Zuikaku's mod

Post mods you have finished or are working on here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Yes Altay is not set as researched.

Im definetely no unit expert like you, so if you wanna fix what people report here that would be great.

If you compare SR2020 with ultimate you will see lots of missing units. That's how i know there are alot of units "missing". I think SR2020 detected all units from the default.unit file and Ultimate from the CVP file.
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Zuikaku »

YoMomma wrote:Yes Altay is not set as researched.

Im definetely no unit expert like you, so if you wanna fix what people report here that would be great.
Just report errors and I'll do what i can and know to do.
Please teach AI everything!
User avatar
Anthropoid
Colonel
Posts: 416
Joined: Dec 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Anthropoid »

Congrats on your successful mod Zuikaku :)
Tnarg
Colonel
Posts: 278
Joined: Feb 06 2008

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Tnarg »

Zuikaku, excellent update. I updated your latest 1.19 to sandbox 2020 and noticed that the Crimea is independent and the Ukraine loves Russia. Does your mod effect any of this?

Also your your changes to the T-14, so glad this is available to the Russians at the start, curious though, pretty much all of the stats of the T-14 are almost double of the T-80, T-12, even some the unresearched M1 series such as the M1A3 and up. Is the T-14 really that much of a beast, I know it's good, but this thing is an animal compared to other tanks in game.

I think there has been a discussion on the old Cold War Moskva helicopter carrier before. I know that it wasn't that great, but considering all of the ASW choppers it carried one would think its ASW detection, ASW attack range, combat time might be a bit higher than some of the other Russian ships of that era. Or maybe to have the ability to accommodate a helicopter squadron. Just a thought.

And finally, the Kilo class diesel subs. It seems like every book I read that deals with modern naval warfare, the Kilos are a deadly killer due to how stealthy they were, not nessisarily as powerful as the modern Alphas and Akulas, but mostly super quiet.

Love to hear your thoughts or any one else's thoughts on any of this.

Again great mod, one that I can not play without!
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Zuikaku »

Tnarg wrote:Zuikaku, excellent update. I updated your latest 1.19 to sandbox 2020 and noticed that the Crimea is independent and the Ukraine loves Russia. Does your mod effect any of this?
Thank you! My mod does not have any effect on region relations. Everything that i changed is listed in the changelog. So, not my fault :D
Tnarg wrote: Also your your changes to the T-14, so glad this is available to the Russians at the start, curious though, pretty much all of the stats of the T-14 are almost double of the T-80, T-12, even some the unresearched M1 series such as the M1A3 and up. Is the T-14 really that much of a beast, I know it's good, but this thing is an animal compared to other tanks in game.
Well, it's very hard to determine excact survivability and armour values for tank that is mostly unknown by now, but I have calculated in following values, presuming they are correct:
- afganit active protection system
- new generatin of ERA armour
- new generation of basic armour
- tank is unusually heavy for russian design
- turret is unmaned, so more armour is available for protecting the rest of the chassis
- crew is located in heavily protected and armoured capsule
- new generation of gun with autoloader and advanced ammo
- improved sensors
- improved situational awareness for crew and datalink to other units/vehicles/HQs

Ofcourse, we don't know if it is that good (might be) or is it failure. do you feel it disbalances the game too much?
Tnarg wrote: I think there has been a discussion on the old Cold War Moskva helicopter carrier before. I know that it wasn't that great, but considering all of the ASW choppers it carried one would think its ASW detection, ASW attack range, combat time might be a bit higher than some of the other Russian ships of that era. Or maybe to have the ability to accommodate a helicopter squadron. Just a thought.
the problem is I don't know if BGs calculated helicopter component or not. I presume they did since it can not carry short deck aircrafts/helis
Tnarg wrote:
And finally, the Kilo class diesel subs. It seems like every book I read that deals with modern naval warfare, the Kilos are a deadly killer due to how stealthy they were, not nessisarily as powerful as the modern Alphas and Akulas, but mostly super quiet.
I'll check the Kilos, their stealth seems somewhat lower than ones of contemporary western designs.
Please teach AI everything!
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Russia is just way ahead of western nations where almost everyone made cuts on their military budget. T14 is pretty much correct i think and it ads a nice challenge as long Russia doesnt commit suicide straight from the start. Takes a long time to build.
Gameplay 1st
Tnarg
Colonel
Posts: 278
Joined: Feb 06 2008

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Tnarg »

Jesus, glad I'm not a tanker anymore. T-14 makes the M1A1HC seem like a Tiger to a Sherman.
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Nerei »

A "few" comments about the Armata.

Sorry for a wall of text. I tend to get carried away. Sorry about this but it was fun doing research so I hope you will all forgive me for this post that got a bit larger than planned.

TL;DR The Armata is good but it does not look like the miracle the stats makes it out to be. It has a weight advantage/disadvantage depending on how you look at it and that affects both positively and negatively. It's armour does not appear to be much better than a 15 tonne heavier vehicle but it is faster, easier to transport. Unless someone has the numbers numbers for the brand new Russian or US shells the only thing we can say is that the Armata has a better rate of fire but still only 32 shells in the autoloader.
Sensors are in part going to be used for combined force operations. Given we do not know exactly what say the Merkava 4 or K2 sensor suite can do we cannot really say if the Armata is that much better here or for that matter how much better it is (if it is) than the SEP upgrade for the M1.

///Weight///

It is not really "that" heavy by any standards. According to wikipedia it is either 49 tonne with Urban survival kit or over 50 tonne. That is only a few tonnes heavier than the T-90. Tanks like the Abrams, Leopard 2 and Merkava are in the mid 60's. Lower weight tends to mean thinner armour. Given that the Armata is not really smaller than other MBT's that is almost certain to be the case. Other sources say it is around 48000kg. The T-90MS is pretty much also that weight.

///Armouring///

Going by the numbers I can find the Armata is not really stronger than say the Abrams against explosive weapons such as Anti-tank missiles with an estimated 1200m-1400m RHAe (Rolled homogeneous armour, a standard way to measure) vs 1300-1600mm. It is likely not much better (if at all) against say man portable weapons than the Abrams (active hard kill protection might help but we will get to that).
It is better than the M1A1 number I can find for APFSDS (Armour piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot which is to say against kinetic attacks) with 1000-1100mm RHAe vs 800-900mm RHAe. Mind all M1 numbers are for a M1A1 from 2002.
Finding good information for a M1A2 with TUSK II is much harder though so an accurate comparison is harder to do but it does not exactly dominate that 14 year old tank that much.

However if the US have continued improved it in comparable ways to how the M1 was improved from the Gulf war in 1991 where it was 600-700mm RHAe then the Armata really does not have any advantage against kinetic weapons.
So it may be better at taking a shot from another tank with kinetic weapons than the Abrams or it may not. If we can find numbers for a 2016 M1A2 TUSK II Abrams we might know.

The disclaimer here is that I used numbers for the front armour of a M1A1 turret but I have no idea where the T-14 protection is from. Front turret is the most likely though (I doubt Russia would give us anything but their best numbers which have to be the turret and that kind of protection anywhere else on a 48 tonne vehicle seems unlikely).

That said I am definitely giving the M1 the win against explosive weapons such as HEAT which tends to be used in quite a few places. For kinetic attacks it is less clear given we do not have contemporary numbers for the M1.


Mind you this is not to say the Armata is badly protected. It is just around 15 tonne lighter than the Abrams while still being the size of a typical MBT. The reduced weight have good sides like higher speed and easier transportation but one of the things you cut to save weight is the armour. Likely it is "the" thing you cut.


One thing to consider though is that the Armata is fairly tall (sources I can find say 3.3m which is significant as in upwards of a metre more than most others if true). Higher profile means easier to spot and that is the first part of hitting it. Throw in the not "that" impressive protection against non-kinetic attacks it might actually be a problem for the Armata.


The numbers I can find for a Leopard 2A6 from around 2005 is around 900mm RHAe against Kinetic weapons and upwards of 1700-1900mm against explosives. Again this is front plating of the turret.

Finding numbers for the Merkava and K2 is proving difficult. Israel and the ROK does not like sharing.

One thing we can definitely say is that the Armata is significantly better than the T-90 especially against kinetic weapons.

///Active protection///

With interception style hard kill active protection the Israeli Merkava 4 has had that for nearly 5 years now and they had been working on it for 10 before that. With their experience I am going to argue theirs is probably quite good.
The RoK is also fitting their tanks with the KAPS which again given their history I think is going to see some effort put into it.
Given that other nations are fielding similar systems that means the Armata should not have a significant advantage over them on this point.

The US is also messing around with the Israeli active protection system so the M1A3 is extremely likely to be well off with both soft and hard kill active protection.
The US also have spend quite a bit on increased protection since the invasion of Iraq so I am not that certain Russia is that much ahead. I definitely doubt the much heavier M1A3 will be inferior to the Armata when it comes to protection as all the improvements of the M1A2 SEP TUSK II and more will have made it into it. It will probably cost like 5 times as much though.
Exactly how good the russian active hard kill system is compared to the ROK, Israeli, and US systems is hard to say but chances are it is not going to be significantly better as all very much appear to see the value of it. Again Israel is already fielding something and have been for years.

As for reactive armour neither the US nor Russia is that forthcoming with their latest experiments in reactive armour but considering the US have invested extensively into it with the TUSK upgrades for their M1's I am not going to just give Russia any clear advantage here.

I might give the Armata some advantage here against the M1A2 as it has a 2 step hard kill protection system but generally not the K2 or Merkava 4. I am not giving it the Armata anything with the hypothetical M1A3. Thicker armour (which have likely seen some upgrades at this point), probably as good active hard and soft kill protection. I would definitely say the M1A3 would be the best protected if probably also by far most expensive vehicle.


//Crew protection///

You can actually argue that this is weight wasted on keeping the crew alive and not on keeping the vehicle in the fight. Yes it might dramatically improve their survivability but what we care about from a game perspective is number of active vehicles. It means nothing if the crew survived if the turret was torn apart by a hit. The vehicle is lost which is what the game care about. Vehicle count has gone down by one.
It is a great thing for the crew, good for morale etc but it is probably not going to do much to keep the vehicle in the fight.
Also Israel have pretty much done this since the Merkava 1 so again I am not sure we can give the Armata special points here without giving it to the Merkava also.

///Turret protection///

Again as with crew protection what we care about is vehicle survival. Lose the turret and the vehicle is out of the fight for a long time. If it is manned or not that important compared to how much punishment it can take. The values I can find for the Armata does not indicate that the front plating for the Armata's turret is significantly better. It is "worse" than a 2002 M1A1 against most man portable, aircraft or helicopter anti-tank weapons which very much is something worth considering as quite critical.


///Weaponry///

Hard to say what is better but considering the US introduced the M829A4 shell for the M256 120mm cannon found in the Abrams in 2016 I am not just going to say the Armata has a significant advantage with shells. The autoloader is interesting but probably not to the point of it having twice as high attack rating. I am not an expert in tank combat but I assume you do not use tank guns as automatic weapons. Especially not if you got a magazine of 32 shells.

///Software sensors etc.///

Not really sure how the Armata is so superior here. Yes it has some fancy features but some of them is for combined force operations. Those are irrelevant for the stats of the vehicle itself. Other nations also upgrade their tanks. The SEP upgrade for the Abrams is one such upgrade. The K2 is from 2014. What makes the sensor package of the Armata so much better than it? Again I cannot find much evidence for the Armata being so superior here.




All this does not mean the Armata is a bad vehicle. It does however not point towards the Armata being this godly armoured vehicle the stats makes it out to be. It is a medium weight MBT that in many ways can compete with much heavier vehicles which definitely is impressive and it does it at a good price too. That alone is worthy of praise.

Personally my favourite tank currently from a combat perspective is the PL-01 given that it has features such as thermal masking and stealth features. If you cannot spot it you cannot hit it either.
Tnarg
Colonel
Posts: 278
Joined: Feb 06 2008

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Tnarg »

Good read Nerei!
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Thing is you are comparing it to all good tanks, Armata got it all and more! Even Thermal stealth like the PL-01 which is just a light tank. It's not just a bit faster, it is alot faster then other tanks. M1 series is just an upgraded cold war version however you like to look at it. No new inventions, just copy cat from their allies or own mistakes.
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Zuikaku »

I knew it will come to this. :D
It's almost impossible to accurately rate any modern weapon since some of the data is secret.
All military analists agree T-14 is next generation tank with unique features. also, it is pretty expensive for the russian tank.

That being said, it is either better than than other contemporary tank designs or it is a complete failure. I decided to go with the benefit of the doubt.
Claiming that it is not anything better than other tanks is somewhat unrealistic, just like claiming that it is some sort of super tank.

Later I'll explain decisions I have made on T-14 later when I get some time.
Please teach AI everything!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Nerei »

Sorry if this is a bit messy and sorry for another long post. This time after looking up a lot of sources I decided to instead just check what the Armata compares to in-game instead. Trust me the results was surprising.

First off consider this:
The Armata is considered for export. Yes the Russian state and Uralvagonzavod is trying to sell the Armata with potential large orders from countries like India at stake. We are talking billions of dollars in arms export. It is to the point where Norinco actually went out of their way call the Armata inferior to their MBT 3000.
Considering this we should regard "everything" said about it as a sales pitch and thus be very skeptical. Not saying we should only be that with what is said about the Armata but it is the vehicle we are statting without knowing what it can actually do (and arguably also not knowing what it is going to compare to but I will get to that mess)
You can add the propaganda value of having the best tank ever here if you want. Something we can add the US have also done with the M1.


///A quick look at stats - Armour focus///
The problem is that the stats are completely broken and at times all over the place. The Armata has ground defences comparable to the M2020 Phaser. That unit is tech level 133 and has 160 hard attack. It is "several" generations of protection ahead of everything else I found at a casual glance...

It has close defence comparable to the M2020C AFCS. That vehicle is tech level 157. It is one of the best armoured vehicles in the game.


There is no justification for that. The armouring for starters is not better than that of a current gen M1A2. The HEAT resistance of the armouring is only around 100mm RHAe better than M1A1's deployed during operation desert storm. I am not even going to consider explaining this with the ERA or Afghanit as it is such ridiculous stats.
Yes by thickness it is better but the Armata is a medium weight vehicle at 48 metric tonnes. The M1 is in the mid 60's.


Also I will go all out crazy with stats in a bit. You have been warned.
First though lets look at the Afghanit. Arguably the most unique part of the Armata.

///Afghanit///
It has the Afghanit active hard kill defence. Basically a shell interception system. That system however is not unique in "any" way. Again both the ROK and Israel has similar.
The Israeli Trophy active defence system even appears to work roughly in the same way.
The US is testing Trophy amongst others for planned deployment in 2017 or 2018. The trophy active defense system is a combat tested system that is proved to be succesful. That is more than we can say about Afghanit.
That 20 year lead the Armata was proclaimed to have in terms of defences at least when it was unveiled in 2015 might be gone after 2 years! Come 2020 the US might very well have tanks with just as good defences as the Armata in terms of active hard kill defences and potentially better armouring as a whole (if likely significantly heavier).

The only thing we can likely give the Armata by 2020 is speed and firepower.
Not much reason to argue about the speed of the Armata. It is very impressive and that they have managed to create a platform that light and fast with the defensive capabilities of the current generation M1. We can argue quite a bit about the firepower of the 2A82-1M found on the Armata. So lets do that.

///A quick look at stats 02 - Weaponry focus///
With regard to firepower how does the Armatas 2A82-1M cannon justify a 32 point hard attack increase over the Rheinmetall 120mm l/55 found on the Leopard 2A6? That cannon only got a 12 point over the l/44 found on say the M1A1?
Is it all down to being able to launch ATGM? If so why is the soft attack also so much higher?

Also again back to stats.

The Armata is a fit for tech level 119 in terms of stats but it does not belong there at all (protection is in many cases in the 130-150 range though). Anyone checked what is around tech level 120? Lets start out looking at some tanks there.

First up the Israeli has the M-01 Migdal:
It has 68 soft attack and 92 hard attack. It is tech level 121.
Seems okay right.

Another example the US M12:
57 soft attack and 80 hard attack. Tech level 118. It is "less" advanced than the Armata. Again okay right.

Well the Armatas 2A82-1M is comparable to a vehicle with a railgun...
Yes tech level 120 is around where we get magnetic guns! It is beyond electrothermal cannons that is a field we are only starting to touch today and certainly will not field for some years. Electrothermal weapons will offer a much more controlled combustion of chemicals than our current day cannons and with this also significantly higher muzzle velocities. That means far more killing potential than anything we can achieve except with much larger bores. Electromagnetic accelerators offers speeds even higher than that.

To build such weapons today we need to accept that the rails will probably warp to the point of being useless in a few shots and are willing to find a firing platform with the output somewhere around that of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier (okay a cruiser sized hull can probably cut it but it is certainly not something we can realistically put on a tank)

For the record the Armata has better protection in quite a few stats than these vehicles. There it is in the phasor to ion cannon range

Basically the Armata has firepower comparable to vehicles with large linear magnetic accelerators. It is comparable to vehicles that fire super-hardened slugs at say over 5km/s. It is to the point that active defence systems such as the Afghanit is completely unable to handle such attacks. They simply go too fast. With all likelihood we do not have any existing armour of any sane thickness that can resist such attacks. Maybe if we build a battleship with modern composite armour it could take the some hits from these cannons.

With regards to weapons we can also say that the vehicles that is has comparable defences to are armed with weapons such as Phasers and Ion cannons. Our battleship can probably not take that kind of hits...


I think that is enough. The Armata is broken in so many ways compared to most other vehicles in the game simple as that. Not saying the other vehicles might not be but the goal should be to have less broken vehicles "not" more.

This is the Armata in game...
Image


Also no the Armata does not have anything comparable the to the BAE ADAPTIV system. What Uralvagonzavod says is their vehicle is "invisible on radar" which for the record I am still looking for any evidence of being true. Without evidence to back this up I consider this highly questionable.
They also say that it is thermally stealthy by putting the components with significant thermal emissions deep inside the hull. Considering the thermal imaging system on 2016 MBT this claim is questionable at best and again not backed up in any way.
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Zuikaku »

For start, let's just say that you are comparing 4th generation tank with 3rd generation of tanks complaining it is overpowered.cWell, it shoul'd be, compared to them.
Secondly, by stating that some other tanks have comparable systems ,so T-14 should not have upper hand over them is somewhat wrong. Shermans were upgraded all the time during the war but insisting they shoul'd have same or very similar stats as Tiger or Panther is just wrong. Being updated is not the same as being new and designed to work from start with advanced components and future upgrades.

That being said, let's go into the details.

- Armata is in tech level similar to german Katze tank. In reality, Katze is not being researched because while Russia invested heavily in tank techs, Germany did not. German player can do that so I do not see any disbalance here.

- Firepower: serial examples are planned to be eqipped with the new 2A83 152 mm gun and to retain ability to launch ATGM missiles from it. Both of these features are not available on any other tank at the moment (not even on T-14 prototypes to be honest, but if we keep in mind that it is said serial examples will have it...). Ability to strike targets beyond gun range is a significant advance over the current MBTs.

- ERA - Malachit is new russian ERA. It probably offers at least some improvements over the previous ERAs. Russians have great experience in their tanks being obliterated in every imaginable way possible (most recently in Syria) so it is very possible they did learn a thing or two. also, T-90s supplied to SAA survived some direct TOW hits.

- if you have big manned turret and 4 crew members, you need a lot of armour to protect big interior of the tank. This results in weight. On the other hand, if you have smaller unmanned turret and 2 crew members, you need to protect smaller volume of interior space which means, you can use more armour to protect less space and still save the weight compared to tanks with big turrets. So any comparations with M1AXs goes down the drain from the start. More weight does not mean better protection here since we are talking about tanks of different generations and design philosophy.

- "soft turret" problem: it is very difficult to know how soft or hard it is untill T-14 become more common or known in combat or captured by someone. Turret seems to be packed with sensors, so T-14 might be highly vulnerable to turret hits, but...

- penetrating hit in unmanned turret in most cases might result in knocking out weaponry or sensors, which effectively cripples tank but improves chance that it will fight another day. On the other hand, hit on the manned turret can result in crew death or mobility kill.

- crew capsule is unique feature of T-14 at the moment. Tank/crew survivability is increased by this.

- active protection may or may not work better than competing APS. We can hardly know that. But APS is here, and Russians have fresh combat experience from Syria. It allegedly protects vehicle even from top attack weapons. Impressive if it really works close that good. I'll be very carefull with any underestimations here.

- T-14 is not invisible or stealthy, but it is designed to have reduced IR, radar and EM visibility. It also uses some form of RAM to achieve this and turret shape is also designed with that on mind. So, again, it can not be compared with older MBTs designed without reduced visibility requirement, cause it is like comparing F-22 with F-15 claiming they can both be stealthy.

- T-14 is only tank at the moment with radar ofthat range and resolution

- T-14 along with british Ajax is only AFV I know at the moment designed to carry, use and cooperate with drones.

- T-14 is somewhat too much depending on external sensors and cameras (I consider this to be weakness)

- T-14 is first MBT designed with intention to eventually become crewless

- tank silhouette hight is not that important as it was in the past. with laser rangefinders, gun stabilizers and digital fire control systems it is not hard anymore to hit the (already detected) target.

Also, Germany started developing new MBT as the answer to T-14 so is it that overpowered? :roll:

I have spent hours researching data on T-14 and it was a very frustrating job to do. Any propaganda BS was not considered into calculating the stats but anyway it is much harder to get stats for the new weapons than for the well known, decades old ones.

Anyway I might lower close defense values which are way off, and slightly tone down ground defense values. But I do not consider firepower to be that much unrealistic.
Please teach AI everything!
Nerei
General
Posts: 1354
Joined: Jan 11 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by Nerei »

I am not going to try and find counter arguments against you. We will just be arguing around each other for an eternity and never reach consensus. Much of it will be down to interpretation anyway.
E.g. to me if a vehicle is permanently knocked out it is dead and it is irrelevant if it is designed to allow the crew to survive the catastrophic destruction of the vehicle. To you that might be different. I guess the problem is we are trying to translate something very complex into a single number.

I do not doubt you have done research on the Armata. I do however doubt you have looked at what you have created in the game. What you have created is a tank that if we translate SRU gear to our world is probably from somewhere around the 2040's to 2050's if not even later.
I am arguing that from the games perspective you have not created a 4th generation MBT but maybe a 6th-7th generation. Exactly where it belongs is hard to say as some of the stats are in the 120 tech level range while others are in the 130-150 range.
The stat jump you have is in many ways comparable to what you have from say a M-46A1 Pershing to a Leopard 2A6 or more.

The tank it is comparable to in the German list is not the JP-1 Katze nor is it the JP-1A1 Katze that appears at the same tech level. I would argue it is not even to the JP-2A1 Katze that appears at advanced tank designs and requires electro-magnetic guns to research. It can only match the Armata in soft attack. It is noticeably worse in most other stats.

You are basically assuming Germany cannot even match the Armata by the time they can field future tech like tanks mounting railguns. Does that not strike you as strange?
You have put an extremely good 120+ tech level tank at a point in the tech tree where every other vehicle including the fictive brand new non-sequentially numbered ones (which if anything is what that tech level should represent) is around 110. As mentioned some of the Armatas stats is more along the tech level 140-150 range.

If there was actually something that could come close to it at advanced tank designs I guess it could be argued that it was just ahead of its time but there really is not by a mile.

Even the Russian tanks found in the advanced tank design nodes is basically junk compared to the Armata. The T-99 found there which carries an electro-thermal cannon is far, far worse in terms of performance. Does Russia produce worse tanks when they get far better technology? That is what the Stats of the Armata says. The Armata should not be better than another Russian tank with access to far better technology.
Before anyone asks yes electro-thermal weapons will be superior to anything in service today and yes that very much includes weapons like the 2A82-1M and 2A83. Electro-thermal weapons will probably be good enough that they will spark a new generation of MBT's all by themselves. An electro-thermal cannon of a similar bore as a conventional one would be far better given all the advantages it brings.

So does the Armata have too high firepower? Well given that it outperforms the Russian electro-thermal cannon armed T-99 by quite a bit my answer from that alone would be yes very much so.


In some ways you have made the Armata "better" than the Laser cannon armed T-16UL Black Bear. You are basically saying Russia cannot match what they can make today in say 30+ years.


You can look at say the Weygand. That is a fictive French tank that appears at Modern tank tech 07. It has tech level 112. 40 soft attack, 64 hard attack and 43 ground defence. That is arguably a tank built around the same situation the Armata is. "We need a brand new tank design".
Why does the Armata outperform that design to this extreme? Are you arguing the French are incapable of designing decent tanks? We do not know that tank no but given that it is at the same tech node and a fictive vehicle we can assume it should be representative for what should be there.
That it is close to all other vehicles there fictive or not in terms of stats gives credence to that.
You have put a tank built around tech level 119+ in a spot where pretty much every single vehicle including all the fictive brand new designs are around tech level 110. Tech level 120 is the realm of fiction. It is the realm where tanks carry railguns which I doubt we are going to be able to do for maybe 20 years. You have made the Armata something that from the games perspective is something we cannot build today.


As for the MGCS well considering in the game Germany and France probably needs to built that, upgrade it a few times and then make a replacement to match the Armata in game in firepower then replace that vehicle and maybe replace that replacement also to match it in protection yes, yes it is overpowered. Again Germany cannot get something as good as what you have created despite mounting railguns on it.
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: Zuikaku's mod

Post by YoMomma »

Altho i find it very interesting to see you guys discuss, mainly what i care about is some sort of game balance, and if you play 2020 alot you know now you finally get the change to compete with Russia. Usually Russia was out of the picture in 1-2 years. Now theres finally a small change to compete with a strong Russia (as long they dont loose all their units as merchant marines).

US and Germany has many examples of units being stronger then 4th-5th generation units later on, so why Russia can't accomplish the same? Because it keeps alot secret? I see the same in Chinese unit designs, they all suck, even the futuristic ones. Not 1 single good IFV or tank. I bet if that happened to US we would see a complaint every other day and it would be fixed within 2 updates.

To me it is not realistic that China and Russia are gone by 2021, while they are the main regions investing alot in military. Besides whats the fun left then? Killing other nato members?
I dont know alot about units, but after 2500 hrs in 2020 era's i know alot about game balance, and right now it may be satisfying to some US players, or maybe even German, but it is very unrealistic. Till Zuikaku launched the T14-15, finally some tension and competition while playing as my own country in a realistic way.
Gameplay 1st
Post Reply

Return to “Modding Show & Tell”