Quote:
"I know I could go on for days about ERA classes, active protection, EW effects, unit classes..."
Then start.
Maybe there is something else we can find a partial fix for.
|
OK, I just didn't want to hijack the thread for too long.
Go offline for two days and there's replies all over the place!
Regarding ERA, there are two little (?) things that IMO could make the whole thing more realistic.
Firstly, change the class number from 2 to say 5, from the early slim stuff you find on 80s Chinese tanks and to this day on APCs all over the world to near-future heavy-slab asymmetrical-multilayered-whatever arrays that will cover e.g. the fated Black Eagle, all through the common ERA classes.
Before you ask, this only makes sense if the ERA effect is quantified a bit more than it currently is.
As I see it, each class should be assigned a warhead size value range against which it works (heavier weapons being assumed to blast through the ERA array unhindered and lighter warheads being not enough for setting it off), a max HEAT penetration it can absorb at zero incidence angle, a similar max AP/sabot penetration value, and a chance of stopping tandem-HEAT warheads.
As such, they would be modeled more like add-on armor than like a magical bonus that can stop blunt the most powerful weapons without any remain.
That would call for messages more like "ERA reduces penetration by XX", probably with a small chance of still getting "ERA defeats HEAT warhead" if the HEAT penetration is inferior to the ERA max resistance.
Here is how it could be played out:
Code:
class ERA values max WHS min WHS max HEAT max AP tandem chance real-life examples
1 1 to 10 4 2 30 0 0 anything weaker and lighter than Kontakt-1
2 11 to 20 5 3 45 5 0 Kontakt-1, Blazer
3 21 to 30 6 3 60 15 25 ERAWA, DYNAS
4 31 to 40 7 3 75 30 75 Kontakt-5 and similar
5 41 to 50 9 3 90 50 90 Kaktus and other future applications
The values are debatable, but I think the principle can bring something more to the combat behavior of ERA-equipped vehicles.