|
Soviet auto-loaders
Were they that good that they could out shoot weastern tanks?
It was noticed during the first Iraq War that it took a T-72 10 seconds to re-load between rounds. In a battle thats a long time. I dont have the exact quote but a US Tanker of the time said something like this, " I would hate to be a Iraqi tanker in a T-72. After the first round fired it was 1 mississipe, 2 mississipe, and all the way up to 10 mississipe before they could fire again because of their auto-loader. By then we had already returned fire." Now seeing that most modern Russian/Soviet tanks also fire a ATGM out of the same tube as their sabot and HEAT ammo, why are some of their tanks ROF as high as 8? This is a great advantage to the Russian tanks as fo the first six shots that they take they actually fire 12 projectiles. On the other hand Weastern tanks with weapons of 90mm or better only have a ROF of 6? The French Leclerc is the only exception. It also has a ROF of 8. Did the French sell the tech to Eastern block Countries? Anyone have a reply that will help me? |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Question, do you TEST any of these ideas in the game or just look at stats ? When you play are you actually seeing Iraqi T-72's out gunning Abrams shot for shot? Are you Abrams running out of shots before an Iraqi T-72 in a one to one tank battle?
No, they are not If you take Iraqi RG T-72's circa mid 1990's with their normal country training and experience / moral modifiers on they have 3 shots per turn. If you take US Abrams they are split about 50/50 4 shots with a few per platoon 3. What would you like us to do... reduce the T-72's to 2 shots? Or boost the Abrams to 4 and 5 shots? Oh wouldn't that be a "fun" game. Why even bother to play? They already slice through the T-72's. Guess what happens when you take those Iraqi tanks and reduce the ROF down to 5 ?? You'll know this because I'm sure you already tested your theory-------- the number of shots available to the secondary weapons drops 1 point. Still 3 shots on the main gun though !. Hmmmm what happens when I reduce that ROF to 4? Why not a thing. The same numbers come up for main armament and secondary weapons like TMG and CMG. So, what have we learned? That reducing the ROF has a negligible effect on main gun armament ROF as the main determinator of that number is crew experience and moral and if we did reduce the number of shots available to the Russian built tanks to actually make a difference you could see in the game we all might as well just take up golf because only a complete masochist would waste his time playing with Russian equipment that has 2 shots give that would be the average after you dropped the number by one as you seem to want. Oh , and one last thing. The code has small penalties built in that affect FC and accuracy when the tank crew is less than 4. So the Russian equipment with the added ROF because of the autoloader has penalties because it has 3 crew members As for the your question about the French. No, they didn't sell the tech to the east block and if you'd spent even ten minutes testing some of this before pounding out questions on the keyboard you would have found the ONLY thing having 8 ROF does to the Leclerc is give it one extra shot for its CMG and AAMG. That's it. The sum total of 8 ROF vs 6 ROF in real game terms. And finally, lets take the most expensive Russian tank in the inventory in August 2005. My OOB's have had the points adjusted so in these OOB's that would be a T-80UM1 Bars and throw it up against a M1A2 SEP Abrams. "Country training" is on so this is the way most people would fight these to vehicles. The T-80s are allowed , right down the line through two companies of tanks 3 shots from the main armament and ONE shot from the 9M119M2 Refleks.( and they LOSE that Refleks shot if they move ) Now lets look at the SEP. 4 shots from the main gun for the most part, sometimes 3 but that is, once again, mostly experience and moral that boosts that number upwards. So under normal game conditions the western tanks are already getting 1 extra shot and the code already has a small tweak to penalize the three man Russian crews. It would be as ridiculous to over all game play to reduce the Russian to 2 shots as it would to jack up the western tanks to 4 and 5 shot averages Don |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
What Don said, really.
Too many folk seem to zoom into the OOB data and fixate on one particular number, without any understanding of the game system, and how things all intermesh. Often these "opinions" are not backed up by a simple reality check in a test scenario or similar. Crew experience is the main factor here. Also the 3 man knock down on ROF for non MG/autocannon type weapons. There is no "check box" for autoloader in the game - just an ROF. The Soviet tanks with this extra point or so of "baseline" ROF need this to counter the kick back for 3 man crews really. They do not have "125mm machine guns", as a simple playtest of a T-72 will show. With the stats, they are usually even in actual main gun shots IN THE GAME ITSELF with western MBT, or perhaps 1 behind. As to getting the "extra" ATGM - that is the way that the game mecahnism handles cannon-launched ATGM, same as with the Sheridan. The ATGM requires to have its own separate weapon slot, since as far as the game is concerned it is a separate weapon. Andy |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Quote:
I do wonder if the T-80 and other tanks suffer the real problem with the 152 gun launcher. The shock of the gun screws up the electronics of the missile control system. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
As with the Sheidan a Russian tank has to stop, or at least slow down to fire a ATGM out of the main gun tube.
The weapons system on the Sheridan also was rejected by the US because it could not fire fast enough. it was kept as a secondary weapons system, but in the end it was dead MEAT! Not enough armor and a slow gun. Sort of like a Russian tank. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
I have to agree with what Don said, but I still think there is a minor incoherency in the ROF parametering: how come the ROFs on autoloading tanks depends so much on crew training, since one of the main advantages of the thing, faster than hand loading or not, is that you can give it away to less-trained crew without loader and have a decent ROF? The ROF determination should be mostly technical, either slower on Russian tanks (?) or faster for ither autoloaders (Strv-103, Type-90, Leclerc...).
I guess this point can be turned out by relating to the fact that the game "ROF" (i.e. shots-per-turn) takes many other factors into account and is no exact "gun reload delay" except for artillery. In that perspective the crew has a lot to do with it: what is the point of autoloading your gun in 4 sec when the (inexperienced) crew takes one more minute to zero in on the target? Sigh, I guess I contradicted myself yet again... Anyway, I hope I made some kind of point though! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Quote:
|
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Some very good replies!
Now can someone explaine why Unit #584 125mm2A45ATG in the Russian OOB only has a ROF of 5? Also what about the JSIII and T-10 with the 122mm gun. Should they have the same ROF as any Weastern tank with a gun of 90mm or above? Now remember this is 2 part ammo vs 1 part ammo, and no auto loader. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Russian T-80, ROF of 7. South Korean T-80ROK, ROF of 8. Why?
|
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
"Now can someone explaine why Unit #584 125mm2A45ATG in the Russian OOB only has a ROF of 5?"
Did you bother to look at the other AT guns and their ROF.? The bigger the gun the lower the ROF for ATG. An 85mm is 7, a 100mm is 6, and a 125mm is 5. It's a perfectly logical progression and makes perfect sense to me for that weapon. "Russian T-80, ROF of 7. South Korean T-80ROK, ROF of 8. Why? " IDK whoever put it into the OOB probably though since it's "westernized" in South Korean hands so it MUST be better than the Russian version so it should have a higher ROF. Did YOU look at what effect that one ROF makes in the game? I doubt it, or you wouldn't have mentioned it. It make no difference to the main armament, none. A typical ROK tank company with 8 ROF for that tank averaged between 3,6,6,- and 4,6,6- and a company of the same tanks with a 7 ROF average 3,5,5,- and 4,6,6,- so the net sum total is an extra shot with the AAMG's for a few of the tanks. "Also what about the JSIII and T-10 with the 122mm gun. Should they have the same ROF as any Weastern tank with a gun of 90mm or above? Now remember this is 2 part ammo vs 1 part ammo, and no auto loader. " The explanation from the previous post didn't mean anything at all to your did it? Do you want them to be reduced to 2 shots? That's the only alternative here. Would it make you happy if the T10's ROF was reduced to 4? I would think it would given you seem to base your questions on the stats in the game rather than what happens in the game. If T-10's were 4 ROF would that seem "fair" that this big clumsy Russian tank with two part ammo now has a ROF number 2 points lower than a "western" tank? Did you run any experiments to see what that would do? It lowers the number of shots of the MG's. I could reduce it to ONE ROF and all that would happen is the secondary armament doesn't get as many shots. Don |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
This is a very very good thread, for the information coming out concerning the ROF/FC/ etc interplay in the game; I'll definitely be condensing it for my "unit creation document"
|
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
DRG,
Thank you for your reply. Now what do you have to back it up! What I see now is that GAME PLAY is more important than REALITY.! |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Mark,
Keep an EYE on this. It will get ugly! |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
1 Attachment(s)
Hey Buddy, here's something to EYE!
Check the attachment! "General Dynamics Land Systems also offers the Modular Low-Profile Turret 105 (LPT 105), fully described in the Light tanks section, for installation on the Centurion, as well as other vehicles such as the Leopard 1, M48, M60, M1, T-54/T-55/T-62 and AAV7A1. The LPT, which is armed with a 105 mm gun firing standard NATO ammunition, offers a number of advantages as follows: it reduces the profile of the tank and therefore makes it harder to hit, it reduces the overall weight of the vehicle (so allowing additional armour to be applied to the hull), it reduces the crew from four to three, it provides increased protection against top attack and has further growth potential to 120 mm and a mix of guns and missiles." Sorry if this isn't on-topic, but it is an interesting auto-loader. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Yes DRG I did do a test. T-10Ms vs M1A2SEP Abrams. The Abrams while sitting still had a one shot advantage but after both vehicles moved their full movement, almost all the Abrams had only 2 rounds of main gun ammo to shoot (some did have 3) and so did the T-10Ms.
So on the move a T-10M matches an Abrams in ROF? P.S. Yes the Abrams totally dominated all the scenarios. Only once while I played the Russians did I manage to "button" one of the Abrams while loosing 17 tanks out of 3 companies of T-10Ms. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
And when the T-10ms move (or any Soviet tank that is in the same era as just about any western tank) the Western tank that has moved has a better chance of actually hitting it's target after it has moved . You can have all the rounds in the world and if all you hit is air they are worthless to you so that further tips the balance in favour of the western tank even though you think the Russian equipment fires too many rounds in comparison to it's western counterpart.
In answer to you other question, we consider all factors-- gameplay AND reality and in a game, gameplay is important (as is reality) and when designing any game getting a balance between the two sometimes conflicting issues is difficult but in the end, it's a game. If you want reality, join the army. It you want to play this game but don't think this one has enough emphasis on "reality" you are free to sit down and edit a complete set of OOB's and offer them up for people to try and if they like them they'll tell you and if they don't, they'll tell you as well. Don |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
You just made my point!
|
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Quote:
Have fun reworking all the OOB's. I'm sure everyone will be interested in what you come up with Don |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
T-10M is still equil to the Abrams M1A2 as far as ROF?
Are you on drugs? I did the test did you? An Abrams has the same ROF as a 1950s tank with two part ammo? Your getting mad and just silly. Show me some facts. Or cant you? |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
You are being very silly here yourself. You can't even interpret your own test correctly!
As to the T10 being equal in ROF to the Abrams you've actually denied that twice in your own posts. You said the Abrams had 1 shot advantage while sitting still (first ROF difference). You also mentioned that while most Abrams had 2 shots left just like the T10's after moving their full allowance, some had one more. Sounds like a difference to me (nr 2). But the silliest is that you had both tanks move their own full allowance and than compare them as if that was an equal comparison! I've checked it (yep, did the test) and a T10 with speed 14 will get to an astonishing 24 mph on the road. An abrams with speed 22 will make it at 38 mph. Congratulations, you've just showed that a much faster moving abrams has just slightly more shots left (averaging all your tanks) than a much slower moving T10. But guess what happens when you move the Abrams at the SAME speed as the T10 (24mph on the road), in other words, make an equal comparison? I do find it a bit baffling though. Here you go wanting to see an actual difference in ROF because of ammo type (2 part vs 1 part). As if making a distinction in ROF between different calibers isn't enough you now want to see 2-part ammo cause a measurable effect (we are talking short turns here, remember)? If we work down the calibre list and factor in all the different guns and their ammo types I guess we'd end up with 57mm guns having a ROF of 15 to 20. Cause lets face it, any chance in the current situation with regards to the Abrams and T10's would ripple through all the OOB's and you'll be back soon enough with another unit to ***** about. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
nar wan,
It was silly. T-10s and Abrams tanks will never see one another in action. On the other hand my point was made even by your tests that after full movement a 1950s era T-10 still had the same ROF as most of the Abrams on the field. One piece ammo vs two piece, a very good modern stabiliser vs none. Yes the test was silly but made a point. My scenario was advance vs advance. After playing both sides twice, no Abrams were hit and most of the T-10ms were destroyed. As it should be. In one scenario while playing the Russian side I did manage to "button" one Abrams. But recorded no direct hits. The whole point here was ROF. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
I may do that soon Don, but right now Im helping on 2 other projects.
Reality is a factor! |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Maybe instead of being hyper-technical on what is a relatively minor point that, it appears to me from the threads I've read, is inherent to teh game engine and can't much be adjusted regardless, why not make your own OOB to demonstrate a "superior" set of values, and shop it around.
I'd personally prefer to see the programmers, who are remarkably dedicated to the users and extremely busy, focused on other issues that seem to be a little grander in scheme (like the 60+ fixes they are releasing in the patch). Just my thoughts. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
"On the other hand my point was made even by your tests that after full movement a 1950s era T-10 still had the same ROF as most of the Abrams on the field"
Now lets turn that back into 'reality'. Shouldn't both vehicles have 0 shots after using their full movement? After all, they either just spend the entire time allowed for a turn 'moving' leaving no time left for firing at all, or if there still is time left (to fire), they should be able to move faster in a turn (using that time to keep moving instead of firing). But that's not how the game works. As in any model of (part of) reality abstractions need to be made to simplify things. Otherwise you wouldn't have a model but reality itself. A good model distinguishes itself not by it's processes (what you seem to be focused on) but by it's outcomes. For instances, the game makes no distinctions between KIA, WIA (physical or otherwise), MIA, POW's, and deserters. It has only a broad category named 'kills' (with the occassional 'group surrender'). Works fine because for the model it doesn't matter how the enemy troops were taken out of the fight, just that they are. Same with your ROF. The real question is whether an accurate balance of fighting power is achieved, of which the ROF is only part. You mention 2-part ammo as a factor for ROF, well, speed is also a factor; the faster a vehicle is moving the bumpier the ride and the harder the task for the loader. At the end of the round the Abrams is moving much faster than the T10 (if both use their full movement) so it's loader should get a bigger penalty than the T10's loader, shouldn't they? Would that penalty be bigger, equal to, or smaller than the 2-part ammo penalty? |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
nar wan,
You make some excellent points about movement being a factor. In the game, if a unit fires it will lose movement points. It can fire its full ROF and still have a little movement left. In the open, on clear ground, in the game, the Abrams moved at 19MPH. This is below what it is capable of. The only source I have on hand now claims that the road speed is 45MPH and its cross country speed is virtually the same. The lower speed in the game allows with some reality that the Abrams could retain some of its ROF. The T-10M on the other hand in the same conditions in the game moves at 12MPH. The T-10 was a little easier to look up. Max road speed for the T-10M is stated as 31MPH. Cruise speed on roads is 22MPH. Max cross country speed is stated as 12MPH. So your right, the T-10 should have one shot left after moving its full movement allowance. The one round in the tube. And yes 2 part ammo with out an auto loader is a bad thing. A 122mm HE shell comes in at 25kg, thats about 55 to 56 pounds, AP is slightly heavier. Then you have the case and powder charge to deal with. A 120mm M256 compleat round (M829A3) weighs less than 56 pounds. That is about the same as the HE shell alone from the 122mm gun. Which loader would tire faster? |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
"Which loader would tire faster?"
The one not being bounced up and down by the tank moving at high speed (over uneven terrain)! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Still, when moving at the same speed, the Abrams has a shot more. If it moves 50% faster it has about the same number of shots. Looks like a fair advantage to the Abrams to me... |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
nar wan,
At high speed the Abrams crew describes the experiance more as flying. This is not true of most Soviet tanks or 50s, 60s, 70s, era tanks. Even now they only have a modified suspention of a T-54. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
REALITY CHECK!!!
The term ROF found in the OOBs is not a 1 to 1 reflection of the actual rate of fire of any weapon in this game! Don and Andy have said as much in this thread and others. ROF in the OOBs is one count that one factor in determining the actual ROF of a unit. The ROF figure also appears to have some consequences on other values as well. Therefore could we please just drop the whole bloody subject about weapon system X having only a ROF of 4 when weapon system Y has 5? Most especially drop it if the complaint is related to such and such Western weapon system should blast the hell out of such and such ex-WP weapon system! Finally as Don and Andy have pointed out multiple times as well don't sit and look through the OOBs and complain about foo being to low/high without whipping out a test scenario and seeing what screwing around with a value does! |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Yes scJazz, they are right to a point.
At experiance 75 to 99 an M1 Abrams has a ROF of 4. If it moves a little more than its full movement allowance the ROF is reduced to 3. Full movement reduces this to a 2 ROF. T-80UMI BARS with experiance from 50 to 74 has a ROF of 3+1 Reflex ATGM. An Abrams in the same experiance class has a ROF of 3, as do any tank not armed with a gun tube launched ATGM. When you put the Russian tanks in the experiance range of 75 to 99, their ROF jumps to 4 main gun rounds plus 2 ATGM shots if the tank sits still. In a test scenario at least one Russian tank when I played the Russian side was able to fire off all the main gun rounds and all the ATGM for a total of 6 shots. In this range the Russian built tanks with gun tube launched ATGM have a 2 shot advantage over the Abrams or any other Western tank for that matter. The Russian 2 shot advantage continues through the 100+ experiance ranges. At the extream experiance rating of 255 the Abrams or any tank without a gun tube launched ATGM has a ROF of 9. A Russian built tank with a gun tube launch ATGM capable main gun can fire 9 rounds a turn, plus 4 ATGM. Now it is true that if the Russian built tanks move more than 3 or 4 hexes they tend to loose the ability to fire their ATGMs, this is as it should be. Do I have a solution? Yes, but not the knowledge to make it happen. Useing the experience rating to reflect ROF works well with a hand loaded main gun. But when trying to illustrate a mechanical device (auto-loader) that is not really effected by how fast a human can move or how well he is trained. It is IMHO that weapons of this type (with tank main armmament auto-loaders) have there own class and have their ROF hard coded. Just an idea. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
There may be a temporary solution. If you raise the ROF of Western tanks to 14 this will raise the on board ROF of their main guns by 1. This will at least help. Going higher, (like into the 20s or more) have effects that could tip the balance of play too much.
Test it! I did! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Edit, This should only apply to Western tanks after the Russians have gun tube launched ATGM. Edit, P.S. DRG ROF can be changed! |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Some interesting bits
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/ "What makes T-64-style autoloader notably faster than that of T-72 is the presence of 'sequence' mode. When it is enabled, the loading mechanism continuously loads the rounds of the same type without any gunners intervention. In addition, the rotation of the carousel to get the new round is done immediately after the previous round has been loaded, in parallel with the firing procedure. This allows to perform all the blocking loading operations in under 5 seconds. T-90 has received similar advancement in autoloader logic. Advances in the autoloader design along T-64 and T-80 line also include the reverse rotation of the carousel thus allowing much faster cycles when the magazine is partially depleted." Of course the above does not apply to older T-72s and the accurate representation of barrel fired ATGMs is a problem in the game, just like ERA.BUT the fact that your T-80UM can pump out rounds as fast as an Abrams is not really a mistake.With an adequate loading plan for the autloader it should be able to do that. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
"Even now they only have a modified suspention of a T-54."
I do not get it.Can you explain me how the suspensions of a T-64 are the same of a T-54? The layout seems quite different to me. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Quote:
Congratulations. You discovered that if you toss oddball numbers into the OOB's sometimes you can get the results you want even as people tell you the reason you want to do it is flawed and WILL throw the game balance off ( yep kevin.. it is a game ). Depending on the experience 13 or so will get you one extra and 17 or so will get you two more. And giving all the "western" tanks a one shot advantage on top of all the other advantages they enjoy will satisfy you and maybe a handful of other people but that's it. I am not changing the official game OOB's. They do not need to be. The other factors already give "western" tanks all the advantage they need and the game plays well. Don |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
DRG,
I did test the higher numbers and it was too much. But the ability to fire one extra round will at least close the ROF gap with out having to go to almost unrealistic experience ratings. With my suggested ROF the Western tanks within the same experience rating field will still have a one shot dis-advantage unless moving were they would gain a shot. Also when the Russian built tanks run out of ATGM and both sides have the same experience their ROFs will be even. |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Like the advantage of their experience rating?
Or why their guns are 2 to 3 points less in the accuracy rating? (While not true of all Western tanks with 120mm guns, some of which have guns from the same manufactuer.) |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Quote:
Kevin, if you'd bothered to read the list of patch changes you would have read that the accuracy issue of smoothbore guns has already been addressed but don't let that stand in the way of you flogging your "point" to death. Those changes to the smoothbore accuracy have been "news" for a month now. It's point 56 if you're interested. When the patch comes out you and other like minded players can have fun debating the merits of those adjustments. Don |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Sorry DRG,
I was truly ignorant of the facts. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif Im glad to hear that there will be change. Thank you. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif |
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
comke on, the M1 is crap, russian stuff much better !
|
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
|
Re: Soviet auto-loaders
Alpha,
Things are looking up with this new PATCH! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smile.gif |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.