The FASTBOAT Patch page.

[DRG]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

.........The OPLOT-M is considered one of the best protected tanks in the world for the reasons below and should reflect that in the EW rating increase over the above current OPLOT units (EW 4) to which this tank is a much improved version of.

Pat, you need to spend some time poking around MOBHack.

For tanks there are 4 "EW" settings

EW 1 & 2 = "CIWS" which is the closest and shortest abbreviation we could put in there to indicate active defence systems. EW 1 gives you one active defence measure, EW 2 gives you two.


EW 3 & 4 = "VIRSS" which is the closest and shortest abbreviation we could put in there to indicate passive defense measures like "Visual and Infrared Screening Smoke"

There is nothing above "EW"4 and 1 is not less than four, just different AND ( what follows seems to have confused people in the past so I'll explain it again ) it's a ONE EVENT DEAL so popping a VIRSS cloud ONLY AFFECTS THE INCOMING MISSILE that tripped that event. It does not linger like a normal smoke cloud and it does it that way because that's the only way we could find to bend this code to simulate this.

If a vehicle has VIRSS and a ATGM is fired the game runs a routine to determine if the VIRSS was successful in diverting the missile or not for that , and only that, missile. The "smoke" is just an animation so you know that VIRSS has fired. So "VIRSS" in the game is a code routine the game runs when a vehicle equipped with "VIRSS" detects a ATGM launch.

So "EW" 3 gets you one "VIRSS" shot and "EW"4 gets you 2

"EW" 1 gets you one Trophy / Arena type active defense against an incoming missile and "EW" 2 gets you two

There is no EW 5 or 6


Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
The CINCLANTHOME "over analyzing" discussion comes to mind again from an earlier post. The last was...let's call it a former occupational issue and leave it at that. Thank you for the clarification on behalf of myself and others who'd honestly say "I didn't know that." I will refer to last post as an update to the beginning of 2011/2012 PP#2 before putting it into it's "home" thread.
THANKS!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Don,
I saw the reply to Suhiir on the USAF/USMC thread and was just wondering from a layman's point of view if this OPED couldn't be an option to relieve some of the OOB slot issues that exist in some of the more proliferate defence spending countries such as the U.S., Russia and China and others. Given I would assume that we have eight years worth of equipment left to put into the game, and besides the possible need to cull the more critical countries of redundant equipment including the possibility of removing fighter types of aircraft to only direct ground support types (And yes everyone that pains me to suggust it.) such as the A-10, F-15, Hornet, B-52, B-1 and B-2 in the current era by example. This can be argued as feasible, I've personally have read many documents that have suggested during the "Cold War" the Fighter issue would've cancelled each other out for air combat reasons and would've only played a minor or no had no role in the ground war, again I'm just trying to offer long term solutions here. Secondly I see that there are 7 R&D slots, could we not on a "as needed" basis use three of them in a regional plan as follows 1. The AMERICAS slot from Canada down to S. America and within that OOB assign X number of slots to cover the expected needs of Canada etc. again as needed based on that counties "home" OOB slot availability. 2. Europe 3. Asia and possibly 4. Africa maybe at the end of the cycle. Entry into this "club" would have to be restricted by priority of new equipment, RESET, or other major modification not covered by the RESET standard. Again these are just food for thought but, I'll just throw this out there again given the choice as an air commander tasked with a ground support mission what would I rather use given the option between F-16's and F-15's for the mission? I would do the following my F-16's would sweep the skies of the enemy, while my more capable with a larger payload F-15's took care of the ground support mission and would still be more then capable of fighting on it's way home if required to do so.
http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...t.asp?fsID=103
http://www.af.mil/information/factsh...t.asp?fsID=102
There is almost a 50,000lb difference in the Max. takeoff Wts. which isn't all for fuel and favors the F-15 Strike Eagle.

I don't like short term fixes as they don't take into account the long term ramifications of the initial problem at hand. In the Silent Service from day one it is instilled into us "that the only stupid question is the one not asked." So I'm asking and will gladly become put of the solution. Like current Defense Spending in most countries I'm not afraid to break out the scalpel "to cut the budget" and that goes for all the other countries in the game as well.

However I do recognize some smaller countries have to use fighter types in a multi role fashion that the F-16 fills the niche for again by example, but then again most of them aren't or don't have a pending slot issue at this time or are likely to in the future.

Just some thoughts on a cold beautiful day in SE GA.

Regards,
Pat