Quote:
Quote:
I note your MM-23 is HEP=54 HEK=40 and your MM-23B HEP=74 HEK=30. I assume the HEP 54 to 74 increase is based on the warhead being increased from 54 to 74 kg. Why does the HEK go down with the larger warhead?
|
Mmh, i think you misread my minimal (sabot) range figures for HEK. Did I write them in the wrong order?
|
You're right, I misread your table, let's hear it for 2 AM posting !
What I'd intended to say was - How did you come up with your HEP values? Apparently you've based the HEK value on the warhead weight in kg.
Quote:
Quote:
Since these are all medium range SAM's (range 25ish km) they all have a default MaxRange of 255 since apparently this is the "can shoot anywhere on the map" rating.
|
Regarding that, I've tried scaling the SAM ranges offmap relatively to each other. Thing is, 200 is "one step off the map" and 255 is "farther than anything else offmap" as far as I understand it, so I don't see why there shouldn't be a real rating for that as well. As far as I can tell, it competes with aircraft standoff weapon ranges in cases of standoff attack, so both SAMs and ASMs should be ranged together, to make sure you don't have the same standoff capabilities in a HAWK and a SA-5, and that anything with more legs than a GBU doesn't have the potential to out-range a medium area SAM.
Right now my range scale is linear, which explains the short range of the HAWKs, but I'll probably try out a logarithmic scale or something.
|
The problem is the 200+ range values are used for off-map artillery, a 155 out-ranges a 105.
The SAM systems are all on-map units, thus wind up using the MaxRange as the maximum firing range and the SabotRange as the minimum. So for example your Patriot with a MinRange of 160 and MaxRange of 214 won't even fire on a map smaller then 160 X Whatever and will only fire at targets between 160-214 on any larger map.
This is one of those cases where we run face first into the game engine limitations (and don't misunderstand, I'm NOT complaining about them, just acknowledging they exist and we sometimes have to work around them).
Quote:
Quote:
As to a "better" scale I'm sure we could come up with one, but unless we plan to modify every OOB - why ?
|
Cold War mod, remember? I do plan to modify every OOB. 
|
One point for Plasma !
While you plan to "fix" every OOB I just want to add some accuracy to OOB #13 USMC and leave it compatible with the default ones. I'm trusting the Cost Calculator to do as it's intended and create new unit costs to reflect the changes in weapons, manpower, ammo loads, etc.
I fully realize my changes will never be accepted as a new default OOB because I'm not using certain set-in-stone default values.
Example :
My standard infantry squad armed with M16's has an ammo loadout of 105 vs the default 80-90. This increased ammo load reflects Marine doctrine and training, Aimed Fire. So the Marines will tend take a bit longer to go thru the same amount of ammo then the Army, hence the Army gets 90 and my Marines 105. I chose 105 because average rifleman carries 7 X 30 round magazines (210 rounds) and 105 just happens to be half of that and slightly more then the game default 90 shot ammo load.
Quote:
I'll take it for granted on the Redeye. It probably deserves a bit more accuracy than the baseline Strela-2, though we could debate for days about the relation between better operational results, inbuilt accuracy, operational use, training level...
I'll have to iron out my Igla family as well, now that you mention it. I'll tell you what comes of it.
|
Actually I've come up with what seems to work surprisingly well as a way to determine operational accuracy VS manufacturer claims.
Cut it in half.
