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

General discussion related to the game goes here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 481
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes
Location: Belgrade, RS

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

Post by milivoje02 »

Has anyone noticed this bag for missiles?
no matter what country you take there is no no picture for missiles.
picture 0001.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2393
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

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

Post by Zuikaku »

Algeria produced the same impressive number of T-90s as Netherland produced Leopard 2s - 0.
And you want Algeria (and together with it all of the Z region) to be able to produce T-90s.
Following the same logic, Saudi Arabia is expected to be able to produce most of the US, UK, French or Russian designs. Along with all other members of Z regional group.
Why all that? So that small regions "woul'd have a better chance"?! So, basically, all the regions are supposed to be equalized? Hope that BGs won't accept that!

Right now we got far too many of AARs which are basically about "how the Iceland/Andorra/Malta conquered the world (using exploits)", so I guess it is still far too easy to play smaller regions.
I have tried to defend Yugoslavia against Germany ('41) and I have tried to defend Syria from US, and Tibet from China and Mexico against US. Even when using famous stacks of death/doom I have failed since even against the AI I was outproduced and outresearched (was not using cheats and tried not to exploit the game). And I'm sure that this needs to stay that way. If you are playing small region you can not seriously expect to go to war with US, Russia or China and expect to win on regular basis. Yes, you can put a good fight.

But demanding all of the regions to be "equalized" just for the reason you feel that your favourite or home region is too weak is just not the right thing to do. I demand that I can not conquer the world when playing small region. I demand AI crush me when I do some stupid thing (like declaring war on US while playing Guatemala). And I do not expect to have wide variety of all these nice and shiny unit designs when playing Fiji or Nepal. I don't care about all regions having equal chances. I demand reality where they do not have equal chances. And all after all, unit designs are far to easy to buy, whatever region you are playing, so there is really no lack of designs for any region... except for the AI ones, but AI plays limited with historic choices.
Please teach AI everything!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

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

Post by Nerei »

I would like to stress that I am not arguing for the inclusion of any T-90 designs to region group Z. What I am saying is that if assembling knock-down kits counts as knowing the design the 2018, 2020 and possibly 2017 Algeria should count.

This is largely the same situation as Egypts M1A Abrams. The design is known but the design itself is region group U only.
An even closer comparison is Egypts order of 400 T-90S which will also be locally assembled (most likely also from knock down kits). I would check how that is represented but Egypt has no T-90's in 2020 so it is hard to say exactly if this arms deal is represented or not.


As for the number of Algerian vehicles there currently are from what I can tell 10 full strength units of T-90 MBT''s. That is 440 vehicles. Adding another 2 full strength units would bring it to 528 which is pretty close to what Wikipedia and my math adding up previous arms deals gives.

If Algeria should know the design for the T-90 is another question but I would say that if Egypts far larger M1A1 order back in the 1990's does not count for adding the design to region group Z then this should not either.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2393
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

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

Post by Zuikaku »

Nerei wrote: Nov 06 2018 I would like to stress that I am not arguing for the inclusion of any T-90 designs to region group Z. What I am saying is that if assembling knock-down kits counts as knowing the design the 2018, 2020 and possibly 2017 Algeria should count.

This is largely the same situation as Egypts M1A Abrams. The design is known but the design itself is region group U only.
An even closer comparison is Egypts order of 400 T-90S which will also be locally assembled (most likely also from knock down kits). I would check how that is represented but Egypt has no T-90's in 2020 so it is hard to say exactly if this arms deal is represented or not.


As for the number of Algerian vehicles there currently are from what I can tell 10 full strength units of T-90 MBT''s. That is 440 vehicles. Adding another 2 full strength units would bring it to 528 which is pretty close to what Wikipedia and my math adding up previous arms deals gives.

If Algeria should know the design for the T-90 is another question but I would say that if Egypts far larger M1A1 order back in the 1990's does not count for adding the design to region group Z then this should not either.
You are talking about licence building. In the game that is "buying unit design". But assembling (tanks from the delivered kits) is not the same as licenced production so I'm still against Algeria being able to produce them.
Please teach AI everything!
User avatar
milivoje02
Colonel
Posts: 481
Joined: Oct 22 2018
Human: Yes
Location: Belgrade, RS

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

Post by milivoje02 »

Generally, I like to play with weaker countries against the strong because it is a challengeI prefer modern scenarios of 2020 + rather than historical,somehow, shopping untis for me is too easy because if you have big supplies money or some other or other good you can in 1 day buy all the units you need,and this gives a sense of cheating and is unrealistic,but that's just my opinion. Somehow I mean, and any region should have it the option to independently becomes competitive in every field of units in futuristic scenario 2020+ (This does not apply to historical ones).
Repairs of Leopard and T 90,is Netherland and Algeria in domestic military production or return them to Germany and Russia for it ? I mean in real life.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

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

Post by Nerei »

Zuikaku wrote: Nov 06 2018 You are talking about licence building. In the game that is "buying unit design". But assembling (tanks from the delivered kits) is not the same as licenced production so I'm still against Algeria being able to produce them.
The problem is that it is pretty darn inconsistant with what constitutes a production license or what allows a region to research a design.

I mean lets take the F-35 as it has already been brought up once. Arguably that could by the same logic be said it should be a US only aircraft possibly with the UK having access to the B variant (which is a stretch but by far the best candidate) and Japan (and possibly Italy) having a production license.

The MiG-25 in region group Z is also a good example as I doubt there where any middle eastern operators that where not entirely dependant on spares from the USSR to maintain their aircraft yet everyone in group Z can research them despite their probably never have been a single case of a MiG-25 being build in that region.

Both of these are probably set by BG too.


It would be great if we could get at least some quidelines from BG as to what they consider a requirement for an arms deal to be considered say a production license and what it takes to .
milivoje02 wrote: Nov 06 2018 Repairs of Leopard and T 90,is Netherland and Algeria in domestic military production or return them to Germany and Russia for it ? I mean in real life.
Likely not but they are likely receiving spare parts from KMW or Uralvagonzavod. In many cases it is that or start to cannibalise vehicles for spares. In particular when buying second-hand vehicles you might buy some simply to serve as spare parts. Cold-war Leopard 2's are a prime example of this.

There are plenty of examples of vehicles being discarded due to a lack of readily available spare parts. Australia are planning to discard their Eurocopter Tigers in part due to the problem of shipping spare parts around the world.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

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

Post by YoMomma »

Anyone who reads this topic knows why BG stopped balancing the modern regions. Because this scenarios '36 and CW were made and people are defending these bigger regions like only they can defend the world. Meanwhile we lost all hardcore players and modders from SR2020. In reality it was the Dutch airforce who managed French aircraft to perform operations in Libya because the Dutch airforce got one of the best radar systems and nightvision in the world together with good land intelligence among the local population. F16 in its development adopted improvements from this radar system and nightvision. That's excactly why F35A should be made in Netherlands, i dont care if it is 1 or 10, 1 is alot for some, but the technology is available in Netherlands. No one here talks about Guatemala or Nepal. And for my part it would be more interesting to see all partners from JSF having the aircraft. So i dont face these CW or 36 planes later in game.

I managed to win from Germany many times, wether it was in the first year or 5 years later, all i want is better gameplay.
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2393
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

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

Post by Zuikaku »

milivoje02 wrote: Nov 06 2018 Generally, I like to play with weaker countries against the strong because it is a challengeI prefer modern scenarios of 2020 + rather than historical,somehow, shopping untis for me is too easy because if you have big supplies money or some other or other good you can in 1 day buy all the units you need,and this gives a sense of cheating and is unrealistic,but that's just my opinion. Somehow I mean, and any region should have it the option to independently becomes competitive in every field of units in futuristic scenario 2020+ (This does not apply to historical ones).
Repairs of Leopard and T 90,is Netherland and Algeria in domestic military production or return them to Germany and Russia for it ? I mean in real life.
But if you play weaker regions, buying (modern) military units is very expensive and you'll have hard time to get the cash needed (unless you cheat or exploit).
Futuristic units are available to all regions.

And most of the countries that buy military equipment are capable to maintain and perform regular repairs (including moderate battledamage). Spare parts are usually supplied along the purchased weapons (that are military goods in the game).
Please teach AI everything!
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2393
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

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

Post by Zuikaku »

YoMomma wrote: Nov 06 2018 Anyone who reads this topic knows why BG stopped balancing the modern regions. Because this scenarios '36 and CW were made and people are defending these bigger regions like only they can defend the world. Meanwhile we lost all hardcore players and modders from SR2020. In reality it was the Dutch airforce who managed French aircraft to perform operations in Libya because the Dutch airforce got one of the best radar systems and nightvision in the world together with good land intelligence among the local population. F16 in its development adopted improvements from this radar system and nightvision. That's excactly why F35A should be made in Netherlands, i dont care if it is 1 or 10, 1 is alot for some, but the technology is available in Netherlands. No one here talks about Guatemala or Nepal. And for my part it would be more interesting to see all partners from JSF having the aircraft. So i dont face these CW or 36 planes later in game.

I managed to win from Germany many times, wether it was in the first year or 5 years later, all i want is better gameplay.
Destroying Libya was a fine example of unprovoked agression on the technically and military inferior nation, beating of the dead horse that can not defend itself, so I doubt that quality of anyones radar systems was of critical value (although the French that led the agression showed their inabillity (or incompetence) to finish off the libyan army by themselves (but that was more matter of lacking logistics than technology). And then many cuntries rushed themselves in for their share of this disgracefull PR stunt.
But on the topic, if you give F-35 to all the participants of the JSF project, then all of the Europe woul'd be able to build it. OK, almost all of the Europe.

And how can you balance modern regions if they are not balanced at all in real life? Why they have to be balanced?
Only better AI will give us better gameplay. These balnacing and reshuffling of units have only a very limited effect.
Please teach AI everything!
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

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

Post by YoMomma »

Im not talking about politics just real facts. You are confusing 2 things, real life and game. In game France is in perfect condition.

Well first of all F35 should be removed from E, it can stay with D since Belgium also decided it will participate in the project. Second it will be much better to handle this in the .CVP file for local regions instead of region groups. Dumping them on region group only show 1 thing.. lazyness. Regions still need 10-20 techs before they can research it.
Thridly it should have the correct range, instead of 1100 something F35A is 2222 KM range. This way it doesnt blow up too.
Gameplay 1st
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

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

Post by Nerei »

Why should it be removed from E and not D exactly? Turkey is also there as a partner and yes they are contributing to the project just like the Netherlands both in terms of RDT&E funding and parts manufacture (and no those $600M in difference on RDT&E contribution on a $55B project is not a good argument).

You cannot just say that radar is important so that contribution means that the Netherlands should have it but the contributions of the other are not good enough on a project where everyone but the US is basically expendable. Sure it would hurt the project but it definitely would be capable of surviving. At this point the US cannot afford the project to fail so it would happily push on alone if needed.


Belgium is a customer not a partner. If you use that as an argument you open up a whole new line of arguments for who should have the aircraft. If number of bought aircraft is important then consider that Turkey might buy twice the number of aircraft Belgium and the Netherlands plans to acquire combined. Japan, the ROK and Israel are also likely to buy more aircraft than Belgium. Possibly as many as both Belgium and the Netherlands combined.

All that separates them then is that the Netherlands is a tier 2 partner. Is that enough of an argument to go up against say Japan having a domestic assembly line with a far larger number of domestic produced parts (one of the reasons a MHI F-35 is around $30M more expensive) and a larger to much larger planned fleet of aircraft? I would say the argument for Japan is better. If the ROK end up with a domestic assembly line like for the KF-16 it will definitely also have better arguments for inclusion.
There is also Italy which again is the largest partner after the UK

So no I disagree. If E should not have access to it neither should D. The same really for M though there is less of a case for that. If it stays like it is now you pretty much have to add S. Sure Denmark and Norway contribute less than say the Netherlands but all contributions are negligible compared to the US.

If MUDE stays on the F-35A with those argument or it is argued it should be changed to MUD then really the argument is that it should be MUDEHIJKS.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

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

Post by YoMomma »

F35 should be removed from E, because for example France or Germany are not part of the program. They choose for the Eurofighter. Like i said its much better to ignore region groups and handle them individually in the .CVP file. Belgium is not only a costumer, also local business profit from the deal.

Yes, that's what im saying all along, costumers should have the design if you can find the smallest argument and help cloose the gaps. Is US gonna produce that ammount of aircraft for all those partners in game?
Gameplay 1st
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

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

Post by Nerei »

YoMomma wrote: Nov 06 2018 F35 should be removed from E, because for example France or Germany are not part of the program.
Luxemburg is not part of the program either. D is BeNeLux. Yes Belgium has bought the aircraft and if you consider that to be it joining the program then sure but it is exactly the same argument that would put HIJKNS on the region code list (I added N as I forgot about Australia last time and it is a partner).

Again your argument would not be that it should not be MUDE => MUD but MUDE => MUDHIJKNS even if E is removed.
YoMomma wrote: Nov 06 2018 They choose for the Eurofighter.
The Eurofighter program is far older than the F-35 program. First flight of the Eurofighter was in 1994. The F-35 program was started in 1992 with first flight in 2006.
They where part of that program long before anyone even thought of the F-35.
The Eurofighter program had technical issues which is why it took so long to get into service but if we look at say australias F-35 they are probably going to take a long time before they are actually combat ready also.

Edit: Also France does not operate the Eurofighter. It left what would become the Eurofighter 7 years before the F-35 program was even started. The region codes that can build the Eurofighter is EMGHK. France operates the Dassault Rafale in largely the same role.
YoMomma wrote: Nov 06 2018 Like i said its much better to ignore region groups and handle them individually in the .CVP file. Belgium is not only a costumer, also local business profit from the deal.

Except this will leave say Turkey in a far worse position if you start in say 1949 and yes there are people that play from 1949 until they can develop the F-35 but I guess we should just ignore dates before 2017?
Also again Turkey is also a not just a customer but also a partner. A partner that is paying towards RDT&E of the F-35 which I am fairly sure Belgium is not.

Again we can just use this argument just as well to say that D should be stripped from the F-35 as it could just be added individually.
YoMomma wrote: Nov 06 2018 Yes, that's what im saying all along, costumers should have the design if you can find the smallest argument and help cloose the gaps. Is US gonna produce that ammount of aircraft for all those partners in game?
Smallest argument like say potentially 3rd largest customer or a partner of the program?
That is Turkey.

Again I would say if Turkey (E) should be removed from the F-35 so should D and M. You can just as well add the F-35 to Belgium and the Netherlands in the .cvp as you can with Turkey if the desire is that the should have the aircraft in 2017-2020.

You are really stretching it to keep one group in but kicking another one out.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

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

Post by YoMomma »

I really dont care if D stays there or not. I said you can keep it there, not it must stay there. Luxemburg will prolly never have the ability to produce F35, but well if they did incase they got somehow territory from whoever sure they can produce the F35. Belgium will participate in construction of parts for F35.

Like i said Turkey is all partners, so Turkey can also get the design. Can you please stop with this spam? I already said everyone in the program should get the design.

All the region groups you mention im sure there are alot of regions in there not part of the program, so i thought we were going realistic with this. I spend my last saterday adding the F35A to the partners, sure its alot of work. But work pays off.

I dont care about the CW, if you want to investigate that sure go ahead. Let me know how they did it with the F16. Question still remains open is US gonna build all those F35A and sell them for 1B a piece to their partners? How do you think they did it with the F16?
Gameplay 1st
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

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

Post by Nerei »

Oh so now what I am posting is spam? I guess we will consider this argument over and I will just ignore you in the future.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion - SRUltimate”