lead to the quality of new models being the same as in the Nations DLC's.
More time could be spend in advanced or new game meachanics (better UI in game, better AI of your troops, multi tageting/target sharing for SAM and Longbow/PAH-2 w Trigat, decrease of accuarcy if target is moving, SACLOS/SALH ATGMs reaquireing target if LOS has been lost for short time, maybe recovering vehicles to get a small deployment piont bonus, more extensive terrain, maybe even destructable with artillery craters not be passable for wheeled vehicles, destroyable cover, extensive town fighting and many many more)


The CW ended in 1989 and the USSR broke up in 1991. There's so much interesting tech and so many units that served in the time 1975-1990, some of which still aren't in game (hell, whole nations that were key during that time aren't in-game - Vietnam, Taiwan, Iran). OK, fine, lets push that timeline out to what might have happened by 1995 had the CW continued, but let's be consistent about it and not just have time-travelling super-units in one or two classes only.

Be real about this: W:RD now has a setup in which some countries can't be added to the game because they didn't have super-tanks that are only in game for fantasy reasons.

Still n' all, this is not a simulator so whatevs.

Return to “Wargame : Red Dragon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 18 guests