Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

sorry for stupidity but how do i translate the page to English?

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

It's simple, move into or moving when in LOS of an enemy unit or fire while in LOS and the enemy unit which has you in LOS does a check to see if it will react; if it will act it'll do so in accordance with either the reaction fire range or filter settings set for that unit.

In other words, being in LOS of an enemy unit does not equal being spotted by that specific enemy unit at that specific instant. For example, you're downslope; move 1 (and no more than 1!) hex forward into a wooded hexon the hilltop. You can see the enemy tanks your scouts further forward spotted for you. They don't spot you yet (too far away and they don't have forward scouts). You now fire first at the enemy tank.


Hmm, so either the americans reports are covering up that their tanks were only greatly superior and not vastly superior as their reports would have us believe or the soviet reports are covering up that their main export tank was, by the standards of the day, c**p. Well, I've made my choice...

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

I've made my choice also but I wish I could read it still... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

Hei Anton, it seems that you've got philosophy problem. Tell you what, Marek is the best SP philosopher ever, so just try to read his explanation carefully, slowly, and eagerly so that your philosophy problem can be really solved. Anyway, if you don't like SP, why don't you choose another real time wargame? Like CloseCombat? But as for me, I think wargame that uses real time mechanic, is just another form of football game in PlayStation: the AI goes all over the entire gameplay, you're just given single control of the entire eleven players.

I ALWAYS believe that SP is one of the best Wargames ever. And that believe always make me love SP even though there's such a philosophy problem. Just try to play it over and over again, don't think about the problem, play and play it, and then you'll find SP is the most realistic wargame.

If SP is unrealistic, why then it still stand for more than a decade? Although the graphic is 'old enough'? Why don't you read SP's review over the internet, like this one:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...o=&fpart=1


PS: Hey Marek, long time no see...

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

I don�t think that�s due to it�s "realistic" level. I think it�s because it portaits a table top miniature game quite niceley with the AI doing all the math so you can focus on just playing not interpreting the rules, with far less the trouble of setting a decent table and of course sparing the metal toys, wich you would have to paint (or you can just edith a virtual camo instead http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)

It�s a simulation yes, of a wargame, and I hope It remains standing for a lot of more years to come!:D

Just my $0.02
Keep Cool
Roberto

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

Formula is buried somewhere in the C spaghetti that form the program (no, I haven't seen it and if I did I won't understand it much as a non-programmer) and generally counts with LOS, size, "spotting" unit's accuracy, speed of movement of "spotted" unit (and "spotting" unit as well), suppression of spotting unit... So generally, stationary experienced unit spots moving enemy quite well, OTOH the same unit has much less chance of spotting when it is moving itself. "Green" unit has less chance of reacting immediately as the enemy slowly moves in the LOS even if it is stationary and has very poor chance of spotting enemy position on move even if the enemy is moving.

It seems to me Russian tank export is much wider and much more critical for Russian arms factories, USA supply tanks mostly to "good friends" and in quite favorable conditions that often the term "giving away" might be closer to reality http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Plus USA doesn't export DU rounds much (instead, tungsten variants of DU rounds are being sold) so even less reason to overhype their effectiveness. OTOH, many a tin-pot dictator can get second thoughts about spending money for some T's if he hears the basic T-72M variant he is offered is a dead meat and to make it combat worthy against modern opponent he'd need extensive upgrade that would bring up the cost to the level of say older stock Leopard 2A4 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Remember that "most" might mean "99%" just as well as "slightly over 50%" which is more likely the case, if for no other reason than that there were more TOW carrying vehicles than tanks, but it is a simple fact that T-72 (T-72, T-72M, T-72M1) weren't able to withstand APFSDSDU. Btw in the scenario in question, you can also easily get most vehicle hits with TOW missiles, if you use them for overwatch while limiting M1A1's opfire and use tanks for maneuver (after all that's what they're built for).
The discrepancy between "tanks destroyed by XXX" reports and reality came rather from the over-enthusiastic Air Force reports than from the ground combat, where the winning side usually has the control of the battlefield and can check how does the destroyed enemy equipment look like.

The best propaganda is that which uses truth but not the whole truth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Out of those 20000 rounds (who counted them anyway?) most would be 30mm shots from A-10's GAU-8A gatling or 25mm APDSDU from Bradley (if they were used). Besides there are recorded situations where 120mm DU penetrator passed through sand berm and then T-72 (entered via glacis, exited via rear).
As for radiation sickness, you'd have to make an effort to get it from DU rounds. OTOH, if you stay too long near wreck of military vehicles, you are much more likly to get intoxicated by dense metals (most important being not DU but simple lead from batteries), add to that dense clouds of soot from burning oil wells and all that. The "Gulf War Syndrome", AFAIK, has much closer to symptoms of intoxication than to radiation exposure.

This is the same Suvorov who wrote major fantasies in "Spetsnaz", "Day M" and so on? If that is so, rest assured that he's about as serious as Clancy, only Clancy usually doesn't pass his fiction with hints of real world for historical works http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I won't take too seriously author who proposes that the Red Army was preparing for attack because they acquired more howitzers than direct fire guns (which was a fallacy all by itself) and "every military expert knows" that howitzers are purely offensive weapons ehreas direct fire guns are purely defensive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I feel flattered http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I won't say I'm the best but maybe I have more time to write my thoughts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif It's as in science, not the greatest expert in the field but he with the most publications wins http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

Sniper23:
"sorry for stupidity but how do i translate the page to English?"

Yeah. No idea. Try google, maybe?

Marek_Tucan:
"This is the same Suvorov who wrote major fantasies in "Spetsnaz", "Day M" and so on?"

Thanks God, no. It's a Russian tank specialist who has written some really interesting books on tanks.

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

Ah, good, then I'll try to recall what little I know of Russian alphabet and language and try to read it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

In "my book" T-72 was an excellent tank design when it first appeared (1973). Do a quick check with the game encyclopedia and a quick comparison with other western tanks of the era (Leos , M-60s, Challies)and you'II see what I mean. I think that history, though, did not treat the T-72 well. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
Ok, is this a T-72 or "game engine" bashing thread? Because I think we got our bashing priorities mixed up! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Opfire (no, not about the draining problem...)
 

OT RE: tank bashing

T-72 was a good tank, but don't forget it was designed as "second rate", a cheap alternative to T-64/T-80. It was not until 1980's when it was treated as an equal or even better with T-72B and its successors and most 72's in Iraqui service were of T-72 original or T-72M early pattern, ie the older variant. Comapred to tanks which the Coalition had, it would be like matching up force of few early Shermans (standing here for T-72) and majority of M3 Light and M3 Medium (for T-55/Type 59 families) with a force of majority of Panthers or Tigers (M1A1, Chally) and few late PzKpfw IV (M60's, AMX-30) - won't be much of a fair fight either, esp. considering Force 1 having under-the-par crews.