The PATCH! What do you think?

[DRG]

If you can recreate the situation where your game crashed make a save and attach it to your post.

As for the T-90+ vs M1A2's there was nothing done to the T-90's that would make them a lesser tank that before and all that was done to the M1A2's was a trifling gun accuracy increase and cost increases for high tech equipment. The T-90 was not downgraded so I really do not understand how you could see that big a change in the game. Does anyone else see this?

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

Nope.

Just started PBEM Czechoslovakia vs. W. Germany 1986, so let's see;o)

[JaM]

Patch is perfect! Only negative point i found are OOBs, some things are not changed...
(1.T-72M4CZ armor values are lower than T-72M1 - T-72M4CZ is modernised M1!,Armor values are quite high, if you compare it to soviet T-72M1 (soviet T-72A) it has much lower armor.Even T-72B has lower armor...
2.Pram mortar system in Czech OOB is diffrent than in Slovak OOB,but they should be the same...,
3.Syrian T-72M1S has AT-11 Sniper in 1985! Even Soviet didnt have them fielded in 1985!(DOI 1987)
4.Soviet T-72B1 has AT-11,B1 is low cost version without ATGM guidance kit, same as T-64B1,There is nothing like T-72BV, this nomenclature is wrong.There was only T-72B FST-1(i know that other tanks has V as acronym for ERA, but T-72B had era from begining.Only some early T-72B1 was without ERA.

[Fabfire]

DRG said:
If you can recreate the situation where your game crashed make a save and attach it to your post.

As for the T-90+ vs M1A2's there was nothing done to the T-90's that would make them a lesser tank that before and all that was done to the M1A2's was a trifling gun accuracy increase and cost increases for high tech equipment. The T-90 was not downgraded so I really do not understand how you could see that big a change in the game. Does anyone else see this?

Don

Nope, Don.

The 2.0 patch, as you stated, only dealt with the accuracy
problem that the 120mm L/44 smoothbore tank guns and similar ones had when compared to *older* Soviet tanks...

A little comment on this "Western vs. Eastern" equipment issue:

WinSPMBT is clearly optimized for an even game balance, nobody can argue about that. For instance, as Don wrote, that was the reason of the cost increases for the higher end equipment. Of course, it's impossible to satisfy everybody's subjective feelings on comparisons such as "M1A2 vs. T-90+"...

In the real world, pound for pound, Western tanks *are* superior to Eastern tanks (regardless of individual tastes). They *were designed to be so*, as it was expected they would have to deal with a much superior number of enemy tanks... Eastern tanks *were designed to be cheaper*, and to be used in great numbers.

That said, it's plainly inadequate to compare WinSPMBT to "Shoot Em Up Video Games" (to put it mildly)...

Don, congratulations on a most terrific job - WinSPMBT 2.0 ROCKS!

EDIT: I set up an hypotetical tank battle between the US and Russia, timeframe year 2000. T-90+, and T-80UM1 Bars vs. M1A2 Abrams. The T-80UM1 Bars tanks (not the T-90+) took various direct hits at 1,500 meters from the M1A2, with no damage to them (one took FOUR consecutive rounds)...
Likewise, the T-90+... These can even render the TOW 2B ATGM innefective, with their advanced ERA...

[DRG]

I could write a huge email discussing the quote from Stalin that "quantity has a quality all it's own" but I'll content myself with this. We built the cost calculator to ensure that every tank from every nation was treated exactly the same. Armour, gun, ammo load and type and dozens of other factors are entered in to the calculator to determine the "cost" of the unit. However, what this **CANNOT** calculate is the number of tanks any given army may field. We have no way to work into the calculation that if Nation X= Y then they shall have a Z cost advantage due to the high numbers of tanks it can field.

Western tank design has evolved into being able to stand toe to toe with "eastern" armour and survive the hits they may take and be able to acquire new targets faster and more accurately because it was expected they would face larger numbers of opponents. The situation is, in a very , very general way, similar to what the various combatants in Europe in 1944 faced. If you are a commander of a US or British tank company of Sherman's in July 1944 do you try to slug it out toe to toe with Panthers and Tigers?

No. If you try that you will be slaughtered and don't try slugging it out toe to toe, one on one with a T-80 vs an M1A2 either. As stated above, the M1A2 was **designed** to come out on top in situations like that.

In the modern battlefield there is very little margin of error. Stick your turret over a hill and suddenly a half dozen enemy tanks are firing at you AND scoring hits. Not like in a WW2 era battle where you might be able to bull your way forward because gunnery and target acquisition wasn't nearly the art form it is now and you might be able to actually make it to that next tree line unscathed by dropping a bit of smoke. Now you might be lucky to get two hexes before you're stopped cold. That IS the reality of the modern battlefield. It may very well account for the reason we all make nice with one another ( more or less... )

What's the answer? Combined arms. A well timed attack with a few Russian Msta-B Sections can wipe out an entire company of western tanks in seconds. ( I just tried this with a Challenger 1 Squadron at a cross roads and three Msta-B Sections left every one a flaming wreak on the first turn ....that would make the job of the armoured units following up a bit easier.....Ja? ) Infantry with RPG's are particularly nasty and the sides of all western tanks are penetrable by "eastern" tank armament. Start thinking of your T-90s as Sherman's , go for the flanks and stop trying to slug it out with Western tanks and, if players insist on playing out "Kursk 1999" then start thinking about just what kind of numbers the Russians could field in a situation like that vs what the "Nato" ones could. Try playing at 6:1 odds for a start.

Don