[Marek_Tucan]

shilka said:
My friend refuse to put up armys and I try to convince the man that this is not the final end of all est/mid-east battles. The game has alot of suprises, when my friend refered to the Russian equipment over-all it has been significant changes from the first versions that was put out on the www. There has been a gradual change of all east/mod-east oobs since the beginning of the grand SPMBT éra. There has been changes for the better to the worse and I think that even if my friend that is a huge fan of SPMBT as game motor do overreact a bit.

Don't think the changes were from better to worse. From better to excellent IMHO. Well, that's just me;o)

Even if both of us and anyone out there do know that alot of the statistics are from former Cold War sources or people served in countrys occupied or in any way lived in terror for the russians and in that way, togheter with some to often biased weapon industry, information sources has their finger in the facts that is presented when modding a game.

I think the OOB designers for SPMBT are very experienced in dealing with nationalistic and commercial bias in weapon stats evaluating.
This doesn't prevent me from making my own OOB's, though

Well Western doctrine was superior to eastern military doctrine. What people forget when they make games today, is that to make a army as the U.S as I love to play with working fair and balanced in a game like SPMBT you need to have everything around it working too. That is sattelites, AWACS heck and all this to really make the M1A2 this powerful. Put it even with a experianced crew in the middle of the desert without all that support that makes the U.S army as powerful as it is in the game aganinst a Republican Guard Unit crewed by U.S tankers and with Vision 75 and try to see for how long IRL time that M1A2 would survive in ranges between 800-1000 meters.

But that's why US military doctrine is so good, the US military doesn't fight under the conditions you've described above (ie without intel, support, recon...). Thus IMO it won't matter had the Iraquis had M1A1's as well in 1991, tank is not everything.

I say, I would not like to be the one that sits in that tank. Problem is that when mixing IRL statistics in games togheter with doctrines etc etc you always get one sided when alot of the material everything is based on battles where the commanders has failed or when someone has made a real smart manuever. It is neraly impossible to claim that western tanks would have been superior in a battle where both sides had the same stuff. Lets say the Iraqi Republican Guard did have french night sights and ammunition that wasnt 30 years out of date etc etc.

IMO the technical stats are presented in a quite balanced form here. The doctrine etc. is hidden mostly in training and morale chapter. For example battle experience shown Israeli tankers to be superior ro say Egyptian ones, but when you'll look Israeli and Egyptian Centurions 5's, they're the same incl. fire control etc.

So I do understand my friend on many points. However WINSPMBT is still good I think. And even if I or my friend may feel like some areas of this game is baised. There will never be a game with all this extras out there that will get this far as a game experiance. Something about the Base Experiances can be why my friend is grumble a bit. Alot of West friendly countrys that not have been in any action since 1991 or even further back has base experiances that is annoying to him. Russia has been working on their new doctrine since 1991 and 2000 they put up their new one. Their army cant any worse after 2000 then Sweden that have not been in a real war for 200 years. lol I think he got a point there.

Cheers:
Shilka still a SPMBT freak!

Sweden might have not been in the war for 200 years, as well as say Switzerland, but they've been preparing thoroughly for war. Perhaps even more thoroughly than countries actually in war, as it is easier to change doctrine in the peacetime and test it thoroughly to find mistakes than to force new doctrine under fire, where some critical errors may evade you.
As for the ex-WarPac countries, the rise of exp. rating is fairly reasonable. Atleast given our country, since 1990 we've been following and adapting many Western doctrines, including more realistic training with use of MILES simulators etc. Our Hind pilots aren't among NATO Tiger squadrons for nought, as well as our fighters. Also our army has gathered alot of experience from various peacekeeping missions and even from two real shooting wars - our NBC recon specialists participated both in ODS and in OIF. Similar with Poles and Slovakians definitely, not sure about say Hungary etc...
Our small-scale infantry tactics is now based alot on British procedures.
Plus, we already have a fully professional army. This also means exp. increase.