Accuracy values for the main guns - MBT's.

[DRG]

Gooseman2448 said:
Don,

Let me be the first to appologise for my remarks in earlier post.

I did not mean to disrespect you or WinSPMBT. I also did not expect to be belittled by you for expressing my opinion.

Things got out of hand and I apologise.

I have had a chance to replay the senario that was giving me my problems. I was able to get thte same problems but I have gotten them in a different situation.

I am attaching a save of where I am now.

I would appreciate anyones analysis of what is happening.

The first is of course the earthen bunker that is in question. I have over a platoon of M1A1+ around it at various ranges. I have reduced all suppression and moved to the next turn.

I can kill now within 50 meters. If I try any further out, say 100 meters or more, the ACC % drops to nothing. Even TOW missile aren't able to get a hit, not a kill but a hit.

I have Brads in close to another bunker but they don't seem to be able to do much either.

Another question I have is the M1s in the upper area engaged with a 23mm AA emplacement. I am thinking they should at least be able to suppress it if not hit it.

I never meant to disrespect you or SPMBT. I have enjoyed everything you guys have done. I mentioned WAW before in a bad attempt to explain that to have to close within 50 meters AND stop until the next turn to hit a bunker seemed more along the lines of WW2 technology or tactics.

I think before I had engaged further out (About 300 to 400 meters). By time I had gotten to within 50 meters I was frustrated in I thought an M1 should have atleast hit this thing by now. Am I wrong in thinking this?

With this senario there are no shortages of 120mm, 25mm and TOW missiles, so someone should be able to hit the thing and if lucky kill it.

As I said before I apologise to you Don.

I didn't belittle your opinion. I gave you advice You were sounding like a
newbie and I've had this "discussion" before regarding bunkers and such and
I suggested you need more experience playing the game because when I test
these complaints I invariably end up scratching my head wondering how I
could get results diametrically opposed to what other people do. That was
confirmed when I built the my test sceanrio based on the information you
gave me. MG's pits, + Abrams all around them in adjacent hexes and unable to
even hit the bunker. I get one shot, one kill three times in a row in the
test scenario .

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 first loaded this save game into my working game and killed the AA
emplacement in one shot with Abrams so I start thinking..." oh yes.....
here we go again" but then I realized the EXE I'm using in my working game
is about 35 versions beyond the one you are using so I dug out a version of
the EXE that was in the DL release and tried this and yes indeed, things can
be very difficult to hit. Not impossible, but difficult. Lot's of misses

I then loaded this test scenario in the most up-to-date EXE

This one has had tweaks to the code to enhance Fire Control, Range finder
and vision ( like TI ) plus the OOB's I', using have the M256 gun increased
from 11 accuracy to 14. That increase in accuracy may sound like a lot but
it is a minor change in the big scheme of things. However, each small change
accumulates and we had to be very careful not to go too far with this but
here is what would happen now if we issued the patch today ( you can refer
to your game while reading this. It's a nice benefit of running in Windowed
mode I never run full screen simple because this allows me to do multiple
things at once )

Abrams B0 targets AA emplacement 800m 44% to-hit chance. In three attempts
two missed one kill

Abrams D0 firing at the bunker in 150,164 ( the one with the Bradley's and
M113's around it ) 500m 61% to-hit report. In three shots there were two
kills and one miss

Bradley L0 firing at the bunker in 150,164 ( again... I reloaded the game )
450m 61% to-hit report. Three attempts, three kills

I then ran Abrams F0 up the road until I had a clear shot of the AA emplacement
( I ended up in hex 144,150 ) 900m 17 % to-hit. Four attempts resulted in three shots missed
and one kill

So, it appears the changes we made to the code have eliminated the issues you raised so when the patch
is released you should see a noticeable change. We have not turned them into omnipotent wonder
weapons but they do hit and kill more in line with existing battle reports

Glad you like the game otherwise

Don

[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 )....

[kevineduguay1]

M256,

The info on Russian auto loader equiped tanks ROF is optomistic at best. In the early 1990's it took the auto loader 10 seconds to re-load and put the gun back on target. In a real battle any Western tank could out shoot it by at least 3 to 2 rounds. And who reloaded the ammo carrosel when it was empty in a Soviet built tank? The commander. If the gunner and commander are doing it, that just leaves the driver to pray that they get it done soon so he does'nt have to die for his country.
Now if he is doing that, who spotted for new targets? In the game durring the first few turns a Soviet/Russian tank gets to fire 2 rounds per impulse. One a gun round and one a ATGM. This is bull. All are in the auto loader. If not the ROF drops. They all go through the same tube.
They are still working on the accuracy of their sabot rounds, and their auto loader is still a mess.
My question is, why do Soviet/Russian tanks in many cases have ROF of 7, while they have the ATGM advantage (weapons slots 1 and 2 ) and an unbeliveable ROF of 7 for all T-80s, some T-70s, and maybe some I have not found. ALL WESTERN TANKS with a 90mm or better armament have a ROF of only 6. Despite the FACT that a 120mm loader in an ABRAMS could out load the AUTO-LOADER 3 to 2 in ANY situation reguardless of training.
One other thing, how do you un-load the tube of a 125mm gun with the auto-loader if you have the wrong ammo in the tube? You clear the weapon just like a naval weapon, fire the round off, make another selection for type of ammo, and wait 10 seconds to die.