Some Discrepancies

Lazyjim
Sergeant
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 17:51
Contact:

Some Discrepancies

Postby Lazyjim » Fri 3 May 2013 18:10

Browsing though the armory, and making a Vietnam '75 theme decks I have noticed several odd things.

1. The F4J says 'MARINES' on the side, and yet is not available to the marines.

2. The AH-1S and 1-E are also unavailable to the marines, thus depriving a Marine '75 deck of any helicopters.

3. BMP-2 obr. 1986 is a prototype unit, BMP-3 is not. ????

4. The listings for the Mk-20 Rockeye II cluster bomb has been mis-spelt as 'Rokeye'

5. The LVTP-7A1 is listed as having a bushmaster cannon, when it was never armed with such (Wikipedia is just wrong here), and the model in fact shows a Cadillac Gage turret with .50cal Browning and Mk.19 grenade launcher.

6. No command LAV or LVTP-7? The Marines should probably get one of these.

7. British soft troop vehicle is a pinzgauer? Should really be a Saxon or a Bedford MK.

8. The French Jaguar A has British markings
-8a. Jaguar A has far superior ECM and Stabilizer ratings than the Jaguar GR.1, even though they are effectively the same aircraft.
-8b. Jaguar GR.1A has the same ECM rating as Jaguar GR.1 even though the main upgrade to this type was the ECM and navigation systems.
-8c. The second capability upgrade included in the Gr.1A was the ability to use sidewinders, these are not present.

9. BWP-2D (Still?) have Finnish markings.

10. BTR-D Robot has the portrait picture from the BTR-152E ZPTU-4

11. LKV Ural and Urals 375D are larger than both the Tatra148, and the Star 226. Yet the LKV a size of 'normal', and the two other trucks are both listed as 'very big'.
-11a. The Urals also have no Autonomy or Fuel Capacity ratings

12. The 16 tube S-5 Rocket launchers are comically over-sized on every helicopter they are featured on. This may be true for other rocket launchers as well.

13. The following is a problem with many aircraft 'variants' but I'm using the Harrier as an example;
there are three versions of harrier. The only weapons changes are incrementally increasing numbers of bombs. This seems like a waste of units.
Why not vary the load-outs more and give people a reason to choose the earlier one other than that they are cheaper?

14. The 'Sea Harrier' model is not a Sea Harrier. The Sea Harrier does in fact look somewhat different to the land based version.
-14a. In fact all harriers in game are modeled as Harrier IIs, which is obviously not correct. Only the GR.5, and the AV-8B should have this model.
-14b. Actually looking closer, the US harriers are all modeled as AV-8B+ which is slightly different. But still very wrong.

15. There is no Buccaneer. Why?
-15a. Also no F4s for RAF and BRD. Which is even more perplexing.

16. No BMD-1, which is a shame as it would make a nice armored recon unit and 'tank' for PACT para decks.

17. Bushmaster 25mm cannon have an AP of 3, this is the same as the 40mm Bofors on the Str9040, and more than the 30mm RARDEN on the Warrior. which has an AP of 2. I'm not sure this really represents reality.

18. The AVGP cougar seems to have a monstrously deformed Cadillac-gage turret with a kitbashed 75mm gun jammed into it. This should have the same turret as the Scorpion Tank. Seriously Eugen, this one just looks embarrassing. Please change it.

19. Eugen likes the Saracen far too much. The British did not use it at any time during this time period outside of Northern Ireland. Now the FV432 is in game there is really no excuse for using it.

20. Sweden is missing it's BV206. Even if you can't model the articulation, you should cheat and just have it drive like a normal vehicle.

21. No aircraft cannons except the Gsh-30-2, Gsh-6-30, and the GAU-8 Avenger have AP ratings. Seems contrived.

22. Vertex lines on the model of the SPW-40P2 are visible in the armoury. Not sure about in game.

23. Panzerjager infantry models are all armed with RPK-74s, despite that unit not possessing this weapon in their stats.
-23a. All Hemvarnet but one are armed with Kg M/37 machine guns
-23b. This has happened to RiMa as well.

24. Panzergrenadiere infantry models have the Milan Launcher instead of the Pzf44.
-24a. The Jager infantry seem to have a blindicde, or Super bazooka modeled instead of the Pzf44 weapon as well.
-24b. The Heimatshutzen have no model for the Pzf44.
-24c. Spetnatz models have an RPG-7 instead of an RPO Rys.

25. British infantry are wearing American helmets.
25a. In fact I think most of NATO is.

26. A lot of pintle mounts on NATO vehicles are incorrectly modeled. I shall list some of them here; Rarden, IKV91, LAV-25, ERC-90, V150, Opklarings M/151, All Centurions, Leopard C1, CH-118, Norwegian Seaknight, UH-1H Huey.
-26a. The Norweigan Sisu XA-180 has a NSVT in it's stats, instead of the M2HB it is modeled with, the model is probably more correct here.
-26b. The Mk.19 on the M1025 Humvee is very out of proportion. The M134 Minigun seem to be using a helicopter door mount to attach to the same vehicle.
-26c. The Recon Scorpion does not have it's pintle mount machine gun in stats, even though it is modeled. The Light tank version does have this pintle mount statted.

27. The size of the M2 Browning MG seems to vary wildly across different models.

28. M2 Browning is modeled on the M1097 Avenger, but is not in the stats.

29. All Coaxial machine guns seem to have been removed, Not sure if this was true in W:EE as well. But seems somewhat weird when you give the Abrams two pintle mounts.

30. AMX-32 and AMX-40 seem to have been modeled almost identically. A quick internet search suggests that this probably should not be the case.

31. Recon Sheridan does not have its shillelagh missile. I can understand why this might have been done, but it seems odd when you compare to Pact recon with missiles, and the Bradley.

32. The Rover REKV has a portrait picture of the Tover KPV, but in a different pose.

33. CH-147 Chinook has British markings.
-33a. The transparent textures on the windows seem to be somewhat bugged here, allowing you to see though the model.

34. Only 4 factions get helicopter commands (USA, FRA, USSR, POL). Seems odd, when other sides gave helciopters fit for purpose.

35. Bow machine guns on the BTR-ZD Skrezhet have an animation the plays constantly rotating them outside of the vehicle.

36. STROP 2 is listed has having the same PLDvk vz. 53/59 cannon as the STROP 1. This is incorrect It uses the 2A38M cannon from the Tunguska, which you can see is plainly true by comparing the models of the three vehicles
-36a. STROP2 should also really be called BRAMS.

37. Assuming the Size stat scale goes Small-Normal-Big-Very Big. There appears to be no unit in the game that is 'big'. Possibly a bug, or just a weird translation from french.

38. Centurion tanks are out of scale, it is true that they are quite big tanks. However they are only 10cm taller and longer than a Chieftain. From the looks of things in game, the disparity in far greater than this. This can easily be seen in game by comparing the Centurion to the Abrams, they look they same length. In reality the Abrams is a full 30cm longer than the Centurion.

39. Marder 1A3 has a square based digital camouflage on it. I'm not sure but I don't think the Bundeswher used this in the 1980s (or ever).

40. Harriers again. The GR.5 and the AV8B were developed at the same time, and were introduced in roughly the same period (the mid 80s). They were put into service in '87 and '85 respectively. The '88 and '83 introduction dates are thus quite wrong. Either both should be prototypes, or neither should be.
-40a. Also they were very similar aircraft, differing mostly in the avionics fit and cockpit layout. Why the AV-8B has a much superior stabilizer, and more fuel than the GR.5 is very odd indeed.

41. The transparent window textures on the BM-30 Smerch are bugged, and show allow you to see though the geometry on the other side.

42. The FV434 Falcon doesn't seem like the best choice as a prototype SPAA. The real FV434 is an Armoured Recovery Vehicle. If you wanted to give Britain a SPAAG a better way would have been either a Centurion or Chieftain hull with a Marksman turret. Both of which were actually made as production examples. (Alongside a G6 with the turret as well, which would look really cool.)
-42b. According to an internet source the Falcon was to be armed with Hispano Suiza 30mm cannon, not KCBs.

43. The FV102 should have an upgraded variant with the SACLOS version of the Swingfire missile.
43a. There should Also be a Ferret Scout car with 4x MCLOS Swingfire and a GPMG.
43b. By this point the M1919 machine guns on the Ferret scout cars would have been replaced with GPMGs.

44. The USSR should get T-10 heavy tanks, they remained in service until around 1978, and so are just in time-frame. For early deck lulz you know.

45. The 9K330 TOR should probably be available to USSR as a prototype unit.

46. The FAB-250 and FAB-500 on the YAK-38s do not sit properly on the weapons pylons.. Instead they seem to be sitting next to each pylon.
46a. Speaking of Pylons, the Yak-38s only had one on each wing. Four are shown on the in game model. Wrong.
46b. Arn't the Yak-38s, the only fighter a Pact marine deck gets, somewhat wasted with both variants getting iron bombs? Especially as one is just plainly better. This ties into a previous point, as what I say here relates back to that. Would it not be better for the Yak-38M to get the FAB-500s (Two as 4x500kg bombs on this plane is plain silly) and the Yak-38 to get its 23mm gun pod and two Molniya R-60? Surely that would give a greater diversity of options to players.

47. Chieftain gun, its 120mm. Yet it has one of the worst AP scores for that calibre of gun in the game, and in Mk2 has a shorter range for no discernible reason. It just seems odd that the only real difference between the Mk2 and Mk5 is the extra 175m of range, and an extra point of side armour.
I assume the AP score difference between the Mk2/5 and the Mk10 is to account for better ammunition. Though to my knowledge there was never any great advance in ammunition types..
The Mk.5s bad accuracy is also somewhat odd, as the accuracy and range problems were with the Mk.1 and Mk.2 models. Starting from the Mk 3 it had a laser range finder.
If to say for sake of balance the Mk 2 has to have its current ap and accuracy ratings, it should at least get the full heavy gun range, and the Mk5 should have the same gun stats as the Mk.10.

48. The Hellfire missile is listed as being Fire and forget, but only the radar guided Longbow Hellfire was actually fire and forget. And we definitely don't have the Longbow Apache in game. The Normal Hellfire is laser guided, either from the launch platform.
So yeah, this should be SALH only, not F&F.

49. The Norwegian and US F16 models do not have ordinance pylons on their wings. The bombs and missiles are instead stuck straight to the wing surfaces.

50. Some infantry LMGs, such as the Stoner 63 for Delta force, are not shown on the infantry models.
Other affected by this include Chasseurs, Kustjagre, Fusiliers, Legion, Pansarkytte, Panzergrenadiere, Paratroopers, Royal Marines, Light Riflemen, Riflemen, Spadochroniarze, Motostrelci, Motostrelki, Motoshutzen, Spetznatz, Piechota Zmech., VDV, and Vysadkari.




Feel free to add your own odd discoveries to this list.
Last edited by Lazyjim on Fri 3 May 2013 19:05, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
katt
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4060
Joined: Tue 13 Mar 2012 20:42
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby katt » Fri 3 May 2013 18:19

Recce Sheridan also has the Shillelagh missile transmitter above the main gun. On "Two Box" Sheridans this was removed and replaced with smoke grenade launchers, so there's really no reason it shouldn't have Shillelagh. The model rip from W:EE had it. \:
Image
人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人◕ ‿‿ ◕人

Jamaize
First Sergeant
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon 12 Nov 2012 01:23
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby Jamaize » Fri 3 May 2013 18:25

I don't consider these accurate criticisms lazy at all Jim, thank you.

For everything I feel knowledgable enough to comment on, aswell as the pointing out of oddities in gameplay choices +1

hanspeter_schnitzel
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue 11 Oct 2011 16:08
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby hanspeter_schnitzel » Fri 3 May 2013 18:42

The Raketenjagdpanzer 2 seems HUGE. It's as big as most if not all heavy tanks, even bigger than them I think. O.o That was already like that in W:EE. ._.
Another thing, I find the "size" stat does not fit to many units. There are some units that are as big as other units but are "normal" while the other unit is "very big". I don't have an example for that right now, but there are some.

User avatar
urielventis
Sergeant Major
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2012 08:34
Location: Equestria/Region parisienne
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby urielventis » Fri 3 May 2013 18:50

Lazyjim wrote:42. The FV434 Falcon as far as I can tell is a fake unit. The real FV434 is an Armoured Recovery Vehicle. If you wanted to give Britain a SPAAG the best way would have been either a Centurion or Chieftain hull with a Marksman turret. Both of which were actually made as production examples. (Alongside a G6 with the turret as well, which would look really cool.)
What you essentially did here was make up a fake prototype unit, when a real one actually existed.
Mind- blown.

wrong
ImageImage

User avatar
mvp7
Master Sergeant
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 15:22
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby mvp7 » Fri 3 May 2013 18:55

BWP-2 and BWP-2D have completely identical stats while 2D is 5 points more expensive

(plus the Finnish markings on 2D are rubbing salt into my wounds...)

Lazyjim
Sergeant
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 17:51
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby Lazyjim » Fri 3 May 2013 18:59

urielventis wrote:
Lazyjim wrote:42. The FV434 Falcon as far as I can tell is a fake unit. The real FV434 is an Armoured Recovery Vehicle. If you wanted to give Britain a SPAAG the best way would have been either a Centurion or Chieftain hull with a Marksman turret. Both of which were actually made as production examples. (Alongside a G6 with the turret as well, which would look really cool.)
What you essentially did here was make up a fake prototype unit, when a real one actually existed.
Mind- blown.

wrong


I stand corrected, I can only say that I was somewhat thrown off by the misappropriation of the vehicle designation. Though the Marksman would have been a better fit anyway, as it was technically a production unit, and they made more than one.

The 'Falcon' in game however doesn't use the Hispano-Suiza cannons that site says, but instead the KCBs.

Yuibernd
Sergeant Major
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu 2 May 2013 09:52
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby Yuibernd » Fri 3 May 2013 20:01

51.) F-14 with Marine markings. Marines NEVER had F-14s.

52.) LVTP-7 A1 is armed with a 25mm cannon but has the .50cal/40mm AGL turret. I cant even find pictures of USMC LVTP-7 A1s with a 25mm cannon.

53.) US Marines have the CH-47 instead of the CH-46 even though the CH-46 even is in the game.

And dont even get me started on pylon loadouts of the planes.

Its still beta, but if all those things are in the final game I would be REALLY disappointed by the lack of giving a f*ck about research on the units.

dingdingjoke
Corporal
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat 4 May 2013 12:23
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby dingdingjoke » Sat 4 May 2013 12:38

54.) BUK series TEL still mounting KUB missiles

55.) Why are all them R-27 semiacts still painted with dummy stripes, and still being dual mounted on single pylons.. :?:

zervostyrd
Lieutenant
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2012 21:12
Location: Probably North
Contact:

Re: Some Discrepancies

Postby zervostyrd » Sat 4 May 2013 14:19

Chieftain gun, its 120mm. Yet it has one of the worst AP scores for that calibre of gun in the game


The reason for that should be that the Cheiftain (and challengers) cannons are Rifled as opposed to smoothbore like the L44(and US version) and 125mm cannons for the WP and thus considered "inferior".

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests