Bolt out of the Blue 4.4

[Aaron]

Would you be happier with the 42 JDR. :cool:

Aaron

[JDR Dragoon]

Would you be happier with the 42 JDR. :cool:

Aaron

I was merely a bit puzzled that the polish MI-2 AT variant had such a high HA value. Especially given the fact that the soviet army fased out the (improved) AT3 missile to 2nd line units in favor of what they perceived to be better, more capable and modern missiles. Only the dirt poor east bloc countries had the AT3C in firstline service by the end of the 80s.

But since the 45 HA value was obviously made as a part of a reasoned and informed estimate you should retain it if you think it to be correct. Perhaps the AT3c really was/is a great missile with almost the same firepower potential as the AT6, that has only gotten a bad reputation due to scurrilous armsdealers wishing to peddle their latest wares? :cool2:

[Aaron]

Almost all my values can swing either way, so the 45 or 42 doesn't make a difference to me because for me their both correct and it was my call to take the higher of the 2. I agree the AT-3 (400mm) was crap and most BMP-1s still used it by the end of the 80s that wernt upgraded to P standard, the AT-3C(520mm) was better but still wasnt up to even the original TOW (600mm) numbers and for the most part only was used on the BRDMs and by 89 was in second line Soviet units and WP minors because of money issues. Even the AT-5(650mm) and AT-6 didnt reach the numbers from ITOW (800mm), it wasnt intill the early 90s that the Russians caught up to Western standards starting with the AT-5B(925mm). The 45 or 42 is mostly based on firing platform and then the last little bit on the missile itself. A long story short the 42 is good for me. Below is the ATGM study thats ongoing with what the values will most likely end up being after the next update, a note their will be a couple additional vehicle variants added to the game like the BMP-1P and 2 different ITV variants, most of the other will be depending on what missile they had, ITOW or TOW2 for example.

Aaron

GM PM 18 5 27 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 12 4 15 0 ITOW HMMWV
GM PM 18 5 30 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 12 4 15 0 TOW2 HMMWV
GM PM 9 4 21 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 16 0 9P122 (AT-3)
GM PM 9 4 24 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 16 0 9P133 (AT-3C)
GM PM 9 4 29 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 16 0 9P148 (AT-5)
GM PM 12 4 33 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 16 T VAB (HOT2)
GM TRK 16 5 33 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 17 4 16 T FV102-Striker
GM MOT 8 4 27 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 12 4 14 0 ITOW Jeep
GM MOT 8 4 30 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 12 4 14 0 TOW2 Jeep
GM TRK 16 4 33 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 16 4 15 T YPR-765 PRAT (TOW2)
GM TRK 12 5 30 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 19 4 14 T Jaguar 2 (TOW2)
GM TRK 12 5 27 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 19 4 14 0 Jaguar 1 (HOT)
GM TRK 12 4 27 1 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 14 0 M113A1-B-MIL (MILAN2)
GM PM 12 4 27 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 15 0 BRM (ITOW)
GM PM 18 4 27 1 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 15 0 BRM (Milan2)
GM TRK 12 5 30 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 14 0 M901-ITOW
GM TRK 12 5 33 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 14 T M901A1-TOW2
GM TRK 16 4 30 1 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 17 4 16 0 FV103-Spartan (MCT)
GM TRK 18 5 26 2 0 4 1 0 2 0 0 14 4 14 0 BTR-RD

*****Note**** before you ask the question the AT-5 has a base rating of 26 but all vehicles with 5+ ready to fire missiles got a +3 bonus, so thats where the 3 point jump comes in for the BRDM variants. -3 on Platforms that only had 1 ready to fire missile.

T--- in the last value means Thermal, ? im still looking


BTR60/70/80------HA 18 +0
BMP-1------------HA 21 -2
BMP-1P-----------HA 26 +3
BMP-2------------HA 26 +0
BMD-1------------HA 21 -2
BMD-1P-----------HA 26 +3
BMD-2------------HA 26 +0

[Indragnir]

Aaron,

I've just checking 4.4 I was shocked at first with AIFV higher defense in T-Mode than deployed, later figured what you wanted.

But my main concern (after some tests) is a lot of NATO units being companies or 2 companies combined, they took fatigue too fast and the uncombinable coy it's a easy prey for WP concentrated fire power. Let me explain: a Marder/M113 units (2 Marder coys, 1 M-113 coy) in a "standard" combined Bn can took 150 casualties and you still have 3 coys. In your mod, if I direct the fire against the M-113 I will destroy it forever.
Later, as your Marder 2 coys combined they take fatigue TWICE times faster than a "standard" combined Bn, not to mention the helpless coy, three times faster.

Since you've plenty of Bn (infantry and tanks) in the OOB I think it could unbalance the game, mainly in the long run.

Have you think into combining the Bn again or make Coys into Bn size to avoid increased fatigue (somewhat compensating NATO weakness against concentrated fire).

Bests
César

[Taffy6]

What about redesignating NATO companies in those situations (ie, the x2 Marder, x1 M113 PzGren Bn) as "kampfgruppes"?

Seems I remember a FG85 campaign mod called Fulda Gap 81 (by Mark Breed?) which handled this dilema by modding the OOB as such:

" Company-sized Formations – Certain units of company size have an asterisk at the end of their name. These formations are coded as “Kampfgruppe” in the Order of Battle file. This was done so that they would not be penalized by the rules concerning fatigue and units designated as company or platoon. Many of these are specialized formations that normally operate as a company level formation and it did not seem appropriate to penalize them for their doctrinal employment (i.e. the ATGM battery of a motorized rifle regiment)."

Would this fix the phenomenon?

Regards,

Taffy

[Aaron]

Hey César and Taffy ive avoided this in most spots and with new info the British Warrior units will be full Bns next update but less Bns of Warriors so for the most part all thats left is the WGERM units and some engineers. It hasnt unbalanced the game but i do agree i have never liked it but in this case i felt it was to important not to represent the M-113 companies, i think a simple solution is to make them a 2 company Bn and move the M-113 companies over like is done with the British Scorpion/Scimitar recon units at Regt/Bn level. As for the “Kampfgruppe” idea ive never seen it and would have to try it out, id like to change the engineer units that ended up this way also because of the bridgeing units.

Aaron

[Indragnir]

Aaron,

Can you tell how far is the new update? I'm thinking about a team game, now I know my main concerns could be fixed I just want to know.

Bests
César

[Aaron]

I have to say awhile, earliest 1 month but probably longer. As the game matures the ideas/to do list gets either more complicated or more impossible to find good info so it just takes longer and longer researching different ideas and or changes, ive got so many little research projects going right now and some have been going for 3 months that i was thinking to myself theres alot to be done. The changes in the game are small and dont take long to change but the research is taking forever. My to do list is very small though now and i have been researching EVERYTHING left on it.

Its up to you, it runs and it runs great.

The bigger things that im working on:
1.Amphib or not (not going so well)
2.Thermal or not (done)
3.ATGM units (see post above) (done)
4.adjustment to APC/IFV def values (done)
5.WMDs (about done)
6.British OOB (done, finally believe weve got it)
7.Addition of the BMP-1P to the game (almost done)
8.Security/MP/Grenz units reorg (half complete)
9.changing bridgeing units to INF from vehicles (done)

and

10.elimination of broken Bns (done)

B 1926 3 PzGrenBtl 302
Begin
C. 1982 INF TRK 145 5 29 1 0 19 1 0 8 1 0 40 22 15 1024 2.Kp/PzGren 302, Marder
C. 1983 INF TRK 145 5 29 1 0 19 1 0 8 1 0 40 22 15 1024 3.Kp/PzGren 302, Marder
End
KG. 1984 INF TRK 145 4 24 1 0 15 1 0 7 1 0 28 18 14 4 4.Kp/PzGren 302, (M113)

or list the M-113 as Bn i dont think i will matter
i did remember another unit like this though, the French AMX-10P, AMX-30 regts

Aaron

[Aaron]

Just downloaded Fulda 81, never seen it before but yes that KG would come in handy in many spots, for one a WP eng unit has 3 separate companies and if i list them all as KG it would eliminate the penalties and help them survive, i noticed he also had 2 hour days and 3 hour nights (great idea) i also noticed he had 600 stacking limit for roads and deployed, WOW. Ive got mine at 1000 and 1500 but thought about making both 1000. Enough for 1 Battalion and a support unit of art/AT eng company or something for Nato and 1 mot reg and 1 tank reg for the WP.

Aaron

[Taffy6]

Aaron, just wanted to say thanks for a great mod. The DF85 Bolt mod is fantastic and getting more fantastic.

BTW, you might also consider using the KG idea with the divisional and corps-level recon/cavalry formations too if the method works.

Kudos!

Taffy