Pact Nato Balance

User avatar
LoneRifle
Major-General
Posts: 3569
Joined: Wed 3 Jul 2013 17:11
Location: Cackalacky
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby LoneRifle » Tue 16 Jul 2013 17:49

DeuZerre wrote:The ATGM lowers the morale (and thus accuracy) out of the NATO heavy tank's efficiency range, while heavily damaging the tank, rendering it weak against the shells.


I definitely get more kills with the t80B through U variants ATGM's then I do with their main guns. A Refleks will kill ANY tank if it lands a side or rear shot, which is what makes the A?, U and UK variants so dangerous, you set them up for an ambush on a far away road that sees a lot of traffic and hold fire until someones expensive leo2, abrams, or challenger rolls by. Insta Kill if it hits. The Gun's are usually underpowered compared to NATO but its balanced by their superior launchers.

As for the PACT fanboys who say Russian tech is superior..... In AA I'll give it to them, but there is a reason why Soviet tech did poorly in all the middle east wars when compared to NATO tech.
Image

solaris
Lieutenant
Posts: 1400
Joined: Mon 13 May 2013 06:10
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby solaris » Tue 16 Jul 2013 17:53

LoneRifle wrote:As for the PACT fanboys who say Russian tech is superior..... In AA I'll give it to them, but there is a reason why Soviet tech did poorly in all the middle east wars when compared to NATO tech.


You mean the terrible training, unit discipline, potentially substandard ammo/armor packages, and certainly substandard tactics? The performance of the Middle East forces' Russian equipment is not indicative of how they would have performed in Europe when handled by WP forces.
Anecdotes do not count for game balance.

User avatar
Cross
Chief Warrant Officer
Posts: 657
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013 23:49

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby Cross » Tue 16 Jul 2013 18:00

Honestly the main tank of the brits in the 80's was the
Cheiftan 5/10s mostly the 10's

I stand toe to toe with T80's in most games with the cheify 10 and 7 times of 10 the T80 will win (Balance)

Note on the British choice of MBT.
But on the subject of the challenger it was designed as a desert warfare tank with the saudi's it actually has quite good mobillty but like all british tanks they focus on Armor and an Accurate heavy hitting gun.

Chieftain discrepancy
I think the entire chieftain fleet needs a readress EG.

Chieftain Mk 2
First service model with 650 hp engine. (rubbish speed prone to breakdowns)

Chieftain Mk.5
Final production variant, with upgrades to the engine and NBC protection system. (Improved speed)

Chieftain Mk.10
Mark 9 upgrade, addition of Stillbrew Crew Protection Package to the turret front and turret ring. (self explanatory) Accuracy has been buffed to the Cheiftan 11 level :\

But honestly the accuracy of these tanks is terrible, with exception to cheify 10 which by the sound of it resembles more the chieftain 11.

They had rifled guns for god sakes, RIFLED i TELL YA! And the crews were trained solely in the operation of the tank not dismounted Counter insurgency like they are now.
Image

User avatar
DinDong
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 115
Joined: Tue 23 Apr 2013 19:48
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby DinDong » Tue 16 Jul 2013 18:08

posmoo wrote:Nato units are rightfully more technologically advanced and have higher accuracy/better survivability just like in the real world back in 1988, but unlike in the real world they are every bit as cheap as pact units (and actually cheaper in some cases) and therefore the real world quantitative advantage is not there for pact who chose a strategy of quantitative advantage over qualitative. the result in game is we get even starting points in battles and therefore you get pact forces that are outclassed in technology, but also do not have any superiority in numbers that is meaningful unlike in the real world, usually resulting in a win .

Let me give you a real world example. The British Challenger tank rightfully had wonderful armor and a nice stable weapon system that is very accurate and is a great unit in game. it has 11% better armor than the mid 1980s t80 units (a&v) (19 v 17) and a 42.5% better accuracy (10 v 7). This seems reasonable. However both tanks cost the exactly the same, 130 units. In the real world the T80u cost $2.2 on the export market in 1994. The Russians had obviously embraced market principles by then and were essentially bankrupt and no longer giving their armaments away, so we can probably figure a 10% markup so it might have cost 2 million per in 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80

Back in 1988 the Challenger cost 1.5 million pounds so we need to convert this to dollars. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... enger1.htm
the exchange rate was 1.5 dollars to pounds in 1988, so the challenger cost $2.25 million in 1988. Then we need to use an inflation calculator to get 1988 dollars to equal 1994 dollars. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
Here we can see $1 in 1988 was worth $1.25 in 1994. So the $2.25 million Challenger cost 2.81 million in 1994, compared to the 2 million cost of the basic t80 tank, or said another way it cost 40% more to produce.

In game this should translate to a 130 unit cost for the t80 and a 182 unit cost of the challenger.
I could go through an analysis like this for literally every weapon system used in game because everyone knows that nato units were much better, but also much more expensive in real life. This is why the balance is completely broken and pact players are required to do things that nato players never have to like turn their radars off their AA units lest they be destroyed by technologically superior units that were just as cheap if not cheaper for nato players to procure. If the game is going use an accurate depiction of fighting ability (which I thoroughly enjoy) and actually would like a balanced game it will have to also include an accurate depiction of cost.


You keep whining about balance and then you quote real world facts. Real world isnt balanced or did the americans phone-called the soviets when building the abrams tank to ask them which type of calliber and ammunition they used so they could use the same ones and be balanced ? (just an example, i dont know much about military history, please forgive me if that example is wrong in someway)

You either get a game that resembles the real world 1960-1985s military technology but isnt balanced at all OR you get a fictional game, where alot of stuff is altered from real life so it can actually be an enjoyable and balanced non 1 sided game.


If this game has balance problems, i dont know, im not a game balancer myself but you people need to stop trying to fix it by quoting real world stuff. " hey the challenger 1 was more expensive than the t80s in the real world, why they have the same price in this game", just stop it

User avatar
triumph
Major
Posts: 1830
Joined: Sun 31 Jul 2011 20:12
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby triumph » Tue 16 Jul 2013 18:31

None of what was in the original thread has to do with state of the meta or game play balance.
Image
Transcend Excellence

User avatar
SteinerGER
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu 11 Jul 2013 17:18
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby SteinerGER » Tue 16 Jul 2013 18:49

DinDong wrote:- "i dont know much about military history"
- "so it can actually be an enjoyable and balanced non 1 sided game."
- "If this game has balance problems, i dont know"


Why you talk then? :roll:

OnTopic:
I certainly see the OP reason to post but I guess he misunderstood the idea of the points in the game.
On the other hand I feel other PACT-Tanks are pretty much underpowered, I dont want to derail this thread but T72...anyone?

User avatar
Kraxis
Major-General
Posts: 3909
Joined: Wed 10 Jul 2013 11:56
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby Kraxis » Tue 16 Jul 2013 18:54

If we talk economy, then we also have to take into account the industrial price paid in construction. And that's not money. It is manhours, resources and so on. Since it appears we only have the pricetags, then I would argue that the Challenger is in fact cheaper given the massively lower wages paid to the Russian workers and the lower prices in general that the Russian industry would have to pay for components at this time (other Russian industry). So if the price ends up being 60% of a Challenger it points to the T-80 (the 130 points versions) being more of a flat resource drain than a Challenger. Not a lot mind you.
Now the size of Russia, it's greater proportion of military industry and it's higher manpower levels would allow it to build more T-80s but the effort put into each of them would be higher than the Challenger.

Thus the pricetag ingame might not be terribly wrong from an economic point of view. The real price is who pays the most in terms of industrial power, not money.

Remember that the Soviet GDP during WWII was quite a bit smaller than the German GDP all the way to 1945 where the German levels dropped drastically. So if a Soviet tank back then would have cost around 60% of a German tank it would in fact have been equally draining for the economy to construct.
[EUG]MadMat wrote:MadMat says so many things ... :twisted:

User avatar
SteinerGER
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 321
Joined: Thu 11 Jul 2013 17:18
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby SteinerGER » Tue 16 Jul 2013 19:05

Kraxis wrote:If we talk economy, then we also have to take into account the industrial price paid in construction. And that's not money. It is manhours, resources and so on. Since it appears we only have the pricetags, then I would argue that the Challenger is in fact cheaper given the massively lower wages paid to the Russian workers and the lower prices in general that the Russian industry would have to pay for components at this time (other Russian industry). So if the price ends up being 60% of a Challenger it points to the T-80 (the 130 points versions) being more of a flat resource drain than a Challenger. Not a lot mind you.
Now the size of Russia, it's greater proportion of military industry and it's higher manpower levels would allow it to build more T-80s but the effort put into each of them would be higher than the Challenger.

Thus the pricetag ingame might not be terribly wrong from an economic point of view. The real price is who pays the most in terms of industrial power, not money.


No.
This is turning facts to your favor.
Would you want tanks which were produced slowly and in small numbers to be more expensive just because there were less ressources allocated to?
If you have a one man nation building a tank, it took more time to build than a T80U right? Would like this tank to be more expensive than a T80U even if its worse? This is pretty much the point of balancing.
To compare "units" in reallife, evaluate their capabilities, turn this into the game, assess the usability and effectiveness in game and THEN(!) select a "price" and availability of the units no matter of it's reallife costs, productiontime or any other real life factor being disjunct with actual ingamestats(Acc.,Stab.,AV.,AP.,etc.)

Cheers
Last edited by SteinerGER on Tue 16 Jul 2013 19:09, edited 1 time in total.

Gopblin
Major-General
Posts: 3620
Joined: Thu 24 May 2012 19:10
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby Gopblin » Tue 16 Jul 2013 19:08

Kraxis wrote:If we talk economy, then we also have to take into account the industrial price paid in construction. And that's not money. It is manhours, resources and so on. Since it appears we only have the pricetags, then I would argue that the Challenger is in fact cheaper given the massively lower wages paid to the Russian workers and the lower prices in general that the Russian industry would have to pay for components at this time (other Russian industry). So if the price ends up being 60% of a Challenger it points to the T-80 (the 130 points versions) being more of a flat resource drain than a Challenger. Not a lot mind you.
Now the size of Russia, it's greater proportion of military industry and it's higher manpower levels would allow it to build more T-80s but the effort put into each of them would be higher than the Challenger.

Thus the pricetag ingame might not be terribly wrong from an economic point of view. The real price is who pays the most in terms of industrial power, not money.

Remember that the Soviet GDP during WWII was quite a bit smaller than the German GDP all the way to 1945 where the German levels dropped drastically. So if a Soviet tank back then would have cost around 60% of a German tank it would in fact have been equally draining for the economy to construct.


To give you an idea, quick google suggests that e.g. Panther cost 55K man-hours to build, Sherman 48K, T-34 (drumroll....) from 8K in the beginning to under 4K by 1943. So... yeah... about Russian tank production costs relative to the West...

Best wishes,
Daniel
Nationality? - Russian.
Occupation? - No, no, just visiting.

User avatar
Tugboat
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 12:21
Contact:

Re: Pact Nato Balance

Postby Tugboat » Tue 16 Jul 2013 19:11

This is a video game.
Image
Now with smaller Putin!

Return to “Wargame : AirLand Battle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests