Red Army = most effective force ! - Page 6

Smersh · #51 December 28th, 2006, 06:16 PM

conventional forces where extremely important during the 'cold war' since it was expected that war could start at any time. Both the USA and USSR spent huge amounts of resources building complex and expensive defense systems.

the 60s idea that nuclear weapons and the air-forces would completly replace ground conventional weapons never took place. Besides many of the tanks and apcs could operate in a nuclear environment. nuclear weapons and planes can't occupy or hold any terrain.

we are lucky militaty leaders never decided on a direct confrontation, I think they understood what nuclear war would mean.

yeah, there are several limitation the old sp code is showing.

PlasmaKrab · #52 December 29th, 2006, 06:16 AM

I'm not sure that "generations" would do it all re. ERA stopping power. Bear in mind that some modern "new-generation" ERA packs are lighter and less efficient to suit lighter vehicles.
Anyhow, I think that "generation" and "effect" variables would be redundant. Better get back to 2 variables and raise the number of "generations", each one with an upper limit of penetration/warhead size that it can stop. E.g. instead of having figures from 1 to 19, why not reaching up to 49 or 59, with more different ERA levels, from basic early-80s stuff to Kontakt-5 or similar, with several shades in between?

Just my 2c on an off-topic subject that cannot possibly be modeled in the game, I don't even know why I bothered

pdoktar · #53 December 29th, 2006, 08:59 AM

You bothered because you care, as we all do.

Listy · #54 December 30th, 2006, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Kuklinovsky said:
2. Soviet had advantage in armor up to the end of Cold War! They fielded T-80U in 1985 which was equivalent of US M1A1HA made five years later.

Ok I'll bite, seeing as I just sprayed my breakfast all over the place in fits of laughter.

How is a 46 ton tank, better than one nearly twice it's weight? I'd also like to ask what evidence you bring to support this?

Marek_Tucan · #55 December 30th, 2006, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Listy said:
I'd also like to ask what evidence you bring to support this?

No evidence needed, it's as self-evident as the fact T-34 was best tank of WWII and Sherman was just a total failure

Nightblade · #56 December 30th, 2006, 07:40 AM

Last time i played a post year 2000 small generated battle, i understood why i should not buy anything expensive for such low battle points/small map if i was playing usa/usmc and have red army as opponent.

After deploying my 4 SEAL platoons (4 SEAL platoons are a total of 8 squads and 4 pathfinders) with 3 CH-46 for quick insertion in objective, i had the surprise to see nearly a hundred of infantry and APC to run and quickly overwhelm my poor small platoons.

And despite using lots of smoke grenade to create some ambush for this insane amount of APC in the objective zone, while this helped really against infantry, with the incredible bad luck at assaulting APC those SEAL had (despite the SEAL squads are classed as engineer in the game), in less than 10 turns, mostly everyone was dead.

After checking a bit more after game, the 4 SEAL platoons + 3 CH46 were costing me 1860 BP, with such an amount of BP , using red army you could buy 14 Mech platoons (42 squads and +/- 35/40 APC).

So if you plan to play with small battle points against an army that comes with cheap to buy units, never ever buy expensive units if you plan to have a chance, or just do not let the AI to buy what he wants, buy things yourself for it.

Marek_Tucan · #57 December 30th, 2006, 09:21 AM

The SEAL and other specials are more for scen design than for "real" battle

Or for PBEM with agreed limits to the other side...

Marcello · #58 December 30th, 2006, 09:28 AM

"How is a 46 ton tank, better than one nearly twice it's weight?"

I suppose that if by "equivalent" he means that it would not be a Gulf War style one sided massacre he might be right.Consider however:
1) no thermal sight;
2) several weak spots in the front armor;
3) ammunition performance likely insufficient to deal with M1A1 HA;
4) various odd ends, like unprotected ammo storage, insufficient main gun depression etc.;

pdoktar · #59 December 30th, 2006, 01:19 PM

Marek, hope you were sarcastic, as T-34 WAS the best tank in the WWII. At least I consider it as the mother of all modern tank designs...

pdoktar · #60 December 30th, 2006, 01:27 PM

Yep, Nightblade, you can easy count out your Chinooks from that force core points in a real firefight. Besides, as Russia has less than 70 exp points as core experience, the red army units become even cheaper to buy in numbers. Overwhelming numbers, and as their tech advances, troop quality doesnt matter that much anymore, especially in "one-shot-one-kill" units.

All in all I consider the red Army to be a first-class foe in winSPMBT after 2000. Just remember, that an Oob designer has a lot to say with every country. (And the guy who put up Russia, did a very comprehensive work, considering WinSPMBT picks and tactics)