War, War never changes!

Private First-Class
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun 2 Jun 2013 19:47

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby Tinkershuffle » Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:20

Bald3r wrote:
Nope never tried those :)

Well then you should. ;)

User avatar
Posts: 6605
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 11:40

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby Grabbed_by_the_Spets » Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:37

Bald3r wrote:
jmpveg22 wrote:
And Aussie i'm guessing... ;)

Nope, but I can understand why you would think so :)
Danish :p

He wouldn't be a part of the military if he we're Aussie, he'd be too busy with everything in his country already trying to kill you :P

User avatar
Master Sergeant
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun 16 Jun 2013 16:36
Location: Denmark

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby Bald3r » Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:38

Vasily Krysov wrote:
Bald3r wrote:As a military person myself...
Who in their right mind would start shooting a 9mm SMG at 525 yards? You would have no chance in hell of ever hitting anything at that range, and even if you got lucky enough, it would never penetrate the skin.

I am dismayed me that someone thinks you have enough intellect to be allowed to use a firearm.

Thank you for that comment :)

9mm have a nice stopping power at close range. It also have a very high muzzle energy at around 500 joules.
The problem is the shape of the projectile vs. the range. We are talking about the retained energy in a SMG 9mm round at 500 meters. True it was an exaggeration to say it would not penetrate your skin, if it was a direct hit, on an unprotected area.

I am comparing 25-35 years old 9mm ammunition. Not the modern versions! Which arguably would give you a smaller even lethal wound, if you managed to hit anything with it.

User avatar
Master Sergeant
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun 16 Jun 2013 16:36
Location: Denmark

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby Bald3r » Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:47

VenerableSteele wrote:
Nice reply, and thank you for your contribution

:D, as much as I really do enjoy realistic games, and how i miss them, no company makes them because the demand for them is very little.

1: Well, I agree that somethings should be left out of the multiplayer parts... Like nukes and long range ballistic missiles. (I think the map sizes are just fine for a pocket war scenario.)

cool, i'm just sorting out what you disagree with or agree with, so i can narrow down the debate, (so, i'll chalk this down as against realism in WAB (because, by leaving it out, makes it unrealistic, so we don't achieve realism)

No 1 player should be managing all this to begin with. It is a team game, focusing on logistics, AA, AAA, CAP, front line, defensive fallback positions, flanking positions, alternate positions, artillery, mortars, CQC, recon, helicopters, Bombers etc. etc. is way to much to be handling in the first place. This is not starcraft, if you want to micromanage ever aspect of a war, you should be severely hampered in your attempt to do so.

of course, you'd have subordinate commanders, but not all players want to be only artillery commanders or squad leaders. can you imagine trying to find a game online where everyone agrees with what they want to play, enough so you get a (each area is covered: AA, Armour, Infantry, air etc) Co-ordinating all this would be a mess.
I'm chalking this down to against Realism in ALB

2:Well I can tell you exactly how much armor the different weapons would penetrate at what angle etc. This is basic knowledge for anyone in the army.

I respectfully disagree, as members of the public, some military equipment charateristics are classified, for example, I think we know what's in ERA, but not what comprises USSR armour on the T-80 U.
also, we have engine limitations(in ALB on armour, (from what I understand, the ERA blocks on the T-80 u were not applied to every possible contact point of the tank. )

in addition, (for example)the challenger firing rate is also a subjective argument, they generally took some competition in a NATO country where the challenger performed poorly and had a slow fire rate, as the idea for the challenger in game.
is this realistic? no, I dont think so, I'm sure its as good as a M1a1 in fire rate in real life.

now, you may disagree with my challenger argument, or anything else, I'm effectively trying to say that some real life military equipment's performance is not ascertainable due to being untested against a genuine OPFOR side. (weak iraqi tanks are hereby excluded)

im chalking this one as against realism, its too difficult to obtain proper realism here.

You make a valid point, game testing would be needed however to form an educated opinion. NATO was undermanned, we would be overwhelmed, that is exactly the point. Therefore NATO would have to outsmart, and fight, retreat, delay, fight, retreat delay etc. (Which was the NATO doctrine.) We could not stand head to head with PACT, we would get steamrolled, thats a simple fact.

1) by making one side so obviously the one to win (because we have excluded strategic options, )
It wouldnt be fun for the majority of players, leading to an exodus of players leading to little or if no multiplayer.
do you wanna play only against the AI?

2)if NATO could successfully (yet again, we don't know if this ideology(hit and run) would work) implement their hit and run ideas, we would need larger maps, and deployment zones and reinforcement points would need to be removed. in short an entire reworking of the game mechanics. (you'd also deploy more as less a whole battalion at a time, ( would be difficult to control all at once, see points further up)

by taking away the game elements of points, deployment areas, it wouldn't be fun, because it would be complicated (even more so than now) to understand, and difficult to get into, leading to fewer players etc...

chalking this down to against realism, we need more players, not less.

4) the fighting wouldn't actually last long, peace talks would come soon. (Why? Well, either we launch nukes now.. Or later, politicians would have come to their senses soon)

4: ???

sorry let me elaborate: by ignoring political ramifications and the likihood of peace ensuing quickly due to moral reasons (extinction of humanity generally overrides all other considerations) the politicians would come to their senses and sue for peace. this is ignored in ALB, and thus unrealistic
I'm pressure sure NATO would have a strategy to hold the line and hope and pray for peace talks anyway.

also against realism in ALB

5: No its not, perhaps from an outsider it would be, but anyone with the historical and practical knowledge of the different units would be able to accurately tell you which had what strengths and weaknesses. Spetznaz would tear the rangers a new one, sorry to say. Rangers = elite infanty, Spetznatz = special forces. You can't even compare the two. (apples vs oranges)

see my point about the military equipment in ALB, its difficult to ascertain a units capabilities in real life, as they have been largely untested in a modern day military engagement envisioned by Eugen's ALB. I can't see their actually being any real difference in accuracy or morale in real life any way.

against realism in ALB, its too subjective to accurately nail infantry performance down properly.

6) most of the NATO hardware would take ages to arrive, so NATO would be stuck with..... Swedish stuff. You wanna hold the line with just their B and C s tanks?

6: ???

ok. so almost all (for example)air units of the UK, if at the time of a war breaking out, would take a while to reach combat effectiveness in scandinavia for us to use them properly in our "realistic" game version. in the meantime, NATO would only be able to use swedish (or similar nordic nations) infantry and tanks against USSR. for a movement of divisions of US or UK troops would take a while.

because most nato equipment then wouldnt be allowed to be used... people wouldnt want to play the game, less players, less fun..


7)with the above changes in mind, the game would NOT be fun.... And there would not be any significant player numbers, matches would be over in 10 minutes with pACT always winning.

7: Subjective opinion, what is fun?

I'll elaborate: fewer players: difficult to get a game, only play aginst AI: not fun. also, playing as NATO in realistic conditions would be a frustrating experience.

8: Don't understand the first point you are trying to make, the second one I agree with, fighting should stop when one side had taken to many losses. A last stand scenario would just never happen.

ill elaborate: a unit, once (around about) it loses, say, half of its troops, it becomes combat ineffective and probably would refuse to fight anymore anyway. so we couldn't use our decks to the full extent we can now.
[this point is minor, and perhaps poorly fleshed out and entirely subjective. let's drop this line of argument. ]

my points about air, resupply and damage in real life.

9: Well perhaps... No one said 100 percent realism anyways.

I know this is a game, I know that there will be some mechanical needs to make this game entertaining and fun.

ahh, you see! but then its not accurate, and it can't then be realistic anyway, and would lead to imbalance, and less fun, frustrating experience.

so, all in all realism should not be the focus:
1) subjective performance of units not ascertainable
2) strategic options are not capable of being used
3) reinforcement points, "gamey" ideas would be dropped, would be less fun and difficult to understand
4) political ramifications are ignored, which are a vital part about warfare,

5) as a result, the player base would decease, games would be frustrating experience because of the no balance achieved. and you'd end up playing against either a friend or AI, (some people cant find friends in order to play :?

TL DR: realism= no balance = no fun = less players.

side note: consider Steel beasts PRO PE (yes, expensive, I know)
VBS2 (expensive)
DCS: world (and DCS combined arms)
for a more realistic game.

I have tried Steel Beast :p I am a dragoon, and the largest simulator is located at my home base :p

I am not arguing realism as a whole, just that the weapons are accurately represented in the statistics.
I think combat effectiveness is something they have actually factored into their mechanics very well :)

I do agree though, that making things to realistic, would probably kill the player base...
Or perhaps not... Look at EVE-Online for instance, it is a niche game, with a very hard learning curve.. It is going just fine, when I last checked :)

I do not feel we are that much in disagreement, I think we might be misunderstanding each other a little :)
Last edited by Bald3r on Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:47, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Master Sergeant
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun 16 Jun 2013 16:36
Location: Denmark

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby Bald3r » Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:47

Tinkershuffle wrote:
Bald3r wrote:
Nope never tried those :)

Well then you should. ;)

Sir, yes Sir.

User avatar
Master Sergeant
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri 17 Aug 2012 16:42

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby loosebruce » Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:48

With Mod tools we can make a realism mod.

Just need to wait and see.

User avatar
Master Sergeant
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun 16 Jun 2013 16:36
Location: Denmark

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby Bald3r » Mon 17 Jun 2013 12:51

loosebruce wrote:With Mod tools we can make a realism mod.

Just need to wait and see.


Posts: 5993
Joined: Mon 7 Jan 2013 07:16

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby Bryan » Mon 17 Jun 2013 13:46

+1 for realism mod

Staff Sergeant
Posts: 99
Joined: Mon 17 Jun 2013 14:05

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby MrRed » Mon 17 Jun 2013 15:25

Hmmmm. Created an account after careful consideration to reply on this particular thread.

The OP points are all extremely valid an in my opinion correct. What he is proposing and is lacking somewhat in WALB is accurate relative performance by different weapon systems. I play wargames and I really like WALB due to it's simple yet accurate dynamics. I cringe a bit when I see threads asking to make the T-72 monkey gun more powerful or, heavens forbid, give it a stabilizer when the real kit has none!

Now, I'm writing this because I see what people are complaining the most and that can be traced to where the game deviates further from reality. Aircraft vs choppers, lack of consistent scaling for AA, lack of time scaling, etc.

Let me explain something, I'm a long time fan of Harpoon 3 (the OP should, by the way, try Harpoon 3 and Combat mission instead of close combat) and things work in a certain way in harpoon 3. They work realistically. Now, I don't play Harpoon 3 all that much because I simply lack the time.
In this game however, things work well and are fast paced, but are broken in more than a few ways and those imbalances come from changes to the systems RELATIVE performance.

Also, for all the "realism" deriders out there, let me just say that it is possible to get estimates of certain weapon system parameters quite easily. T-80s armour for example is no mystery for some years now and even good estimates for the effectiveness of Cobham armour exist made by people who are much more qualified than any of us to comment.
Now, I don't want a rework on the game. The point system representation is fine for a fun fast paced game. What I would like to see, is accurate representation of RELATIVE system effectiveness.

Some examples made from some complaints around the forum that will ruin relative performance:
Give more AP and stabilizers to T-72 basic versions:
T-72 Ural or Monkey using BM-17 steel penetrators can only pierce around 300 mm of equivalent RHA armour at 2 Km. The BM-25, 100 mm round from the 70s has similar performance (slightly worse). So, all the whining to change the T-72 AP values are utter rubbish as it is quite similar to RELATIVE performance now (12AP vs 11AP). So, no performance change needed. For NSWP nations with their own ammo, this could be changed for THEIR modifications. Not in the basic ones. Btw, this value is also quite good since the armour of the T-72 ural frontal arc is around 300mm vs KE projectiles in real life! So you see, still using points but it's realistic performance.
Also, M and basic T-72 models lack any sort of stabilizing kit (or a severely downgraded one) and use coincidence rangefinders to estimate distance to target. How the hell are they supposed to hit anything on the move? They take longer to aim and when they do fire, their fire solution will not be optimal for sure.

For comparison, the projectile used in T-80s in the late 80s would be a DU or Tungsten penetrator with the ability to pierce over 650mm of RHA equivalent.

Helo Spam:
Make aircraft kill helos like the should. No real commander would send Helos into a contested airspace. You want to use them? Make sure you have partial control of the skies at least!

General this unit is OP or UP and should be nerfed/buffed:
Answer is simple, go read on the weapon systems in question, find out how they work in real life and then propose changes that would contribute for the relative balance of the game.

As for me, the answer is quite simple. What the OP wrote is what should be done in this game and THEN take it from there.
Also, some general rescaling (consistent scale) should be made across the board and the very long range AA missiles fired from aircraft removed completely (MiG-31 and F-14). They were supposed to use against AWACS and bombers not fighters and Helos. The game should have two different scales. Ground and helo scale, and Aircraft scale. This is already present due to the different distances that weapon systems can bring to bear but more consistency is required.
For ground, a 2:1 scale (which is already more or less the one present) is fine. For air, I believe 4~5:1 would be enough. This would give Buks and I-hawks around 10 Km range which would allow them to be used as theatre air defence making them more useful and approaching their realistic employment. This would make planes more exposed to AA taking more hits per run unless people are careful.

The problem of deviating from this kind of consistency is that while currently the BuK (and other theatre AA systems) has approximately a 1:10 range scale, an F-117 (example only. Almost all aircraft pact and nato suffer from this) can drop it's Paveway IIin a 4:1 scale (and all this with no speed reduction). This means that an aircraft will be way less exposed to AA fire than it should making them super strong.

This air example implications are then spread throughout the rest of the game and clearly shows what a gamey attitude towards balance brings:
1st, the AA is less effective than it should be. As a result, aircraft roam "free".
2nd the helos become super vulnerable to aircraft because the aircraft intended deterrent is "nerfed to oblivion" and Helos have no real protection against them.
3rd So now, it's the aircraft turn to see their weapon systems downgraded and we are left with planes who have trouble shooting down helos and worst of all, are vulnerable to Helos with stingers. Preposterous! Even when using the same weapons, a fixed wing will always have height and speed advantage comparing to helos making their weapons much more efficient.

So you see, once you start turning away from reality, you have to change drastically the interaction between components of the armed forces since they don't work as they are supposed to work. If you got everything in a constant scale (say 1:5), Buks would have around 8Km range, and an F-117 would drop it's payload at 3 Km. Plus, F-117 would also have to be lowered to be consistent with the scale or, AA ROF vs aircraft increased so that the AA system would have the same chances of interception as their real counterpart.
Again, this is nothing against the F-117 or Buk performance in particular. All air war aspect of this game is wrong with all fixed wing aircraft and AA systems needing work.

So, I truly believe based on my experience, that most of the problems people are having could be solved using realistic relative performance. After all, there's a reason those weapons systems work the way they do and once you start changing it, you'll have to change every aspect of the game veering it further away on how the systems present should operate between one another.

Also, giving AA the ability to turn their RADAR on automatically would make SAM traps much more efficient.

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

Re: War, War never changes!

Postby hanspeter_schnitzel » Mon 17 Jun 2013 15:37

All ranges are not real. 2,5 wargame-meter are one real meter. This means: A tank that fires 2100 meter in the game actually fires only 840 RL-meters. The maps in wargame are not good for realistic ranges. This is not a simulator. It is a RTS that tries to be somewhat authentic, thus it has to be properly balanced.

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests