T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Legend, Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2198
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#106 Post by Zuikaku » Nov 08 2018

milivoje02 wrote:
Nov 08 2018
I would suggest map fix to Serbia. adding a military research center in Belgrade-BEOGRAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... te_history) an to KRAGUJEVAC a car industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCA_Srbija). In reality they exist. links have been added.

Proposal as a solution for AA wepon upgrade 5605, "R-25 Vulkan(range 32km)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-25_Vulkan ) to new unit extension of range to (90-120km) and call R-25 Vulkan 2 and give it to the T region ? just a suggestion for a solution.it would be a fictitious unit based on real project.
Since I'm responsible for addin this unit to the game I'll dare to ask this:
Why shoul'd we give R-25 Vulkan 3X the range than the weapon (S-75 Dvina) it was replaced by and which proved to be far superior? Any specific reason for this? Range of 130km woul'd make the R-25 one of the most (if not the most) sophisticated SAMs of the era. And testings showed it's performance to be less than stellar. Maybe that is why Yugoslavia pushed so hard to acquire soviet S-75s instead?
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

milivoje02
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#107 Post by milivoje02 » Nov 08 2018

Zuikaku wrote:
Nov 08 2018
milivoje02 wrote:
Nov 08 2018
I would suggest map fix to Serbia. adding a military research center in Belgrade-BEOGRAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_ ... te_history) an to KRAGUJEVAC a car industry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCA_Srbija). In reality they exist. links have been added.

Proposal as a solution for AA wepon upgrade 5605, "R-25 Vulkan(range 32km)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-25_Vulkan ) to new unit extension of range to (90-120km) and call R-25 Vulkan 2 and give it to the T region ? just a suggestion for a solution.it would be a fictitious unit based on real project.
Since I'm responsible for addin this unit to the game I'll dare to ask this:
Why shoul'd we give R-25 Vulkan 3X the range than the weapon (S-75 Dvina) it was replaced by and which proved to be far superior? Any specific reason for this? Range of 130km woul'd make the R-25 one of the most (if not the most) sophisticated SAMs of the era. And testings showed it's performance to be less than stellar. Maybe that is why Yugoslavia pushed so hard to acquire soviet S-75s instead?
I wrote a new futuristic fictitious,not the same.means not in that era, new unit,add number 2 to the name,like it is new generatio,we put it in the technological year like 99 or 100 or 101. 90 -120 km in 2020+ are roughly the middle range of AA midle range wepons,that's why that number 90 -120 km milde range
we can always insert it 5647, "SA-12a Gladiator,5677, "SA-12b Giant,5610, "SA-4 Ganef,682, "S-300 PMU1,5710, "Buk-M3 if a new unit is not a option. I suggested it as a possible new unit R-25 Vulkan 2 which solution for the T region and Serbia in the age 2020+ . I am for putting in a decent AA,It does not have to be the S400.

Which system do you propose?

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2198
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#108 Post by Zuikaku » Nov 08 2018

I'm against adding fictional units for this era and region group.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

milivoje02
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#109 Post by milivoje02 » Nov 09 2018

Again this fiction it would have some basis from the past and may appear as a modification for the future devolopment. Whether fictitious or some existenting AA midle range (90-120 km) it would be a solution gor T group(Serbia,Poland and other) in 2020+ scenario. It does not have to be the strongest solution like MIM 104 patriot PAC 2 of S 400 triumf,but rather a reduced range solution kao sto su 5647, "SA-12a Gladiator,5677, "SA-12b Giant,5610, "SA-4 Ganef,682, "S-300 PMU1,5710, "Buk-M3.

YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 716
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#110 Post by YoMomma » Nov 10 2018

What is today will not always be. You name prolly the 2 (potentially) strongest militaries in eastern europe of today. Serbia active personel is only arround 28,000 btw. Poland is far more US alligned then Serbia.Giving them a Russian design isnt very realistic is it?

I checked T future designs, they arent really bad off because of Russian history in eastern europe. There is a big gap, but maybe this is WW3?

Im not saying both can't be improved with unit designs, but you need to look carefull at that, for this reason i think its better to improve them individually.

It would be nice if Zuikaku could advise us on this, that's for sure. Seeing his mod, he's just for local designs i think, so yeah, with no sources available that they exist, or even potentially exist.. It is up to BG if they wanna add a worldwide solution or something. Poland could do with a futuristic AA system tho, which could be add to T then.

Personally for my mod ill prolly do stuff like Buk M3 for Serbia and Leopard 2A4+A5 for Poland, but yeah not sure yet. Mainly to improve duration of the wars, so allies (from both parties) can get involved, if any, Proxy wars make the game interesting and different. You will see wars you will never see without proxy wars.
Gameplay 1st

milivoje02
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#111 Post by milivoje02 » Nov 10 2018

The political Polish are turn tu USA. Most units of Polsih Army have a Russian origin.SA-4 Ganef,T72 tank and its modernization(Srebian and Polsih variants),Mig 29... There are also Germany and USA units,but they are in a minority. It's similar in Serbia an rest of countries of East Europe(Look at inventory ). I would say they are politically tied to the USA and technologically for Russia. when it is look to existing units of East Europe It would look natural to give them the possibility of devoloping a 5647, "SA-12a Gladiator,5677, "SA-12b Giant,5610,"SA-4 Ganef,. because there are some variants in existing units.We look politically then 5652, "MIM-104 Patriot PAC-2 is a solution. Russsian are devolop 5710, "Buk-M3 mainly for export,so watching inventory of existing AA units of Army of East Europe 5710, "Buk-M3 it looks like a natural extension, technologically(not politically) .technology should be separated in the game from politics. and 5688, "Bavar 373? and this unit could solve the problem,Middle Eastern countries already share some units wiht East Europe. or to insert Chinese version of 5682, "S-300 PMU1.

YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 716
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#112 Post by YoMomma » Nov 10 2018

Well didnt 90% if not more of that inventory came because of the fact after USSR collapsed and Russia didnt had the money to upkeep and transport them? Im not saying your wrong, but inventory doesnt say much. As far as upgrading goes, well they couldnt afford any other tanks till atleast now. Besides Poland which is upgrading the Leopard 2A4.
Gameplay 1st

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 832
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#113 Post by Nerei » Nov 10 2018

Just a note but Poland (and possibly also Romania) is buying the MIM-104 PAC-3MSE Patriot not the PAC-2.
The PAC-2 has been superseded by the PAC-3 and more recently the PAC-3MSE. The most recent I can find for the PAC-2 is Raytheon upgrading US stock of PAC-2 missiles to GEM+ standard in 2006.
There is no political way to argue for PAC-2 either as it is a different missile to the PAC-3MSE.

The in-game PAC-3 Patriot is not really representative of the systems being sold though. The PAC-3MSE Patriot for one has a longer ange of around 35km.

Also PAC-3 Patriot is not really an air defence system but like THAAD or RIM-161 SM3 an ABM system.

milivoje02
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#114 Post by milivoje02 » Nov 10 2018

Mostly all countries of East Europ(Some of were just close) were members of Warsaw Pact(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact),so they bought USSR wepons(which is still the majority of inventory). In some cases they continued to develop their own which are concepts on USSR units(like T 55 and T 72 upgrdes although they moved into USA political side). Poland did buy Leopard 2A4,and F 16 such as also a good part of Europe countries did it. but continued to devolope T 72 upgredes.
there are plenty of cases that the countries are in the game have the ability to produce units that are not of their origin and have them in inventory.
I have suggested some AA units to give eastern Europe an option for development. Do you have any suggestions? MIM-104 PAC-2 ?

User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2198
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#115 Post by Zuikaku » Nov 10 2018

YoMomma wrote:
Nov 10 2018

It would be nice if Zuikaku could advise us on this, that's for sure. Seeing his mod, he's just for local designs i think, so yeah, with no sources available that they exist, or even potentially exist.. It is up to BG if they wanna add a worldwide solution or something. Poland could do with a futuristic AA system tho, which could be add to T then.
Sorry guys, I just don't know what to say since I just disagree with you. While I'm all in for giving regions every local designs they have in real life, I'm against for them being able to build somebody other's designs just for the sake of "balancing" or becouse somebody feels his specific region is not enough rich with designs. So yes, I'm against Syrians being able to produce BUKs and Alegeria being able to produce T-90s, and Poland being able to produce Leopard 2s. Because they can not. I don't care if they are handicaped by that and I don't expect them to be able to counter USA or China. Futuristic units are not the problem, let them be buildable by every region ,but for real designs it is well known who builds them and i just don't want this to turn into fantasy game.

That being said, I can be no more constructive member of this conversation. :D
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!

Nerei
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 832
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#116 Post by Nerei » Nov 10 2018

Like I said there is no argument for the PAC-2 Patriot. It would be something done solely for balance.

This is really a good example of why I am arguing for realism. Once things are done mainly for the sake of balance it opens up for a lot of subjective questions like: What kind of actions for the sake of balance should be taken? How balanced should it be? When is it going to far with balance? You can probably make up a whole lot of other questions that will have a very subjective answer that only BG would have any kind of ability to answer (and lets face it they do not have the time to answer them).
Basically there is never going to be any kind of consensus on this.

Personally I would say either stick with realism or go all the way like Evildari did in a mod and use generic units. Either can work but going in-between is just going to result in an amalgamated mess.


Naturally post 2020 it is possible to do a lot of things with the argument that "history might go this way" but in the case of the PAC-2 Patriot that is really a stretch to use that argument.

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19952
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#117 Post by Balthagor » Nov 10 2018

Zuikaku wrote:
Nov 10 2018
Sorry guys, I just don't know what to say since I just disagree with you. While I'm all in for giving regions every local designs they have in real life, I'm against for them being able to build somebody other's designs just for the sake of "balancing" or becouse somebody feels his specific region is not enough rich with designs.
For the record, this is also my opinion.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

milivoje02
Lieutenant
Posts: 52
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#118 Post by milivoje02 » Nov 10 2018

OK. this is the argument It's strong. Lockheed Martin (https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/index.html) USA products F16,F15,F35... origin from USA It's those airplanes, and sell them to other countries. Mikoyan is Russia manufacturer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_A ... ration_MiG) and many countries are but them from Russia,which sells aircraft that are produced exclusively in Russia. A bunch of countries in game are producting A F 16,F15,Mig 29,Mig 25...And in reality they only buy aircraft that were manufactured in USA and Russia(I'm only talking about Russian and USA planes). How the regions would look who got this privilege to produce Russian and American units to take it away from them ? It's very bad if you ask me. So I think compromise should be made by some compromise for holes in Eastern Europe, it can also be done by the same model. It just seems to me that the same principle for filling holes needs to be applied. Only a opinion :-)

YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 716
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#119 Post by YoMomma » Nov 10 2018

Balthagor wrote:
Nov 10 2018
Zuikaku wrote:
Nov 10 2018
Sorry guys, I just don't know what to say since I just disagree with you. While I'm all in for giving regions every local designs they have in real life, I'm against for them being able to build somebody other's designs just for the sake of "balancing" or becouse somebody feels his specific region is not enough rich with designs.
For the record, this is also my opinion.
Then why dont you delete air production in Netherlands, Belgium, etc. and remove F16 design from them? And clean up the unit database?
Realistic game... where every country in middle east and southern america share their designs because of engine limitations. We already got atleast 2 scenarios of that, with complaints that there are unrealistic winners of the wars.
Gameplay 1st

User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 19952
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: T region group,East Europe Countries,Serbian teh tree.

#120 Post by Balthagor » Nov 10 2018

YoMomma wrote:
Nov 10 2018
Then why dont you delete air production in Netherlands, Belgium, etc. and remove F16 design from them? And clean up the unit database?
We do make corrections when people find actual errors;
... Netherlands were one of the four European Participating Air Forces, and one of 5 countries to build the F-16 locally....
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article8.html
...February 1978, the first European F-16 assembly line opened at SABCA, followed by the first flight of a Belgian-built F-16 on December 11, 1978...
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article2.html
milivoje02 wrote:
Nov 10 2018
...A bunch of countries in game are producting A F 16,F15,Mig 29,Mig 25...And in reality they only buy aircraft that were manufactured in USA and Russia...
If this is the case, then you've found an error that we should correct and remove those designs. The F-16 for example should be known by the US, Belgium, Netherlands and South Korea at the start IIRC. Who else has the design?

Other regions can do the same by trading for the unit designs. I think our AI already does this but it could be tweaked to offer designs more often. As a player, I'm happy to ask for the designs I want. For AI regions we could make them request designs more often from other AIs if there is a belief that would improve gameplay.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”