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

[Marek_Tucan]

Anton said:
It's a controversial topic, and it has nothing to deal with the game's engine, because reaction shoots will come always first, irregardless of whether it's T-72s, T-90s orLeopards. I am neither prepared nor want to start a dispute over the effectiviness of T-72 agains the Arbrams in Desert Storm.

Reaction doesn't always come first. It comes first in this given scenario because you have here a large difference in training and equipment, charging a firing line of Abramses head-on is a sure recipe for massacre. OTOH if the game is more matched, you may well deprive the enemy of op-fire, esp. if you move slowly, using cover, or try to suppress the enemy before closing in.

Maybe those were the TOW missiles that T-72s couldn't resist? You say "even without Opfire" as if it helped the T-72s in some way, but in fact it helps the Abrams tanks vary much (given the tut scenario's situation)

No, he hints that such one-sided battles happened IRL even if the Abramses worked in real-time and not with the opfire (which appears to be your beef here ) Btw Iraqui tanks couldn't resist 120mm APFSDSDU as well as the i-TOW

That's cheating, so many thank to the developers for Op-fire filtering!

As the telling goes, "When two do the same, it may not be the same". Sending waves of Jeeps on the enemy to drain op-fire is cheating. Sending say company of T-55's headlong so that a platoon of T-72's may maneuver to the flank is a legitimate tactics. 'And Op-fire filtering is a double-edged blade. You may not waste your ammo by shooting at BTR's and reserving shots for tanks... But those BTR's may be carrying ATGM or RR teams to a position from wich they will fry your tanks

This 100%-first Opfire approach not only balances but sometimes even over-balancesthe game, i.e. turns the situation to equally unjust with respect to the opposite side.

But it isn't 100% first approach. UFO was mentioned here (I may add say Jagged Alliance) but there, if you used your squad of super-trained soldiers against an UFO full of low-level Floaters some time late in the game, you'd also have an "Almost-100%" op-fire ratio. The same here with US veteran units against low-tech low-training Iraquis.

Why so? If I my tanks' crews know the enemy is there, it's no longer an ambush. They're prepaired to meet and attack them.

No they aren't. Not fully. Even if you knew 100% where exactly the enemy is, your tankers have to find that spot themselves, then try to find the tank, then aim, etc. All this on the move in given situation. And with inferior optics etc. Abrams crews in stationary tanks have OTOH much higher chance of finding a moving target and then acquiring the target.

Yes, but I did it on purpose because the thinngs I am talking about are brightly pronounced in it. Other "real" scenarious are accurately designed and balances so that such problems are not so terribly decicive.

In the reality sense, the Tutorial is much closer to most "Gulf War" scenarios. Scens are balanced out so they are hard and funny, but IRL it was often just such an one-sided affair as the tutorial is. I believe I've seen somewhere a quote of Iraqui officer saying roughly "My Bn began war with 31 tanks. During the air strikes, we lost 2. Then, during a 30-minute engagement with ground troops, we lost all remaining."

[Anton]

Marek_Tucan:
"Reaction doesn't always come first. It comes first in this given scenario because you have here a large difference in training and equipment"

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

"No, he hints that such one-sided battles happened IRL even if the Abramses worked in real-time and not with the opfire (which appears to be your beef here ) Btw Iraqui tanks couldn't resist 120mm APFSDSDU"

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.
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.
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.
4. Controversial info about the Iraqi's losses in the Western sources.

[Sniper23]

can you post the link of where you got the info, I would like to read it.

[Anton]

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

[Wdll]

So, a russian source is more accurate than contemporary USA and Iraqi sources? Weird. I just don't see that happening.
Especialy considering that in the battles there were also a large number of M-60s.

[Sniper23]

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

[narwan]

Anton said:
Marek_Tucan:
"Reaction doesn't always come first. It comes first in this given scenario because you have here a large difference in training and equipment"

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

It's simple, move into or moving when in LOS of an enemy unit or fire while in LOS and the enemy unit which has you in LOS does a check to see if it will react; if it will act it'll do so in accordance with either the reaction fire range or filter settings set for that unit.

In other words, being in LOS of an enemy unit does not equal being spotted by that specific enemy unit at that specific instant. For example, you're downslope; move 1 (and no more than 1!) hex forward into a wooded hexon the hilltop. You can see the enemy tanks your scouts further forward spotted for you. They don't spot you yet (too far away and they don't have forward scouts). You now fire first at the enemy tank.


Hmm, so either the americans reports are covering up that their tanks were only greatly superior and not vastly superior as their reports would have us believe or the soviet reports are covering up that their main export tank was, by the standards of the day, c**p. Well, I've made my choice...

[Sniper23]

I've made my choice also but I wish I could read it still...

[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