Correcting In-Game Details and Info

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
Spetsnaz Gaming
Captain
Posts: 111
Joined: Nov 01 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Spetsnaz Gaming »

well i can accurately give you whatever notes you ll need about what type of APCs mraps
heres a few examples
ALSO about the t-90
Can probably in the next updated to give the design to egypt? we bought it like early 2017 and are currently building the factory plants to build it
S-SK types.
idk if the btr-152 is in-game but if it is it will be retired by 2020 in favor of RG-32 by south africa
it got transferred into patrol duty nowadays so me myself dont think it should be added
Also is it possible to add the Timsah? *basically have you ever wondered what will a centurion MBT be look like if you converted it into an IFV? yeah thats what you get*
basically in half the arabs arsenal
Also i believe that in one of ur design lists it is already exists irl and been designed and produced since like 1966 which is the Walid
also it could be tricky but the BM-21s we bought the license for them from the USSR and are producing it under the name of *Sakr* if you click on the link of the equipments you would see it in the artys section,same thing applied to the m109 SPH 122 are locally assembled howitzers based on M109A2 chassis, but instead of utilizing the 155 mm gun the 122 mm D-30 gun is fitted in instead.
same thing applied to the GH-52 desgined by us and finland *bought the license* i don t think the GH-52 is in-game however,sometimes im very annoyed at the fact that i practically have no engineering vehicles so just kinda like idk the M88?
thats basically it im not tending to put any more pressure
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Nerei »

Balthagor wrote: @Nerei - Don't we have something in the tech tree for GMLRS? Sounds familiar...
You got a technology called GMLRS. From what I can tell it does in itself not lead to any new units (at least not for the US). The followup tech Future MLRS does.
Also there is unit 4590 called the "M320 GLRS" which I assume is using guided munition. That is however a fictive futuristic unit. It also has less than half the range that such a unit will have as it would probably be using M31+ (or GMLRS+) rockets that according to Lockheed Martin has at least a 50km range increase over the current M31 rockets 70km range.

Also according to Lockheed Martin the current upgrade to the M270 to GMLRS standard directly involves The United States, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. On top of that it has been sold to Bahrain, Japan, Jordan, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.
That is from a 6 year old publication so I guess it could have changed but chances are a significant number of these M270 operators have had their vehicles upgraded.

Note: While Israel is neither a partner nor a buyer of GMLRS it does not mean Israel is using cold war munition. Instead relying domestic rocket production. Turkey is also making their own version of GMLRS.


The annoying part is that there is no way to simulate ammunition upgrades short of a new unit. M270 with GMLRS upgrade probably needs to be represented in some way as right now all M270 units are using cold war ammunition.
The M26A1/A2 rockets where designed in the 1990's and offer a nearly 50km range but with reduced submunition payload. The only difference between the A1 and A2 variant is the A1 is using the new M85 submunitions while the A2 uses the old M77 which has a larger dud percentage.


The simplest way would probably be to just use the A1 variant of the M270 to represent M270 GMLRS. It will fix the problem with the US right away as the US army will only have M31 rockets in 2020 (and in-game only uses the M270A1). The rest of the above mentioned nations would need to use it though.

The problem is it is not entirely accurate. The M270A1 predates GMLRS. You should however only notice it if you play from 1949.


The more accurate approach would be to keep the M270 as is to represent the base vehicle designed during the cold war armed with the old cold war M26 rocket.

The A1 variant would use the upgraded M26A1/A2 rocket which means 48km range but reduced attack values given that this is a case of reducing the payload for increased range. Probably a 10-20% reduction as the M26A1 has a 20% reduction in submunitions but the M85 has a lower dud rate than the M77.
I am not sure the US sold M26A1/A2 rockets so unless a foreign buyer of the M270 makes their own like Israel does they would probably be using the old cold war M26 rocket.

Add a M270 GMLRS. Range would be 70km and it would probably have a noticeable damage increase over the M26 rocket due to more accurate fire. Lockheed Martin refers to it as the 70km sniper.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Nerei »

Also with the T-90 you really need 2 new units. Currently we have the T-90S (ID 2295) and T90MS (ID 2399). Those are downgraded export versions not intended for the Russian army.
The Russian army does not use either of them instead using the T-90A and T-90AM. I am not sure if it would be better to use the current T-90S/MS stats to represent the domestic or export version of the T-90. That would really depend on the stats for other vehicles.

I do however wonder why Egypt would be buying the old T-90S variant instead of the more modern T-90MS but indeed most sources I can find points towards it being the old T-90S.
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by number47 »

Nerei wrote:
Balthagor wrote: @Nerei - Don't we have something in the tech tree for GMLRS? Sounds familiar...
You got a technology called GMLRS. From what I can tell it does in itself not lead to any new units (at least not for the US).
There are couple of technologies including GMLRS withing game that increase your rocket artillery units range by certain percentage (20%, 30%, 40%, etc.). I believe Balth was referring to that...

There is also several technologies that do the same for ballistic artillery units (VLAP tech comes to mind but there is 3-4 for sure)
Last edited by number47 on Nov 20 2017, edited 1 time in total.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
Spetsnaz Gaming
Captain
Posts: 111
Joined: Nov 01 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Spetsnaz Gaming »

Its the T-90S and the t-90SK just saying
And yeah we re poor af already
These mig-35s and ka-52s don t come cheap man.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Nerei »

number47 wrote:
Nerei wrote:
Balthagor wrote: @Nerei - Don't we have something in the tech tree for GMLRS? Sounds familiar...
You got a technology called GMLRS. From what I can tell it does in itself not lead to any new units (at least not for the US).
There are couple of technologies including GMLRS withing game that increase your rocket artillery units range by certain percentage (20%, 30%, 40%, etc.). I believe Balth was referring to that...

There is also several technologies that do the same for ballistic artillery units (VLAP tech comes to mind but there is 3-4 for sure)
Sheesh I had totally forgotten that. It does however still not solve the problem.
I have never actually checked how it works so here is also a bit of guesswork.

The GMLRS M30/M31 rockets has around 110% range increase over the basic M26 rocket and GMLRS+ is pretty close to 300%. 20% and 40% increase does not get close to what it should be.

Assuming they stack (e.g. [range] * 1.2 * 1.4) GMLRS tech gives the M270 a range of 54km or a bit more than upgraded M26 rocket (ER-MLRS) achieved in the mid 1990's.

Assuming they do not stack and just a apply a flat 20% or 40% range increase the GMLRS tech actually falls short of the M26A1 upgrade by about 3km meaning GMLRS tech would be inferior to the real work US ER-MLRS in terms of range. That is a bit less than great.

The fictive, futuristic M320 GLRS is not exactly much better. At best it managest to only fall around 25km short of GMLRS+ (or 25km over the M31) coming in at around 95km, at worst it barely manages to beat GMLRS (by 8km).
Keep in mind that is pretty much the best US rocket artillery.

Finally the greatest improvement for GMLRS is probably accuracy. The similar Israeli Romah guided missile (also fired from the M270) apparently has an accuracy down to 10m. It only have as 35km range though but for a weapon with active guidance that is definitely possible to scale up to 70 or 120km.
Guided muntion is more likely to hit the target which I would say would should probably translate into improved damage.
Other more hard to represent improvements is that it makes shooting on the move far more doable meaning the units are less susceptible to counter artillery fire.

GMLRS (and similar) is much more than making M26 rockets go further.
Yes I know we should take claims from companies like Lockheed Martin and IMI with a bit of scepticism but guided munition should still be far more accurate then unguided and hitting a target is the first step to destroying it.

Spetsnaz Gaming wrote:Its the T-90S and the t-90SK just saying
And yeah we re poor af already
These mig-35s and ka-52s don t come cheap man.
The SK variant is just a command version of the standard T-90S. Considering units are 44 vehicles strong it would very likely just be considered part of the regular T-90S unit.

Personally my guess is that the price Egypt has to pay for local manufacture is amongst other having to accept an older tank. Just like all other countries russia likes to keep jobs at home so exporting them will cost you. That is assuming they will even accept it.
From what I understand Uralvagonzavod is producing Indias T-90MS in Russia and only the S variant being produced locally.

It is also a matter of priority. Had Egypt not bought Vladivostok and Sevastopol from France in 2015 for nearly a billion euros they would have had enough to buy T-90MS instead of the older T-90S.
Spetsnaz Gaming
Captain
Posts: 111
Joined: Nov 01 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Spetsnaz Gaming »

*We already bought the license,russia accepted it.*
1-Where are you from?
2-Well either no offense u ve been living under a rock or simply do not know this fact,these 2 helicopter carriers are going to be stationed in libya and yemen that is when the ka-52s arrive in full numbers
You see we bombed libya using our newly acquired f-16 block 52
killed around 80 militants and 3 leader figure heads
Recently older block 39 f-16cs bombed concentrations of terrorists near our border
You know where im going.
Actually i believe i remember an american citizen commenting saying the following lines i believe:
*What is egypt going to do with these 2 helicopter carriers/Amphibous assault vessels? They re all savages xd*
Me:Well when america has a border with armed jihads,come talk with me later.
you see These 2 helicopter carriers *speaking in a formal nutshell way now* could easily be *parked* outside these 2 nation s coordinating with the goverments and countries to strike what these countries command,about the Mig-35,its not really an issue we probably have the 1# Airforce *in terms of equipment and training* in Africa and either #2 or #1 *#1 is *Disputed* yeh yeh ik most of ur air pilots having 1k hours either sitting in an f-16 39 40 or 52 block doesn t mean ur airforce is op
Same thing applies to Dassault rafale and other heavily modernized aircrafts,my brother himself had the pleasure of he and his other fellows to travel to russia,penza to get the blueprints and how to maintenance stuff training in him in a nutshell and i had 2 things to say about it
1-God damn son that town looks beautiful
2-So ur saying u ll *PROBABLY* work on the new mig-35s alongside ur other 100+ or so fellows?
Too much said already.
dax1
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 511
Joined: Apr 05 2012
Human: Yes
Location: Italy

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by dax1 »

Nerei wrote:
Add a M270 GMLRS. Range would be 70km and it would probably have a noticeable damage increase over the M26 rocket due to more accurate fire. Lockheed Martin refers to it as the 70km sniper.
yeah!
the Italian 5th Regiment "Superga" test the new MLRS-Improved (GMLRS Unitary M31A1) in Sweden.
It is able to center point targets at distances between 15 and 70 kilometers with a margin of error of few meters, and with a slightly lower accuracy, but still very high, the maximum throw rises to about 100 kilometers.
Con forza ed ardimento
Spetsnaz Gaming
Captain
Posts: 111
Joined: Nov 01 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Spetsnaz Gaming »

*That moment when that specific guy ignored ur very specific post*
feels bad man.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Balthagor »

No one is required to respond to anything, don't push.

This thread is going in lots of directions. I'm going to miss some stuff...

Any changes from this point on will probably be two updates away, we're trying to get an update ready fairly soon.

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.

T-90S/T-90MS (2295 and 2399) - Likely we should redo the entry for 2295 as a T-90A and then add a new T-90S entry. Then Egypt should have 1 batt of this new ID in inventory and know the design. Correct?

What's the upgrade path and introduction dates of T-90A, T-90S and T-90MS?

BTR-152s - we already assumed those would be retired, not in the orbat.

That's as much as my brain can handle in one post. Ask again for anything I missed.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Spetsnaz Gaming
Captain
Posts: 111
Joined: Nov 01 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Spetsnaz Gaming »

1-I didnt mean to hurt anyones feeling i was being sarcastic
2-Its Ok if you miss some stuff,its human nature
3-Bout the T-90S i Probaaaably tend to agree,should only have 1 batt with the desgin
3-the introduction date when russia brought this monster of steel to the world? or when we bought the license+ordered 500 of them?
Im just going to name both for the sake.
Russia introduced the t-90 introduced in 1993 and in 2004 the T-90A
Dunno when was the T-90S and SK version thou
BUT if you meant for when we bought the license and order,i believe we ordered them in early 2017
*jan i believe*
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22082
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Balthagor »

I was looking for the initial production date for each design. Thanks.

I've flagged the T-90 set for review.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Zuikaku »

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.
Please teach AI everything!
Spetsnaz Gaming
Captain
Posts: 111
Joined: Nov 01 2017
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Spetsnaz Gaming »

its not about adding sub-types or what
Its adding the t-90S Desgin To egypt,And idk if the mistral is in in-game but if it is it should *prooooooobably* get added too
Im just talking About what desgins and what units should go who,i just added the T-90SK for a fact thats all
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Correcting In-Game Details and Info

Post by Zuikaku »

Spetsnaz Gaming wrote:its not about adding sub-types or what
Its adding the t-90S Desgin To egypt,And idk if the mistral is in in-game but if it is it should *prooooooobably* get added too
Im just talking About what desgins and what units should go who,i just added the T-90SK for a fact thats all
I was not talking about Egypt at all! Where was the Egypt mentioned in my last post? Was just reffering to Balthagor's comment to see if T-90A needs to be included into unit database.

And also I do not think that Mistral shoul'd be known design to Egypt. Egypt bought 2 Mistrals but did not bought license to build them and is not able to build them. Only 2 Mistral class units shoul'd be added to Egypt (if they are not already).
Please teach AI everything!
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”