A long road
 

Hi to you all.

I'm stumbling over a dilemma while trying to modify the french OoB. As a template unit for adjusting some MBTs values I decided to use the M1 Abrams. Here's my question: knowing this vehicle is able to shoot accurately while moving at 15km per hour max., I can see the Speed value used by the game is fairly accurate: 25; wich translates to 10 to 12 hexes per turn, off road. This represents roughly between 12 and 14,4 km per hour and that's pretty correct (while it does fail to represent the fact that the vehicle must decelerate (or even go to a full stop? Any "real life" M1 gunner here?) in order to reload between shots... ). Taking these values into account, what should be the number used to represent the capacities of an AMX Leclerc? This vehicle is able to shoot accurately (and reload) while moving at 40km per hour. Accordingly, the values used in the game sould not be 23 (how the creator of this OoB got this number remains a complete mystery to me!) but 66 (33 hexes per turn while driving off road)! I know the weight of the vehicle should be a factor here but a M1 weighs 60t and a Leclerc 56t... .
What do you think?

Re: A long road
 

As a related topic, could the creator of these OoBs entries (Abrams and Leclerc), give a small overview of the references and bibliography he worked with? I'm wondering why the Leclerc 2 is affected 50 in Fire control and a Stabiliser of 5, while the Abrams M1A2 SEP gets 55 and 6? Which datas where used here? As long as theses values (Speed, FC and RF) are used when firing while moving, it's very important and that really makes a huge difference between a kill and a miss (whith equally experienced crews).
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to start a polemical thread here! I just find it hard to start modifying anything as long as I don't know which references were used. I'm sure many users encounter the same problems: some data are obviously wrong but how to handle any changes if there are no basis to refer to?

Re: A long road
 

***GAME SCALE ALERT!!!***

First a reminder: one movement point in the game (i.e. one hex per turn, one speed point) equals roughly 3 (three) km/h or 2 mph.
Take that into account when calculating game speeds. 20+ is a decent road speed for a modern tanks, not factoring in overdrives that can take any of them (not only the Leclerc) up to 100km/h, at great risks for the drive train and the road.


Also keep in mind that not all OOBs have been created by the same people, so for two different countries, you may have two totally different sets of standards. Not to mention people's national pride kicking in from time to time.

Now that you mention it, the Leclerc and M1A2 should have broadly the same values. Maybe the Leclerc's FCS is slightly more sophisticated (at least the Serie 2+, but I wouldn't bet on it), but it is also reported to be largely less user-friendly, so chances are you could give it a slightly lower value for the same crew experience.

Re: A long road
 

I think you don't understand how the game is put together and perhaps you need to read some of the documentation we DO provide before offering criticism of other peoples work

From MOBHack HELP

MOVEMENT - SPEED OF UNITS

Ground Speed equation is: max km/h speed divided by 3 = SPEED in hexes.

a unit with 23 hex movement has a "real life" speed capability of approx 70kph

and to quote http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leclerc/

"The engine is fitted with a Suralmo-Hyperbar high pressure gas turbine. The engine provides a road speed over 70km/h and cross country speed up to 50km/h."

so this number in the OOB's is correct.......yes?

As to the FC and stabilizer and RF. There are no "real life" numbers that compare with this. They only exit in the game and they are usually determined by comparing similar units then making a judgement call as to how that unit fits in with it's contemporaries and IF you do compare the Lecrecs numbers with other MBT's you will find it is quite comparable with other MBT's. The Abrams SEP is an exception with 6 FC. Most Abrams that are the Leclercs contemporaries are 5 as are the Chally 2 and the Leo 2a5 or 2a6

As for " a small overview of the references and bibliography he worked with" THINK about that a minute then open up the game and look at all those nations and all the units in those nations and ask yourself would YOU provide "a small overview of the references and bibliography he worked with" for each one??

Don

Re: A long road
 

Hello to you either. I thank you for reminding me the reason why these questions came to my mind in the first place... . By the way, is this the only thing that comes to your mind when a newcomer asks a polite question: that's criticism?!

No, I don't understand how "some parts" of the game are put together and no, I haven't found answers to these very questions in the GG or the help files provided. Where, in this documentation, can be found data about the way the capacity of a vehicle to shoot accurately while moving is compared to it's off road speed? No, I don't criticize the work that has been done. I've done quite a lot myself, trying to collect data, documents, and modify the gameplay to suit my taste since my first box of SP1, more than ten years ago. On the other hand, I've always been told -and I agree with that statement- that positive criticism is a good way to make things move the right way: forward. Should every message posted here begin by: "What a great game; a great team" and finish with: "keep on the great job" ? I can do that -and that's only because I truly think both (the game and it's crew) deserve it- but if nothing else is *allowed* between these two sentences, what's the point? I know fora aren't supposed to be democratic places but are they supposed to be dictatorships?

Thanks again, to remind me that I wrote: "... the Speed value used by the game is fairly accurate (...) that's pretty correct...". What a pretty nasty kind of criticism, isn't it? Even though I realize I was using the wrong assumption that 1 game turn equals 150 to 180 seconds when it actually represents 60 seconds! That means that your M1 Abrams is riding off road at 36km/h and still able to fire accurately! Wov, I realize I was mistaken but it's far from what I was thinking... very far!!!

Talking about the off-road or max speed, yes that's almost correct (72 on road and >55 off road. Impossible to model ingame due to the way it's calculated, that would give 24 and 18 but the game uses 24 and 12; correct me if I'm wrong), and it's funny for that's exactly what I said in my original posting... even though I was mistaken! BUT you don't answer to what my question actually is. The M1 is rated 25 and the Leclerc 23 BUT the M1 CANNOT fire accurately while moving at a speed exceeding 15km/h off road (can he actually fire at all while running at 30/36km/h? I suppose the answer's yes but he sure CANNOT do that accurately, nor reload! Can the loader actually -and safely- handle those 105mm shells while running at 15km/h off road? That's a side question, but I guess it could be quite risky at times, depending on the nature of the terrain). A leclerc CAN actually fire accurately AND reload normally -and very quickly- while moving at a speed of 40km/h off-road (50km/h according to the GIAT data). Shouldn't this kind of facts be taken into account when it comes to model the off road speed limit, accuracy and RoF? Is there a way to model such behaviors and not only for these two MBTs? I bet the answer's there's no way to achieve such a modelisation by simply using MobHack. Do you think such variables could be implemented in the game code? Is it already there and I didn't notice? The data provided by the game shows a M1 firing (accurately?) and reloading while driven at full speed in cross country and that's weird imho. How can I use these data as a template for checking and eventually modifying those of the Leclerc, AMX30, T72 and so on?!

I see. I guess there's no way to have any insight, or formula, on how these different parameters interact with each other. It would be useless, however, since it's hard coded and the code won't be released publicly this millennium. Is the old formula used in SP2: if Rng (greater or equal to) Acc then Prec= 25 + 24x(Wpn Acc-Rng)/Wpn Acc... and so on? Thanks for the answer, anyway.

A final thank to you, for reminding me I'm a complete moron unable to think about anything else than criticizing someone else's work.

If asked politely by a devoted fan? Yes, of course, why shouldn't I! Are those secret data? I know of many games manuals referencing their sources; that's a common way to act. No big deal here! But then again, a biblio "for each one", that's absolutely not what I asked for! However, you actually -even though partially- answered my demand, by quoting this web site at Army technology... therefore demonstrating my question wasn't that incongruous... . By the way this web site was already in my bookmarks but I thank you anyway. As a matter of fact, I myself could provide a complete list of every book or web site I usually refer to when in need of infos. I'm eager to share those with anyone asking for it.

As a final word I'd like to say that if you think that asking questions about the basic principles and mechanisms of this game is nothing more than criticism, then I don't understand why this forum is made for? Is this a place where zelators of the Camo Cult are allowed to post their eulogies and nothing more? If it's the way it's meant to be then that's sad news to me, indeed. Thanks for taking time to answer and good day to you all.

Re: A long road
 

Thanks a lot for the info but, how do you think I calculated the speed previously? It seemed so unbelievable to see a M1 firing and reloading while driving at 36km/h off road that I thought the ancient data used by SP2 (1 turn=150-180') was still used here! This gave a M1 12-14km/h off road capabilities, which was almost acceptable (considering this unit can fire while moving at 15km/h). I was wrong and it's actually 60 seconds per turn!

I agree but it means 10 for off road capabilities and that's WAY to much for moving AND firing, except for the AMX Leclerc.

Do you mean that the data aren't checked against each other between the different OoBs? I don't think that's possible!

I see what you mean but there's no national pride here, just raw and unquestionable data, widely accepted and verified (even though there's always a margin between the values presented). The M1 is unable to fire and reload while driving off road at 36km/h. The Leclerc is -as far as I know, so don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong- the only MBT worldwide able to do this. Not even to mention the accuracy factor. No pride or "I have the biggest one" syndrome here.

I'm talking about the M1 which, according to the game was brought into action in 1980, and the Leclerc first generation, which was first issued to a real unit (the 6-12 RC, the one who's been recently sent to South Lebanon with the FINUL) in July 1994 (not in January 1992 as the game says), not the M1A2! The M1A2 is using a 120mm gun while the M1 used the 105mm M68A1, based on the English L7 tube, the same that was equipping the M60... .

When it comes to moving and firing simultaneously -and that's my only concern here- I don't thinks there's even the slightest point to compare the two vehicles. The General Dynamics FC system of the latest versions of M1A2 are probably as good as the one equipping the Leclerc but they remain with manually loaded tubes. I suppose that's a concern in the US army staff. Maybe that's the kind of reasons leading them to evaluate the possibilities of guided shells, as the MRM CE... while this kind of systems were previously despised for almost 40 years.

That's an interesting info; could you quote your source for that please? I would rather have increased the experience value for the US crews (a priori they are more battle tested than any french MBT crew) so it seems more than fair to do that. But regarding the "largely reported less user-friendly" aspect of the vehicle I haven't heard about that until now.

Re: A long road
 

Interesting.

You continue to ask for sources yet provide none of your own but I started to lose interest when you claimed
. Maybe you could "give a small overview of the references and bibliography " you are working with to help us. Or, rather than demanding we provide sources perhaps it would have been far more constructive to simply provide the information and what values YOU consider fair for this vehicle and we'll look into the issue. If the FC and RF ratings are too low I will be happy to adjust them.

Don

Re: A long road
 

-&gt;It seems to me that the Leclerc as a very fair representation in SPMBT: the figure 50/5 or 55/6 (Fire Control/Stabilizer) are not very différent and so hard to precisely evalue that it just seem to me that you shouldn't take account of them, knowing they are 'in game' after... 2008... so you will NEVER find sources about it because the M1A2 SEP described simply <font color="red">isn't in service.</font>,


-&gt;Concerting the Leclerc in itself you have certainly seen that is size is 4, <font color="red">it 2 less than the M1 SEP(6)</font>, making it very hard to hit. (the average value for MBT's is 5). You should test a duel: you will be surprised by the advantage given by the size. (which was the first requisite in leclercs paln and not any aiming system), I'would be interrested in an explanation of <font color="green">'How can a tank 1,5 time larger have worst caracteristics on every point than the leclerc?'</font>

-&gt;Try to understand that the moderator are frequently asked to change anybody's caractéristics. If you don't have any precise source yourself how can you think they will accept your remarks?

-&gt;If you manage to fully justify yourself without getting angry, the experiments show that you will also be fully satisfied (about France, I complained two year ago that a fully professional army shouldn't have 70 in exp rating, you can now see it's 75).

-&gt;It seems we didn't get the same game, the early M1 you discribe as a 35/4 rating.
Hope that helps

Re: A long road
 

Hi
just dropping in my 2 pennies worth, overall I think the worlds leading MBTS are pretty much the same, the differences are not enough to give one side a huge advantage in a conflict, it will be the crews that do that. Now I was a Challenger 2 commander for many years and having carried out engagements on the move at speeds up to 40kph on battle runs and across the canadian prairie with great success and thats without an autoloader. British MBT training revolves mainly around manouver warfare so nearly all live firing is carried out on the move, it is essential that the tank is capable of doing this effectively. I am sure that if Challenger 2 is capable of achieving this sort of routine success then the M1 in all its technical glory will be too.

Re: A long road
 

Great! I hope this isn't just irony, right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

You are supposed to be -or represent- the person who created these OoBs so it seemed fair that I, as an humble user, should be the one to ask for info! Apparently you think it's normal that I provide my sources first... strange attitude but I'll comply anyway. I assume though that, as I am able to read yours (the only one you provided is an english web site), using your language, you'll be able to read mines, using my language. I assume you -or whoever created these OoBs- hasn't used only US sources as references? No, I'm sure they wouldn't have done so.

Regarding this sentence: "the values used in the game sould not be 23 (...) but 66", I thought you had understood why I mistakenly reported these numbers (I'm sure you did). I thought the game turn represented 150-180 seconds instead of 60. So, according to the enlightenment you brought to me previously, my corrected assertion is that the movement numbers used could be: 25/5 for a M1 Abrams (this represents 24x3= 75km/h on roads and 5x3=15km/h off roads (its real firing/reloading capabilities while moving, as far as I know, until you provide your sources saying it can do that at 36km/h). Note that I'm not only pointing at the M1 MBT but at most of the other nations MBTs using manual loaders (RED vehicles are a bit trickier to deal with... ). Accordingly, the corrected values for a Leclerc in 1994 could be: 24/16 (72km/h on roads and 50km/h off roads). These values could be -imho- what the game should represent IF it was possible to alter the hard coded variables. But I'm pretty sure that, as you've been able to provide a reverse gear for armored vehicles, this implementation isn't impossible for your team to code. I'm sure -as you proved to be a clever man- you'll see that there's nothing more in this suggestion than a claim for a better gameplay and not pure criticism... . I don't want to use the term "realism" as I don't see this games series as a simulation but as games, nothing more than that. I like it to be as close as reality though. Especially when this claim can enhance the gameplay (that's what you did for years when you decided to start the Camo project, right?).

Funny how you answer my questions with questions and my requests with the same from me... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif/ Anyway, here are some of the documents you ask for (I'm sure you know most -if not all- of these already... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif). Note that the links pointing to http://minilien.com/ &lt;=check here first if you please) are not a sneaky way to spread viruses or other malicious code! It's a fine french online utility to redirect and transform long web address, into a small and easily useable link.

About the AMX Leclerc:
Websites:
* The official port-folio from GIAT industries entitled "Leclerc Fiche technique" (technical specs.) in PDF format: http://minilien.com/?z5ZNOGqQec
* Another issue from GIAT entitled "Système Leclerc": http://minilien.com/?cb5roQEyb3.
* Just for propaganda, a small video clip (420ko Real Media): http://minilien.com/?ZvWF0GmAIE
* The pages from a commercial society (IXARM) working for the French department of defense at upgrading and refitting vehicles and weapon systems http://minilien.com/?j8gS4ml74b
* The web site of the French ministry of defense presenting the Leclerc http://minilien.com/?lCZ7fsV6Rt
* An excellent page at Freepedia: http://fr.freepedia.org/Char_Leclerc.html
* Same find of stuff at Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Char_Leclerc
And so on...

Books/Magazines:
* Stéphane Ferrard: Engins blindés français - Editions E.P.A..
* Tankograd: Spécial Leclerc - Editions Azimut.
* RAIDS hors-série n°3 et 5: Les chars de combat en action - Editions Histoire &amp; Collection.
* Steel masters n°: 4 - 48 - 57.
And so on...

Some english speaking pages:
* A fine page at Army guide which is one of the very rare english sites giving an overview of its capabilities of firing on the move (though, strangely, he doesn't give the numbers he obviously knows of): http://minilien.com/?zmI1toVrYP
* A search result from Army technology: http://minilien.com/?i10L6VJaJm (curiously, there's no info about the capacities of firing while moving cross country, except the fact is quoted. Maybe it's detailed on a further page but I haven't noticed it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif/).
* A page of the free encyclopaedia AllExperts: http://minilien.com/?kDdBoq0Ag1
* Some interesting details about auto-loaders: http://minilien.com/?lnCXc9yimD
* For those avid of detailed photographs on almost every French military armored vehicles, here's the best worldwide source ever put online, Chars de France: http://minilien.com/?O7eSbC2J1d
And so on...

On these documents you can see the specifications of the Leclerc are as follow: 70-75km/h on roads, 50-55km/h off roads, and the capacity of firing and reloading while moving at 40-50km/h cross country. I think there's a justification here at my claim to modify the way the game represents each MBT's abilities of firing while moving off roads. But I may be wrong?

About the M1 Abrams:
Websites:
* The Military Analysis Network provides a fine page about the M1 series but remains strangely vague about its real capabilities of firing in cross country ("It has day/night fire on the move capability" (sic) "...its ability to fire reliably when moving at speed over rough ground..." (which speed? "Rough ground", does that means battered and jerky or flat on sand, stony?) http://www.fas.org/man/index.html
* The M1 Abrams page at Open encyclopedia: http://open-encyclopedia.com/
* The well known Fabio Prado site: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/main.html
* The Wiki page about the Abrams series gives great infos about the M1 MBTs in operations and the effectiveness of its frontal armor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page (interesting data during real operations casualties).
And so on...

Books/Magazines:
* Yves Debays: M1 Abrams -Editions Histoire &amp; Collection (I think this one's also available in english).
* Steel masters n°: 45 - 54.
And so on...

All these references give roughly 30mph in cross country (48km/h) which turns in 16hexes/t in game terms. All of the english speaking sources are well documented but there's no mention of the real capabilities of the system when it comes to speak about fire on the move (max. speed while firing/reloading; against moving or static targets?)! I don't know and wonder why, as this vehicle has been issued more than 25 years from now.

I really don't know what would be "fair", specially for others! I gave you what values I think should reflect a bit more of what's the reality "I know of" (25/5 for a M1 and 24/16 for a Leclerc) but I'm aware that these values are impossible to use with the game system features actually delivered. I don't know if you would even consider altering the way the game calculates the movements, on and off roads, but maybe there's something to do with any other algorithm internally used? Something simpler than introducing an all new algorithm? Regarding the FC and RF values, I'm not sure it would do any good here. Modifying these numbers also alter the way a unit behaves when firing from a full stop, or on roads, right? Lowering these for a M1 would be at its disadvantage in any situation else than moving off roads and that's not what's intended.
Cheers.

Re: A long road
 

That's correct and I agree (even though 50 against 55, that makes a sensible difference but that's not the point)... as long as we're not talking about firing/reloading on the move! I, as a french can do with the way the game fails to reflect this crucial fact; that's not a problem, really. On the other hand, the side effect of using this fact as a motivation to modify and enhance the way the game system deals with moving and firing vehicles, seems to me a really interesting point. It's also a problem when it comes to find a unit to use as a template in order to make modifications in the OoBs. Regarding the "national pride" Palsmakrab was talking about, I find it funny to see some french units really weak and hard to play with (actually it's challenging to play French against any "major" nation -even against REDs too- between 1946 and 2020 :OD). As long as it's historically or technologically accurate, where's the problem? It's just a game! A strong army doesn't necessarily make a great player but a great player can take the best out of a really poor army.

I'm not sure to understand precisely what you wanted to say but if you're talking about what will be the future of MBTs, I agree. I remember while playing SP3 a few years ago (still play it now and many others should do the same... that's very edifying to compare how this game plays compared to WinMBT or WaW) . I used to play with pairs of Leclerc MBTs and Tigre HAP/HAD. I spent some time to create these helos from scratch, using the data I had at hand. It was almost sci-fi at times but, except for the dates, I can see now it was pretty close to reality. No matter what each player decides to play with when it comes to hypothetical conflicts, or toys he uses, since the pleasure to play is present. However, here we're talking about existing materials and about how their specifications could be better reflected by the game system. Moreover I really think the movement points, and how this feature is used by the system, could be refined. After all, WinMBT has a very rich implementation of terrain natures and elevations; compared to that, the rather simple way it is treated in terms of movement points (all/half/nothing) is a bit "outdated". Don't you think?

Yes, and so what? Any MBT has a big gun and therefore a HUGE advantage against a VBL. That's another fact of life. Do you suggest I should alter some characteristics of my VBL, in order to compensate this disadvantage, only because "that's unfair" ? Is this what you wanted to say? I don't get the point.


Do you suffer from the "national pride syndrome" previously mentioned in any way? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif What are those "worst characteristics" you're talking about and who ever said the M1 "have worst characteristics on every point than the leclerc" ? Don't make me say what I've never said, please, or quote it clearly from my previous messages. Anyway, examples where "bigger's not better" can be found in every army of the world (remember Alexander and his elephants against Scipio's footmen... ), in every era of humanity. During the years preceding WW2, the french industry produced some of the best armored vehicles worldwide, in terms of size and armor thickness. In May of 1940, the week german panzers defeated those monsters. US Shermans did the same to Panthers and Pz V; "honeys" did the same with Pz III, and so on. Have you ever seen a B1 Bis tank next to a Pz III/IV and compared their characteristics? Can you provide any info about the superiority of the M1 Abrams over the Leclerc regarding their respective capabilities of firing while moving? Can you provide info on the superiority of its manual loading system over the automatic one used by the Leclerc, specially when moving? Can you show any example of a M1 Abrams able to drive cross-country at 40km/h, fire at a 60km/h moving target, hitting it then reloading and doing the same thing again? If so, I'll be happy to change my point of view. You see, I know Belgium is a very small country. Despite of that, they always produced the best machine guns, the best precision rifles and, additionally, the best chocolate and some of the best comics. I don't feel annoyed about such facts, nor am I annoyed knowing for certain that the Hughes AH-64 is a better attack helo than the Gazelle, or even the Eurocopter Tigre, but what annoys me is when I read that X is better than Y, while I know for certain that this is not true. I won't compare the Leclerc to the M1 regarding armor or munitions because I don't have enough data -and knowledge- about those points. I won't say french tankers are more experienced than US ones because I know that's not true. What I know from what I read at reliable sources is that a M1 loader can't do his job when his vehicle his riding at 36km/h cross country, while the auto-loader of the Leclerc has not the slightest problem in such case. Same thing, at the same speed, when it comes to fire accurately at a 60km/h moving target. Prove me I'm wrong here and I'll be happy to apologize.

I'm informed about that but hey man, where in hell did you get I wanted anyone of the Camo crew to change anything in the OoBs?! I've never asked for such things! What I asked for (and that's the very first sentence of my very first message (thought you'd read this one, at least... !)) was on how to handle the M1 values as a guideline to make my own modifications. I just find it hard to do that because the M1 values used for movement seemed wrong to me. So I wanted to know if the data I have at hand, saying a M1 can't fire accurately at moving targets and reload while moving at more than 15km/h off road, are wrong or correct. If that's correct, then maybe something should be done to modify the system used to represent movement speed against firing capabilities (if the data are correct, that means almost ALL the MBTs values are completely wrong too!). Additionally I asked for a bit of info about how the numbers were chosen and some references to learn from. How can you change any number if you don't have any idea about how they interact with each others? One can make tests but that's a pure waste of time.

Getting angry? I've been polite and asked a rather simple question. The answer I got was disappointing and harsh, as Don treated me -at first sight- as if I was just coming here to criticize.

M1A2 SEP Abrams (I compared this one with the Leclerc serie 2), Obat 12, unit n° 316 = FC: 55 Stab: 6.
The 35/4 you're talking about are the M1 Abrams values but I never mentioned it should compare to the Leclerc serie 2.

Re: A long road
 

Well, that solve all the problems then!

That's a crucial element, for sure.

I see, thanks for your testimony. What can I say against that? Not much, indeed. It's just opposite to everything I've ever read on the subject but, well, if you say so. I can't argue against a real life experience with my second hand statements. I've never been in a MBT moving cross country at 40km/h and tasked to load 120mm shells (I served in the air forces http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif). I guess the debate is over and I must surrender. So be it.

Re: A long road
 

What would have been the range you were firing at targets be typically during training at Suffield and what would be the average range expected by the training staff for first shot hits while moving at speed?

Don

Re: A long road
 

Here I don't understand: stabilization is the very figures that reflects fire on the move...

The little é... says that I'm precisly as french as you...As could my bad english http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I was simply saying that 'Tout ça se sont des suppositions' http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif oob's creator have done very 'long range' suppositions: if you want to die of heart disease, just look at the UK's MBT-law http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

You can easily check: Leclerc is 2,5 m height, the M2A1 SEP is 2,8 m height and not 2,5*1,5=3,75, so the oob creator decided to give this advantage which correspond to reality and again, at long range it give the leclerc in SPMBT a 'quasi' total superiority...

Ironicaly this is because of this particular defeat, which was underlined after german's defeat in 45 (in order to give german
troops a good morale; as they always justified their defeat against Russia by the 'overwhelming odds', see US post-war reports over red army written by germans...), that French army is always seen as a big band of cowards... Everybody forget to say that the french has lost 300.000 deads in 4 weeks which is a lot for runners and that after two weeks the brave English (that's not ironical) where back home...
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/Sick.gif

Didn't you mention M1 with 105mm gun? There is some misunderstanding there... and again n°316 simply doesn't exist... So feel free to create an 'horizon 2010' Leclerc http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

After that let me had something: look at the anti-HEAT armor. Can you find a better one that the Leclerc?

The great problem here is the rof: Leclerc one is very hight but doesn't serve 'in game' because the final rof is determinated only by experience... A problem that simply isn't easily solved.
Also, you can see with a very quick comparison that the French oob is one of the most detailled in the game far beyond germany for instance...

Last point: I'm doing a campain about the French Foreign Legion Paratroops... can I hope you will be a play tester?

Re: A long road
 

Engagements on the move were expected to be taken at 1000mtrs and below, given that the scenario would be advance to contact or assault from an FUP, these were normally set piece battle runs starting at individual tank level and working up through troop, squadron and eventually battlegroup tests. Targets would be a mixture of static and moving targets and would have to be aquired engaged and destroyed in a specified time limit using APFSDS, HESH and COAX, a factor that may be significant here is the fact that challenger 2 uses 3 piece ammunition therefore the ability to load on the move becomes a lot easier. First round hits on static targets on the move at 1000mtrs would be 95% assured. Individual crews were required to get a 75% hit rate to progress on to higher tests, I would say the average hit rate would be 85% but there were crews that constantly achieved 100% hit rates. Any failures would require a specialised gunnery team to examine the vehicle and crews for faults. Most failures were due to bad maintenance or crew error.

Re: A long road
 

Have you tried simulating those RL conditions with the game?

When I do I get similar results

Don

Re: A long road
 

No, but thats sound quite interesting, I will give it ago
: )

Re: A long road
 

Yes it's very impressive! I tried it too. A very good work from the oobs creators!

Re: A long road
 

I think there's been misunderstanding here (two french trying to debate in English... that could make a fine theme for a Woody Allen movie! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif). First, the values you present are used by M1A2 SEP and Leclerc 2 while I was focusing on M1 and Leclerc 1 (even though that's a detail). Second, are you really sure 1 point, up or down, in Stab isn't that important? To me the main thing affecting the fire on-the-move capabilities is the number of Mvmt. points. Or, as i said, it should be so, imho. Since a unit without such capabilities shouldn't have any fire left after a single move (or, at most, one shot; to simulate the necessity to go to a full stop in order to acquire its target and shoot at it accurately). That could be dependent based on terrain, of course (some can shoot while moving on roads or flat and open terrain to a top speed yet to determine; some could have more than one shot but assorted of a penalty to hit, and so on). But, the demonstration provided by Cusbut render all this great theories obsolete http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Anyway, Stab points (and other variables, like Exp.) act as a modifier to calculate how much shots are left after moving (since that was how it worked in SP2 with points above or below 4) but I really don't know how it is handled now by WinMBT. Did you make any test with static/moving units? I didn't, so I won't be so sure, but I guess that could make difference between a hit and a miss. Since the Camo crew don't provide formulas, it's near impossible to say for certain. Anyway, Fire control, Rate of fire, and movement points are values probably mixed together (to a point) in order to render how well a MBT is able to hit a target, while remaining static or moving. These are altered by the crew experience and over factors (vision, morale, and so on). All these things are parts of a big picture, far to complex to understand since we don't have the exact algorithms used in the game code. I mainly wanted to focus on how movement rate interacts with firing/reloading capabilities. My main concern was how this is implemented and how to create a "template unit", for a given period of time, in order to use it to calculate how the others could be rated. Right now, the only thing I can rely on is that there's a table giving the ratio between terrain and movement points, and the fact that 1mvmt point equals 3km/h. I wanted to learn more but, since Cusbut showed how wrong I was to believe there's important characteristics that could make huge differences on the battlefield between MBTs, there's no point in wasting time on that subject! Let's play the game the way it's been made, as we always did.

I noticed this detail (the accentuation, not your bad English (which is, now that you mention it, VERY bad, to be honest http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif)). But I know of many french people who only swear by the "American way of life". Some even spend their holidays on horses back, dressed as cow-boys, pretending to live in the wild west... . Not quite sure such french citizens aren't a little bit biased towards American point of view http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

I got that point but, as I said previously, we were talking about M1 Abrams and Leclerc 1, which were produced more than 15 years ago! That's not prospective, that's real facts and vehicles that have been battle tested for quite a while!

Did you conduct tests on this? I did a quick one. It seems to give the Leclerc a slight advantage in detection terms when remaining static but I didn't find much of an advantage relative to hitting rates. Are you sure that this "little" point added to the SEP in Stab, plus the 5 points in FC, don't compensate for these 2 little points in size... ? Not even to mention the Mvmt. advantage, since Mr. Sucbut demonstrated this one's only a myth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I hope there's no Tommies around... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif I won't comment further on that, since I don't want to initiate politics arguments here. I'd just like to say that I'm ashamed for those, still pretending the french army acted cowardly in 1940, and that I'm thankful to the Brits they had the will and courage to make an inexpugnable fortress of their islands during that very time frame... .

Absolutely correct. And I maintain the M1 Abrams has a 105mm gun. Check it out by yourself.

Seems you have a problem using MobHack, or perhaps are you referring to a different version of the game? Unit 316: OBat12 USA, has the M1A2 SEP Abrams associated to this number. I'm positive about that. Then again, check it out.

Did the M1 Abrams had a better armor than the Leclerc first series? Good question and easy to verify http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif) Now, if you test a fire fight between Leclerc 1 and M1A1HA (or other MBTs (haven't tested with Challys since they were using special HEAT ammunitions)) you'll find this high anti HEAT protection is not so useful! A sabot impact from these guns to the front hull (even sometimes in the FT) and the Leclerc's out for good (one hit one kill, most of the time). You still have to maneuver to find hull down positions (dream it would be as easy as it is with Combat mission http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif).

Yes, as far as I know, shots number is relying on Exp. (though it also depends on suppression level). But, as Cusbut said, since even a Chally 2 can fire accurately and reload while moving at 40km/h off roads, this value isn't a real issue, isn't it? Maybe this only remains for opfire calculation purpose? Does values above 5 give an even better penalty reduction? I really can't say.

The detail is pushed as far as giving the french scen designers the theoretical strategic possibility to incorporate pack mules, for towing tasks, up to 2020! But I'm still wondering why this glorious military asset isn't available between 1946 and 1948? Maybe this sophisticated unit was in a development period during this very time frame? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

I've never done such things (I only play tested some of my own scens) but I'll be happy to take part! Is this hypothetical or based on real operations like Kolwesi and such?

Re: A long road
 

And safer... for sure! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif I thought the Chally 2 ammunitions were only 2 pieces. How does this translate in reloading times? I read the 2 pieces ammunition was, at times, even faster to load manually than a single piece would be with an auto-loader. Find this detail hard to believe since, on a Leclerc, this operation is said to be done between 3 and 5 seconds http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif Some more precision please: are you affirmative the 95-100% rate you're talking about were achieved with the Chally 2 firing while moving at 40km/h, instead of decelerating then firing/reloading, then speeding up again? How many shots per minutes (average) were possible? Are you positive a M1 Abrams, during the period of 1980/1984, was probably capable of such prowess? Thanks for the info.

Re: A long road
 

During my time in the Royal Armoured Corps I crewed Chieftain, Challenger 1 and Challenger 2, I was also a Gunnery instructor and was responsible for running range practices on many occasions, I can honestly say that Challenger 2 turret system was a joy to work with but the hull and automotive components were a nightmare. 3 Piece ammuntion includes the following the Projectile, Charge and Vent tube, 13 of which are held in a magazine at the base of the gun. The vent tube looks like a brass shot gun cartridge and is used to ignite the charge, it is the only thing left in the turret after firing. I am sure an AUTOLOADER can produce a faster rate of fire on the move, but I was referring to accuracy, remember on the tests you are under a time limit so you cant afford to slow down, the Challenger 2 platform is actually smoother the faster you go due to the suspension. I would reckon a maximum of 2 rounds a minute on the move if you want to hit your target it all depends on the skill and experience of the crew. An engagement involves a lot more than just how fast a gun loads, take into account that you have to identify your target first, not an easy thing at 40kpm. Once thats done the commander indicates the target to the gunner and the gunner lays on the target and carries out the engagenent. So although you may have a fast loader that doesnt mean a tank can fire as fast as it can be loaded. You will find that a lot of data on MBTs is released by manufacturers and is not always accurate or has been tested in perfect conditions, Challenger 2 could fire 5 rounds a minute from a static position at the same target which isnt firing back, lol.

Re: A long road
 

I was just trying to say (betrayed by my very bad english once again?) that even the Brits, well-known for their tenacity had to withdraw, which was certainly the best to do. No reasons to worry here.

Ok the units exists 'in game' but in the real world it's not yet in service (arrives in 2008).

Re: A long road
 

I'm not quite sure I understand exactly what you mean here. You said: "...I think the worlds leading MBTS are pretty much the same, the differences are not enough to give one side a huge advantage in a conflict, it will be the crews that do that.". If I read you right that was supposed to mean that, all in one, most of the leading nations MBTs have close (or similar characteristics regarding their combat capabilities on the field, right? Now, if I think about that in terms of pure statistical results, can I say that, in an engagement test between two equally gifted MBTs (speed; armor; ammunition types; crew experience, and so on), the potential of one protagonist of firing five or six shells while the second can only fire twice should provide a "significant" advantage? In terms of game play, can I say this advantage should be portrayed in a way yet to determine? Would you say these deductions are correct or did I miss something primordial, once again?

Should I read: an average crew can fire only one shot accurately per minute, in such conditions? In game, by 1999, a Chally 2 crew with 62pts in Exp. can fire 2 times while driving at 17mph (by the standards you set I would consider that's "almost" correct). In 1980, a M1 Abrams with a 54pts crew (fairly below average, right? By the way, is Avrg reached at 60/120 or 70/120pts?), can fire 2 times while driving at 20mph. Of course they loaded only 105mm shells but didn't they use one piece ammunitions instead of the English 2 or 3 pieces? Makes me wonder.

In game terms, as far as I know, you can only fire at a target that is already considered as acquired and identified, right? In real life engagements I'm sure things are sometime VERY far from, as you say: "data (...) released by manufacturers... ".
Your testimony is of GREAT value, indeed! I'd really love to read more messages with such valuable first hand info. Sadly, as it's very rare and hard to find, I think we'll have to rely mainly on those data released by manufacturers.

Do you mean that during these training runs "targets" actually fired back? What was the percentage of loss? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
By the way, I would apologize! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/fear.gif I read what I wrote yesterday and I'm ashamed and confused. I mistakenly called you: "Mr. Sucbut" ! Of course there was no pun intended and it was only due to my "lightningfasttypewritingspeed proficiency" which was turned on for that occasion.

Re: A long road
 

You may be right for "real world" vehicles (haven't checked) but in game, Unit 316 reads that years of production range from 2002 to 2009.

Re: A long road
 

Made a quick test:
October 1999; Chally 2 at full stop:

Exp. 70 (Avrg. ?) ==&gt; 3 shots.
Exp. 100 ==&gt; 5 shots.
Exp. 126 ==&gt; 6 shots.

Re: A long road
 

Its more in line with who fires first rather than how many they can fire, if you are engaged and hit by a Challenger 2 firing APFSDS(DU)you are dead. If the Challenger misses and your tank is capable of penetrating Challengers frontal armour then the challenger is dead. Its the first round that counts. I would expect any modern tank firing DU ammunition to penetrate Challengers armour. Older tanks such as T-72 will have a more difficult time as has been proven in combat. Now as to the M1 I have not had much experience with that vehicle but I have crewed an older Australian leopard 1a4 also a 105mm gun and the shells are definately easier to load on the move than a 120mm case so I would think that the 105mm M1 would be able to achieve 2 rounds a minute. I like Winspmbt its a great game and fills my x-military cravings, but we must remember its just a game and no matter how dedicated and professional the team behind it you will never be able to match the realities of real warfare. An example is that although a tank my have certain specifications, for instance say the speed rating for Challenger 2 is 54kpm, in real life that may not be true for every tank. Each vehicle will be different, in my Troop my own tank could easily cruise at 60kpm but my troop corporals could never get above 40kpm, some tanks run smoothly others are always in the repair yard, we even had one challenger which was always catching fire in the engine decks but no fault could be found. The one thing I can guarantee no matter what tank your in, if your tank is static and the enemy is moving you will get the first shot. In the past 10 years our targets now fire back due to the new laser engagement systems we use much like the American kit. We now fight battlegroup against battlegroup and it makes a huge difference when the enemy is a living, breathing target who can think for himself. When we first started using the system battlefield casualties were so high that it forced the British army to completely rethink its combat tactics. Over the past few years those tactics have proven to be successful and casualty rates are normally low unless you are up against an extremely gifted commander or you have a Dunce as a Battlegroup commander, lol. I took no offense from the miss-spelling of my nickname, this is a mature forum and I would not expect namecalling therefore I took it for what it was, a miss-spelling http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: A long road
 

"targets now fire back due to the new laser engagement systems we use much like the American kit."

You gotta love MILES. 4 years experience with those systems out at Fort Irwin, CA. I was OPFOR. I died so many times out there it wasn't even funny. It also helped that I was a important asset that needed taken out quickly to hurt the overall force. If I was spotted, it was OH CRAP....LOL I was a combat engineer. I operated the M48 &amp; M60 AVLBs, the M728 CEV and M9 A.C.E., plus a bunch of other equipment, Dozers, dump trucks, MICLIC etc,etc.. I was the driver, and loader on the CEV. I loaded the 165mm HEP rounds on the move over rough terrain in the desert out there. No easy feat there. tossing around 65 lbs of C4 is not comforting feeling LOL..That is based on the M60A3 chasis. I would have loved to do that with the M1 Abrams chasis, much better ride. Terrain or not, when you are a loader you preform or your dead weither you are stablized or not, you do what you have to do to make sure you gunner can pull his toggles. Like Cusbut said, first to pull trigger usually wins. I know when I was attached to the BLUFOR guys out on there live fire exercises, the M1s were not slowing down to reload or fire. Don't get me wrong if they found a good firing position they would fire from there and then advance, but if they were in open areas, it was full throttle baby. Very impressive to witness and be a part of. My poor CEV could not keep up.. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif But if they wanted fighting positions by me, they slowed up to keep me close. LOL..... and the same was for there tank tables. Full throttle for most of it. Again like Cusbut said, its all timed and judged. The faster and more accurate you did the better. The competition between crews are tough. Even us CEV crewman competeted with each other.... But any who. That is my 2 cents on my personal experience on this.