Sireyn wrote:The download link isn't functioning for me.
Really? Well I uploaded them to my Archive.com
Lot's of nice documents in there, thanks. The download on your original link didn't seem to do anything. I use Google drive myself and haven't had any issues until then.
Understood. Speaking of which, it might just be my reading of the manuals but I'm pretty sure the M163 has 900-1000 rounds stowed in addition to the 1000-odd rounds in the drum.
A lot of units would or could have extra ammo, but there is no perfect way to model it. Giving the VADS more salvos is the same as giving it a longer belt. Most units would need to perform a lengthy reloading procedure anyway, so forcing them to resupply is close enough.
Most tanks especially could carry more ammo, but there is no way to split the racks into different reload times.
14.5 should require at least 2 AV to stop. I always pictured 1 AV as "stops 7.62", the basic level of armor on all APCs. Then .50BMG should come next, as it has more penetration than 7.62 but about half as much as 14.5.
Also, 1990s improvements to the .50BMG in the form of Nammo's AP-S and M903 SLAP (APDS) push the .50BMG into 14.5mm territory. AP-S improves standard 12.7mm penetration from 22mm/100m to 22mm/900m and SLAP does 34mm/500m and 23mm/1200m. Both of those rounds are fully equivalent to 14.5mm in armor penetration (30mm/500m, 20mm/1000m).
Mk211/Rafous is actually a high-explosive AP round, the US calls it API and Nammo calls it MP. Not quite enough AP to give it a value until a very recent improved version, but belted with AP-S you have a .75HE autocannon.
If I get around to adjusting the standards, I would probably agree with your ideas. I would need to prevent these weapons from gaining additional AP and keep them from trying to engage tanks or you may end up with a situation where infantry won't fire their rockets.
But then the Marines don't get Mavericks and they apparently did just fine with them in reality.
I mean I would want to exchange the blast-frag missiles for HEAT and give the blast-frag an explosion.
I should note that the M67 ingame is massively over-modeled, the real thing's sights only go to 700m.
Nearly all infantry AT weapons are overmodeled. I'd want to change them all at once according to the same standards, except for the serious outliers, as with the 55 S 55 Raika.
What is the difference between Light Rifleman '75 and Rifleman '75? Light Rifleman IRL are just Rifleman with no ATGMs at platoon level.
You have Rifleman for Motorized and Support decks, Mechanized Rifleman for Armored and Mechanized, and Airborne for Airborne decks...oh wait you got rid of the plain Rifleman didn't you?
Yeah, they turned into Mechanized Riflemen. The original Light Riflemen were turned into Airborne and my old Mountaineers turned into a 1985 Light Riflemen (10th Mountain). There wasn't a need for the basic Riflemen '75 until I specialized the Mech infantry.
[spoiler=]Rifleman '75: M16A1, M72A3, M60
Rifleman '90: M16A2, M136 AT4, M249
Pretty standard and historically accurate. Technically they don't actually have M60s at squad level, so third weapon could be M16A1-Automatic Rifleman or M203 grenade launcher. But I think M60 is fine
The '75 Sounds fine to me. I would prefer to keep the Light Riflemen '85 with M16A2, M72A4, and M240. It coincides with the reactivation of 10th Mountain and doesn't step on Airborne '90's toes.
Mech Rifleman '75: M16A1, M47 Dragon, M16A1/PVS
Mech Rifleman '93: M249, ATGM of choice, M203
'75 gets a higher rate of fire on their M16A1s due to having some in the automatic rifle role (or not, see Rifleman). M16A1/PVS is due to doctrinal "RIfleman/Sniper" in the squad, I gave him the squad's 3.8x PVS-4 sight. M60 is on their M113.
'90 has M249 as standard weapon because the 1993 manual gives a nine-man squad three of them. Whatever ATGM you want, depending on your thoughts on Dragon upgrades versus AAWS-M. Also, 1993 squad has two ATGM gunners. Then third weapon is an M203 because why not?
Fair point about the sniper in the squad. The Soviets had a similar man in 1 of the 3 squads in a company, but modeling realistic squads is difficult to balance, price, and may be impossible to show in the UI intuitively. I will be keeping with standard vanilla conventions and put company/platoon LMGs in place of squad weapons where needed.
One thing I have overlooked is distinguishing M16A1 and M16A2. Do you think the differences are enough to put the A1 into the SMG role of shorter range and higher rate of fire while A2 remains a standard assault rifle?
Airborne '75: Colt 653, M72A3, M60
Airborne '90: Colt 653, 727, or ('95) M4A1, M136 AT4, M249 Para
The only unit that isn't super accurate, as IRL they'd be identical to Rifleman. I'm making them a mashup of 82nd Airborne and 75th Rangers, shock-trained CQC types in helicopters and light vehicles
'75 could get M132 Viper as very accurate M72 replacement. Viper did make the 1980 edition of FM 7-8. M60 gets better stabilizer.
'90 gets whatever carbine you feel like and a Para M249 (CQC)
Viper was an utter failure and cancelled, so it's out. I've only read a short summary, but it astounds me how its development made it as far as it did. My '75 unit has Carl Gustav Mk2, which may not have been available to the US until later. An alternative is to give them M67 so they aren't stuck with a basic LAW.
Did Airborne ever get anything other than M16 variants until the M4? I always had the impression that the CAR-15 style carbines were for SF and Rangers.
Marines '75:M16A1, M72A3, M60
Marines '90:M16A2, Mk.153 SMAW, M249 or M60E3
Marines, shock trained because their own propaganda says so! '90 gets SMAW with reduced rate of fire from SMAW team and no HEDP rounds.
Assaultman '85: M16A2, Mk.153 SMAW HEAA, Mk.153 HEDP
A SMAW team. Has SMAW with HEAA (HEAT anti-tank) and HEDP (HE, light anti-armor) as separate weapons
SMAW is already a company level fire support team, so it's hard to justify giving it to the main squads. My '90 unit has AT4, otherwise they are the same as your suggestion. They are shock because of their specialized nature, just like airborne.
Is Assaultmen the correct designation for the SMAW team? The current unit is 1984 and has AP and HE rounds. Another round that isn't smoke would conflict with targeting priorities. Increasing the HE to 3 and the date to 1985 may be justified however.
Rangers '75: M60, M67
Rangers '90: M240, M3 Gustav
The Rangers become a weapons team. Very good ROF on the machine guns, this is pretty much most of a Ranger platoon's MG squad plus a recoilless team from the weapons squad.
I feel these are best suited as recon units, but the loadouts and '90 variant sound nice.
Rangers are then replaced in the recon role by...
Green Berets '80: HK33, FIM-92A, MG3
Green Berets '90: AK-74, FIM-92C, M249
Kind of an SAS clone. Rifle and MG nonstandard for the "behind enemy lines" feel, or switch the MG for a rocket launcher.
Unique idea, but I am happy with the position my Deltas are in as a dedicated infantry fighter. I renamed them to Green Beret very early in my mod, but forgot why I changed it back. If the US infantry lines weren't becoming bloated, I might create an '80 unit, but as something more conventional.
The SAS load always struck me as odd for a raiding unit. I've debated on moving it to recon and trading the rocket for an MG.
Navy SEALs get sent to the infantry tab:
SEALS '80: Colt 653, M203, Mk.23 Stoner
SEALS '95: M4A1, M203, M249 Para
Anti-infantry with a M203 that can damage APCs. '95 could get SOPMOD M4A1 and get suppressors (they're quiet) and dot sights (really amazing stabilizers). I would give them M60E3 but the Para SAW works better with their other weapons.
My SEALs : 1975, MP5SD, Hawk MM1, Stoner 63
I could make a 90/95 version, but I don't see a strong gameplay or historical need. They can go either as recon or infantry tabs, so I have them as recon to avoid too much bloat.
To replace the SEALs in recon:
Force Recon '75: M16A1, M67, M60
Force Recon '90: M16A1, Mk.153 SMAW, M60E3
Recon that can hunt enemy vehicles. The M67 was stolen borrowed from the Army, in keeping with proper Marine Corp acquisitions practices.
I created a '75 Force Recon with CAR-15, M72A3 LAW, and M40A1. It's kind of Vietnam-esque, but it works thematically (Marines have out-dated stuff) and it fills a gameplay niche. You have a point about borrowing
stealing equipment however.
I don't see a strong need for a '90 variant. It would end up as straight upgrade to the '75 version or a clone of the existing Marines.
And before I forget, Delta Force:
Delta Force '85: Colt 723, M72AX, HK21E
Mid-80s SF with early dot sight on the rifle, prototype M72s for "field testing" (Dealer's choice: A4 more powerful, A5 more accurate, A6 less penetration but HE), and HK21E because I couldn't decide on a third weapon. Some sort of M14/M21 with a dot sight/low-power scope a la Black Hawk Down might work as well.
My '90 Delta have Colt 723, M203, and suppressed SR-25. I'm very satisfied with this.
There is room for an '80 version, but more SF is bad for gameplay. My ideas were similar, either ultra-light raiding with a LAW and DMR or heavy AT with Carl Gustav and an LMG.
USA : AH-1W recon with AGM-122.
I'm actually trying to trade for the -1W manual right now.
I do recall some people having an issue with Sidearm Cobra because it didn't have the range, but I'd need to search the forums again.
What would the third weapon be? TOW, Hydra, Zuni? Zuni has a chaff round, and the Army came close enough to adopting a 70mm chaff round to put it in the fire-control computer.
AH-1W is Hellfire-capable you know.
Third weapon would be some basic rockets. I didn't even realize the AH-1W had a Sidearm instead of the Sidewinder. It's been a number of years since I've seen what vanilla looks like and I think that change came after I started my mod.
Hellfires sound great for the Helo tab variant, but there would be a large price increase and the SH-60B Sea Hawk carries them already. I haven't checked to see if it was a real thing or if Eugen took some liberties.
Should Soviet gun launched missiles have anti-helicopter capability? (I could duplicate the round and give it its own stats)
I'm unsure. Yes they could be used against a helicopter but I'm not sure the turret could track fast enough at close range and elevation would be an issue.
Or using a scout helicopter to bait the enemy into wasting ATGMs.
On this topic, the US has M830A1, a sabot HEAT-MP round with a proximity fuze for anti-helicopter work.
I recall reading somewhere that the missiles are meant to be used against hovering helicopters, not just that they could be. I had to thought to reduce the missile range to within tank cannon range and give it a medium HE damage, but it's probably too much to try to balance and too easy to abuse. I was going to mention M830A1 but forgot.
The US also was developing XM 943 STAFF
. Its a full-bore fire-and-forget top-attack smart round. There was also X-Rod, which is a KE smart round.
I remember STAFF from Armored Fist, from many years ago. In Wargame, the M1A2 already has a strong AP superiority; it doesn't need experimental death from above rounds, no matter how cool.
I might turn US Motorized into another Marine deck and have Marine Mechanized (with Abrams and LVPT-7s) and the either Marine Air Assault (CH-46s everywhere!) or Marine Motorized (LAVs and Humvees everywhere!).
Are you making your own mod, or just theorycrafting?
Also, Airborne decks should be renamed to Air Assault. Airborne is paratroopers jumping from planes, Air Assault is helicopters.
Semantics really. In US parlance that is true, but airborne is a good catch-all for all nations. The 101st is still "Airborne" even though it is Air Assault, so it works.
A while back I created custom deck types with appropriate names for the USSR, but it had some unexpected problems. One is that some units unpredictably are not deployable in a match. Two is that if you have a unique deck selected during deck creation and switch the spec to a nation that doesn't have that deck, the game crashes. I haven't attempted to resolve this since then.
ANZAC placed into Blue Dragons
I'm unsure. They don't really seem to fit.
They are all Pacific theatre, but they would need some major help to deploy out of Australia; either the UK or more likely the USA. ANZAC is terrible on their own and mediocre in Commonwealth, hence the thought.
More cards, but less units per card of special forces units
From what to what?
I want to reduce the prevalence of SF units. Increasing the number of cards and reducing the squads per card is a soft way to make it more difficult to stack them up in a city or forest. I'd rather see shock units take over that role.
IFV / Autocannon armor and penetration
Not really atainable without messing with the part where all rounds gain AP every blank
meters. I'd suggest +1 AP for every 500m, you could get realistic penetration loss at range from this.
I have it set as +1 AP per 227.5m (+10 AP for a max range gun) for simplicity. I'm not opposed to changing it.
EfficaciteSelonPortee is a variable set to true in all KE weapons. I haven't had the opportunity to test it yet.
Also, I'm trying to research the Bradley's armor, but I'm at the point where I'm asking other folks.
In training, my leadership said our M2A2s would protect against the AP from a BMP, but that is probably something parroted since the 80s. I'm curious what you find out.
(National Guard six years, not deployed, but still had good experiences.)
Infantry rocket launcher reduced range and correct AP
I can help with that
I started a spreadsheet long ago but became distracted by other things. I'd want to start over with better sources and better formatting.https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Jf-E1cab3qp5r7PuZfCB_BCt5nh8fz80L7mEzPF9RPs/edit?usp=sharing
Overpenetration mechanics for HEAT and KE rounds - AP too far above the target armor reduces the damage done
KE maybe, but HEAT is still a big explosion.
It's also a design parameter with different philosophies. Soviet HEAT generally penetrates more and NATO HEAT generally optimizes for explosion or post-penetration effects. The difference might remain academic in practice, but it's worth thinking about.
This brings up the topic of damage tables. I want HEAT to be more effective when it penetrates and increasingly marginal in its effects when it doesn't. I still want some damage for non-penetrations so units continue to fire weapons and cause crits.
Adjust infantry weapons to represent authentic ammo capacities without affecting balance.
That would be hard, given there is a huge difference between theory and reality. Standard US load was 7x M16 mags, which didn't seem to change when the mags went from 20 to 30 rounds. And then you read about SF types packing 20-25x 20 round mags in Vietnam, or the Rangers in Somalia packing every mag they could and not bothering with water.
I would go for standard loads. I don't need to change any weapon performance, just the number of salvos or the salvo size. Ammo consumed is just a fluff number not related to damage rolls. Presently, each man with an M16 has 80 rounds, which is silly. Shock and SF already have extra ammo, so the effects would be proportional.
- mid-80s Styer anti-material rifle that penetrates 40mm armor at 1,000 meters with custom 15.2mm APFSDS rounds. Thing is basically a scaled down tank cannon.
Just for comparison's sake, .50BMG does 11mm/1200m and 14.5 does 20mm/1000m
It's cool, but I don't see a place for it in Wargame.
German F-4F Peace Rhino can't have AGM-65 and AIM-9 at the same time, both missiles use the same inner wing hardpoints. You could do 2x AGM-65 and 2x AIM-9, but that would require asymmetrical loads to be a thing.
On that note, no one seems to have told the devs that F-4s carry their AIM-9s in pairs on the inner wing hardpoints (#2 and #8), same with the F/A-18s, they carry paired AIM-9s on the underwing stations.
South Korean F-4E Peace Pheasant I has more bombs than it can carry. It has 25, real thing was limited to 24 (MERs on #9, #5, and #1, TERs on #2 and #8)
I'll check it out.