Accuracy values for the main guns - MBT's.

[Gooseman2448]

Don,

Thank you for taking the time to look into this. I know I came off wrong.

I have experienced the same in my time as a systems administrator.

I know it is hard to hold back when someone is telling you that what you know to be true is wrong. In the world of computers and programing many people have no clue as to what is really going on.

However, it is almost impossible to test things like this properly in a
"test scenario" I have to build just guessing at the conditions in the actual game. I
need the save game and I need to see what you see to judge the problem. Now
that I have that I can look more closely at the issue and , in this case
what I discovered was we have already made changes that change the results

I have to go through this same procedure with my systems. I should have given more info to you, my mistake.

Hey, even I am not perfect, just right most the time, LOL. I like to say this to users (Luser, in the IT world for newbies)when they find something I didn't.

I have learned that they are not as much wrong as they are not informed enough to give the correct answers.

I am glad that I was not totally incorrect though, just not up to date.

I don't think any of us want uberweapons, just fair representation. Even in real combat in Iraq what seems like a unbeatable weapon (Galiath) can be defeated by the so called Davids. Several M1's and Bradley's have been taken out.

Even with the current debate of WP weapons and Nato weapons, it has always been my understanding that we may have had better weapons and training but, the shear mass of what was going to be comming through Germany would balance everything out. The pre attack artillary and air strikes would have been more devastating than we could ever have known. Nobody seems to put that in their senarios. I'm talking about 2 or three turns worth of raining Hell.

I myself have been working on the infantry side of things since version 1. I have worked on making infantry weapons and troops a little more unique. The old standards of ACC and HE kill just didn't seem to fit the different weapons.

I would like to understand more of how ACC, FC and RC influence a weapon.

Well, everybody keep up the good work and DON, take a breathe and think LUSER...

[DRG]

Gooseman2448 said:

Even with the current debate of WP weapons and Nato weapons, it has always been my understanding that we may have had better weapons and training but, the shear mass of what was going to be comming through Germany would balance everything out. The pre attack artillary and air strikes would have been more devastating than we could ever have known. Nobody seems to put that in their senarios. I'm talking about 2 or three turns worth of raining Hell.

More like 10 or 20 "game" turns minimum. 2 or three game turns is only 6 - 9 minutes or so. Any serious WP opening barrage would have been much more than just 9 or 10 minutes

Don

[Alpha]

@ gooseman: so you´ll will get some arty barage for shure soon...hehe

[Gooseman2448]

@ gooseman: so you´ll will get some arty barage for shure soon...hehe

I look forward to it and your upcomming campaign.

[Gooseman2448]

More like 10 or 20 "game" turns minimum. 2 or three game turns is only 6 - 9 minutes or so. Any serious WP opening barrage would have been much more than just 9 or 10 minutes

I wasn't even thinking that long, because most scenarios haven't even been that long. That would be sweet!!!

The HECK caused by trying to avoid or ride in out would be nerve racking, then out of the smoke at about 1000 meters or less are the Soviets, well within thier effective range.

Will Western technology be good enough then??

I think I will play test that myself.

[Alpha]

@ gooseman: but you cannot generalize what you said, for severall reasons:

1. is was assumed that nato get´s air suppority, so many arty tubes would fall prey to aircraft
2. the nato developed some "smart" weapons special against arty and tanks ( russians also but later ! )
3. okay the first attacks from the pact on nato lines would probably such with th emassive arty fire, but i think if the run a bit and on their way get harrassed by nato air and small counter attacks very soon their arty will get seperated and unorganized in later stages of the ww3 so, that these battles would perhaps see pact units without much arty support at all....

just a few thoughts....

[Gooseman2448]

Alpha,

I agree completely with you on that point.

I was mainly thinking of the first assault.

The whole WP goal was to hopefully pound what defensive units they could so they could get deep in to allied territory before NATO could mobilize enough support.

I believe NATO would be able to wear down the RED TIDE, but the first 48 hours would determine the whole thing.



This also depended on a slow build up of forces on both sides. If they were able to attack without a strong NATO response it wouldn't be as big an impact. Also as you said, it is assumed NATO air superiority would balance things out. Soviet doctorine relied on masses of anti air systems also.

Not to mention NATO aircraft may get tied up with WP fighters.

It may take a day or two to get air superiority.

[Alpha]

well as long the SU27 and MIG 29 were not invented in soviet arsenal we had the better fighters. ( f16, f15, f18 also some french like mirage f1 or 2000, tornado )....