Soviet auto-loaders

kevineduguay1 · #1 August 29th, 2005, 09:39 PM

Russian T-80, ROF of 7. South Korean T-80ROK, ROF of 8. Why?

DRG · #2 August 29th, 2005, 10:56 PM

"Now can someone explaine why Unit #584 125mm2A45ATG in the Russian OOB only has a ROF of 5?"

Did you bother to look at the other AT guns and their ROF.? The bigger the gun the lower the ROF for ATG. An 85mm is 7, a 100mm is 6, and a 125mm is 5. It's a perfectly logical progression and makes perfect sense to me for that weapon.

"Russian T-80, ROF of 7. South Korean T-80ROK, ROF of 8. Why? "

IDK whoever put it into the OOB probably though since it's "westernized" in South Korean hands so it MUST be better than the Russian version so it should have a higher ROF. Did YOU look at what effect that one ROF makes in the game? I doubt it, or you wouldn't have mentioned it. It make no difference to the main armament, none. A typical ROK tank company with 8 ROF for that tank averaged between 3,6,6,- and 4,6,6- and a company of the same tanks with a 7 ROF average 3,5,5,- and 4,6,6,- so the net sum total is an extra shot with the AAMG's for a few of the tanks.

"Also what about the JSIII and T-10 with the 122mm gun. Should they have the same ROF as any Weastern tank with a gun of 90mm or above? Now remember this is 2 part ammo vs 1 part ammo, and no auto loader. "

The explanation from the previous post didn't mean anything at all to your did it? Do you want them to be reduced to 2 shots? That's the only alternative here. Would it make you happy if the T10's ROF was reduced to 4? I would think it would given you seem to base your questions on the stats in the game rather than what happens in the game. If T-10's were 4 ROF would that seem "fair" that this big clumsy Russian tank with two part ammo now has a ROF number 2 points lower than a "western" tank? Did you run any experiments to see what that would do? It lowers the number of shots of the MG's. I could reduce it to ONE ROF and all that would happen is the secondary armament doesn't get as many shots.

Don

MarkSheppard · #3 August 30th, 2005, 12:33 AM

This is a very very good thread, for the information coming out concerning the ROF/FC/ etc interplay in the game; I'll definitely be condensing it for my "unit creation document"

kevineduguay1 · #4 August 30th, 2005, 01:25 AM

Mark,

Keep an EYE on this. It will get ugly!

Sewter · #5 August 30th, 2005, 02:10 AM

Hey Buddy, here's something to EYE!

Check the attachment!

"General Dynamics Land Systems also offers the Modular Low-Profile Turret 105 (LPT 105), fully described in the Light tanks section, for installation on the Centurion, as well as other vehicles such as the Leopard 1, M48, M60, M1, T-54/T-55/T-62 and AAV7A1.

The LPT, which is armed with a 105 mm gun firing standard NATO ammunition, offers a number of advantages as follows: it reduces the profile of the tank and therefore makes it harder to hit, it reduces the overall weight of the vehicle (so allowing additional armour to be applied to the hull), it reduces the crew from four to three, it provides increased protection against top attack and has further growth potential to 120 mm and a mix of guns and missiles."

Sorry if this isn't on-topic, but it is an interesting auto-loader.

kevineduguay1 · #6 August 30th, 2005, 01:18 AM

DRG,

Thank you for your reply.

Now what do you have to back it up!

What I see now is that GAME PLAY is more important than REALITY.!

kevineduguay1 · #7 August 30th, 2005, 09:51 PM

Yes DRG I did do a test. T-10Ms vs M1A2SEP Abrams. The Abrams while sitting still had a one shot advantage but after both vehicles moved their full movement, almost all the Abrams had only 2 rounds of main gun ammo to shoot (some did have 3) and so did the T-10Ms.
So on the move a T-10M matches an Abrams in ROF?

P.S. Yes the Abrams totally dominated all the scenarios. Only once while I played the Russians did I manage to "button" one of the Abrams while loosing 17 tanks out of 3 companies of T-10Ms.

DRG · #8 August 30th, 2005, 11:11 PM

And when the T-10ms move (or any Soviet tank that is in the same era as just about any western tank) the Western tank that has moved has a better chance of actually hitting it's target after it has moved . You can have all the rounds in the world and if all you hit is air they are worthless to you so that further tips the balance in favour of the western tank even though you think the Russian equipment fires too many rounds in comparison to it's western counterpart.

In answer to you other question, we consider all factors-- gameplay AND reality and in a game, gameplay is important (as is reality) and when designing any game getting a balance between the two sometimes conflicting issues is difficult but in the end, it's a game. If you want reality, join the army. It you want to play this game but don't think this one has enough emphasis on "reality" you are free to sit down and edit a complete set of OOB's and offer them up for people to try and if they like them they'll tell you and if they don't, they'll tell you as well.

Don

kevineduguay1 · #9 August 31st, 2005, 12:20 AM

You just made my point!

DRG · #10 August 31st, 2005, 12:49 AM

Quote:

kevineduguay1 said:
You jusy made my point!

If you want to belive that, I *SO* happy for you. I have no idea what "point" you think I made for you but if you go away happy I've done everything I set out to do. In game terms, the way everything works together, the "western" tanks are superior to the "eastern" ones if only by degrees EVEN if they have the same number of "shots" in a given turn. If you think that proves your "point" we just wasted a lot of time.

Have fun reworking all the OOB's. I'm sure everyone will be interested in what you come up with

Don