Page 13 of 14

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Fri 3 May 2019 14:43
by Fodder
Thanks

Can you make lu zhandui to 10HP? Chinese rifle squads are organized in squads of 10 including marines. HQ-61 range is closer to tor and roland than kub. PL-11 on J-8C enter service 1992.

Can you also fix these inconsistencies?
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=58396
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=57347&hilit=bug+thread
viewtopic.php?f=155&t=60466&start=190

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Sat 4 May 2019 00:01
by Sireyn
Fodder wrote:Can you make lu zhandui to 10HP? Chinese rifle squads are organized in squads of 10 including marines.


They are 10 men. They have 15 hitpoints because they are shock marines.

Fodder wrote:HQ-61 range is closer to tor and roland than kub.

I'll have to look further into it. It appears that Eugen confused the HQ-16's missile and the PL-11/HQ-61.

Fodder wrote:PL-11 on J-8C enter service 1992.

Can you provide a source?



I'll look through them and see what is still relevant. Thanks.

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Sat 4 May 2019 20:23
by Fodder
Sireyn wrote:

Thanks

Xeno said japan never owned any aim-9m, at least not during the cold war

not in service in 1992 but after 1991
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ1qv ... &q&f=false

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Fri 10 May 2019 14:38
by Sireyn
Fodder wrote:Xeno said japan never owned any aim-9m, at least not during the cold war


I believe this is correct. After reviewing my notes, it seems Japan only had AAM-1, AIM-9L, AAM-3, then went on to AAM-5 and AIM-9X after Wargame's timeframe. I will replace their AIM-9Ms with AIM-9L or AAM-3s, which would give it 5% accuracy over AIM-9L.

Fodder wrote:not in service in 1992 but after 1991
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ1qv ... &q&f=false


Moving the J-8C with the PL-11 to the Post-1991 era creates an overlap with the SU-27 and leaves a hole in the earlier decks for an MRAAM carrier. I may consider replacing the PL-11 with another missile.

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Mon 13 May 2019 10:58
by molnibalage
Sireyn wrote:
Fodder wrote:Xeno said japan never owned any aim-9m, at least not during the cold war


I believe this is correct. After reviewing my notes, it seems Japan only had AAM-1, AIM-9L, AAM-3, then went on to AAM-5 and AIM-9X after Wargame's timeframe. I will replace their AIM-9Ms with AIM-9L or AAM-3s, which would give it 5% accuracy over AIM-9L.

Fodder wrote:not in service in 1992 but after 1991
https://books.google.com/books?id=TZ1qv ... &q&f=false


Moving the J-8C with the PL-11 to the Post-1991 era creates an overlap with the SU-27 and leaves a hole in the earlier decks for an MRAAM carrier. I may consider replacing the PL-11 with another missile.

As long as are in DB unicorn units it does not matter what happened in RL. As long as fully armed Rafales are available 10+ year earlier in RL you can assume USA allowed to export earlier to AIM-9M to everyone.

This is the big problem. The ALB with few old and some late proto was much closer to Cold War and balance. RD simply hammered the feeling of the WG + Cold War universe.

To me this is why always would be better a polished ALB with RD's features (amphibious modeling, LOG chain, etc.) but using the same but adjusted and expanded DB and timeframe of ALB with some alteration its DB.

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Wed 15 May 2019 18:14
by Sireyn
molnibalage wrote:As long as are in DB unicorn units it does not matter what happened in RL. As long as fully armed Rafales are available 10+ year earlier in RL you can assume USA allowed to export earlier to AIM-9M to everyone.

This is the big problem. The ALB with few old and some late proto was much closer to Cold War and balance. RD simply hammered the feeling of the WG + Cold War universe.

To me this is why always would be better a polished ALB with RD's features (amphibious modeling, LOG chain, etc.) but using the same but adjusted and expanded DB and timeframe of ALB with some alteration its DB.


I agree completely about ALB and the feel of a Cold War environment. When I first started this mod I was debating on whether to make it for ALB or RD, but chose RD in the end for the additional models, nations, and game mechanics. Sometimes I still think the European theater and coop campaign would have been preferable.

Dealing with the unicorn units and timeframe issues is ongoing. I don't want to waste what game assets exist, so I created the post-1991 CAT era to push these units into. With this in mind, I strongly prefer to keep 1991 and earlier as close to historical as possible, and appreciate any feedback that helps accomplish this.

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Thu 16 May 2019 10:13
by molnibalage
Sireyn wrote:
molnibalage wrote:As long as are in DB unicorn units it does not matter what happened in RL. As long as fully armed Rafales are available 10+ year earlier in RL you can assume USA allowed to export earlier to AIM-9M to everyone.

This is the big problem. The ALB with few old and some late proto was much closer to Cold War and balance. RD simply hammered the feeling of the WG + Cold War universe.

To me this is why always would be better a polished ALB with RD's features (amphibious modeling, LOG chain, etc.) but using the same but adjusted and expanded DB and timeframe of ALB with some alteration its DB.


I agree completely about ALB and the feel of a Cold War environment. When I first started this mod I was debating on whether to make it for ALB or RD, but chose RD in the end for the additional models, nations, and game mechanics. Sometimes I still think the European theater and coop campaign would have been preferable.

Dealing with the unicorn units and timeframe issues is ongoing. I don't want to waste what game assets exist, so I created the post-1991 CAT era to push these units into. With this in mind, I strongly prefer to keep 1991 and earlier as close to historical as possible, and appreciate any feedback that helps accomplish this.

If Eugen just re release the ALB with old and only slightly adjusted stats of ALB with corrected DB for airplanes an other eq. I would buy and play with it any day.

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Thu 16 May 2019 13:41
by molnibalage
Is it possible to make artillery dispersion distance dependent?

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Thu 16 May 2019 15:55
by Sireyn
molnibalage wrote:Is it possible to make artillery dispersion distance dependent?


Yes, but I don't know if there is a way to adjust the accuracy curve. Here is an example of the Czech Dana. You can see how there are minimum and maximum dispersion values, an accuracy multiplier for corrected shots, and something called RandomDispersion which I am unsure about.

Image

Re: Wargame: Airland Dragon

Posted: Thu 16 May 2019 21:40
by molnibalage
Sireyn wrote:
molnibalage wrote:Is it possible to make artillery dispersion distance dependent?


Yes, but I don't know if there is a way to adjust the accuracy curve. Here is an example of the Czech Dana. You can see how there are minimum and maximum dispersion values, an accuracy multiplier for corrected shots, and something called RandomDispersion which I am unsure about.

Image

Even if it is linear it would be far better. Currently it is worth to keep away your arty at max range without any penalty which totally idiotic. Most of MLRS are useful (except advanced cluster arty) close to their min range while the best unicorn artys has less dispersion at 30-40 km range than a LGB bomb.

This is pure idiocy.
It is far more real that arty moves closer to target if it is safe. Less flight time and provides more acc. Also the aim time gap between the best and oldest arty is way to big. 10 sec aim time is way too small, 30 sec aim time is way to big.