Cheers for the feedback
T-14 Armata: +5 kmph speed / -5 pts. It can achieve a max speed of 80-90 kmph. Which in Wargame terms should be its normal speed. Also it loses to M1A2 which is in the 200+ bracket. Hence the -5 pts
From testing or on paper?
While its difficult to quantify, the ECM sees to it that more shots than you'd expect miss the Armata. The Redfor tank wall is already fairly formidable, so I'm hesitant if this will underprice the Armata. With high speed and an auto-cannon, a skilled player could really get a lot of mileage out of it.
I'll see if Nolan can help me out with some tank v tank trials.
M1A2 SEP +5 points. This is the most effective tank in the game. It handily beats the Challenger 2 CLIP and T-14 Armata in a straight up fight. It is also faster than Challenger 2 CLIP and on balance more armoured than the T-14 Armata
Challenger 2 CLIP -10 points/ add Grenade launcher. 25 front armour is nice however the top armour is weak (important in this game with changes to cluster) compared to T-14 and M1A2 SEP. Furthermore the lower AP means it will lose to the M1A2 SEP in a straight up fight and it is also slower. The Armata vs Challenger 2 CLIP seems to be a fair duel. The Grenade launcher is for the RWS that Challenger 2 has recently been fit with that can take either a .50 cal Machine gun or an AGL.
Challenger 2 LEP -5 points. Why you think this should be the same cost as an M1A2 SEP is beyond me. Is weaker in speed, gunnery, secondary weapons, top armour, back armour and only pulls ahead with 1 more pip of front armour (means very little due to high AP of tanks in the same bracket) and excellent side armour.
These make sense. CLIP and the LEP had their frontal armor dropped from 26 to 25 about a month ago and I didn't adjust their price as a result. (AV 26 screws with the game engine and gives a blindage value of 30; when the game comes to to a damage comparison for HEAT weapons, I think this results in a calculated result of 'zero armor' and as a result, HEAT weapons wouldn't fire at AV 26...)
Previously, everything with KE had to close in an extra 350m (often times more) to get to a range where they could engage that frontal 26. As a result, the CLIP could just sit still and targets would roll in close and die.
I guess this isn't happening as much now that I've fixed the lack of HEAT targeting and reduced front armor by 1.
Stormer HVM: +1 helicopter range increment. The LAAD Starstreak MANPAD version has 3325m range. No reason for Stormer HVM not to have the same given it has better targeting systems and uses the same missile.
Some of my units are using the 2007 upgraded Starstreak II's. I'll have to check that's not happening here with a mis-name.
Rapier FSC 2800m Antihelo range, : No Rapier ever lost the optical targeting capabilities of the Original system in the anti-helo role. I'd suggest leaving FSC at 2800m Anti-helo range.
WAH 64 Move to Recon, Exceptional optics, . Not sure why it is devoid the Longbow model with the optical package? The British Army only every used the variant with the Longbow Radar and more powerful engines and that was only ever the plan!
I can bump it up to very-good optics (I downgraded the longbow to very good). Iffy about moving it to recon. The UK and commonwealth are already very light on the ground in the helo tab. Higher optics are going to make it highly effective and swatting Ka-52's out of the sky...
I've made some potentially odd generalizations with regards to recon - given the emergence of radar signature reduction technologies, and thermal masking pigments, I've dropped the optics of a couple of 'exceptional' optics units that relied heavily on radar. A similar move for older units with thermal scopes; while I'm not suggesting that everything has those fancy BAE thermal plates that make an MBT look like a car, or make it invisible to IR, IR reflective and IR absorptive pigments are common enough today that I'd expect that in the A&S setting, using IR disruptive coatings or cloth to mask a vehicle's outline would be as common place as using visually disruptive patterns. No, not making things invisible to IR, but meaning positive ID by thermal alone is slower, and harder to achieve at long range.
Recon infantry, with the capacity to carry recon drones to extend their lines of sight, get their optics boosted. As did several 'new' recon units that could be expected to have received the latest in imaging systems.
I still need to harmonize all these changes across all factions however.
The basic summary of it is; a bunch of abstractions to back up the gameplay decision to not have units that have both exceptional optics, and powerful long range weapons in abundance.
Tornado F.2. Was never cleared for AMRAAM. More realistic would be to simply have the F.3 for this timeline I think. If you want AMRAAM it would be more likely the F.3 to carry AMRAAM with the F.2 retaining your version of Skyflash.
I can juggle those and adjust some prices.
I'm trying to keep every coalition with a high, mid and low tier ASF to use, and the F.2 is filling in the mid-to-low teir slot in quite a few coalitions at the moment. Retired in 2011 I think, so, not out of time frame.
I'll see if I can downgrade the missile load a little and drop the price to push it firmly into the lower cost, higher availability bracket.