Top Units in the game

Talk and Learn about the military aspects of the game.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

bungle
Warrant Officer
Posts: 33
Joined: Aug 14 2007
Location: UK

Decisions decisions

Post by bungle »

Infantry - Lav 5 rocks anything non amphib just sucks.

Tanks - Im a big Leopard fan having played campaign starting as West Germany I like tanks with 58 str, so find the high tech ones with lower than that a pain unless i overstrength the builds.

Recon - Never use ground based, am I missing something?

Anti Tank - Again never use, should I?

Barrel Artill - Templar rules on range basedon euro options.

Rocket Artill - Mainly use what I pick up from conqured nations 96k2 has adequate range and fair hitting power. On Lower tech nations cant beat theese rocket guys combine with a nice E2 patrol for spotting and bye bye based static targets for free.

Fighter - Using Eurofghter 2a ground attack right now as multi purpose interceptor and GA. Stats vs planes similar to interceptor so wy build the interceptor with crappy GA capability.

Ground attack - Love the Neuroen when it comes along in the tech tree, they just dnt seem to take damage :).

Transport Ships - L14 amphib transport is almost only thing I build

Transport Planes - 747 only one I dont sell on sight if i can afford the running costs.

Transport chopper - I use mainly for supply drops to strabded units and the Hind 26 works fine here.

Transport ground - any, what is the suply radius on these btw, do you need to be on the same hex?

Destroyer / Frigate - anything with range Brunel BB- E2 when it comes along does me fine.

Subs - Subs sucketh big time.

More when I learn more :)
He either fears his fate too much, Or his desserts are small, Who dares not put it to the touch, To win or lose it all.
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Re: Decisions decisions

Post by red »

bungle wrote:Transport ground - any, what is the suply radius on these btw, do you need to be on the same hex?
It goes by zone of control, which extends one hex around a unit.

Now that I think about it, my response on the arty doesn't make much sense. Hm. :P
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

So theres deffinately still are arc for rail gun fire ?

Still, at those speeds the arc must be larger than that of normal art fire, and hence a reverse slope defense would be more beneficial to those under the fire if it is from a rail gun
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

tkobo wrote:So theres deffinately still are arc for rail gun fire ?

Still, at those speeds the arc must be larger than that of normal art fire, and hence a reverse slope defense would be more beneficial to those under the fire if it is from a rail gun
Think of it this way: take two guns one conventional and one rail gun. Mount them 32 feet above the ground and aim them parallel to the ground. Ignore curvature of the earth.

The conventional round will reach about 4,000 feet before it impacts. The rail gun round will reach around 50,000 feet before it impacts.

If you elevate the gun, the range will increase.

It will increase until you get above about 45 degree elevation, at which point you start decreaseing range and increaseing arc -- like a mortar. I suspect a rail gun round would go sub orbital at a high enough elevation, but that has been done with conventional rounds too -- it can be accounted for in firing tables.

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

To everyone picking the 747, you are 100% correct.And thanks.

I had gotten the c-130 and c-5 mixed up, i meant the c-5 for my choice.

BUT even than i was wrong, the 747 is by far the better choice.One that i had somehow overlooked.

I think in the back of my mind i was righting it off as a version of the airborne laser,which i now know it clearly isnt, and had never given the unit a look. Doh.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Noble713
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Nov 27 2005

Post by Noble713 »

Feltan wrote:ainsworth,

Well, my point is that it should not be an MRLS. The unti was modelled incorrectly, and it resulted in an artificially powerful unit.

I'll be looking to see if that got corrected in 2020!

Regards,
Feltan
from http://www.sinodefence.com/army/mrl/weishi.asp
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smerch

First column is WS-1B data, 2nd column is BM-30 Smerch data (HE-Frag rockets)
Rocket calibre 302mm ...........300mm
Rocket length 6.376mm ...........7.6 m
Rocket weight 725kg ...........815 kg
Warhead 150kg ...........243 kg
Speed Mach 5.2 ........... N/A
Min range 60km ........... 25km
Max range 180km........... 90 km
Reloading time 20 min........... 20 min
Launch tubes 4~8 ........... 12


So from a technical perspective, there isn't a significant difference between the rockets fired by the Smerch and the rockets fired by the WS-1B. The WS-1B trades size (especially warhead size) for a longer range, while the Smerch has bigger (and more numerous) rockets thrown a shorter distance. The WS-1B does not fire individual, large ballistic/cruise missiles that are easily intercepted (compared to rocket arty) by air defense assets, so why treat them like they do? I think volume of fire is the key difference between the rocket arty and theatre/tactical ballistic missile units, and both the Russian and Chinese systems clearly display enough volume to be firmly in the rocket arty category. You can't supress an entire grid square with a OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21 Scarab), but you can with the Smerch or Weishi. If the WS-1B should be changed to a guided missile platform, then shouldn't the Smerch be as well?

One problem I have with the way that some (but not all) rocket arty is represented is the ability to load and fire guided missiles. Really only the US M270 MLRS and HIMARS, with their ATACMS, should have this. I don't think any other country fields rocket artillery that can quickly and easily replace rockets with exceptionally large guided missiles.

Another issue that I think will be easier to address in SR2020 is the distorted ranges due to the size of the hexes. I always used the "extended ranges" feature when playing WW3 because the hexes are 35km across. Combine that with all the techs that drastically increase the range of artillery and it makes for weapon ranges that border on mind-boggling from a real-world perspective. With the entire game switching to smaller 16km hexes, it should be easier to portray accurate ranges (finally artillery that can fire more than 1-2 hexes without upgrades!). Those upgrade techs should still be toned down a bit though.
Black Metal IST KRIEG!
http://tinyurl.com/ctyrj7
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

Noble713 wrote:...If the WS-1B should be changed to a guided missile platform, then shouldn't the Smerch be as well?...
Yes. However, I wouldn't use the term "guided" missle. I would consider them a ballistic missle like the FROG (Free Rocket Over Ground). However, I concur with your conclusion that these are rocket arty units, but modelling them as such results in an ubercapability that does not exist -- modelling them as missle platforms will retain their range, but appropriately nerf the repeated saturation bombardment capability that could never be sustained in real life (unless you invest in a buttload of missles).

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

But isn't Noble's comment that even if we changed the WS-1B so you can't constantly pump these out without producing the missiles, you would still be able to use the Smerch and those don't require missile units? The real question is "are the missiles intereceptable"? I know that Frog/Scud type missiles are, so they are missile units. I'm not sure that the WS-1B missiles are. This may require more research.

And thanks for the data Noble, I like that comparison. My first reaction to it was that we should make sure that the land attack value for the WS-1b is half that of the Smerch.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

Chris,

The WS1 and Smerch should be modelled in a similar manner I think. The main point earlier in this thread was that that method of modelling needs to change -- in 2010 they have ranges that exceed credibility and fire like gattling guns!

How to do this? I suggested they be treated as missle launchers. I suggested that because doctrinally (tkobo's favorite word) they are used for deep targets -- not unlike a Scud/Frog. This would retain their ranges, lethatlity of the rounds could be adjusted and tweaked, and you would avoid the situation of stacks of WS1b's smoking any enemy forces within their super-extended range.

Can you change values and treat them like conventional rocket artilly? I am sure you can; however, I am still concerned that the ROF of the units will be misinterpreted. While it may only take 20-30 minutes to reload one of these monsters, that can't be sustained 24/7 for days and weeks on end -- I wouldn't say the same for BM21 or similar vehicle whose mission is more tactical in nature.

So, I think there are advantages to modelling them as rocket launchers. However, the main point is that they are currently unrealistically powerful, and that should change in some manner for 2020.

As for missle interception. It depends on missile speed, altitude and arc versus defending AA. There are precious few AA units that could hope to intercept ANY missile. I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that these type of missles do not achieve the altitude of a SCUD and have different ballistic characteristics -- and hence would not be subject to interception.

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
User avatar
Noble713
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Nov 27 2005

Post by Noble713 »

If the atk strength is reduced vs the Smerch*, the RoF is lowered, and the supply requirement ramped up considerably ( not sure what it is now, but a single WS-1B launcher requires 5.8 TONS of supply/rockets per salvo, and should only carry enough supply for that one salvo), shouldn't that be sufficient?

I see the point you are trying to make that realistically no one would keep an unending supply of munitions flowing to these things, but I'd rather tweak the stats than re-class the equipment. I've frequently read (but only on 'Net forums) that the rockets for modern rocket artillery are extremely expensive, somewhere around $100,000+ per rocket, which is quite costly compared to tube artillery. I'm not really sure how to represent that disproportionate expense. :-?


*Besides having a lower throw weight due to smaller and fewer warheads, I have no doubts that the Chinese guidance systems aren't quite up to their Russian counterparts. Combine that with the long range of the WS-1B, and you'll get rockets with a large CEP ---> less likely to hit actual targets ---> less damage to units.
Black Metal IST KRIEG!
http://tinyurl.com/ctyrj7
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

mostly we do what you suggest. The ammo weight for MLRS units is much higher and I'm sure Tkobo can back me up that using MLRSs instead of tube artillery can cripple an economy for demand of military goods if you have a fleet of them. Initiative sets rate of fire and time to reload (we had it low for MLRS units but might not be at the lowest, don't remember) and we usually them only 1 or 2 shots of ammo before needing to reload. The issue is that if you're in really good supply you can just keep throwing the Military Goods at the enemy through the ends of your tubes...
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

Balthagor wrote:mostly we do what you suggest. The ammo weight for MLRS units is much higher and I'm sure Tkobo can back me up that using MLRSs instead of tube artillery can cripple an economy for demand of military goods if you have a fleet of them. Initiative sets rate of fire and time to reload (we had it low for MLRS units but might not be at the lowest, don't remember) and we usually them only 1 or 2 shots of ammo before needing to reload. The issue is that if you're in really good supply you can just keep throwing the Military Goods at the enemy through the ends of your tubes...
It doesn't work well as stated. The WS1 is way too strong using this approach. The affects of too many of these type of units should not be a crippled economy -- I mean for Pete's Sake, how can that come close to reality: "So sorry Mr. Wang, no rice for you. We need all our resources to build military supplies for Lightbringer who build many many battalions of WS1b's."

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Feltan wrote:...The affects of too many of these type of units should not be a crippled economy -- I mean for Pete's Sake, how can that come close to reality: "So sorry Mr. Wang, no rice for you. We need all our resources to build military supplies for Lightbringer who build many many battalions of WS1b's."
Actually it would be either "sorry we can't buy you any rice, we spent all the money buying military goods" or what usually ends up happening is "sorry general, no bullets today, we bought rice for the people and you used up next months military goods yesterday". I think this is fine. If a player builds and fields THAT many units, resupplying them all at once should be crippling.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
bungle
Warrant Officer
Posts: 33
Joined: Aug 14 2007
Location: UK

Post by bungle »

The WS1b is a killer and makes the life of a weakish AI impossible. Especially if you get ahead in tech and the range shoots up over 400km, the game just becomes a rinse and repeat of hitting bases with static units until they are all in base then moving up and slaughtering them as they are forced out by proximity.

Im sure you are correct use too many and you burn supplies like its bonfire night, but you dont need that many.

Nice templar type tubeies are far better for your defensive line wiping out the AI's WW2 russian wave attacks, so you can move your WS1b's especially for those out of the way bases you need the range for. Once you have dealt with the AI's long range artillery you can revert to tubies here too.

In terms of overkill though I would refer you to my BB post on Feltans BB vs Carrier thread.

Anything within range of my Seaborne BB artillery, I wouldnt dream of wasting the time and supplies of WS1b's for.

Cheers
Bungle

PS. Had an odd one last night, I successfully over time (rephrase that accidentally over time), shelled a Russian base out of existence, the hex was blank. Then when my victorious armies moved in to capture the terrain, for the next sever days, every day, I would get a couple of explosions and a couple of kills as russian units popped up from nowhere under my units. Had the russiand become Chu Chi Vietnameese, and is this usual when you blow away a base completely?
He either fears his fate too much, Or his desserts are small, Who dares not put it to the touch, To win or lose it all.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

bungle wrote:...is this usual when you blow away a base completely?
No, it's the one major bug we never managed to squash :(
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Post Reply

Return to “Military - Defense and Operations Departments”