M1A1 overrated?

[Panta_slith]

Finally I am playing against a human opponent, which is more fun! [:)]
I am WP, have BMP-2s and T-80. But they are useless against the M1A1s!.. Playing other games, with different databases, M1A1s are slightly superior, but not to that extent. makes the hame very difficult to play, since they are almost invulnerable. And playing NATO against the computer, I never lost a battle using M1s! [&:]
Of course you can choose other hardware, like Brit or German tanks or even M-60s, so iy isn't a serious inconvenience anyway. [;)]
Cheers,
Panta

[CapnDarwin]

Panta,
 
There was a ton of debate over the strength of the M1A1 versus the T-80 within the beta test group and some major code work done to the combat model in an attempt to make the "numbers" come out right when M1A1's faced off against T-80's. The problem is what are those "numbers" and how do you apply them. The bigger issue gamewise was the system used to rate weapons and armour. A single value bump in gun pen/armour is a fairly large bump in firepower/protection. So now you have a catch-22. Both the M1A1 and the T-80U have the same general protection rating of 9. The differance is in the specials. THe M1A1 gets the Chobham bonus good against both AP and HEAT and the T-80U gets the "r2" for Kontact-5 ERA which is a precent chance better against HEAT and a low percent chance better against AP. Couple this with the US gun system with an edge in the accuracy/electronics/stability of the gun platform and add that to usually better experiance and morale in the game and the M1's are a nightmare to handle but not invincible. WP forces always have the numbers and arty tubes to get in and hurt NATO forces. A well defending NATO force is a tough nut to crack but it can be done. Best way to beat NATO is to get in close by using masking terrain, hit lead units with arty/air strikes to stress or dislodge defending units then roll the big red steamroller over their positions.
 
I hope this explains a bit about how things work. If you have more question feel free to bring them up since we use feedback to improve FPG and to also improve what we are doing on the next game! [:)]

[Panta_slith]

Tx for the hyper-fast answer, specially considering that today is Saturday. Probably you are working, like myself...[:'(]
I will submit all doubts and comments that will issue from my gaming with my friend, his and mine.
An not on topic, but since you are there, this one:
About map mapping. In TacOps (you certainly know it) Maj.Holridge released a tool to create the terrain database. Not easy to use or flashy, but it works. Then you can use real (military) maps to make your terrain, in .BMP.
Wouldn't it be possible to release a similar tool, to be used criteriously and at the player's own risk? Now that you are going to publish the MEast wars version (do it! do it! [;)]) it would be a way to prolonge the game's life. It worked with TacOps, and now we have an assortment of maps to play with.
Cheers,
Panta 

[CapnDarwin]

Well, not to give too much away before anything official is said, but both map and unit editing is being addressed for the new game. [:D] I'd like to get one working for FPG but there isn't the time to backtrack it rightnow.

[Panta_slith]

That's good news, indeed. The ability to create your own terrain as you wish, plus the unit-editing possibility expands the game scope, like it happened with the Steel Panther series, for instance.
In the case of FPG and its sequels the fact that the tiles are 500mx500m, thus far lesser in number than in other games, makes things easier. [:)]

An extra oddity (or not?) that I have noticed: helo paths should be linear, unless following a nap of the earth pattern (see attached image, WP units in this case aren't using stealth movement by default). Perhaps it would be a good idea to define the flight mode for air units, like helos or fast movers to deal with the flak threat.
Cheers,
Panta

[Panta_slith]

Another odd behaviour: In a scenario created with the step-by-step editor, the chosen NATO mines and improved positions don't appear when playing by e-mail.
PAnta

[CapnDarwin]

Defining the mission for air units in on my list of things to work. I'd like to see an altitude definition and target priorities for air units too. Hopefully it is something we can get worked out in the next game.

As for the mines and IP problem can you post the scenario and a PBEM turn for us. We have had trouble tracking this bug down and it might help find the cause.

Thanks for the info.

[Panta_slith]

Captain,
The forum does not accept .scn attachments. I need another e-mail address.
Cheers,
Panta

[Panta_slith]

This is the scenario open as head-to-head. The IP are present (out of the frame) and also the minefields.

[Panta_slith]

And here is as the NATO player sees in his setup turn while playing pbem.
Another oddity is that WP Fascam minelets aparently are dropped but never show up. The IPs appear, though (out of the frame).
Cheers,
Panta

[CapnDarwin]

Panta,

Just change the .scn to .txt or whatever it will take. I'll change it back on this end. Thanks for the pics and added info. I know Rob has looked a number of times for the cause of this glitch. I believe he has rewritten code to avoid it in the new game (in fact most of the code has been redone).

Thanks for the fast update. [&o]

[Panta_slith]

This is the scenario, called "DEFENSA DESESPERADA" (in Spanish).

[Panta_slith]

..and this is the first NATO turn, played as received from WP (me) to pbem.

[Panta_slith]

Another odd behavior (to be confirmed by testing): ZSU-23 AA shooting at NATO aircrafts at distances much longer (at 8 klicks) than its maximum effective range (around 3 klicks). Same with the Gepards.
Cheers,
Panta

[Panta_slith]

The NATO player informs me of another two oddities: the smoke screen didn't dissipate in more than one and a half hour of combat. That turned their units invisible to me (WP).
When he tried to avoid my SAM/Flak umbrella, he ordered them to rest and refit, lack of LAND order. But they were hacked anyway.

[CapnDarwin]

Well, I just had a mile long reply crushed when my DSL connection went belly up. So now the short version.
AD guns show correct max ranges. 7 clicks for the Shilk and Gep and 10 for the 2S6. I'll check the code to make sure they aren't 100% accurate out that far, pretty sure they aren't. Smoke, mines, IP's and such are an issue in PBEM. Not sure why and I need to defer the issues to Rob since he know that code and I'm not up to speed with it. It looks like some info is not updating in the turn or pointing to the correct side or a bizzare combo of both. Something we can check into.

As for the other post, FPG is not very edit friendly. We know that and we are working to make the next game much more open to edit and mods. As for WP vs NATO. WP has an uphill fight. Wish I didn't lose the earlier post that detailed that, but such in war and the internet...or my friggen DSL connection of late...

Thanks for the info.

[Panta_slith]

Sorry for the DSL malfunction, technology still has its drawbaks...
I have to say that we are consulting different sources.

For the Shilka I found:
Wikipedia: http://www.blinkbits.com/en_wikifeeds/ZSU-23-4_Shilka
FAS: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/zu-23.htm
Global Security: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 84/CSJ.htm

Gepard:
FAS: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/gepard.htm

The 2S6, on the other way, is a mixed gun/missile system hence its longer range, 10.000 meter.
Cheers,
Panta