Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)

[RightDeve]

Hei Anton, it seems that you've got philosophy problem. Tell you what, Marek is the best SP philosopher ever, so just try to read his explanation carefully, slowly, and eagerly so that your philosophy problem can be really solved. Anyway, if you don't like SP, why don't you choose another real time wargame? Like CloseCombat? But as for me, I think wargame that uses real time mechanic, is just another form of football game in PlayStation: the AI goes all over the entire gameplay, you're just given single control of the entire eleven players.

I ALWAYS believe that SP is one of the best Wargames ever. And that believe always make me love SP even though there's such a philosophy problem. Just try to play it over and over again, don't think about the problem, play and play it, and then you'll find SP is the most realistic wargame.

If SP is unrealistic, why then it still stand for more than a decade? Although the graphic is 'old enough'? Why don't you read SP's review over the internet, like this one:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...b=5&o=&fpart=1


PS: Hey Marek, long time no see...

[RVPERTVS]

RightDeve said:
If SP is unrealistic, why then it still stand for more than a decade?

I don´t think that´s due to it´s "realistic" level. I think it´s because it portaits a table top miniature game quite niceley with the AI doing all the math so you can focus on just playing not interpreting the rules, with far less the trouble of setting a decent table and of course sparing the metal toys, wich you would have to paint (or you can just edith a virtual camo instead )

It´s a simulation yes, of a wargame, and I hope It remains standing for a lot of more years to come!

Just my $0.02
Keep Cool
Roberto

[Marek_Tucan]

Anton said:
So, what's the formula (algorithm) for reaction fire? Or is it classified :X

Formula is buried somewhere in the C spaghetti that form the program (no, I haven't seen it and if I did I won't understand it much as a non-programmer) and generally counts with LOS, size, "spotting" unit's accuracy, speed of movement of "spotted" unit (and "spotting" unit as well), suppression of spotting unit... So generally, stationary experienced unit spots moving enemy quite well, OTOH the same unit has much less chance of spotting when it is moving itself. "Green" unit has less chance of reacting immediately as the enemy slowly moves in the LOS even if it is stationary and has very poor chance of spotting enemy position on move even if the enemy is moving.

Opposite info in Russian sources, to sum up
1. USA didn't want to loose market for their tanks so they didn't let the "harsh" truth into the news.

It seems to me Russian tank export is much wider and much more critical for Russian arms factories, USA supply tanks mostly to "good friends" and in quite favorable conditions that often the term "giving away" might be closer to reality Plus USA doesn't export DU rounds much (instead, tungsten variants of DU rounds are being sold) so even less reason to overhype their effectiveness. OTOH, many a tin-pot dictator can get second thoughts about spending money for some T's if he hears the basic T-72M variant he is offered is a dead meat and to make it combat worthy against modern opponent he'd need extensive upgrade that would bring up the cost to the level of say older stock Leopard 2A4

2. Losses of T-72s overexaggerated, most of them destroyed with TOWs (from more than 3000 m), Iraqi destroyed most of tanks themselves during the retreat (due to lack of supplies), which were ascribed to the American tanks.

Remember that "most" might mean "99%" just as well as "slightly over 50%" which is more likely the case, if for no other reason than that there were more TOW carrying vehicles than tanks, but it is a simple fact that T-72 (T-72, T-72M, T-72M1) weren't able to withstand APFSDSDU. Btw in the scenario in question, you can also easily get most vehicle hits with TOW missiles, if you use them for overwatch while limiting M1A1's opfire and use tanks for maneuver (after all that's what they're built for).
The discrepancy between "tanks destroyed by XXX" reports and reality came rather from the over-enthusiastic Air Force reports than from the ground combat, where the winning side usually has the control of the battlefield and can check how does the destroyed enemy equipment look like.

3. The 20 000 uranium rounds found in the desert (from which Kuwait children took the radiation sickness) prove that anyway M1A1s were not that accurate.

The best propaganda is that which uses truth but not the whole truth Out of those 20000 rounds (who counted them anyway?) most would be 30mm shots from A-10's GAU-8A gatling or 25mm APDSDU from Bradley (if they were used). Besides there are recorded situations where 120mm DU penetrator passed through sand berm and then T-72 (entered via glacis, exited via rear).
As for radiation sickness, you'd have to make an effort to get it from DU rounds. OTOH, if you stay too long near wreck of military vehicles, you are much more likly to get intoxicated by dense metals (most important being not DU but simple lead from batteries), add to that dense clouds of soot from burning oil wells and all that. The "Gulf War Syndrome", AFAIK, has much closer to symptoms of intoxication than to radiation exposure.

I've always thought of Suvorov as a serious author:
http://otvaga.vif2.ru/Otvaga/wars0/wars_10_1.htm

This is the same Suvorov who wrote major fantasies in "Spetsnaz", "Day M" and so on? If that is so, rest assured that he's about as serious as Clancy, only Clancy usually doesn't pass his fiction with hints of real world for historical works I won't take too seriously author who proposes that the Red Army was preparing for attack because they acquired more howitzers than direct fire guns (which was a fallacy all by itself) and "every military expert knows" that howitzers are purely offensive weapons ehreas direct fire guns are purely defensive

RightDeve said:
Tell you what, Marek is the best SP philosopher ever, so just try to read his explanation carefully, slowly, and eagerly so that your philosophy problem can be really solved.

I feel flattered I won't say I'm the best but maybe I have more time to write my thoughts It's as in science, not the greatest expert in the field but he with the most publications wins

[Anton]

Sniper23:
"sorry for stupidity but how do i translate the page to English?"

Yeah. No idea. Try google, maybe?

Marek_Tucan:
"This is the same Suvorov who wrote major fantasies in "Spetsnaz", "Day M" and so on?"

Thanks God, no. It's a Russian tank specialist who has written some really interesting books on tanks.

[Marek_Tucan]

Ah, good, then I'll try to recall what little I know of Russian alphabet and language and try to read it

[hoplitis]

Andy,
good points but as I read Anton's post his objections are centered on the game engine rather the specific "reverse demo" situation.

Anton said:
"But I have more T72s (supported by T-55s) than my enemy has M1A1s. And what if I want to use this numerical superiority to fight the M1A1s? If I move all my tanks simultaneously towards the enemy he won't have ROF high enough to burm all of them fast enoght to prevent any fire at him."
Anton,
I think the "key word" in your statement is "simultaneously". The game engine does not allow simultaneous events and I don't think that this will ever change. And let's remember that after all it's a game with various limitations and this is one of them. Units are moved one by one and are "reacted upon" on the same manner.
And yes this means game or even "gamey" tactics that are not quite in line with (what we perceive as) actual tactics. But you still need a plan, you still need to coordinate movement, air strikes, artillery or even (re)supply, you still need to find good firing or observation locations, roots of advance etc.
Having said that, I want to say that in (most) turn based games the "bill" is "charged" after the conclusion of the whole turn (your's and your opponents or the AI's). And for me, the "realism ?!? check" actually comes at the end of a scenario and immediately after the "was it fun? check".

edit: post entered after Anton's post #623963. Sh*t, no turn based posting system available?

[Wdll]

Anton,

That doesn't mean that the other T-72 has twice more time to lock and fire, first you have to assume that the other T-72 can locate at all, then locate in time, lock and fire (and perhaps hit). And it doesn't only has to do with the T-72 in question (which btw were reduced effectiveness T-72s ie Export versions) but also as I believe I have mentioned, training and morale of the crews.

No, while a large number of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missiles etc, there were several "pure" tank engagements, the iraqi's were outclassed due to a combination of inferior equipment, training and tactics. The first two are the most important in the current example.

The game engine is not perfect, but it is far from completely unrealistic.