Correcting In-Game Details and Info

[Spetsnaz Gaming]

1-Im trying to polite here
2-You really never read to the end do you?
3-i said that 2 mistrals should only be added to egypt
3-I did not say that that egypt should know the desgins for the mistrals.
4-I am very well aware of what my country has the license for and what it only has.
5-btw balthagor i made a mistake about the GH52,the GH52 is a known desgin to egypt but it says that its origins are Eastern Europen.
Is Finland eastern european? im pretty sure that finland is culturally scandinavian

[Balthagor]

Do we really need all these subtypes of T-90 in the game...

That's why I commented "flagged for review". I will look and see if it's a significant difference. You may well be correct, I won't add if not needed. I'm all for not adding more units than needed, you in particular know how much work each one takes

[Balthagor]

I need to check that understood you correctly. You're saying the GH52 design should be known by Egypt? Got a source on that?

Mistral? Which unit is that? Got a link?

I think we included Finland in Eastern Europe, you'd have to check the region code notes to be sure.

[Zuikaku]

Do we really need all these subtypes of T-90 in the game...

That's why I commented "flagged for review". I will look and see if it's a significant difference. You may well be correct, I won't add if not needed. I'm all for not adding more units than needed, you in particular know how much work each one takes

I'm all for adding new units but not for every subvariant. Some equipment (especially russian) have different designation if marked for export and even different markings for different customers, even if it is basically the same equipment differing in only minor details.

I think we included Finland in Eastern Europe, you'd have to check the region code notes to be sure.

Yes, Finland is included in eastern Europe. Maybe that was on purpose to avoid building swedish equipment?

[Nerei]

The interesting part about Finland is that looking at the equipment it is using there is significantly more equipment from the Northern European group than the Eastern. Sweden is also a significant buyer of Finnish equipment.

Do we really need all these subtypes of T-90 in the game. Most of them will not have any gameplay value since they differ only in some minor details.

Also, if we introduce all of these subtypes of T-90, why not then introducing all of T-80, T-72, Centurion, Chieftain and other subtypes??

T-90S and T-90A are redundant since T-90S is export version of the T-90, later adopted by the Russian Armed Forces as the T-90A. We already have T-90S (which is T-90A) and modernised T-90MS (almost indentical to T-90M for russian army), so I really don't see any pint in adding all these more or less the same variants.

My main argument for including both the T-90A and S variant is to have a way to differentiate between vehicles like the Indian Bhishma and Russias Vladimir.
If the A variant should represent both export versions and domestic Russian versions while the S variant being named "T-90M Bhishma" is entirely valid but there are differences especially between the T-90A and T-90M Bhishma.

This will probably also be the easiest change to add as it only means updating some of of Indias T-90 and adding a design for India.


The M variant of the T-90 is supposed to use developments from the Armata to upgrade part of Russias existing fleet of T-90's to get as close to the T-14 as possible which includes the Afghanit APS and 2A82 cannon instead of the 2A46 and includes the Armatas Kalina FCS as well as part of the electronic warfare system.

The T-90MS was first shown off in 2011. The initial model does not contain any of the advances found in the Armata. If that is the version to use is naturally the question but the 2011 as shown T-90MS is significantly worse than the 2017 T-90M.
Even a 2017 version will probably be missing some of the advantages of the T-90M. Russia actually has a tendency to downgrade export vehicles so it is not entirely accurate to say that export and domestic versions are identical. You only need to look at the T-72's the USSR sold in the middle east and compare them to the vehicles the Soviet army itself used.


As for needing more T-90 MBT models my question would be something along the line of do we need 6 world war 2 M4 Sherman models? It is not including 2 more to represent post war modifications or the derived vehicles.
Personally I suspect the performance difference of the different T-90 models are grater than the average difference between between these Shermans. The story might be the same for the 6 different versions of the US M1 Abrams or 7 versions of the M-48 Patton.

So do we need them? That is an incredibly subjective question that most people will most likely have their own answer for. Ultimately it is a question for BG to answer.

Personally to me the selling point of this game is complexity so I would say yes.


If it is a matter of bloated lists then I would honestly say that battle was probably lost a few thousand units ago and the only way to solve that issue is through UI modifications. We really need some way to better manage large armies like that of the US, Russia or China anyway.

GMLRS - if we add a new unit with a longer base range, we need to consider how it will interact with the techs which do increase ranges.

M270 GMLRS should most likely appear at the tech Guided MLRS so it would just be a case of ensuring [base range]*[whatever multiplier is applied at Guided MLRS] = 70km (assuming it is just a basic 40% increase that would be a base range of 50km). For later vehicles such as the M280 and M320 that should just give 120km or better to represent them using GMLRS+ or better (again if it is just a 40% increase the base range should be around 85km or better).

For the M26A1/A2 rockets I would say it is probably better to not touch anything and just accept the range is going to be wrong. There is no starting points where it is really relevant as the closest one is 1949 so about 45 years away historically.

I am however not sure GMLRS should give a range increase. Again unlike ER-MLRS it is not really about making rockets fly farther but making them more accurate through active guidance. It allows accurate fire at longer range but long range rocket artillery such as the BM-30 Smerch already has a range that surpasses Lockheed Martins GMLRS by about 20km and that is a vehicle designed during the cold war.
Also the israeli Rahom is just as much a GMLRS rocket but it only has a 35km range.

[dax1]

Mistral? Which unit is that? Got a link?

that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-c ... sault_ship

[Spetsnaz Gaming]

I need to check that understood you correctly. You're saying the GH52 design should be known by Egypt? Got a source on that?

Mistral? Which unit is that? Got a link?

I think we included Finland in Eastern Europe, you'd have to check the region code notes to be sure.

1-If you clicked the link i gave you it would say that egypt already had the license and the GH52 is in domestic production
2-The GH52 is already known by egypt in-game it says that its origins are in *East Europe* but should it not be North europe?
3-Yeh,the Mistral,Used by the French and egyptian navies,Helicopter carriers/Amphibious assault vessels
Dunno how UR Going to inculde it in-game,guess its gonna be an engine limitation.

[Nerei]

LHA 9013 Mistral is already in the game as ID16235

It is however not researched by France in 2020 GC at least and it does not own any.

France could do with having 3 of them placed in Toulon (861x191) to represent Mistral, Tonnerre and Dixmude.

Egypt needs to have one (The Anwar El Sadat) in Alexandria (1018x261). I did not notice a port in GC2020 so there probably needs to be one. It is a fairly important one after all. I might have missed something but basically Egypt needs one placed in a port around the mouth of the Nile.
The other Egyptian vessel (Gamal Abdel Nasser) should be in Safaga but given that I cannot find it the closest match is probably the port complex at 1044x279 (again I am using GC2020).

Also for the 2020 starts Egypt should probably have 2 units of Ka-52 (ID7193) as the order for said helicopters have now been signed.

[Spetsnaz Gaming]

1-We bought 2 of them,1 stationed in alexandria and the second is stationed in hurghada,considering our fleets are divided into 2 sections
2-The second mistrals name should be *Gamal Abdel el Nasser*,good ol commie days
3-umm..we signed the ka-52s since 2015,so far around 10 of them arrived irl
4-Nerei,you still didnt answer my question,where u from?

[Nerei]

1-We bought 2 of them,1 stationed in alexandria and the second is stationed in hurghada,considering our fleets are divided into 2 sections
2-The second mistrals name should be *Gamal Abdel el Nasser*,good ol commie days
3-umm..we signed the ka-52s since 2015,so far around 10 of them arrived irl
4-Nerei,you still didnt answer my question,where u from?

1: For homeports I am just going by Wikipedia. 1044x279 is pretty close to Hurghada and probably represents it. Also I try to give coordinates and ID's as it makes it makes it easier for mr. Latour. There are 4 units with the name "Mistral" in the unit data file so knowing which if any of them is the right one I assume is fairly nice.

2: Again I just took the name from wikipedia. Technically ships are not named in the 2020 scenarios so I am not really sure this is important anyway.

3: The Ka-52 deal is expected to be fulfilled by 2020.
When the deal for the delivery of something is signed is not really relevant. What matters is when delivery takes place in this case it is between mid 2017 and 2020. How many Ka-52 Egypt has in 2020 is hard to say I am assuming enough to make up 2 Supreme Ruler attack helicopter units. We do however know how many it had at the 2017 start which was 0.

4: I do not answer personal questions on a public message board.

[Zuikaku]

My main argument for including both the T-90A and S variant is to have a way to differentiate between vehicles like the Indian Bhishma and Russias Vladimir.
If the A variant should represent both export versions and domestic Russian versions while the S variant being named "T-90M Bhishma" is entirely valid but there are differences especially between the T-90A and T-90M Bhishma.

This will probably also be the easiest change to add as it only means updating some of of Indias T-90 and adding a design for India.


The M variant of the T-90 is supposed to use developments from the Armata to upgrade part of Russias existing fleet of T-90's to get as close to the T-14 as possible which includes the Afghanit APS and 2A82 cannon instead of the 2A46 and includes the Armatas Kalina FCS as well as part of the electronic warfare system.

The T-90MS was first shown off in 2011. The initial model does not contain any of the advances found in the Armata. If that is the version to use is naturally the question but the 2011 as shown T-90MS is significantly worse than the 2017 T-90M.
Even a 2017 version will probably be missing some of the advantages of the T-90M. Russia actually has a tendency to downgrade export vehicles so it is not entirely accurate to say that export and domestic versions are identical. You only need to look at the T-72's the USSR sold in the middle east and compare them to the vehicles the Soviet army itself used.


As for needing more T-90 MBT models my question would be something along the line of do we need 6 world war 2 M4 Sherman models? It is not including 2 more to represent post war modifications or the derived vehicles.
Personally I suspect the performance difference of the different T-90 models are grater than the average difference between between these Shermans. The story might be the same for the 6 different versions of the US M1 Abrams or 7 versions of the M-48 Patton.

So do we need them? That is an incredibly subjective question that most people will most likely have their own answer for. Ultimately it is a question for BG to answer.

Personally to me the selling point of this game is complexity so I would say yes.


If it is a matter of bloated lists then I would honestly say that battle was probably lost a few thousand units ago and the only way to solve that issue is through UI modifications. We really need some way to better manage large armies like that of the US, Russia or China anyway.

But what woul'd be the point of downgraded export versions in the gameplay?
AI would not build them.
I doubt human player will build downgraded versions.
And the research path - original version shoul'd be prereq for export version. So, basically, you woul'd need to research better tank in order to be able to research downgraded export version. That is not similar to WW2 Shermans or Pz IVs.

Adding downgraded export versions is not the problem, but what is the point of it and is it worth it???

[Balthagor]

@dax1 - I like ppl with links! Thanks.
@Nerei- - ppl with IDs are the best!
21691

re: GH52 - no, Finland is treated as East Europe.

I've flagged this stuff for future changes. Thanks.

[Spetsnaz Gaming]

1-We bought 2 of them,1 stationed in alexandria and the second is stationed in hurghada,considering our fleets are divided into 2 sections
2-The second mistrals name should be *Gamal Abdel el Nasser*,good ol commie days
3-umm..we signed the ka-52s since 2015,so far around 10 of them arrived irl
4-Nerei,you still didnt answer my question,where u from?

1: For homeports I am just going by Wikipedia. 1044x279 is pretty close to Hurghada and probably represents it. Also I try to give coordinates and ID's as it makes it makes it easier for mr. Latour. There are 4 units with the name "Mistral" in the unit data file so knowing which if any of them is the right one I assume is fairly nice.

2: Again I just took the name from wikipedia. Technically ships are not named in the 2020 scenarios so I am not really sure this is important anyway.

3: The Ka-52 deal is expected to be fulfilled by 2020.
When the deal for the delivery of something is signed is not really relevant. What matters is when delivery takes place in this case it is between mid 2017 and 2020. How many Ka-52 Egypt has in 2020 is hard to say I am assuming enough to make up 2 Supreme Ruler attack helicopter units. We do however know how many it had at the 2017 start which was 0.

4: I do not answer personal questions on a public message board.

Huh? well i made myself clear that im egyptian,and i think zui is also russian since he said *We Use the etc etc*
And its not Personal btw
In my opinion,also are Mig-35s in the game? if so add 3 units to us! im sick of over use of f-16Cs, *we so far got 5 of them*
Owning 4th largest F-16C bloc 39,40,52 is good and sucks at the same time.
ALSO I find it very ridiculous that egypt doesn't have special forces,i mean you got Unit 777,Unit 999,Sa'ka *althought 777 butchered their first 2 missions yeh know indigenous training isnt really the best* they ve been all over europe training with GIGN SAS etc you name it
Also they ve been very active recently due to very obvious reasons
Unit 999 is A mystery case,really no one knows **** bout them
Sa'ka is ur ordinary special forces desert commando
Heres the links if ur curious
Sa'ka: *or in english Thunderbolt Forces* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ka_Forces
Inculdes all engagements and yata yata
Best known battle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shedwan
*Yeah sorry national bias could be kicking in right now idk*
Unit 777: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_777
Unit 999: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_999
There ya go m8

[Balthagor]

Are you sure these operate at a battalion level size?

As for the Mig-35s (at the risk of repeating myself) got a link?

[Nerei]

As for the Mig-35s (at the risk of repeating myself) got a link?

I can give you a link to sputnik and one to Global Flight
Sputnik refers to the MiG-29 but the 35 is derived from the same airframe so that might be why.
Sputnik says 50 airframes while Global Flight says 46 so I guess you have to decide if it is 2 or 3 SRU units.

ID 11145 is the only aircraft referred to as a MiG-35 so I guess that is the best fit in terms of already in-game units.

Given the way both articles are worded my guess is that these units should only be in the 2020 starts.

But what woul'd be the point of downgraded export versions in the gameplay?
AI would not build them.
I doubt human player will build downgraded versions.
And the research path - original version shoul'd be prereq for export version. So, basically, you woul'd need to research better tank in order to be able to research downgraded export version. That is not similar to WW2 Shermans or Pz IVs.

Adding downgraded export versions is not the problem, but what is the point of it and is it worth it???

If you want the domestic version to be a pre-requisite for an export version then we need the AM added as currently we only have the downgraded MS export version. That is half my point. We "only" have downgraded export versions.
Renaming the T-90MS to T-90AM and saying it is also going to represent the export version. That is probably an okay way to do it. I renaming the T-90S something like "T-90 Vladimir" or something like that is probably also okay.

What I do not think is okay is also representing the 2017/2018 T-90M as a 2011 T-90MS (or AM) or vice versa.
Here we actually have a direct progression.
There are noticeable differences between the T-90MS/AM Uralvagonzavod presented in 2011 and the T-90M russia expects to have in service in 2018. These are as much different vehicles as say the M1A1 and M1A2.

Would the AI or a player use it? Technically the T-90MS should come before the T-90M or Armata in the techtree so assuming the AI or player is doing normal tech progression they should unlock the T-90MS/AM first. In that case yes they should build it as it would be the best T-90 available.

Would a Russian player or AI build the T-90M in 2020. Not anymore than it should build the T-90MS in 2017 or 2020 as the Armata is better. Russia should however start with upwards of 9 units of T-90M in 2020.
Also if the Indian deal for T-90MS goes though before 2020 these should probably be represented as T-90M instead. It is also intended for export.


As for the T-90M Bhishma that is an Indian vehicle based on the T-90S but including both local upgrades as well as parts bought from western companies. It also entered service somewhere around a decade after the T-90A/S prototype. It really is a different vehicle compared to the T-90A that have been in service for quite a few years with the Indian army.