Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)

[Mobhack]

after playing the Tutorial scenario for the Irag side

The main problem the original poster has, is trying to play the tutorial scenario as the Iraqi side.

The tutorial is set up as a turkey shoot, for a newbie player to play the USA side as a training exercise in learning the game mechanics. It is not in any way balanced at all, and all the tanks that player 2 has are simply targets to the USA barring very rare circumstances (a clear flank shot).

About the only way you can kill USA troops as the Iraqi in that scenario, is to hide behind the ridge and hope for flank shots as and when they come over the top, always provided that the smoke is not blocking your LOS (he has thermals so can pot you quite happily in that situation), that the cluster arty does not blow you to bits, nor the A-10 and Apaches.

The Iraqi infantry is rather poor quality, and only the support sections even have RPG to bother the USA armour - all of which is armoured with some chobham, even the Bradleys. They are out in the open, and will be seen with the thermal sights even through smoke, and are therefore chain-gun fodder.

IF you manage the reverse slope ambush, then advance towards the objectives, especially those out in front of the USA line (and assuming you have time to do so anyway after playing possum for so long!) - the USA TOW launchers will eat you up as you try to do so. Those will hang back and wait usually..

The Player 2 side in that scenario is simply not designed for any "balanced" play - the USA points value must be 2-1 or more, and it is a meeting engagement scenario, even though it looks like a delay initially. Player 2 is only there for target practice skeet-shoot for newbies in this scenario.

About the only way a human player could play as #2 here is to try a few times, and to lose by less points than before, or score himself a "victory" by taking even one of those objectives out in front of the USA forces. Probably by exiting as much as possible off his side, and ignoring the battle itself.

Cheers
Andy

[Anton]

Wdll:

"1 M1A1 is not = to 1 T-72s...Also training, where do you put that?"

It's a controversial topic, and it has nothing to deal with the game's engine, because reaction shoots will come always first, irregardless of whether it's T-72s, T-90s orLeopards. I am neither prepared nor want to start a dispute over the effectiviness of T-72 agains the Arbrams in Desert Storm.

"Just because the M1A1 needs some seconds to fire at one of the two T-72, it doesn't mean that the other T-72 can locate lock and fire in that same amount of time."

Mistake here. That does mean that the other T-72 has _twice_ more time to lock and fire (assuming double numerical superiority).

"Also, there have been battles in Iraq where the allied tanks were outnumbered, they still annihilated the Iraqi tanks. Even without Opfire."

Maybe those were the TOW missiles that T-72s couldn't resist? You say "even without Opfire" as if it helped the T-72s in some way, but in fact it helps the Abrams tanks vary much (given the tut scenario's situation)

"If you want to get a chance, then perhaps you could force the enemy tanks to fire at something else first."

That's cheating, so many thank to the developers for Op-fire filtering!

Cross:

"In the context of this game, I think it's right that the non-active player gets to shoot first. I think the active player has a huge advantage during his move turn."

This 100%-first Opfire approach not only balances but sometimes even over-balancesthe game, i.e. turns the situation to equally unjust with respect to the opposite side.

"I like to see turns as 'fire and movement'. So at the end of your move your men have halted briefly to take a more defensive stance."

That's how you adapt for the turn-based-ness. But the turns are only a logical division of time and the less they affect the game, the better and the more realistic it is. For example, in WinSOMBT a vehicle's speed is calculated using a very strange assumption that it is proportinal to the tatal distance that the vehicle has crossed by the moment. What about the stop-and-shoot technique?

By driving into his view, you have effectively driven into an ambush. This is even more true if the Abrams tanks are stationary.

Why so? If I my tanks' crews know the enemy is there, it's no longer an ambush. They're prepaired to meet and attack them.

Mobhack:
"The main problem the original poster has, is trying to play the tutorial scenario as the Iraqi".

Yes, but I did it on purpose because the thinngs I am talking about are brightly pronounced in it. Other "real" scenarious are accurately designed and balances so that such problems are not so terribly decicive.

And thanks for the rest of the post, about the possible tactics! It's indeed more like a meeting engagement.

[hoplitis]

Andy,
good points but as I read Anton's post his objections are centered on the game engine rather the specific "reverse demo" situation.

Anton said:
"But I have more T72s (supported by T-55s) than my enemy has M1A1s. And what if I want to use this numerical superiority to fight the M1A1s? If I move all my tanks simultaneously towards the enemy he won't have ROF high enough to burm all of them fast enoght to prevent any fire at him."
Anton,
I think the "key word" in your statement is "simultaneously". The game engine does not allow simultaneous events and I don't think that this will ever change. And let's remember that after all it's a game with various limitations and this is one of them. Units are moved one by one and are "reacted upon" on the same manner.
And yes this means game or even "gamey" tactics that are not quite in line with (what we perceive as) actual tactics. But you still need a plan, you still need to coordinate movement, air strikes, artillery or even (re)supply, you still need to find good firing or observation locations, roots of advance etc.
Having said that, I want to say that in (most) turn based games the "bill" is "charged" after the conclusion of the whole turn (your's and your opponents or the AI's). And for me, the "realism ?!? check" actually comes at the end of a scenario and immediately after the "was it fun? check".

edit: post entered after Anton's post #623963. Sh*t, no turn based posting system available?

[Wdll]

Anton,

That doesn't mean that the other T-72 has twice more time to lock and fire, first you have to assume that the other T-72 can locate at all, then locate in time, lock and fire (and perhaps hit). And it doesn't only has to do with the T-72 in question (which btw were reduced effectiveness T-72s ie Export versions) but also as I believe I have mentioned, training and morale of the crews.

No, while a large number of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missiles etc, there were several "pure" tank engagements, the iraqi's were outclassed due to a combination of inferior equipment, training and tactics. The first two are the most important in the current example.

The game engine is not perfect, but it is far from completely unrealistic.

[Sniper23]

I would not change the game system at all, sure it's not 100% perfect but it is the most realistic and fun game I have ever played so far and as for the t-72 even if you get a shot of will you hit and if you hit it will it kill it because I have faced countless t-72 in my Iraq campaign and in 10 battles I lost 6 tanks(and most of them was due to stupidity) the trick is to shot the lead one so the rest don't see you.

A good tank to use against the Abrame is the Russian t-90 if you want to face the Abrame


P.S what was the training?

[Marek_Tucan]

Anton said:
It's a controversial topic, and it has nothing to deal with the game's engine, because reaction shoots will come always first, irregardless of whether it's T-72s, T-90s orLeopards. I am neither prepared nor want to start a dispute over the effectiviness of T-72 agains the Arbrams in Desert Storm.

Reaction doesn't always come first. It comes first in this given scenario because you have here a large difference in training and equipment, charging a firing line of Abramses head-on is a sure recipe for massacre. OTOH if the game is more matched, you may well deprive the enemy of op-fire, esp. if you move slowly, using cover, or try to suppress the enemy before closing in.

Maybe those were the TOW missiles that T-72s couldn't resist? You say "even without Opfire" as if it helped the T-72s in some way, but in fact it helps the Abrams tanks vary much (given the tut scenario's situation)

No, he hints that such one-sided battles happened IRL even if the Abramses worked in real-time and not with the opfire (which appears to be your beef here ) Btw Iraqui tanks couldn't resist 120mm APFSDSDU as well as the i-TOW

That's cheating, so many thank to the developers for Op-fire filtering!

As the telling goes, "When two do the same, it may not be the same". Sending waves of Jeeps on the enemy to drain op-fire is cheating. Sending say company of T-55's headlong so that a platoon of T-72's may maneuver to the flank is a legitimate tactics. 'And Op-fire filtering is a double-edged blade. You may not waste your ammo by shooting at BTR's and reserving shots for tanks... But those BTR's may be carrying ATGM or RR teams to a position from wich they will fry your tanks

This 100%-first Opfire approach not only balances but sometimes even over-balancesthe game, i.e. turns the situation to equally unjust with respect to the opposite side.

But it isn't 100% first approach. UFO was mentioned here (I may add say Jagged Alliance) but there, if you used your squad of super-trained soldiers against an UFO full of low-level Floaters some time late in the game, you'd also have an "Almost-100%" op-fire ratio. The same here with US veteran units against low-tech low-training Iraquis.

Why so? If I my tanks' crews know the enemy is there, it's no longer an ambush. They're prepaired to meet and attack them.

No they aren't. Not fully. Even if you knew 100% where exactly the enemy is, your tankers have to find that spot themselves, then try to find the tank, then aim, etc. All this on the move in given situation. And with inferior optics etc. Abrams crews in stationary tanks have OTOH much higher chance of finding a moving target and then acquiring the target.

Yes, but I did it on purpose because the thinngs I am talking about are brightly pronounced in it. Other "real" scenarious are accurately designed and balances so that such problems are not so terribly decicive.

In the reality sense, the Tutorial is much closer to most "Gulf War" scenarios. Scens are balanced out so they are hard and funny, but IRL it was often just such an one-sided affair as the tutorial is. I believe I've seen somewhere a quote of Iraqui officer saying roughly "My Bn began war with 31 tanks. During the air strikes, we lost 2. Then, during a 30-minute engagement with ground troops, we lost all remaining."

[Anton]

Marek_Tucan:
"Reaction doesn't always come first. It comes first in this given scenario because you have here a large difference in training and equipment"

So, what's the formula (algorithm) for reaction fire? Or is it classified :X

"No, he hints that such one-sided battles happened IRL even if the Abramses worked in real-time and not with the opfire (which appears to be your beef here ) Btw Iraqui tanks couldn't resist 120mm APFSDSDU"

Opposite info in Russian sources, to sum up
1. USA didn't want to loose market for their tanks so they didn't let the "harsh" truth into the news.
2. Losses of T-72s overexaggerated, most of them destroyed with TOWs (from more than 3000 m), Iraqi destroyed most of tanks themselves during the retreat (due to lack of supplies), which were ascribed to the American tanks.
3. The 20 000 uranium rounds found in the desert (from which Kuwait children took the radiation sickness) prove that anyway M1A1s were not that accurate.
4. Controversial info about the Iraqi's losses in the Western sources.

[Sniper23]

can you post the link of where you got the info, I would like to read it.

[Anton]

I've always thought of Suvorov as a serious author:
http://otvaga.vif2.ru/Otvaga/wars0/wars_10_1.htm

[Wdll]

So, a russian source is more accurate than contemporary USA and Iraqi sources? Weird. I just don't see that happening.
Especialy considering that in the battles there were also a large number of M-60s.