The PATCH! What do you think?

[kevineduguay1]

IMHO all I have to say is, GREAT JOB! Its so much better to see a struck armored vehicle blow up immediatly than have to wait for it while it thinks of blowing up. The Abrams gun is better, thank you! Many other things work better for all sides and over all this is a vast improvement.

I thank all of the people involved, you all did a good job!

Thank you!

[shilka]

Alot of the balance and game feeling is gone during to extream Western equipment. But heck if you like Shoot Em Up Video Games so is this version just great. I am playing the U.S or the USMC, U.K, Germany etc etc. You have to give the AI like 120% extra in all preferances to have a challenge now days. Oh never mind lets say 130% you just walk over everything and the new Russian tanks and equipment is off cause so expensive that when I and my friend playes I can buy 2 tank companys of M1A2s and he can buy 4 and I still win without as much as 2-3 losses. The T-90+ was something to watch up for before.

Now you just walk over the reds and all countrys using their equipment after 1983 like they was thin air. Syria vs Israel 1982 there has the team succeed to make the game yet trustworthy. Anyone that have read or study military warfair knows that the 1982 Bekaa-vally fights could have gone terrible bad for the Israelis if the Syrians would have pushed on just a little bit more. The vehicles on both sides, the Merkava as the T-72s has been modded in a realistic way that I give the team 8½ points out of 10 possible, only thing that I can put a remark on is that In the game the Israelis got supperior night vision equipment 1973. IRL the Syrian forces was the once that got that during that conflict.

As always with the arabs, bad leadership and power of initiative made them loose. However in the game you still has room to change history. That I credit the team for. What I lack in all versions is the Air Section support for Mid-East as with Soviet side in Generated Campaigns. And also I think there is a bug in mod 2 when you play Syria vs Israel Oktober 1982 battles, the game chuts down when large air assults or artillery barages kick loose. Dont know if it is my computer or not. But SAM fire, artillery and air raids makes my game to close down. America [censored] Yeah!
Team America quote

//Shilka

[DRG]

If you can recreate the situation where your game crashed make a save and attach it to your post.

As for the T-90+ vs M1A2's there was nothing done to the T-90's that would make them a lesser tank that before and all that was done to the M1A2's was a trifling gun accuracy increase and cost increases for high tech equipment. The T-90 was not downgraded so I really do not understand how you could see that big a change in the game. Does anyone else see this?

Don

[Marek_Tucan]

Nope.

Just started PBEM Czechoslovakia vs. W. Germany 1986, so let's see;o)

[JaM]

Patch is perfect! Only negative point i found are OOBs, some things are not changed...
(1.T-72M4CZ armor values are lower than T-72M1 - T-72M4CZ is modernised M1!,Armor values are quite high, if you compare it to soviet T-72M1 (soviet T-72A) it has much lower armor.Even T-72B has lower armor...
2.Pram mortar system in Czech OOB is diffrent than in Slovak OOB,but they should be the same...,
3.Syrian T-72M1S has AT-11 Sniper in 1985! Even Soviet didnt have them fielded in 1985!(DOI 1987)
4.Soviet T-72B1 has AT-11,B1 is low cost version without ATGM guidance kit, same as T-64B1,There is nothing like T-72BV, this nomenclature is wrong.There was only T-72B FST-1(i know that other tanks has V as acronym for ERA, but T-72B had era from begining.Only some early T-72B1 was without ERA.

[Fabfire]

DRG said:
If you can recreate the situation where your game crashed make a save and attach it to your post.

As for the T-90+ vs M1A2's there was nothing done to the T-90's that would make them a lesser tank that before and all that was done to the M1A2's was a trifling gun accuracy increase and cost increases for high tech equipment. The T-90 was not downgraded so I really do not understand how you could see that big a change in the game. Does anyone else see this?

Don

Nope, Don.

The 2.0 patch, as you stated, only dealt with the accuracy
problem that the 120mm L/44 smoothbore tank guns and similar ones had when compared to *older* Soviet tanks...

A little comment on this "Western vs. Eastern" equipment issue:

WinSPMBT is clearly optimized for an even game balance, nobody can argue about that. For instance, as Don wrote, that was the reason of the cost increases for the higher end equipment. Of course, it's impossible to satisfy everybody's subjective feelings on comparisons such as "M1A2 vs. T-90+"...

In the real world, pound for pound, Western tanks *are* superior to Eastern tanks (regardless of individual tastes). They *were designed to be so*, as it was expected they would have to deal with a much superior number of enemy tanks... Eastern tanks *were designed to be cheaper*, and to be used in great numbers.

That said, it's plainly inadequate to compare WinSPMBT to "Shoot Em Up Video Games" (to put it mildly)...

Don, congratulations on a most terrific job - WinSPMBT 2.0 ROCKS!

EDIT: I set up an hypotetical tank battle between the US and Russia, timeframe year 2000. T-90+, and T-80UM1 Bars vs. M1A2 Abrams. The T-80UM1 Bars tanks (not the T-90+) took various direct hits at 1,500 meters from the M1A2, with no damage to them (one took FOUR consecutive rounds)...
Likewise, the T-90+... These can even render the TOW 2B ATGM innefective, with their advanced ERA...

[DRG]

I could write a huge email discussing the quote from Stalin that "quantity has a quality all it's own" but I'll content myself with this. We built the cost calculator to ensure that every tank from every nation was treated exactly the same. Armour, gun, ammo load and type and dozens of other factors are entered in to the calculator to determine the "cost" of the unit. However, what this **CANNOT** calculate is the number of tanks any given army may field. We have no way to work into the calculation that if Nation X= Y then they shall have a Z cost advantage due to the high numbers of tanks it can field.

Western tank design has evolved into being able to stand toe to toe with "eastern" armour and survive the hits they may take and be able to acquire new targets faster and more accurately because it was expected they would face larger numbers of opponents. The situation is, in a very , very general way, similar to what the various combatants in Europe in 1944 faced. If you are a commander of a US or British tank company of Sherman's in July 1944 do you try to slug it out toe to toe with Panthers and Tigers?

No. If you try that you will be slaughtered and don't try slugging it out toe to toe, one on one with a T-80 vs an M1A2 either. As stated above, the M1A2 was **designed** to come out on top in situations like that.

In the modern battlefield there is very little margin of error. Stick your turret over a hill and suddenly a half dozen enemy tanks are firing at you AND scoring hits. Not like in a WW2 era battle where you might be able to bull your way forward because gunnery and target acquisition wasn't nearly the art form it is now and you might be able to actually make it to that next tree line unscathed by dropping a bit of smoke. Now you might be lucky to get two hexes before you're stopped cold. That IS the reality of the modern battlefield. It may very well account for the reason we all make nice with one another ( more or less... )

What's the answer? Combined arms. A well timed attack with a few Russian Msta-B Sections can wipe out an entire company of western tanks in seconds. ( I just tried this with a Challenger 1 Squadron at a cross roads and three Msta-B Sections left every one a flaming wreak on the first turn ....that would make the job of the armoured units following up a bit easier.....Ja? ) Infantry with RPG's are particularly nasty and the sides of all western tanks are penetrable by "eastern" tank armament. Start thinking of your T-90s as Sherman's , go for the flanks and stop trying to slug it out with Western tanks and, if players insist on playing out "Kursk 1999" then start thinking about just what kind of numbers the Russians could field in a situation like that vs what the "Nato" ones could. Try playing at 6:1 odds for a start.

Don

[kevineduguay1]

shilka,

If you have designed a scenario or two with Western vs Eastern forces and the new patch threw off the balance a bit, I have a suggestion that may help.

If the Western forces are the attacker shorten the scenario. This will force the Western player to move quicker and be more reckless thus making more mistakes. This would give the Eastern player more of an opportunity to exploit those mistakes.

With the Eastern player as the attacker lengthen the scenario. This will give the Eastern player more time to maneuver into favorable attacking possitions.

DRG,
Yes there is a difference but it should benefit all sides that have helos or other spotter aircraft. I remember complaining about the scenario "73 Easting". It seemed that I could do no better than a Marginal Victory. With the new patch I managed to get a Decisive Victory on the first try. The main reason was that my helos stayed around longer. In the earlier version the Iraqi tanks would just plaster them with AAMG fire and within 2 or 3 turns of the helos stumbling along the playing area edges they would be hit, take a damage point or two and retreat off the playing area.
With the new engagement rules this is no longer a problem. The helos for the most part were able to move about more freely to spot for both tank gunnery and artillery. This proved to be the Decisive factor.
In general I like the changes. I guess that some people will have to change tactics.
For those of you that don't like what was done to some of the Western tank guns take a good look at the Israli OOB!

[shilka]

My friend refuse to put up armys and I try to convince the man that this is not the final end of all est/mid-east battles. The game has alot of suprises, when my friend refered to the Russian equipment over-all it has been significant changes from the first versions that was put out on the www. There has been a gradual change of all east/mod-east oobs since the beginning of the grand SPMBT éra. There has been changes for the better to the worse and I think that even if my friend that is a huge fan of SPMBT as game motor do overreact a bit. Even if both of us and anyone out there do know that alot of the statistics are from former Cold War sources or people served in countrys occupied or in any way lived in terror for the russians and in that way, togheter with some to often biased weapon industry, information sources has their finger in the facts that is presented when modding a game.

All this togheter with the Cold War BS to quote my friend has made this game to what it is today. Kevin are right, shorter battles more blood My friend is a maneuver freek and often, very of often he has won big by using the terrain that I have to say is the best ever in WINSPMBT version. Another thing is that the T-62M Iraqi tank has been a bit improved. That my friend was impressed over. The Iraqi OOB is as good as it can get I guess. But to defend my friend when it comes to expensive equipment vs Stalin that "quantity has a quality thesis. You cant do that in WINSPMBT not by a long shot. Thats why the game get a bit Biased today. And this quote is exactly why I understand my friend. Western tanks *are* superior to Eastern tanks (regardless of individual tastes). lol

Well Western doctrine was superior to eastern military doctrine. What people forget when they make games today, is that to make a army as the U.S as I love to play with working fair and balanced in a game like SPMBT you need to have everything around it working too. That is sattelites, AWACS heck and all this to really make the M1A2 this powerful. Put it even with a experianced crew in the middle of the desert without all that support that makes the U.S army as powerful as it is in the game aganinst a Republican Guard Unit crewed by U.S tankers and with Vision 75 and try to see for how long IRL time that M1A2 would survive in ranges between 800-1000 meters.

I say, I would not like to be the one that sits in that tank. Problem is that when mixing IRL statistics in games togheter with doctrines etc etc you always get one sided when alot of the material everything is based on battles where the commanders has failed or when someone has made a real smart manuever. It is neraly impossible to claim that western tanks would have been superior in a battle where both sides had the same stuff. Lets say the Iraqi Republican Guard did have french night sights and ammunition that wasnt 30 years out of date etc etc.

So I do understand my friend on many points. However WINSPMBT is still good I think. And even if I or my friend may feel like some areas of this game is baised. There will never be a game with all this extras out there that will get this far as a game experiance. Something about the Base Experiances can be why my friend is grumble a bit. Alot of West friendly countrys that not have been in any action since 1991 or even further back has base experiances that is annoying to him. Russia has been working on their new doctrine since 1991 and 2000 they put up their new one. Their army cant any worse after 2000 then Sweden that have not been in a real war for 200 years. lol I think he got a point there.

Cheers:
Shilka still a SPMBT freak!

[Marek_Tucan]

shilka said:
My friend refuse to put up armys and I try to convince the man that this is not the final end of all est/mid-east battles. The game has alot of suprises, when my friend refered to the Russian equipment over-all it has been significant changes from the first versions that was put out on the www. There has been a gradual change of all east/mod-east oobs since the beginning of the grand SPMBT éra. There has been changes for the better to the worse and I think that even if my friend that is a huge fan of SPMBT as game motor do overreact a bit.

Don't think the changes were from better to worse. From better to excellent IMHO. Well, that's just me;o)

Even if both of us and anyone out there do know that alot of the statistics are from former Cold War sources or people served in countrys occupied or in any way lived in terror for the russians and in that way, togheter with some to often biased weapon industry, information sources has their finger in the facts that is presented when modding a game.

I think the OOB designers for SPMBT are very experienced in dealing with nationalistic and commercial bias in weapon stats evaluating.
This doesn't prevent me from making my own OOB's, though

Well Western doctrine was superior to eastern military doctrine. What people forget when they make games today, is that to make a army as the U.S as I love to play with working fair and balanced in a game like SPMBT you need to have everything around it working too. That is sattelites, AWACS heck and all this to really make the M1A2 this powerful. Put it even with a experianced crew in the middle of the desert without all that support that makes the U.S army as powerful as it is in the game aganinst a Republican Guard Unit crewed by U.S tankers and with Vision 75 and try to see for how long IRL time that M1A2 would survive in ranges between 800-1000 meters.

But that's why US military doctrine is so good, the US military doesn't fight under the conditions you've described above (ie without intel, support, recon...). Thus IMO it won't matter had the Iraquis had M1A1's as well in 1991, tank is not everything.

I say, I would not like to be the one that sits in that tank. Problem is that when mixing IRL statistics in games togheter with doctrines etc etc you always get one sided when alot of the material everything is based on battles where the commanders has failed or when someone has made a real smart manuever. It is neraly impossible to claim that western tanks would have been superior in a battle where both sides had the same stuff. Lets say the Iraqi Republican Guard did have french night sights and ammunition that wasnt 30 years out of date etc etc.

IMO the technical stats are presented in a quite balanced form here. The doctrine etc. is hidden mostly in training and morale chapter. For example battle experience shown Israeli tankers to be superior ro say Egyptian ones, but when you'll look Israeli and Egyptian Centurions 5's, they're the same incl. fire control etc.

So I do understand my friend on many points. However WINSPMBT is still good I think. And even if I or my friend may feel like some areas of this game is baised. There will never be a game with all this extras out there that will get this far as a game experiance. Something about the Base Experiances can be why my friend is grumble a bit. Alot of West friendly countrys that not have been in any action since 1991 or even further back has base experiances that is annoying to him. Russia has been working on their new doctrine since 1991 and 2000 they put up their new one. Their army cant any worse after 2000 then Sweden that have not been in a real war for 200 years. lol I think he got a point there.

Cheers:
Shilka still a SPMBT freak!

Sweden might have not been in the war for 200 years, as well as say Switzerland, but they've been preparing thoroughly for war. Perhaps even more thoroughly than countries actually in war, as it is easier to change doctrine in the peacetime and test it thoroughly to find mistakes than to force new doctrine under fire, where some critical errors may evade you.
As for the ex-WarPac countries, the rise of exp. rating is fairly reasonable. Atleast given our country, since 1990 we've been following and adapting many Western doctrines, including more realistic training with use of MILES simulators etc. Our Hind pilots aren't among NATO Tiger squadrons for nought, as well as our fighters. Also our army has gathered alot of experience from various peacekeeping missions and even from two real shooting wars - our NBC recon specialists participated both in ODS and in OIF. Similar with Poles and Slovakians definitely, not sure about say Hungary etc...
Our small-scale infantry tactics is now based alot on British procedures.
Plus, we already have a fully professional army. This also means exp. increase.