"Expanded" Database

[22sec]

One of the great things about AB is the ability to customize so much of the game to one's own personal preferences. While it would be hard to ask for a better researched database I do have some things I have changed or in the process of changing to meet my own taste and thought I would share.


Change Log Version 1
xml changed -Description
Faction -US Army 87-91 Training lowered from 85 to 80
Faction -USSR 75-91 Training and Morale changed to 70 for both
Aircraft -Created Mi-24V and Mi-24P as non-helicopter aircraft
Flights -Created flight of three each Mi24V and Mi-24P "Non-helicopter" flights
Weapon -Created Tall Mike GSR (for use with BRM-1)
Unit -Created BRM-1
-<<Currently using BMP-1 sprite>>>
Formation & Faction -Created BRM-1 Scout Section
Aircraft -Increased speed of "Non-helo" Mi-24's to 50m/s
Faction -Changed USSR 88-91 artyHE to 70 from 65 and lowered artyDPICM from 15 to 10
Faction -Changed USSR 85-87 artyHE to 75 from 70 and lowered artyDPICM from 10 to 5
Formation & Faction -Added Milan & Milan 2 ATGM Sections with transports (FV432, Warrior, Saxon) 1979-1991
Formation & Faction -Added BTR AT Platoons (2 ATGM & 2 73mm RCL) 1979-1991
Formation & Faction -Added BTR AGL Platoons 1984-1991
Formation & Faction -Added Soviet 4 vehicle tank platoons used by Mot. Rifle Regiments. 1979-1991

[dpabrams]

Nice work. I have made some subjective changes I made just like yours. For example lowering the Soviet DPICM levels. I haven't jumped into training and morale because I am not sure of the effect and in 5% increments can you really know?.

I really like you're TO&E additions to the Soviets. Those are all legit. I forgot about the 4 tank platoons and the added punch of the weapons platoons in the BTR units. Thanks

[zacklaws]

Reference the change to UK Milan sections, they was using Spartans and could fire it mounted or dismounted in mech battalions using 432's when I was BAOR and I presume in Warrior too. Not 100% sure what the Saxon battalions were using but would not be surprised if they was not using Land Rovers etc.

I also added MFC parties and FOO parties as well instead of using HQ elements.

I also increased the command radius for HQ units UK to about 7 kilometers (I have guessed this based on a manpack radio as I have forgot what the working range of the radios we used was until I get the correct distances. When in Germany we could be miles away from Battalion HQ etc, especially if you was getting deployed by helicopter and then you did not use miles and kilometers but measured the distance by how many map sheets you was away from HQ but you was always in touch by using elevated masts, amplifiers etc or using a relay station or a rebro station in between.

Morale and training values make big differences to scenarios but not so much over about 30% I found when alpha and beta testing. Using the minus values and just slightly positive values make the most interesting scenarios as one side can suddenly collapse after losses start to mount but if your using 30% and above especially the 70% or more range as hardly anything is affected as it takes a lot of casualties to affect morale levels. To me what I can gather, the morale scales are very disproportionate, at the plus side of things little changes, but at the minus side, just about a 10% change can make a big difference to the current level of morale to a unit.

[22sec]

I’ve thought about increasing the command radius, using HQ units to only simulate higher HQ, and making the command delay a little longer.

[CCIP-subsim]

Interesting! That's very handy - I'm going to try out the morale and command radius settings in my Chechnya DB to see how it pans out for combat effectiveness of Russian forces (which had some serious problems with both, especially with radio comms at crucial phases of the battle for Grozny).

Do morale effects kick in based on casualties mainly, or is there more to that? (e.g. distance to commander, being under fire, near enemy, etc.)

[zacklaws]

ORIGINAL: CCIP-subsim

Do morale effects kick in based on casualties mainly, or is there more to that? (e.g. distance to commander, being under fire, near enemy, etc.)

I do not know fully what effects morale levels, it would be a question for the developers. But I know that casualties do and I think distance from commander does.

I do not think that during a battle you can see the level of morale as a percentage and how much it has decreased or maybe increase as well. But you can see on a units information screen if they have gone from confident to nervous etc.

I built a chart to record the levels of morale by percentage and use it to create scenarios by just constantly creating a scenario, opening it, noting the morale level, closing it, redoing it but changing the morale level by 10% and then redoing it. It's better to start at -100 as it is that end of the range the biggest changes occur. Then when you get to around 30% (I think, I have misplaced my chart) you will come across the level class as confident and after that to +100, nothing changes which is why I think the morale levels as a scale are disproportionate.

Once you know the levels of morale and training you can create balanced scenarios according to the levels, to interesting ones where a Company with high morale level can defeat a vastly superior enemy force that out numbers it many times, and after a very tense battle, the enemy will just collapse when on the point of over running your side. It's unrealistic but fun though.

[zacklaws]

ORIGINAL: 22sec

I’ve thought about increasing the command radius, using HQ units to only simulate higher HQ, and making the command delay a little longer.

I am not to sure if you can alter command radius for individual units which would be good. For example in real life, we used HF which could get you 1000's of miles or more when we was out in the "sticks" far from HQ. Our higher HQ's from Coy level upwards always had HF as well as VHF, to the opposite end of the scale, all our sections had a radio but only a range of about 3 miles. Does every infantry section in AB have it's own radio from a certain date? The UK had with the introduction of Clansman but I cannot recall if we had with the Larkspur radios we had prior to Clansman.

I find the command delay debatable, radio waves travel at the speed of light so some commands should be instantaneous, ie "hold fire" but in AB, a unit will continue firing for a while. I know from practice that when "hold fire" came over the radio, we stopped firing straight away. But a command to move to a location for example, could take time if maps etc need consulting and the rest of a company or platoon need briefing once again over the radio.

Then issues arise using radios, loss of signal, batteries dying at impromptu moments, radios breaking down, some other user cutting you out, the list of issues are endless which is why I think it would be good to have a random factor in the command delay, either a long one or a short one, either could cause a unit problems.

I exploit the Soviet command delay, when I put a counterattack in with tanks, I halt them, they engage the enemy, inflict heavy game changing losses on the enemy, but, I get the tanks moving before the Soviet command delay is up and artillery starts falling on them. Done right. It's satisfying to see the Soviet artillery falling on the place you was. A random delay would stop that loop hole as you do not know how long you have to move.

[Akmatov]

Curious for the reason for "Faction-US Army 87-91 Training lowered from 85 to 80"

I left Europe in 1985 and while not combat arms I did occasionally train with them and they seemed well trained. Certainly seemed so in Iraq in 1991.

[22sec]

ORIGINAL: Akmatov

Curious for the reason for "Faction-US Army 87-91 Training lowered from 85 to 80"

I left Europe in 1985 and while not combat arms I did occasionally train with them and they seemed well trained. Certainly seemed so in Iraq in 1991.

In my opinion an 85 should be saved for more elite troops such as airborne and marines. I would probably then rate US Army Rangers at 90, and any spec ops over 90.

[Akmatov]

Ah, can see your point, as long as this is consistent across nations. By 1985 the number of soldiers with combat experience was low and concentrated in the upper levels, so that would have minimal to no impact on the troops. Would have to look at other nations to see how it works out, I believe the US did more field training that most, some for sure.