BGForums

The french VBL-AT anti tank unit is in my opinion a bit unbalanced. Because of is very low Soft Attack and Mediodicre surface defence, it is best suited in a suprotive role or for nation with low availability of militairy goods. This unit is basicly a car with armor plating and a TOW on top of ithe roof. However, compared to it much more heavy counter parts a bit to slow. Instead of a maximum speed of 95km/u, I would recommend increasing speed by +/-10% to 105km/u. Also due to its simplicity, I think the construction time should be lowered by 20% to make it more appealing to be used as a cost effective expandible anti tank weapon.

The speed should not be increased, that is how fast it goes;



The soft attack of all Anti Tank units is lower, A TOW is not a weapon to use against soft targets. It's only other weapon on the VBL-AT version is a coaxial 7.62mm MG. You also have less crew than on an VBL-RC unit, where the crew could get out and support soft target attacks with their own weapons.



As for the buld time, as a hard target it is one of the faster building units. Anything with that level of armor is going to take a while to build.



Based on that description I also don't see a need to increase its defence values.

Don't mean to jump all over you, just wanted to share how I came up with the values that are there. Please feel free to add more details if you still feel that the values should be changed.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

I agree with the speed, offensive strength and defencive strength.

The only problem I'm concened with is that the unit is simply not intresting to be build. For such basic unit I feel the unit is somehow to expansive. It cost effectiveness should somehow be improved, I think the invesestment cost should be lowered slightly. Compared to other Anti Tank units which have much better stats, its missing that small edge which would make it intresting to be build instead of other units. THe only edge I currently can think of it fast production time, low respources cost and low maintenance cost. The only thing I'm missing is a low construction cost. I therefore suggest decreasing its cost by 20%

Just wondering, how did the developers determin the cost/price of a unit. Get real data on this usue could be quite complicated.

The cost was often a guess based on the few real numbers we could find. I looked at the cost of this unit but it is already one of cheapest AT systems available. I looked at what else the France players can chose from and only the Milan Leg AT unit is cheaper. The other units are much more and have better stats.

Sorry, but I think we got this unit right. I do enjoy the debate however

If you have data that shows a different price... heck, any price!... I'd be interested to see the data.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Than how do you determine the strength of a unit? Is it based on any data or is it purely used for balance. If that is the case, meabee it a good idea to increase the stength a few %

Players can build stuff over/understrength if they chose. The default strength is set according to the common battalion size for the country of origin. Most countries field AT battalions at 45 squads to the battalion so that is usually the default size.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Yes you can overstrength but only to +/- 60 % of default size. This effectivly means that a unit with a low strength (like artilery) will continue to have a low strength value. You can take a very cheap unit and oversize it 10x to compensate for its lack of power.

Going back at the subject, why not improve the ir base strength value (allong with construction cost) of this unit to compensate for their lack of compat effectiveness.

I don't understand what difference this would make, the cost and build time are "per squad". Increasing the strength will make the unit more expensive and take longer (unit strength 50 with build time of 0.5 days and cost of 1M in the spreadsheet will take 25 days and 50M to build)

I still don't see anything wrong with this unit. You are correct that it is weaker, that is what it is IRL...

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Sorry about the nagging, I'm just looking for options.

What about scanning distance? beeing in a car allows all personal (except the driver) to look out for the enemy activity (with binoculars). Compaired to those armored cars (in which only the commander has a good view), this allows for a much better spotting strength meabeee we can improve this unit by givving it a better spotting strength in range of effectiveness

We don't really have a set standard for spotting strengths and ranges of land units. When researching ships at least I could look up their radar system and get some values, with the land forces it was much more difficult.

That said, we have all the AT units at a spotting strength of 150, and I don't see that one would be better at seeing really stealthy units over another. Ranges are 20-30 km which we took as reasonable for none recon units.

Still not sure why you're so fixed on improving the stats of this unit...

And I don't mind the nagging, at least all the knowledge I've learned about military units is good for something I enjoy discussing the equipment, sorry if I'm being difficult

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Do you know why most commader sit ontop of their vehical when not in combat? That's because outsite of their protective shell, they have a much better way of scouting the environment. especialy when you are in a city, you need the ability to look at a wide angle to detect for any enemy activity. Thats why tanks/recons are so ineffective in cities because they can only scan for enemy activity through their periscope. The personal in car would not have this problem and therefore campared to anti tank units with higher armor, a better urban surviveability (or close range defense).

Wow, you're really determined to see an increase in the stats of this unit

Well on this one I didn't have an answer on my own. Your argument seems logical, but, having no field experience, I figured I'd start asking some questions. George and I discussed it and (while he does not have field experience either ) we both feel that the difference in armor is more of a factor in determining the close defense value. The spotting range is already 30km where some of the heavier/more armored units only get 20km so we do already simulate "poping the hatch" to look around.

The only example I can think of is Canadian troops in Afghanistan where killed in an Iltus Jeep by a homemade roadside bomb where Americans in a Stryker in Iraq where hit by something bigger and the Stryker, while damaged, was still able to drive back to base with no one seriously injured.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Don't know if you can count a road side bomb as a urban attack, sound more like a engenering attack to me, since it basicly is a road mine

One thing I still do not understand is why the speed of this vehical is so slow. It's basicaly just a missle system on top of a jeep, so why can't it travel the speed of a regular jeep?

For an answer to this, you would have contact someone at Parhard. We didn't make up the speed, that is how fast a VBL travels...

http://www.nasog.net/datasheets/armour/ ... ut_Car.htm

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Intresting link you gace me. According to this website it is an amfibious scoutcar and it can travel 800 km with onboard fuel cans.

Why did this weapon become clasified as an antitank weapon and not as a recon vehical which it actualy is?