Warsaw Pact and TI

[Sarunas]

lol, teh pwned

[Smersh]

How exactly can you give yourself more points then the ai? I always thought ai purchase points where based on your own purchase.

Tucan since you talk about superior tactics, what are your tactics then of fighting a TI opponent with no TI? or you don't want to give away your PBEM secerts. I don't know of any Soviet tactics designed to counter TI. Other than don't expose yourself what can you do. hiding isn't exactly going to kill the TI unit.


I also like playing with Czechoslavia, and East Germany in addition to the USSR. Czech and E. German equipment is much 'simplier' and I like that. It really impresses me when a 100mm BS-3 cannon from WW2 is knocking out Leopards and Pattons in the 80s (with modernized ammo of course)

[Marek_Tucan]

Smersh said:
How exactly can you give yourself more points then the ai?
I always thought ai purchase points where based on your own purchase.

By setting points for both sides in Preferences to suit your needs

Tucan since you talk about superior tactics, what are your tactics then of fighting a TI opponent with no TI? or you don't want to give away your PBEM secerts. I don't know of any Soviet tactics designed to counter TI. Other than don't expose yourself what can you do. hiding isn't exactly going to kill the TI unit.

It's hiding up to the point you are in a good position Generally my infantry and tanks made advance through forest not feasible so the advance after losing some vehicles to ambushes and pointblank gun fire shifted to more open terrain where my tank reserves were able to play shoot and scoot from two sides and ATGM's were able to harass Marders (though they did seldom hit, more Marders fell prey to my T-55's). Also while moving to the open and towards objectives there was a small screening infantry platoon that was wiped out completely, but managed to knock out several tanks. Also had to fight for flank shots as 125mm ammo had problems with defeating Leo's front (but on several occassions my 72M1's survived front hits by 120mm as well).
Heavily used tactical redeployment of the screening forces once they made their part - delayed enemy long enough etc.

EDIT: Of course this works just as long as there's a place where to seek cover, the map was a map of real are in Middle Europe and was pretty confined at places, though it offered opportunities for long-range shots as well. If it was flat desert it won't work

Of course loses on my side were rather serious as well, lost lots and lots of grunts and took heavy losses among screening T-55's and IFV's, but numerically the losses were roughly comparable with the difference the enemy lost rather expensive stuff.

I also like playing with Czechoslavia, and East Germany in addition to the USSR. Czech and E. German equipment is much 'simplier' and I like that. It really impresses me when a 100mm BS-3 cannon from WW2 is knocking out Leopards and Pattons in the 80s (with modernized ammo of course)

Yup, T-55 is even in 1980's great tank to be used as flank security or for ambushes or to counter enemy IFV's and APC's.

[PlasmaKrab]

Do you give WP forces even more points than the balance? After all we're talking value points here, so higher quantity always balances lower quality and reverse. You want to achieve the legendary 3-to-1 ratio? I thought that was why there was a 'quality differential' in the first place, because of the heaps of decades-old units kept running in the rear areas...

[Marek_Tucan]

PlasmaKrab said:
Do you give WP forces even more points than the balance? After all we're talking value points here, so higher quantity always balances lower quality and reverse. You want to achieve the legendary 3-to-1 ratio? I thought that was why there was a 'quality differential' in the first place, because of the heaps of decades-old units kept running in the rear areas...

I was just reacting to comments about "unfairness" I usually tend to stick with AI automatic point allocation.

[PlasmaKrab]

Heh, I was more used to US-licking trolls until now (the ones who go waah-I-cant-beat-T80s-but-I-know-Abrahams-is-teh-best-tank-evar!!!!!!!)

Kuklinovsky, could we all hold back the personal attacks here please? Do you have verifiable info about the fact that Soviet-era Hinds had any kind of equipment allowing them to see through battlefield smoke?
In case you didn't read the whole thread through, that's what Don has been asking for since the beginning.

If you haven't, please stop the pointless *****ing.
You want an illuminated battlefield? set the visibility over 50 or so. That'll never prevent the other player to smoke you. If you can't win the game as it is, improve your tactics until you can: even with better hardware the IA is blessedly clueless and vulnerable to delaying or flanking.
And from all the figures I've seen (yes, from both "sides"), the game is still pretty fair-minded with lte Soviet units.

[Siddhi]

Kuklinovsky i also think your tone of voice in the very least is a bit questionable and also would perfer a more moderate debate. This aggessive posting culture is deplorable and is mark of a very poor community - i would suggest anyone interested in a more mature and intelligent enviornment check out the forums run by paradox.

on more interesting matters (engagement ranges, relevant to TI):

My handbook (Austrian military, published early 1980s), states engangement ranges "under 1000m". The terrain is however only marginaly comparable with Bavaria (east of the country much more open, west of the country much more mountainous), so this could well be inaccuate for Germany.

Also an interersting statement from memory: "faced with a superior foe, the mobile anti-tank defence should be conducted as close as possible to negate enemy technological superiority, while simuatenously allowing for proper displacement." The example is given with the Kurassier JgPz (light tank), which was specifically designed for rapid engagements of 400-800m (2-4 shots) and retreat.

A side note, in another thread we talked about "TI-defeating smoke" which does exist, and (i speculate), could have formed an important part of WAPA strategy in the final period (1985-90).

[PlasmaKrab]

Good point about infrared smoke Siddhi, I've been wondering for a while how widespread that thing was, and since when.
After all that's what the "IR" is about in VIRSS. AFAIK VIR smoke is based on suspended metallic particles and so should also screen from radars.

Since enough smoke will eventually block TI sight now, would it be possible to create a second smoke dispersers category which would (totally out on a limb here) create maximum-density smoke clouds or several simultaneous smoke clouds to simulate thicker, impenetrable smoke?

[mr_clark]

Siddi: Very interesting, thanks for that.

Note that it claims the MI-24B would have featured a FLIR (which is TI as the FLIR definition is normally used ,isn't it?) But then there's no direct reference on that system with the Mi-24D, so was it used or not? I.e. had the Hind D a FLIR (TI) system or not?

Smersh/Marek_Tucan: Yeah I had some fun experiances with T-55s, my favourite being in an AI GDR/US campaign, where a T55 engaged a M1A1 on 100 meters landing a 'critical hit' with +40 penetration, catastrophically killing the Abrams with it's first shot...

[PlasmaKrab]

I don't want to spoil anyone's day, but a FLIR could also be a passive or active EOIR sensor in the short wavelength band, i.e. not the everyday thermal radiation domain. Granted, short-wavelength Russian IR systems were apparently able to pick fires at great ranges (even lighted cigarettes for infantry systems), but certainly not the thermal radiation of a running engine.
Or it could also be a first-generation FLIR (in the US sense) that was tested on the Mi24B but abandoned for lack of reliability/efficiency/affordability. Hell, the thing didn't even reach the prototype stage, nothing even tells us that this LLTV/FLIR existed when the Mil team put the mockup together!
All in all, it is strange indeed that the device isn't mentioned in further versions.

I know, I'm Hind-prejudiced...