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

Hello all!

This question arose after playing the Tutorial scenario for the Irag side. As I drove my T-72 tanks onto the ridgeline they immediately got shot by the Abrams's. Once my tank climbed on, every Abrams had a chance to take a shot at it. If only my tank was exceptionally lucky, it had an opporntunity to fire before being destroyed.

If a similar situation occured in reality, most of Iraq tanks would go on the ridgeline simultaneously making it much harder for the Abrams's to destroy them, because they wouldn't be able to defeat them one by one.

Hereby I'd like to ask: What's the algorithm for determining who shots first in a situation when the units engaged see each other?

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

I'm pretty sure that if it's your turn, and a unit is moved into an enemy's range, they shoot first if they can see you. If they can't, they won't shoot, so you can shoot them first.

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

But why on earth would they always be first?? Thers must be other factors...

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

This is a turn-based game, not a continuous-time game. Each piece is moved individually.

The piece that just moved (or fired) triggers opportunity fire from any candidate firers in LOS.

Cheers
Andy

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

Well, even as old a game as X-COM did have a methood for deciding when a reaction can happen. It XCOM a unit would reacct only if a certain function depending on his Time Units was greater than a similar function for the target. As the result, the reacting unit wasn't always able to shoot first. Althoght the above method is absurd, it was there, and sometimes you could move around in an enemy's LOS before he started to shoot.

The easiest and most obvious technique could be to calculate the times needed to aim and take a shot for both units (using the units's specs as arguments: speed, turret speed, aiming mechanism...) and conclude the sequence of shots.

P.S.: Do you mean that being in the passive phase guaranties for a unit to be the first to shoot at anyone who enters his LOS, if both units spot each other simultaneously?

P.P.S: Thanks for the reply!

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

Depending on things like visibility and size etc, you lead with something like scouts on foot. They might spot the enemy without getting spotted. Then you can come up with a plan other than charging up the middle into an ambush.

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

Let's be honest, charging into the enemies guns is a bad idea anyway. Especially with T-72s vs M1A1s.

And in response to your PS, yes, that is true.

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

Thank you all for your replies.

You seem to defent the game's engines by providing
a) Alternative tactics that would help me gain advantage in my situation.
b) Saying that it's not that unrealistic.

To #1 I'll have to agree. That prooves SPMBT is pretty much playable and interesting a game.

As to #2, I can't fully agree with Shadowdrake, who wrote:

"Let's be honest, charging into the enemies guns is a bad idea anyway. Especially with T-72s vs M1A1s."

But I have more T72s (supported by T-55s) than my enemy has M1A1s. And what if I want to use this numerical superiority to fight the M1A1s? If I move all my tanks simultaneously towards the enemy he won't have ROF high enough to burm all of them fast enoght to prevent any fire at him.

Say, one Abrams is attacked by two T-72s. While he'll be aiming and shooting at one T-72, the other one will have time to shoot, even assuming T-72 needs 1.8 times more time to take the first shot than the Abrams...

And, what would you say is it were T-90s instead of the T-72s? Would that change the situation of my tanks being shot one by one before even having a chance to take a single shot? Op-fire from the M1A1s come first anyway, right?

What I mean is that the game engine does not allow to take this factor into accout (maybe no TBS do...). Also is doesn't account for recation and aiming-shooting times in calculating which unit shoots first if both of them has spotted each other at the same moment.

If I spot an enemy just half a second later than he has spotted me, I am afraid that will mean the enemy will shoot first, which is not very realistic if he has a slower gun mechanics...

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

You are assuming too many things there.

1 M1A1 is not = to 1 T-72s. Just because the M1A1 needs some seconds to fire at one of the two T-72, it doesn't mean that the other T-72 can locate lock and fire in that same amount of time. Also training, where do you put that?
Also, there have been battles in Iraq where the allied tanks were outnumbered, they still annihilated the Iraqi tanks. Even without Opfire.

If you want to get a chance, then perhaps you could force the enemy tanks to fire at something else first.

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

In the context of this game, I think it's right that the non-active player gets to shoot first, though they often don't. I think the active player has a huge advantage during his move turn.

By driving into his view, you have effectively driven into an ambush. This is even more true if the Abrams tanks are stationary.

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

The main problem the original poster has, is trying to play the tutorial scenario as the Iraqi side.

The tutorial is set up as a turkey shoot, for a newbie player to play the USA side as a training exercise in learning the game mechanics. It is not in any way balanced at all, and all the tanks that player 2 has are simply targets to the USA barring very rare circumstances (a clear flank shot).

About the only way you can kill USA troops as the Iraqi in that scenario, is to hide behind the ridge and hope for flank shots as and when they come over the top, always provided that the smoke is not blocking your LOS (he has thermals so can pot you quite happily in that situation), that the cluster arty does not blow you to bits, nor the A-10 and Apaches.

The Iraqi infantry is rather poor quality, and only the support sections even have RPG to bother the USA armour - all of which is armoured with some chobham, even the Bradleys. They are out in the open, and will be seen with the thermal sights even through smoke, and are therefore chain-gun fodder.

IF you manage the reverse slope ambush, then advance towards the objectives, especially those out in front of the USA line (and assuming you have time to do so anyway after playing possum for so long!) - the USA TOW launchers will eat you up as you try to do so. Those will hang back and wait usually..

The Player 2 side in that scenario is simply not designed for any "balanced" play - the USA points value must be 2-1 or more, and it is a meeting engagement scenario, even though it looks like a delay initially. Player 2 is only there for target practice skeet-shoot for newbies in this scenario.

About the only way a human player could play as #2 here is to try a few times, and to lose by less points than before, or score himself a "victory" by taking even one of those objectives out in front of the USA forces. Probably by exiting as much as possible off his side, and ignoring the battle itself.

Cheers
Andy

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

Wdll:

"1 M1A1 is not = to 1 T-72s...Also training, where do you put that?"

It's a controversial topic, and it has nothing to deal with the game's engine, because reaction shoots will come always first, irregardless of whether it's T-72s, T-90s orLeopards. I am neither prepared nor want to start a dispute over the effectiviness of T-72 agains the Arbrams in Desert Storm.

"Just because the M1A1 needs some seconds to fire at one of the two T-72, it doesn't mean that the other T-72 can locate lock and fire in that same amount of time."

Mistake here. That does mean that the other T-72 has _twice_ more time to lock and fire (assuming double numerical superiority).

"Also, there have been battles in Iraq where the allied tanks were outnumbered, they still annihilated the Iraqi tanks. Even without Opfire."

Maybe those were the TOW missiles that T-72s couldn't resist? You say "even without Opfire" as if it helped the T-72s in some way, but in fact it helps the Abrams tanks vary much (given the tut scenario's situation) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

"If you want to get a chance, then perhaps you could force the enemy tanks to fire at something else first."

That's cheating, so many thank to the developers for Op-fire filtering!

Cross:

"In the context of this game, I think it's right that the non-active player gets to shoot first. I think the active player has a huge advantage during his move turn."

This 100%-first Opfire approach not only balances but sometimes even over-balancesthe game, i.e. turns the situation to equally unjust with respect to the opposite side.

"I like to see turns as 'fire and movement'. So at the end of your move your men have halted briefly to take a more defensive stance."

That's how you adapt for the turn-based-ness. But the turns are only a logical division of time and the less they affect the game, the better and the more realistic it is. For example, in WinSOMBT a vehicle's speed is calculated using a very strange assumption that it is proportinal to the tatal distance that the vehicle has crossed by the moment. What about the stop-and-shoot technique?

By driving into his view, you have effectively driven into an ambush. This is even more true if the Abrams tanks are stationary.

Why so? If I my tanks' crews know the enemy is there, it's no longer an ambush. They're prepaired to meet and attack them.

Mobhack:
"The main problem the original poster has, is trying to play the tutorial scenario as the Iraqi".

Yes, but I did it on purpose because the thinngs I am talking about are brightly pronounced in it. Other "real" scenarious are accurately designed and balances so that such problems are not so terribly decicive.

And thanks for the rest of the post, about the possible tactics! It's indeed more like a meeting engagement.

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

Andy,
good points but as I read Anton's post his objections are centered on the game engine rather the specific "reverse demo" situation.

Anton said:
"But I have more T72s (supported by T-55s) than my enemy has M1A1s. And what if I want to use this numerical superiority to fight the M1A1s? If I move all my tanks simultaneously towards the enemy he won't have ROF high enough to burm all of them fast enoght to prevent any fire at him."
Anton,
I think the "key word" in your statement is "simultaneously". The game engine does not allow simultaneous events and I don't think that this will ever change. And let's remember that after all it's a game with various limitations and this is one of them. Units are moved one by one and are "reacted upon" on the same manner.
And yes this means game or even "gamey" tactics that are not quite in line with (what we perceive as) actual tactics. But you still need a plan, you still need to coordinate movement, air strikes, artillery or even (re)supply, you still need to find good firing or observation locations, roots of advance etc.
Having said that, I want to say that in (most) turn based games the "bill" is "charged" after the conclusion of the whole turn (your's and your opponents or the AI's). And for me, the "realism ?!? check" actually comes at the end of a scenario and immediately after the "was it fun? check". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

edit: post entered after Anton's post #623963. Sh*t, no turn based posting system available? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

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

Anton,

That doesn't mean that the other T-72 has twice more time to lock and fire, first you have to assume that the other T-72 can locate at all, then locate in time, lock and fire (and perhaps hit). And it doesn't only has to do with the T-72 in question (which btw were reduced effectiveness T-72s ie Export versions) but also as I believe I have mentioned, training and morale of the crews.

No, while a large number of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by missiles etc, there were several "pure" tank engagements, the iraqi's were outclassed due to a combination of inferior equipment, training and tactics. The first two are the most important in the current example.

The game engine is not perfect, but it is far from completely unrealistic.

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

I would not change the game system at all, sure it's not 100% perfect but it is the most realistic and fun game I have ever played so far and as for the t-72 even if you get a shot of will you hit and if you hit it will it kill it because I have faced countless t-72 in my Iraq campaign and in 10 battles I lost 6 tanks(and most of them was due to stupidity) the trick is to shot the lead one so the rest don't see you.

A good tank to use against the Abrame is the Russian t-90 if you want to face the Abrame


P.S what was the training?

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

Reaction doesn't always come first. It comes first in this given scenario because you have here a large difference in training and equipment, charging a firing line of Abramses head-on is a sure recipe for massacre. OTOH if the game is more matched, you may well deprive the enemy of op-fire, esp. if you move slowly, using cover, or try to suppress the enemy before closing in.

No, he hints that such one-sided battles happened IRL even if the Abramses worked in real-time and not with the opfire (which appears to be your beef here ) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Btw Iraqui tanks couldn't resist 120mm APFSDSDU as well as the i-TOW http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

As the telling goes, "When two do the same, it may not be the same". Sending waves of Jeeps on the enemy to drain op-fire is cheating. Sending say company of T-55's headlong so that a platoon of T-72's may maneuver to the flank is a legitimate tactics. 'And Op-fire filtering is a double-edged blade. You may not waste your ammo by shooting at BTR's and reserving shots for tanks... But those BTR's may be carrying ATGM or RR teams to a position from wich they will fry your tanks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

But it isn't 100% first approach. UFO was mentioned here (I may add say Jagged Alliance) but there, if you used your squad of super-trained soldiers against an UFO full of low-level Floaters some time late in the game, you'd also have an "Almost-100%" op-fire ratio. The same here with US veteran units against low-tech low-training Iraquis.

No they aren't. Not fully. Even if you knew 100% where exactly the enemy is, your tankers have to find that spot themselves, then try to find the tank, then aim, etc. All this on the move in given situation. And with inferior optics etc. Abrams crews in stationary tanks have OTOH much higher chance of finding a moving target and then acquiring the target.

In the reality sense, the Tutorial is much closer to most "Gulf War" scenarios. Scens are balanced out so they are hard and funny, but IRL it was often just such an one-sided affair as the tutorial is. I believe I've seen somewhere a quote of Iraqui officer saying roughly "My Bn began war with 31 tanks. During the air strikes, we lost 2. Then, during a 30-minute engagement with ground troops, we lost all remaining."

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

Marek_Tucan:
"Reaction doesn't always come first. It comes first in this given scenario because you have here a large difference in training and equipment"

So, what's the formula (algorithm) for reaction fire? Or is it classified :X

"No, he hints that such one-sided battles happened IRL even if the Abramses worked in real-time and not with the opfire (which appears to be your beef here ) Btw Iraqui tanks couldn't resist 120mm APFSDSDU"

Opposite info in Russian sources, to sum up
1. USA didn't want to loose market for their tanks so they didn't let the "harsh" truth into the news.
2. Losses of T-72s overexaggerated, most of them destroyed with TOWs (from more than 3000 m), Iraqi destroyed most of tanks themselves during the retreat (due to lack of supplies), which were ascribed to the American tanks.
3. The 20 000 uranium rounds found in the desert (from which Kuwait children took the radiation sickness) prove that anyway M1A1s were not that accurate.
4. Controversial info about the Iraqi's losses in the Western sources.

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

can you post the link of where you got the info, I would like to read it.

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

I've always thought of Suvorov as a serious author:
http://otvaga.vif2.ru/Otvaga/wars0/wars_10_1.htm

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

So, a russian source is more accurate than contemporary USA and Iraqi sources? Weird. I just don't see that happening.
Especialy considering that in the battles there were also a large number of M-60s.

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.

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

As I said history did not treat it well. Even in the late 70s it would have problems. Not on a tank-to-tank basis, but due to the fact that the battlefield was starting to be "dominated" by AT missiles launched/fired from various platforms (helis, air, a number of vehicles,infantry). It was the next generation of MBTs that regained "survivability" in the battlefield (to some extend of course eh).
Well at least this is my amateur opinion ...