Combat Potentials of Armament

[Alex1812]

New US documents about combat potentials of armament and combat equipment from 1980 was published:

http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/1700321/1980-08-25.pdf

It's represent the Soviet point of view. I found some interesting and strange values. For example BMP-1 has combat potential 0.8 and "Marder" only 0.45. T-80B (T-80 improved) looks stronger than Leopard-2.

Is any one has another table to compare real combat potential of armament? I am moddeling tanks battle and found that in the game T-62 and Leopard-1A2 have very close combat potentials, but they have absolutely different cost of victory points (T-62 has 22VP, Leopard has 56VP).

It will be great if in a new patch the calculation of victory point more accurate represent the combat potentials of the vehicles. And it will be nice to compare combat potentials in the game and in some books sources.

[Tazak]

Its soviet document so you'd expect some soviet bias in the numbers, and as this was produced in 1977 I'd expect the soviets to be working on data from the mid 1970's, at which time I believe the Marder1 was only armed with its 20mm cannon were as the BMP1 has 73mm gun and a AT3 ATGW mounted, and the leopard2 designing started in 1970 and didn't enter service until 1979 so they were likely working early version draft designs when assigning 'combat numbers'

also if your looking at VP costs for different nations are you checking the national tab on the USER DATA, the soviets by default have a lower "Equipment Cost Factor" about 55% I think (I've been messing around wit mine)

[CapnDarwin]

Our VP calculations are based on trying to rate the combat value of a platform based on its weapons, armour, equipment, mobility, crew size, and a few other factors. As Tazak points out we also added a global VP cost tweak to the national tab of the data to help with overall in game VP values for the scenarios. We plan on reviewing that cost model in 2.1 because we are aware of one issue with AD units not totaling correctly (at least in a couple cases). We would also at some point like to get a comparison tool/viewer in the game system too. It's on the list, but many other items are higher priority right now.

As for the comparisons, Tazak nails it for what the site was showing. As for calculations, we feel pretty good about ours, but you can rate platforms a million different ways. Plus there is no real right answer. Some will be better than others and ours works well for the game to use.

Hope that answers some of the questions.

[IronMikeGolf]

ORIGINAL: Alex1812
...
It will be great if in a new patch the calculation of victory point more accurate represent the combat potentials of the vehicles....

I must strongly disagree with that. In game terms, I think the "value" of a given unit is different from scenario to scenario. METT_T. In particular, Mission and Troops available. If I am attacking with 3+ tank regiments and the defender has only a battalion of tanks and his infantry, one of his tanks is much more precious than one of mine.

Then there are "special" units. Like Air Defense. The value is not so much its contribution to combat power as the potential to eliminate heavy contributors to enemy combat power. I'd say a single AD unit may be well "worth" at least a platoon of tanks. Quite possibly more, depending on the enemy force composition.

I am thinking hard on this.

[Mad Russian]

The VP's were assigned as an overall value to their parent unit. So, if a Platoon of M1A1's can take out a company of T-80B's then the T-80's have a lower value. We had higher values for the Soviet forces when we started but that skewed the results too far in NATO's favor. I actually think the Soviet values are still a bit too high.

Something else to consider. All documents present a picture. If it's about equipment that was never used in combat, then it's an opinion. We all have opinions already about how the equipment would have worked. We've all been down these roads plenty of times. Not saying I don't read and continue to study, but, I'm rarely swayed from the opinion I already have unless they present a very compelling case.

Good Hunting.

MR