BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
I can accept that Russian and Chinese ground units probably have lower protection levels than western counterparts but the firepower assigned to some of the units is puzzling.
For example, Russian BMPT unit, 2x 30mm autocannon, 4x 130mm ATGM launcher (Tandem HEAT/Thermobaric combo), 2x 30mm granade launcher, 1x 7,62mm machine gun (crew 5: a vehicle commander, a driver, a gunner, and 2 grenade launcher operators) has:
soft att: 21
hard att: 28
fort att: 10
close : 15
att range: 1km
while Israeli Namer (ingame Namera APC) 12,7mm or 40mm granade launcher+7,62 RWS, 60mm mortar (crew 3: commander, driver, RCWS operator + 9 infantry men consisting of squad leader, SAW gunner, antitank specialist, grenadier, and five riflemen) has:
soft att: 30
hard att: 24
fort att: 15
close : 25
att range: 1km
here is direct comparisson between the two:
soft att: 21 | 30
hard att: 28 | 24
fort att: 10 | 15
close : 15 | 25
att range: 1km | 1km
I'm not saying Namer is overpowered, I'm just asking is BMPT in this case, supposed to be so under-powered in comparison?
Thoughts?
EDIT: Balth, if needed, move this to discussion part of forum.
For example, Russian BMPT unit, 2x 30mm autocannon, 4x 130mm ATGM launcher (Tandem HEAT/Thermobaric combo), 2x 30mm granade launcher, 1x 7,62mm machine gun (crew 5: a vehicle commander, a driver, a gunner, and 2 grenade launcher operators) has:
soft att: 21
hard att: 28
fort att: 10
close : 15
att range: 1km
while Israeli Namer (ingame Namera APC) 12,7mm or 40mm granade launcher+7,62 RWS, 60mm mortar (crew 3: commander, driver, RCWS operator + 9 infantry men consisting of squad leader, SAW gunner, antitank specialist, grenadier, and five riflemen) has:
soft att: 30
hard att: 24
fort att: 15
close : 25
att range: 1km
here is direct comparisson between the two:
soft att: 21 | 30
hard att: 28 | 24
fort att: 10 | 15
close : 15 | 25
att range: 1km | 1km
I'm not saying Namer is overpowered, I'm just asking is BMPT in this case, supposed to be so under-powered in comparison?
Thoughts?
EDIT: Balth, if needed, move this to discussion part of forum.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
Open to suggestions on this. We may have given the Namer more for the 9 men who get out to fight. Doesn't mean that was the right choice though...
Ideally we should identify a unit in that time period which is considered the benchmark for stats. The problem with there being SO many units is that it's hard to establish baselines.
Ideally we should identify a unit in that time period which is considered the benchmark for stats. The problem with there being SO many units is that it's hard to establish baselines.
- number47
- General
- Posts: 2655
- Joined: Sep 15 2011
- Human: Yes
- Location: X:913 Y:185
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
Don't get me wrong, I believe that Namer stats should be as they are considering other western units in general (and inclusion of 9 infantry men in stats is perfectly fine by me), but it feels BMPT too far behind. At least in terms of range (30mm 2A42 autocannon has cca 4km effective range, AT-9 Spiral-2 ATGM has 0,4-6km range but lets bring that down to 4km) correction should be made...
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
- General George Patton Jr
-
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Dec 11 2017
- Human: Yes
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
In general I would say most Soviet/Russian Units in game are drastically underrated versus reality and in the case of the the BMPT definitely warrants an improvement.
Whilst the PKTM Machine Gun (and depending on variant AG-17s) may be incapable of reaching out that far effectively the Cannons and ATGM are very capable of multiple kms effective range..
On top of that its also heavily armored with its creation steming from a history and experience of both Chechnya and Afghanistan before (and previous projects) that required heavily armored vehicles capable of sweeping enemy fortifications at varied angles like the Shilka was able to do.
So how do we balance something like this?
Reality shows that vehicles such as the BMPT would neither operate separately from infantry/armor they are supposed to help nor be abundant either so certainly not battalion strength..
I would first of all make its 'Battalion Size' far lower to maybe represent at most a platoon or similar...
This means a 5 Man Crew for each 'Piece' in a unit which is considerably bigger than other Russian 'Tanks' but make the 'Pieces/Vehicles' in the unit far lower - thus attrition against it when it is done damage is more significant.
I would upgrade its range to probably at least 2 KM (Though its main weapons are easily capable of engaging up to 4KM), and make it absolutely mean in close combat attack/defence...
Due to its 'specialist' nature I would consider how it could be made more expensive (You're paying for a lot more than just the vehicle, including training for such specialisation, spares etc), maybe also decrease its combat time due to the fact its likely combat use is to use its massive firepower in quick order to wipe out targets... Again this makes it easy to attrit the BMPT and it should be used for specialist purposes.
Although the vehicle has Hunter Killer capability I'd also reduce its 'sight' quite heavily forcing it to have others scout for it and limiting its defensive capability unsupported (as others can easily slip around it)
In the development history of the BMPT there is also a few steps that has to where we are today...
I would consider Techs that may make pursuing it more costly ---> 'Fighting Vehicle Fire Support' ----> unlocks tech for 'Obyekt 787 T-72 Viper'*1 which is the original precursor vehicle from the cold war (This was never put into production so maybe just make it a sunk cost with no unit) then I'd make them pay for the tech to get the BMPT.. This is something you only acquire through deliberate process not through incidence ('Hey I learned how to make new tanks, looks like I can build these now too')
*1 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Объект_787
Whilst the PKTM Machine Gun (and depending on variant AG-17s) may be incapable of reaching out that far effectively the Cannons and ATGM are very capable of multiple kms effective range..
On top of that its also heavily armored with its creation steming from a history and experience of both Chechnya and Afghanistan before (and previous projects) that required heavily armored vehicles capable of sweeping enemy fortifications at varied angles like the Shilka was able to do.
So how do we balance something like this?
Reality shows that vehicles such as the BMPT would neither operate separately from infantry/armor they are supposed to help nor be abundant either so certainly not battalion strength..
I would first of all make its 'Battalion Size' far lower to maybe represent at most a platoon or similar...
This means a 5 Man Crew for each 'Piece' in a unit which is considerably bigger than other Russian 'Tanks' but make the 'Pieces/Vehicles' in the unit far lower - thus attrition against it when it is done damage is more significant.
I would upgrade its range to probably at least 2 KM (Though its main weapons are easily capable of engaging up to 4KM), and make it absolutely mean in close combat attack/defence...
Due to its 'specialist' nature I would consider how it could be made more expensive (You're paying for a lot more than just the vehicle, including training for such specialisation, spares etc), maybe also decrease its combat time due to the fact its likely combat use is to use its massive firepower in quick order to wipe out targets... Again this makes it easy to attrit the BMPT and it should be used for specialist purposes.
Although the vehicle has Hunter Killer capability I'd also reduce its 'sight' quite heavily forcing it to have others scout for it and limiting its defensive capability unsupported (as others can easily slip around it)
In the development history of the BMPT there is also a few steps that has to where we are today...
I would consider Techs that may make pursuing it more costly ---> 'Fighting Vehicle Fire Support' ----> unlocks tech for 'Obyekt 787 T-72 Viper'*1 which is the original precursor vehicle from the cold war (This was never put into production so maybe just make it a sunk cost with no unit) then I'd make them pay for the tech to get the BMPT.. This is something you only acquire through deliberate process not through incidence ('Hey I learned how to make new tanks, looks like I can build these now too')
*1 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Объект_787
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
what about increasing stats as suggested and moving BMPT in the anti-tank class. Since it is not infantry ,but infantry support, more something like assault gun. And it is also AT platform.
Please teach AI everything!
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
This does not take into account the game design. Battalion sizes are standardized within a given class. The size in the equipment file only affects initial deployment.DasVivo wrote:I would first of all make its 'Battalion Size' far lower to maybe represent at most a platoon or similar...
The game works in increments of 16km so this change would have zero gameplay impact.DasVivo wrote:I would upgrade its range to probably at least 2 KM (Though its main weapons are easily capable of engaging up to 4KM)
Could all be done, just need suggested values.DasVivo wrote:and make it absolutely mean in close combat attack/defence...Due to its 'specialist' nature I would consider how it could be made more expensive ...maybe also decrease its combat time due to the fact its likely combat use is to use its massive firepower in quick order to wipe out targets...
Due to its 'specialist' nature I would consider how it could be made more expensive (You're paying for a lot more than just the vehicle, including training for such specialisation, spares etc), maybe also decrease its combat time due to the fact its likely combat use is to use its massive firepower in quick order to wipe out targets... Again this makes it easy to attrit the BMPT and it should be used for specialist purposes.
This could also be done.Zuikaku wrote:what about increasing stats as suggested and moving BMPT in the anti-tank class. Since it is not infantry ,but infantry support, more something like assault gun. And it is also AT platform.
-
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Dec 11 2017
- Human: Yes
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
Interesting, I try to practice 'minimal casualty' wars as a rule with few units as possible being 'refitted' and whilst I should have, have not yet modified unit sizes exactly.... That is news to me... (I had only seen that indeed initial sizes can be made of varying quantities)Balthagor wrote: This does not take into account the game design. Battalion sizes are standardized within a given class. The size in the equipment file only affects initial deployment.
Not sure how hard that is to change in code but if not too difficult could be worth looking at if it gives you this flexibility......
I had always wondered about that, I tried for example in urban combat drawing units in to get a hit and then withdrawing them before return fire and it seemed to work... But that is indeed likely more to ability to sustain damage and reaction speed than any range...Balthagor wrote: The game works in increments of 16km so this change would have zero gameplay impact.
Good question, to be honest I've never been exactly sure how you came up with and confronted the idea of unit stats as it is.... Where do you begin? What formulates numbers?Balthagor wrote: Could all be done, just need suggested values.
What about this aspect I wrote below? (You had it in your reply but didn't respond to it)
Due to its 'specialist' nature I would consider how it could be made more expensive (You're paying for a lot more than just the vehicle, including training for such specialisation, spares etc), maybe also decrease its combat time due to the fact its likely combat use is to use its massive firepower in quick order to wipe out targets... Again this makes it easy to attrit the BMPT and it should be used for specialist purposes.
Better yet, put it in Artillery.... Its role is effectively the modern descendant of a good assault gun, the germans themselves considered the idea that this was 'assault artillery' so the question has been opened before even if the modern russians do organise things entirely differently...Zuikaku wrote:what about increasing stats as suggested and moving BMPT in the anti-tank class. Since it is not infantry ,but infantry support, more something like assault gun. And it is also AT platform.
Artillery also means you can limit battalion size to what - 18 versus 44? Makes it far more easy to attrit.. I'd also make sure to buff its Fortification attack among the other changes I suggested...
Exact numbers I am as yet unsure of
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
Making it artillery is not a good idea. Arty plays by a different rules and this is certainly not a indirect fire weapon. Also, AI would spawn BMPTs instead of artillery.DasVivo wrote:
Better yet, put it in Artillery.... Its role is effectively the modern descendant of a good assault gun, the germans themselves considered the idea that this was 'assault artillery' so the question has been opened before even if the modern russians do organise things entirely differently...
Artillery also means you can limit battalion size to what - 18 versus 44? Makes it far more easy to attrit.. I'd also make sure to buff its Fortification attack among the other changes I suggested...
Exact numbers I am as yet unsure of
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Dec 11 2017
- Human: Yes
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
Ah yes AI... Fair Point... Given the AI then do we even want them building it? They are not exactly 'sparing' of units...Zuikaku wrote:Making it artillery is not a good idea. Arty plays by a different rules and this is certainly not a indirect fire weapon. Also, AI would spawn BMPTs instead of artillery.DasVivo wrote:
Better yet, put it in Artillery.... Its role is effectively the modern descendant of a good assault gun, the germans themselves considered the idea that this was 'assault artillery' so the question has been opened before even if the modern russians do organise things entirely differently...
Artillery also means you can limit battalion size to what - 18 versus 44? Makes it far more easy to attrit.. I'd also make sure to buff its Fortification attack among the other changes I suggested...
Exact numbers I am as yet unsure of
(Might there be a way to prvent the AI from even trying to build it)
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
Yes there is. By tuning AIparamas file or making the unit too expensive or to specialised.DasVivo wrote: Ah yes AI... Fair Point... Given the AI then do we even want them building it? They are not exactly 'sparing' of units...
(Might there be a way to prvent the AI from even trying to build it)
Please teach AI everything!
-
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Dec 11 2017
- Human: Yes
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
While I am at it what do you mean by Arty plays by different rules?
I haven't tried making it or any units into different classes like so but I would be curious to know
I haven't tried making it or any units into different classes like so but I would be curious to know
- Zuikaku
- General
- Posts: 2394
- Joined: Feb 10 2012
- Human: Yes
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
It is last to defend in stack (since it is considered to give indirect fire support from the rear) and it reacts slower.DasVivo wrote:While I am at it what do you mean by Arty plays by different rules?
I haven't tried making it or any units into different classes like so but I would be curious to know
But I think Balth can give you more details on this.
Please teach AI everything!
- Balthagor
- Supreme Ruler
- Posts: 22106
- Joined: Jun 04 2002
- Human: Yes
- Location: BattleGoat Studios
Re: BMPT stats (Split from Unit Errata)
Artillery units get flagged as "stand off" meaning they won't enter ZoC of enemy units and can't be targeted directly if other non-stand off units share the hex with them.
There are no clear formulas for how to set values, this is all a big abstraction. There are not pure mathematical ways to transfer what we know about one unit into numbers. And even if there was, "what we know" about each unit is very different and never really certain.
There are no clear formulas for how to set values, this is all a big abstraction. There are not pure mathematical ways to transfer what we know about one unit into numbers. And even if there was, "what we know" about each unit is very different and never really certain.