The PATCH! What do you think?

[kevineduguay1]

shilka,

If you have designed a scenario or two with Western vs Eastern forces and the new patch threw off the balance a bit, I have a suggestion that may help.

If the Western forces are the attacker shorten the scenario. This will force the Western player to move quicker and be more reckless thus making more mistakes. This would give the Eastern player more of an opportunity to exploit those mistakes.

With the Eastern player as the attacker lengthen the scenario. This will give the Eastern player more time to maneuver into favorable attacking possitions.

DRG,
Yes there is a difference but it should benefit all sides that have helos or other spotter aircraft. I remember complaining about the scenario "73 Easting". It seemed that I could do no better than a Marginal Victory. With the new patch I managed to get a Decisive Victory on the first try. The main reason was that my helos stayed around longer. In the earlier version the Iraqi tanks would just plaster them with AAMG fire and within 2 or 3 turns of the helos stumbling along the playing area edges they would be hit, take a damage point or two and retreat off the playing area.
With the new engagement rules this is no longer a problem. The helos for the most part were able to move about more freely to spot for both tank gunnery and artillery. This proved to be the Decisive factor.
In general I like the changes. I guess that some people will have to change tactics.
For those of you that don't like what was done to some of the Western tank guns take a good look at the Israli OOB!

[shilka]

My friend refuse to put up armys and I try to convince the man that this is not the final end of all est/mid-east battles. The game has alot of suprises, when my friend refered to the Russian equipment over-all it has been significant changes from the first versions that was put out on the www. There has been a gradual change of all east/mod-east oobs since the beginning of the grand SPMBT éra. There has been changes for the better to the worse and I think that even if my friend that is a huge fan of SPMBT as game motor do overreact a bit. Even if both of us and anyone out there do know that alot of the statistics are from former Cold War sources or people served in countrys occupied or in any way lived in terror for the russians and in that way, togheter with some to often biased weapon industry, information sources has their finger in the facts that is presented when modding a game.

All this togheter with the Cold War BS to quote my friend has made this game to what it is today. Kevin are right, shorter battles more blood My friend is a maneuver freek and often, very of often he has won big by using the terrain that I have to say is the best ever in WINSPMBT version. Another thing is that the T-62M Iraqi tank has been a bit improved. That my friend was impressed over. The Iraqi OOB is as good as it can get I guess. But to defend my friend when it comes to expensive equipment vs Stalin that "quantity has a quality thesis. You cant do that in WINSPMBT not by a long shot. Thats why the game get a bit Biased today. And this quote is exactly why I understand my friend. Western tanks *are* superior to Eastern tanks (regardless of individual tastes). lol

Well Western doctrine was superior to eastern military doctrine. What people forget when they make games today, is that to make a army as the U.S as I love to play with working fair and balanced in a game like SPMBT you need to have everything around it working too. That is sattelites, AWACS heck and all this to really make the M1A2 this powerful. Put it even with a experianced crew in the middle of the desert without all that support that makes the U.S army as powerful as it is in the game aganinst a Republican Guard Unit crewed by U.S tankers and with Vision 75 and try to see for how long IRL time that M1A2 would survive in ranges between 800-1000 meters.

I say, I would not like to be the one that sits in that tank. Problem is that when mixing IRL statistics in games togheter with doctrines etc etc you always get one sided when alot of the material everything is based on battles where the commanders has failed or when someone has made a real smart manuever. It is neraly impossible to claim that western tanks would have been superior in a battle where both sides had the same stuff. Lets say the Iraqi Republican Guard did have french night sights and ammunition that wasnt 30 years out of date etc etc.

So I do understand my friend on many points. However WINSPMBT is still good I think. And even if I or my friend may feel like some areas of this game is baised. There will never be a game with all this extras out there that will get this far as a game experiance. Something about the Base Experiances can be why my friend is grumble a bit. Alot of West friendly countrys that not have been in any action since 1991 or even further back has base experiances that is annoying to him. Russia has been working on their new doctrine since 1991 and 2000 they put up their new one. Their army cant any worse after 2000 then Sweden that have not been in a real war for 200 years. lol I think he got a point there.

Cheers:
Shilka still a SPMBT freak!

[Marek_Tucan]

shilka said:
My friend refuse to put up armys and I try to convince the man that this is not the final end of all est/mid-east battles. The game has alot of suprises, when my friend refered to the Russian equipment over-all it has been significant changes from the first versions that was put out on the www. There has been a gradual change of all east/mod-east oobs since the beginning of the grand SPMBT éra. There has been changes for the better to the worse and I think that even if my friend that is a huge fan of SPMBT as game motor do overreact a bit.

Don't think the changes were from better to worse. From better to excellent IMHO. Well, that's just me;o)

Even if both of us and anyone out there do know that alot of the statistics are from former Cold War sources or people served in countrys occupied or in any way lived in terror for the russians and in that way, togheter with some to often biased weapon industry, information sources has their finger in the facts that is presented when modding a game.

I think the OOB designers for SPMBT are very experienced in dealing with nationalistic and commercial bias in weapon stats evaluating.
This doesn't prevent me from making my own OOB's, though

Well Western doctrine was superior to eastern military doctrine. What people forget when they make games today, is that to make a army as the U.S as I love to play with working fair and balanced in a game like SPMBT you need to have everything around it working too. That is sattelites, AWACS heck and all this to really make the M1A2 this powerful. Put it even with a experianced crew in the middle of the desert without all that support that makes the U.S army as powerful as it is in the game aganinst a Republican Guard Unit crewed by U.S tankers and with Vision 75 and try to see for how long IRL time that M1A2 would survive in ranges between 800-1000 meters.

But that's why US military doctrine is so good, the US military doesn't fight under the conditions you've described above (ie without intel, support, recon...). Thus IMO it won't matter had the Iraquis had M1A1's as well in 1991, tank is not everything.

I say, I would not like to be the one that sits in that tank. Problem is that when mixing IRL statistics in games togheter with doctrines etc etc you always get one sided when alot of the material everything is based on battles where the commanders has failed or when someone has made a real smart manuever. It is neraly impossible to claim that western tanks would have been superior in a battle where both sides had the same stuff. Lets say the Iraqi Republican Guard did have french night sights and ammunition that wasnt 30 years out of date etc etc.

IMO the technical stats are presented in a quite balanced form here. The doctrine etc. is hidden mostly in training and morale chapter. For example battle experience shown Israeli tankers to be superior ro say Egyptian ones, but when you'll look Israeli and Egyptian Centurions 5's, they're the same incl. fire control etc.

So I do understand my friend on many points. However WINSPMBT is still good I think. And even if I or my friend may feel like some areas of this game is baised. There will never be a game with all this extras out there that will get this far as a game experiance. Something about the Base Experiances can be why my friend is grumble a bit. Alot of West friendly countrys that not have been in any action since 1991 or even further back has base experiances that is annoying to him. Russia has been working on their new doctrine since 1991 and 2000 they put up their new one. Their army cant any worse after 2000 then Sweden that have not been in a real war for 200 years. lol I think he got a point there.

Cheers:
Shilka still a SPMBT freak!

Sweden might have not been in the war for 200 years, as well as say Switzerland, but they've been preparing thoroughly for war. Perhaps even more thoroughly than countries actually in war, as it is easier to change doctrine in the peacetime and test it thoroughly to find mistakes than to force new doctrine under fire, where some critical errors may evade you.
As for the ex-WarPac countries, the rise of exp. rating is fairly reasonable. Atleast given our country, since 1990 we've been following and adapting many Western doctrines, including more realistic training with use of MILES simulators etc. Our Hind pilots aren't among NATO Tiger squadrons for nought, as well as our fighters. Also our army has gathered alot of experience from various peacekeeping missions and even from two real shooting wars - our NBC recon specialists participated both in ODS and in OIF. Similar with Poles and Slovakians definitely, not sure about say Hungary etc...
Our small-scale infantry tactics is now based alot on British procedures.
Plus, we already have a fully professional army. This also means exp. increase.

[kevineduguay1]

Marek_Tucan,

Thank you for that post! Now I don't have to reply to shilka.

shilka, just kidding! Both of you have valid points. Maybe we have to look at where the Russian Military Land Forces will be in 2015 or so. They are not sitting still and certainly are getting better.

[Siddhi]

the new rapid conclusion to games is pretty good - have often managed to win scenarios 1/3 of time in simply by 'shock effect' - killing a lot of units quickly, and forcing a general route of the enemy. no reason to keep playing after th