Faith in the game.

[CapnDarwin]

The video shows a company of T80s in heavy rain popping up on a hill 1000m from 3 platoons of British tanks (with thermals) and the T80s get hammered out of the gate and there are a number of exchanges of fire before the last T80 goes down. I saw at least one British tank get hit. Tough to see on my phone. I don't see any issues with the outcome of that engagement. Could have gone a bit better for the Soviet's but getting hit that hard that fast did not give them much of a chance to deal kills.

[CapnDarwin]

Max, do me a favor and send me that game turn so I can run it in our debugger and see if something is going on. I can believe the one kill per British shot, what I'm not seeing well on my phone is the return shots. I would expect at that range for the Soviet shot to take down 1 to 2 tanks in the targeted platoon at this range. I need to see why the return fire looks weak. Thanks.

[MaxDamage]

Im sending you a rar archive with 2 files inside:
.scn file with my test scenario
and a .sav savegame file which only requires you to press "end turn" to see the outcome.

Im not sure which exact turn save file i need to send you and im not sure if i have this exact saved turn at the moment thats why i dont send you this turn save file. Please run the savegame, it is easier for you yourself understand which turn you need.

I also dont know how to send files via the forum thats why im using file hosting with a rar archive.

http://www.filedropper.com/testscn

also, 3 tank shots vs 10 tank shots shouldnt be equal. And the first shot bonus seems to be way way too high.

[CapnDarwin]

The shots aren't equal on a per shot basis, but the composite result depending on conditions can yield similar results. I'll pull down your files and look them over tonight when I get home from work. Thanks for the information.

[Lowlaner2012]

Capn can you let us know when you put the turn through the debugger?

Im going to play a bit tonight but Im interested in the results..

Thanks

[CapnDarwin]

Sure. I look to report back tomorrow afternoon (busy evening and Dev call in the morning) [8D]

[Lowlaner2012]

Cheers Capn

[Rincovsk]

Max, I see your point. I do always had that skewed feeling as well. No matter how many data is researched and collected the simulation will always have the authors bias involved and in this case obviously towards NATO. It is one point of view of how things would unfold. At the other hand the amount of effort put it by the devs to try to create a realistic what if event is tremendous and they have come up with a fantastic game. Simulate reality is always an...approximation, specially with what if situations. It is very important that you have brought your data tests here into discussion. This will only help this game to be better and better. I appreciate the care of Capn Darwin to take the time to check your comments further. This type of attention is what keeps me attached to this game. Don't give up the faith with this game. I actually indeed have my own databases for the things that I don't feel right. This is another flexible aspect that I like a lot in this game. Keep bringing your thoughts here for discussion. I agree with you on those ones. Looking forward to see Capn evaluation. Cheers

[cbelva]

I did some testing of the combat model this afternoon to check to see if there is any basic for the concern. I have been running tests for several years now on the combat model and so I just applied the same tests I have used over the years. Overall, I don't see a problem. I am checking for consistency when all things are relatively equal. I used the same map and position that MaxDamage used. In my test I used a company of T-80BV(m) and a plt of Chieftain Mk 11. That is really fairer for the Soviet than 3 plt of Chieftain against a lone Soviet company. In the test, with both sides having equal change of spotting and firing, the Chieftain would normally fire first and get the first kill--not unexpected. However, the Soviets would recover and take out the Chieftain plt after that. I noticed in MaxDamage scenario, besides the bad visibility for the Soviets, they were also walking into an ambush. They were moving up on a ridge where the Brits were waiting in defilade. The three British Chieftain plts were waiting on them and all three basically opened fired on the Soviets scoring hits before the Soviets could answer.

I also ran some independent tests on a different map checking for how the units faired at different distances. I also ran some test with Challengers for the Brits to compare with how well the Chieftains did. The distances I used were 3000, 2000, and 1000. At all ranges the T-80BV(m) bested the Chieftains. The Challengers had the upper hand distance. As they were moved closer together, the advantage fell to the T-80s. This is all in line with what I would expect and in line with the way our combat model has shown in the past.

Here the bottom line in all this. This was a war that was never fought and no one knows for sure use how these machines would have performed against each other. From day one we have had people who have disagreed with our model. That is ok, and we expect that and welcome it. Most of the complaint have been from those who believe that the Soviets were too powerful. We will never please everyone and thankfully we will never know since this war never fought.

[cbelva]

Ok, I am going to walk back one of my comments. I just rewatched the video and realized the Brits were moving too, so it would not have been an ambush situation.

[MaxDamage]

ORIGINAL: cbelva

I did some testing of the combat model this afternoon to check to see if there is any basic for the concern. I have been running tests for several years now on the combat model and so I just applied the same tests I have used over the years. Overall, I don't see a problem. I am checking for consistency when all things are relatively equal. I used the same map and position that MaxDamage used. In my test I used a company of T-80BV(m) and a plt of Chieftain Mk 11. That is really fairer for the Soviet than 3 plt of Chieftain against a lone Soviet company. In the test, with both sides having equal change of spotting and firing, the Chieftain would normally fire first and get the first kill--not unexpected. However, the Soviets would recover and take out the Chieftain plt after that. I noticed in MaxDamage scenario, besides the bad visibility for the Soviets, they were also walking into an ambush. They were moving up on a ridge where the Brits were waiting in defilade. The three British Chieftain plts were waiting on them and all three basically opened fired on the Soviets scoring hits before the Soviets could answer.

I also ran some independent tests on a different map checking for how the units faired at different distances. I also ran some test with Challengers for the Brits to compare with how well the Chieftains did. The distances I used were 3000, 2000, and 1000. At all ranges the T-80BV(m) bested the Chieftains. The Challengers had the upper hand distance. As they were moved closer together, the advantage fell to the T-80s. This is all in line with what I would expect and in line with the way our combat model has shown in the past.

Here the bottom line in all this. This was a war that was never fought and no one knows for sure use how these machines would have performed against each other. From day one we have had people who have disagreed with our model. That is ok, and we expect that and welcome it. Most of the complaint have been from those who believe that the Soviets were too powerful. We will never please everyone and thankfully we will never know since this war never fought.

mm whats wrong with you people? You re saying that its fairer to do 3 chieftain vs 10 t80bv?? do you realise that IRL t80bv is a world ahead of a chieftain. This is a complete BS i cant really take this game seriously, rather count it for ideological comic book cheering for NATO.

Tell me what magic allows 3 chieftains equal 10 t80bv? Democracy coating? Game stats seem to have no effect on outcome.

[exsonic01]

mm whats wrong with you people? You re saying that its fairer to do 3 chieftain vs 10 t80bv?? do you realise that IRL t80bv is a world ahead of a chieftain.

No, you're wrong sir. There are lots of relative problems and weak points in T-80BV when compared to western MBTs at the moment. Most serious ones are inferior FCS, and autoloader (forcing to use two-pieced shell) Rapira cannon is reliable until 1500m, but not at longer distance. Overall, both tanks would be very comparable against each other with their own pros & cons. T-80BV would never be a world ahead of Cheiftain. Battle would greatly depends on crew veterancy, and commander's ability.

This is a complete BS i cant really take this game seriously, rather count it for ideological comic book cheering for NATO.

I disagree.

Tell me what magic allows 3 chieftains equal 10 t80bv? Democracy coating? Game stats seem to have no effect on outcome.

Well, even though if that is true (of course it is not), it would be still better than "Stalinum" from some different game franchise, you may know.



You know what? I can kill all 10 T-80BVs without a single casualty of Chieftains. I can put smokes on my tanks, sniping those approaching T-80BVs from long range. Veteran crews would be much better at killing, with higher accuracy.

On the other hand, I had some fun with T-64BVs against Chieftains in Hells Highway scenario in PBEM. Get the marginal victory, and I managed to wipe out British guys from the highway and most of the city blocks. Managing 200+ tanks was not easy though. I agree that the learning curve of this game would be more steeper for PACT than NATO, but that never means that this game is totally off from real world. Actually, I think the data of this game is overally good.

What I wish to tell you is that the battle, and the war, is not a competition of which tank has better catalog specs. There are lot more than that.

[CapnDarwin]

Okay, we need to back up to the very beginning of this thread. First thing is you data does not match the latest in game data. See the picture below. The Chieftain is 105 VPs and a 31 AP. Your data is old. Pre 2.06 old I think. Now that does not swing things to far off as the armour numbers are correct. I would suggest updating your game again because something is off and your EXE may be out of date too.

As for the shooting and results, what Charles was doing was eliminating the 2 extra platoons to look at thing one unit versus one unit. If the other two units were there for the Brits they would have fired as well and killed a similar number of T-80s. At 1000m both guns are very capable of killing the other tank. The Brits with better crew and fire control will gain an advantage in hitting over the regular crews of the T-80s. The T-80 has an advantage in getting a kill on a hit wit the better pen vs armour rating. HEAT rounds will be less effective versus both based on composite and reactive armours so AP is probably the preferred shot. Getting off the first shots is most likely going to the better crew with thermals. The better crew has an advantage in ROF and the "close" nature of the fight will punch up the ROF a bit for both sides. Once losses set in and readiness drops it really comes down to that first shot or exchange. Also another overlooked item in this is the terrain. We don't have "clear" terrain. It's not a sheet of glass with open visibility. Our clear terrain has a mix of rolling hills, trees, even a building or two. We just don't detail down to that level. It's mixed but not dominated by features.

IRL this fight would end the same way. The better, faster crew with better fire control is going to win the majority of these fights. We have no NATO or Soviet bias. In fact most people thing we have a Red side bias. Is everything we have in data perfect? I'll be the first to say nope, but it's the best information we had at the time and we are updating as better sources pop up. Is our combat model the end all of models. Nope, but it does a good job of getting things done in a manner we believe is realistic. Beyond that we can't help the results. The nice thing is the game is very open for modding so you can always go in a nerf or boost those thing you think are wrong and build scenarios to fight it out.

And now the side by side on the tanks.

[wodin]

I suppose as long as your tank can fire a round that will penetrate the enemies armour it will then all be down to who was the quickest to spot and react..no matter how many years there might be between the tank types.
However just going by the amount of tanks I imagine 3 chieftains vs 10 T80BV may well in the first volley the Cheiftain crews spot first and react quicker and with good training could well take out a tank each before the Russains have got their sh#t together..then it's 7vs3 and I imagine things then don't start to look good for the chieftains.. just over 2:1 odds they will need some luck I feel.
Most likely best using hit and run tactics than slug it out..

[exsonic01]

http://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/8286-g ... nk-trials/

This would tell you the problem of accuracy of T-80s

[CapnDarwin]

I think on thing that get's overlooked in a game like this is it's not just the machine. Having good toys helps, but there is a major player in the people that run the gear and the environment that everything is sitting in. The best example is during the Korean war and F-86s are fighting Mig-15s. The US get's it hands on a Mig and they run it out to Edwards (well Edwards later in life) and Chuck Yeager and another pilot take them up to mock dogfight to check out performance. Yeager tears up the other pilot in the Mig. They land and the other pilot says the F-86 is a superior plane. So they swap rides. Again Yeager eats the other guys lunch. The point; given relatively even equipment, the better trained fighter can and will win. The same thing is going to happen in the game. Regular NATO versus Vet Soviets, the pendulum is going to swing in Reds's favor most of the time. No magic. No bias. Just numbers trying to simulate an outcome.

Off the soapbox. Have a good evening folks and play nice with each other.

[battlerbritain]

In Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army by Isby he gives a table that the Soviets' used for indicating the likelihood of an attack succeeding.

It gives it in terms of Tank to AT weapons per km of front.

The lowest it goes is for 5 AT weapons against 15 tanks and it gives the chance of success for that as 50%.

For 10 AT weapons against 30 tanks it also gives a 50% chance of success.

This is regardless of crew quality, defensive preparations, weather, vehicle sights or any other conditions: just pure ratios.

Hope this helps, B

[MaxDamage]

ORIGINAL: battlerbritain

In Weapons and Tactics of the Soviet Army by Isby he gives a table that the Soviets' used for indicating the likelihood of an attack succeeding.

It gives it in terms of Tank to AT weapons per km of front.

The lowest it goes is for 5 AT weapons against 15 tanks and it gives the chance of success for that as 50%.

For 10 AT weapons against 30 tanks it also gives a 50% chance of success.

This is regardless of crew quality, defensive preparations, weather, vehicle sights or any other conditions: just pure ratios.

Hope this helps, B

In the game the chance to win 3v1 in the beforementioned tests isnt 50% but rather 5% probably. Also, this is in even terms meeting engagement and not attack.

To have a 50% chance to win in attack you will need ~7+ times more soviet tanks then chieftains, not 3.

[MaxDamage]

I have a question about the "stealth" attack bonus. in the manual it is stated "The defender is also penalized if he has not sighted the attacker - surprise is assumed for the first few shots".

This mechanic plays a huge role in the game at the moment. My tests show that anywhere beyond 1500 m soviet tanks cant spot nato moving in an open road at daylight and perfect weather. Is this an intended behavior? This means 1500m is really a maximum range for the soviet tanks.

When advancing against nato tanks even if they are in the open, they just keep "blinking" in and out of invisibility possibly repeatedly getting stealth attack bonus (is this true?). They can be shot back at once for ~every two shots they do at you but they disappear repeatedly up until the 1500m mark (3 squares). At this point they stop blinking and can be constantly seen and attacked (possibly negating any stealth bonuses they ve had before).

Thermals allow auto detection of any soviet tanks in covered posture even in 80% terrain if there is no additional obstruction at the ranges up to 5-6km at day.

1) Is the stealth bonus applied every time a unit goes invisible and attacks again on the next turn?

2) With a LOS ruler you can check visibility for chieftain and t80bv. There is a percentage diffirence for hex visibility in favor of the former. I d like to ask what does this mean? It has better optics and magnification(lets ignore thermals for a second)? It has a better FCS? Does this number affect the final hit chance? (hit chance = accuracy*hex visibility?)

[battlerbritain]

Yes, I'm going through the closest I can get to 'real' engagements equivalent of what we're doing here in this game, and that's comparing to Golan Heights 1973, and running scenarios in FPRS to see if I can get a match.

From Osprey's Centurion vs T-55 there's some examples of engagement results, although they are just from the Israeli side so there is a chance of 'embellishment'.

Example 1:
A single Centurion destroyed 35 T-54/55 and 'numerous' APCs in 2hrs using most of the 72rds it carried, apparently using 1.5 rds per enemy vehicle destroyed.

Example 2:
An Israeli Centurion platoon (x3 vehs) engaged a Syrian T-55 Company (x10 vehs) crossing an MTU bridge and destroyed the Syrian Company 'in minutes'. Lets say 3 minutes, or x3 tanks per minute from x3 vehs engaging, or x1 veh taken out per minute by engaging Centurions.

Example 3:
Khalani destroyed x5 T-62s in 5 minutes, or 1 a minute.


The book also says that 70% of all engagements took place below 2000m, that Syrian tanks hit by 105mm fire were penetrated 50% of the time and that 'most' vehicles then caught fire. Let's say that 33% of hits on Syrian tanks caused a fire, or that x3 hits to get a KO? Maybe 1.5 rds per KO at close range?

Of Centurions hit by 100mm/115mm fire 29% were penetrated of which 25% then caught fire, or about 7% of hits on Centurions caused a hit big enough to cause the Cent to catch fire. That's approx 14 hits required on a Cent to cause a KO? Seems a bit high. Centurion armour is thinner than a T-55/62's but it is better protected in terms of ammo storage so maybe x6 hits per KO?

The thing for me is the rate of fire.

Defending Israeli vehs seem to have achieved a rate of fire of about 1 round fired per 20 secs, which is pretty good, using approx x3 rounds to take out a vehicle.

That means a x3 Centurion platoon could, at best, achieve a rate of about x3 Syrian tanks taken out per minute. But more than likely the rate of fire was much slower.

Reason for that is that over the length of a unit engagement covering hours the limiting factor to rate of fire was the number of rounds carried, ie they didn't fire like crazy but conserved ammunition. Hence Example 1 and that was done over 2 hours. Let's say Example 1 took out 40 vehs in 2hrs which is, on average, 1 vehicle every 3 minutes.

The thing I'm seeing in FPRS is that defending vehicles fire really fast with no real regard to conserving ammo. I also see that advancing tanks don't seem to fire that often, or not as often as I'd expect. Hence they don't wear down the defenders as much.

Setting a scenario in FPRS for 1973 but using Brit Centurions and Soviet T-55s or T-62s I ran an engagement of x3 Sov Bns (x90 tanks) attacking a x8 Centurion Company defending in a Town, not even in prepared positions as the Israelis were, with starting distance of ~3km. Brits running the Centurions were Veteran and Soviets were Regulars.

Some example results are:
x36 T-55s taken out for x3 Centurion losses in 13 minutes
x47 T-55s taken out for x4 Centurion losses in 34 minutes
x29 T-55s taken out for x5 Centurion losses in 14 minutes


I'd expect the T-55s to take losses, but are these losses too high? - Discuss....