M1 Abrams baseline

Guggy
General
Posts: 8621
Joined: Thu 17 Nov 2011 02:53
Location: peaceful skeleton realm
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Guggy » Tue 7 May 2013 03:10

Killertomato wrote:You think thermal sights and a laser rangefinder don't make that much of a difference? :lol:


I've never seen more contempt for a spectrum of light than Pact tank fans have for the infrared :P

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13646
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Killertomato » Tue 7 May 2013 03:14

Guggy wrote:
I've never seen more contempt for a spectrum of visible light than Pact tank fans have for the infrared :P


Shh, the ability to see easily at night and through many obstructive agents means nothing. ;)

Same with the ability to actually tell how far the enemy is from you, apparently...
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

tiago
Captain
Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 16:14
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby tiago » Tue 7 May 2013 12:58

Historically the M1 had a horrible gun for the period. THe L7 was way outdated by that time. So the weapon must remain. But I think M1 could have tis price reduecd to 80

tiago
Captain
Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 16:14
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby tiago » Tue 7 May 2013 12:59

Radioshow wrote:Really? NATO is not OP, and never said PACT was OP.

But this is a game and regardless of reality it needs to be playable from both sides. And I beg to differ that the Soviet equipment should be better on every front.
NATO should not be better either. But from reading these post some people seem to think its ok to have one side supremely OP just because, well, they think they were in reality.

NATO had supremacy in deliverable Nuclear warheads and Solid fueled missiles(soviets had mostly liquid fueled), this is not modeled and is a reason NATO was not too worried as they were expected to have to nuke them anyway.

This is a game that only models some aspects of a greater picture. Some units like T80u's should be beasts, but not every friggin unit in PACT's arsenal was godlike!



Was not worried? That is why they spend more on weapons than in education , health etc?

User avatar
Brutoni
Colonel
Posts: 2916
Joined: Wed 27 Mar 2013 19:44
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Brutoni » Tue 7 May 2013 13:12

tiago wrote:
Radioshow wrote:Really? NATO is not OP, and never said PACT was OP.

But this is a game and regardless of reality it needs to be playable from both sides. And I beg to differ that the Soviet equipment should be better on every front.
NATO should not be better either. But from reading these post some people seem to think its ok to have one side supremely OP just because, well, they think they were in reality.

NATO had supremacy in deliverable Nuclear warheads and Solid fueled missiles(soviets had mostly liquid fueled), this is not modeled and is a reason NATO was not too worried as they were expected to have to nuke them anyway.

This is a game that only models some aspects of a greater picture. Some units like T80u's should be beasts, but not every friggin unit in PACT's arsenal was godlike!



Was not worried? That is why they spend more on weapons than in education , health etc?


Your twisting the words of his post. I notice a lot of people who are arguing for no changes what so ever to the game often do that. NATO operated trip wire policy until quite late in the Cold War. Due to this the strength of conventional PACT forces while concerning was not a critical component. Instead the capability of PACT to react in the nuclear scale was more important. This did change when policy went back to nuclear escalation in the hope that a diplomatic resolution could be achieved before convention warfare and tactical nuclear went to strategic nuclear.

The main part of this persons post was concerning balance. This is a game. We can argue the merits of cold war policy from each country and the respective military and who had the best strategic vision and direction (Arguably NATO as they won the cold war because PACT collapsed). However that is not the point. We need to achieve a balanced game.

Currently USSR is very close to being OP or IS OP. The selection of good quality units that out perform NATO with ease of "chaff" means that it is very difficult to stop a competent USSR player from achieving total dominance due to the limitations of game engines and micro management coupled with certain NATO strengths in the game (air) not being modelled particularly well with issues like those seen on the F-15 Strike Eagle and the range of air launched weapons compared to the godly BUK choice. Time will tell if we just need to get used to a new game but the sheer hostility and general refusal to look at balance changes in a BETA (the whole point of a BETA) from PACT players while moaning about things like swingfire ATGM's so they get balanced changed (funny yet another option to stop your tank rush reduced!!) makes me believe you just want to sit fat, dumb and happy.
ImageImage

User avatar
Fri13
Lieutenant
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu 22 Mar 2012 14:22

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Fri13 » Tue 7 May 2013 13:32

Radioshow wrote:This is an alternate universe, all units may not be that same as real world counterparts and PACT was not the military super power everyone thinks it was. They had quantity not quality.


In your alternate universe PACT was not the military super power.
And because this is "alternate universe", why does game try to be game of cold war era and not era after that? I mean like 91-99?
Did Germany win WW2 in your alternate universe in this game?

All the stats in the world make no real difference in a "game". If one side was all powerful you would never have an opponent as no one would play as the other team.


Only if you play a card game, what most player seem to want.
Wargame is a RTT game what tries to be more RTS game (but isn't good on that).

The real game is not in stats, it is in the map. It is that player has specific kind situation and challenge is to outsmart the enemy by using terrain. Not to get units to be balanced or try to tweak them with +-1 value when stats are in the value scale better end where it does not matter so much.

All crazy NATO fans wants their units to be like it would be 1988 and magically all WP units would use their original ammunition what they had when they were manufactured. Like how many is here saying M1A1 should have AP20 because M829A1? That shell was developed 1988. Even 1985 M1A1 was very rarely available MBT and had few M829 shells but no, NATO fans want it to be '4-6 times more available' because it is 'best tank ever, look iraq!' and have better AP because 'look iraq!'.

There are ways how to win WP best units without using any of best NATO MBT. Is it so easy with M48 or M60 in head to head situation? No!

How about stop moving goal posts and actually make the units what they would be in the year when they were manufactured and not as what they were 1985 (unless manufactured then)?.
How about rendering units to reflect what they really would have been, without any magical bias "Oh, this vehicle just happened to be slower than the enemy so lets give it a 100% speed boost for sake of balance and while at it, lets remove 20% accuracy of enemy so it does not hit this so well either!".

When someone says "For game balance and not for reality", then every base value and logic is thrown out of the window from start. As there is no way to balance any unit to level where it would be valuable without making it and its target a compromise where they are one "mass" without difference to others.
Last edited by Fri13 on Tue 7 May 2013 13:42, edited 1 time in total.

ikalugin
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 10429
Joined: Sun 6 Nov 2011 01:00
Contact:

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby ikalugin » Tue 7 May 2013 13:39

Shh, the ability to see easily at night and through many obstructive agents means nothing.

Same with the ability to actually tell how far the enemy is from you, apparently...

Funny thing, we did have a laser range finder on T64B, which is 3 years older than M1.
Image
Spoiler : :
We need more missilez code for the missilez god.
Praslovan:
"Tactical Ikalugin inbound on this position in 10... 9..."
Image

User avatar
Fri13
Lieutenant
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu 22 Mar 2012 14:22

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Fri13 » Tue 7 May 2013 13:58

ikalugin wrote:
Shh, the ability to see easily at night and through many obstructive agents means nothing.

Same with the ability to actually tell how far the enemy is from you, apparently...

Funny thing, we did have a laser range finder on T64B, which is 3 years older than M1.


And example in T-72A what included the "Delta-d" (AFAIK Vitakrithadnyi Kaphodnyi) what changed the metered range based distance traveled toward enemy without demand to re-laze the target again (and calculated the turret position toward direction, meaning if turret was 90 or over degree on side, distance was not changed).

User avatar
Fri13
Lieutenant
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu 22 Mar 2012 14:22

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Fri13 » Tue 7 May 2013 14:00

Graphic wrote:
Fri13 wrote:
Graphic wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JJ700tVT_0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpdJuix5ndA


Funny, you must be a little self aware of how worthless your input is if you automatically assumed that was meant for you.


Funny, I thought you would know that it was for you because your video related to everyone in this thread....

User avatar
Fri13
Lieutenant
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu 22 Mar 2012 14:22

Re: M1 Abrams baseline

Postby Fri13 » Tue 7 May 2013 14:12

Killertomato wrote:
Fri13 wrote:
M1 Abrams has 3 times better accuracy. Having TIS would give a 1 AC more, having a laser range metering 1 AC more. But T-72 is not 2 AC lower, it is 5 AC lower.


You think thermal sights and a laser rangefinder don't make that much of a difference? :lol:


Thermal Sights makes difference at night for longer distances. It does not make the MBT more accurate at day time when you can see the target. And M1 and M1A1 had very low resolution TIS systems (what btw were one reason why they were shooting each other 1991 in Iraq.... as you couldn't separate even own M2 from enemy T-72).

The thermal vision system shouldn't affect how accurate you are, but the AIMING SPEED is then totally different thing. There T-72 would have lower aiming time than M1 but more inaccurate? No....

If we get night maps, then there should be totally own separate stat for vehicles to give the balance in combat at night and day. Meaning accuracy and range.

Where example M2 Bradley would win BMP-2 because it has a thermal vision system for gunner.
ANd M2 Bradley could see BMP-2 trough smoke while BMP-2 was blind (clear advantage in possible engagement).
M2 Bradley could have 1750m range at night, BMP-2 would have only 900-1200 (don't even know/remember what would they have).

So if we would get a dynamic time rotation or possibility to play any map at day and night, it would turn totally different results as where day times WP MBT has better armor, better range, better penetration, more speed. On night time NATO MBT would have way better range and better accuracy. WP MBT would not gain anything from its better range, armor or penetration when enemy MBT can see them while they can't see enemy.

And then the night stats would even include that if you have high resolution TIS or low resolution TIS etc and based the quality, change nigh accuracy and night range.

And those are the things what would make NATO vehicles "higher quality".

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests