Stabilization numbers question/FCS

harlikwin · #1 July 31st, 2006, 01:17 PM

Can anyone explain to me the rationale between the stabilization numbers? I know higher is better, but what would be the difference between 2 and 3 etc?

I have the same question regarding the fire control systems. Are there any features etc one can extrapolate for the systems? I.e. 15 vs 20 vs 25?

Mobhack · #2 August 1st, 2006, 01:21 AM

Mobhack help, "units tab" discusses this a little - though we are using different numbers for laser RF now from that paragraph (20 or so). Also see the design guidelines section.

Other than that - look at the unit data in the OOBs. There is basically no "Grand Unified Theory" or some document that says a Wurlitzer Mk2* FCS => 27 FC points. You will need to find any users of the Wurlitzer Mk2* FCS, and see what the designers have used.

Cheers
Andy

harlikwin · #3 August 1st, 2006, 02:30 PM

Well, thats just my question. Seems there is pretty large inconsistent disparities between certain tanks/FCS. I.e. the T64B stabilization and FCS is probably better to western FCS of the time, perhaps not as 100% user friendly, but from all the descriptions I've read it seems pretty comperable to early 80's fcs. Put sight on target, lase, track, and shoot. All the other variables come in automatically in from the sensors. Yet it has a value of 20, and a stabilization of 2, compared to the leo2/M1 which have 35 and stabilizations of 5/4. Furthermore this "error" is compounded through the later series as well as the T80's (Which I think are correct)that used similar/identical fcs. Furthermore the T-64/T-80 series have in some cases identical/comperable values in stabilization and FCS to the T72 series which had inferior FCS/stabilization (until the 80's when it sort of caught up).

I realize there is huge faction here that claims all russian stuff is total crap. But I think this is mainly due lack of familiarity of it, and the poor showing of soviet export armor during the arab israeli wars/iraq wars, which is hardly comperable to the frontline soviet stuff.

DRG · #4 August 1st, 2006, 05:55 PM

There's also a faction who think the Russian equipment is Gods Gift to Warfare and we try to deal with the information from both sides in an even handed way and give the units what we feel is realistic numbers. Remember, some of this is still classified and picking a number to use is often an educated guess.

Also keep in mind that there is little chance EVERYBODY will agree on whatever we put in. Yes, the export equipment, in Arab hands, came out looking quite poor during the arab israeli wars/iraq wars and there is a "faction" that believes quite strongly that the "real" Russian equipment was far superior to what was exported....but was it really? If you were the Russian leadership would YOU want people to think that pile of scrap metal littering the desert represents your best efforts at weapon design ? No, you wouldn't. I'm not saying the "home market" versions were OR were not superior to the export versions but this is something that will be debated to death for years. Your......"but from all the descriptions I've read .... " is just guesswork as well. WHAT descriptions WHERE? The internet is full of useful information and it also contains it's fair share of crap.

We have tried from the beginning to be fair to all nations but no matter what we do somebody ends up with something they think should be higher or lower which I suppose is the nature of the game and the people attracted to it. That's why we include MOBHack.

Don

harlikwin · #5 August 2nd, 2006, 05:22 PM

Well there are various threads on tanknet on the FCS capabilities of various tanks, particularly a thread on FCS I started recently that indicate that the soviet era fcs was pretty comperable in terms of functionality to western models.

Also, while I'm frankly not one of these soviet supremacists I do think they should get a fair shake, and the overal flavor of the game still strikes me as stuck in the 80's mode of horde of inferior tanks stage, which at this point from all I've read probably isn't all that realistic. Over all the years I've played SP/SPMBT/winSPMBT I think you've all done a pretty good job in most regards i.e. armor and gun accuracy and so forth, and all I'm trying to do is to get better information for the rest.

As for my descriptions: I posted my sources in the oob forum regarding specifically the T-64B/earlier T72's.

Also I've started a thread on tanknet that has some usefull information on various FCS.
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=17219

DRG · #6 August 3rd, 2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

harlikwin said:
Well there are various threads on tanknet on the FCS capabilities of various tanks, particularly a thread on FCS I started recently that indicate that the soviet era fcs was pretty comperable in terms of functionality to western models.

******What I would be looking for is something like Janes as opposed to "various threads on tanknet"

Quote:

harlikwin said:
Also, while I'm frankly not one of these soviet supremacists I do think they should get a fair shake, and the overal flavor of the game still strikes me as stuck in the 80's mode of horde of inferior tanks stage, which at this point from all I've read probably isn't all that realistic. Over all the years I've played SP/SPMBT/winSPMBT I think you've all done a pretty good job in most regards i.e. armor and gun accuracy and so forth, and all I'm trying to do is to get better information for the rest.

OK, a little background but if you have indeed been playing MBT for years you'll already know this. When Helge Bertram originally designed his Schwarzer Herzog sceanrios (28-Koenig****ter am Elm and 29 -Schandelah ) they were both classed as "expert" level sceanrios becasue both rapidly degenerated in desperate delaying actions when played as the German player because the Russian onslaught was so powerful. Then, a couple of releases later further research was done and the AP capabiliies of the NATO shells were increased becasue research showed that the original specs had made them not nearly as effective as they should have been ( and no... I don't have this raw information, this was done a couple of years ago ). Once that was changed the entire character of these two sceanrios changed. This was not done to deliberatly boost up the NATO killing power. It was done as normal research that turned up info that indicated we had undervalued the hitting power of NATO guns. It wasn't a big change as I recal but it was enough to change those two sceanrios considerably.

Believe it or not we have strived from the very beginning to ensure that ALL sides "get a fair shake". We DID NOT go into this thinking that the Russian equipment was "naturally" inferior nor were we "stuck in the 80's mode of horde of inferior tanks " The game has evolved over the years and maybe....just maybe what you see IS an accurate representation of reality but where the problem lies is the NUMBER of vehicles available to each side. The costs of the tanks in this game are strictly based on their capability. We do NOT factor "rarity" into their costs. There were a LOT more Russian tanks than NATO ones. Try ten to one odds on the Russian side and the ability to kill from the NATO side is overbalanced by the sheer number of targets and the number of those targets that return fire which was, in fact, Soviet doctrine.

This game will NEVER make everyone happy, there are simply too many divergent POV's but we have always tried to be fair

Don

harlikwin · #7 August 4th, 2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

DRG said:
******What I would be looking for is something like Janes as
opposed to "various threads on tanknet"

Believe it or not we have strived from the very beginning to ensure that ALL sides "get a fair shake". We DID NOT go into this thinking that the Russian equipment was "naturally" inferior nor were we "stuck in the 80's mode of horde of inferior tanks " The game has evolved over the years and maybe....just maybe what you see IS an accurate representation of reality but where the problem lies is the NUMBER of vehicles available to each side. The costs of the tanks in this game are strictly based on their capability. We do NOT factor "rarity" into their costs. There were a LOT more Russian tanks than NATO ones. Try ten to one odds on the Russian side and the ability to kill from the NATO side is overbalanced by the sheer number of targets and the number of those targets that return fire which was, in fact, Soviet doctrine.

This game will NEVER make everyone happy, there are simply too many divergent POV's but we have always tried to be fair
Don

Don:
I have looked at various editions of janes, particularly ones dealing with the older tanks. NONE of them really describe firing procedures for any tanks. They might list some model of FCS and so forth, but no real details on how it works. Also Tanknet, is at least reasonably scholarly esp when you get a few people saying the same things.

As for various revisions, I generally know how it works, I've seen it go back and forth, notice my main issue here is between two models of soviet tank that had way different FCS and procedures and have the same FCS rating. I then posit that the superior FCS might need to be few points higher because of its similarity to western FCS. As I understand crew training still plays a much larger role in the game than FCS I don't think its going to somehow massively change the game balance.

DRG · #8 August 4th, 2006, 05:42 PM

I'll look into this for the next release

Don

baggypants · #9 August 4th, 2006, 07:22 PM

Post deleted by baggypants

harlikwin · #10 August 8th, 2006, 07:50 PM

well the fact the said equipment pretty much does everything and M1's/Leo-2 FCS about 5+ years before they were introduced might have something to do with it. From the posters on tanknet, they said it worked quite well. Thus the conclusion.

Also, I thought the FCS mainly dealt with engaging moving targets. While other values dealt with overall accuracy (gun accuracy value)