Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[Epoletov_SPR]

SPWaW and WinSP are similar or not?

Probably to make in WinSP " Command Control " as in SPWaW (to save Orders)?

[Marek_Tucan]

SPWaW is based on SP3 game egine, SP:MBT and SP:WW2 are based on SP2 engine. Similar, but so close AFAIK.

[narwan]

Epoletov_SPR said:
SPWaW and WinSP are similar or not?

Probably to make in WinSP " Command Control " as in SPWaW (to save Orders)?

No they are not. They are completely different games now; they just happen to share a similar but very, very distant past.
Besides having different SP game engines as their basis (SP2 vs SP3) The games also have different design teams who have different opinions on the game and what is desirable. Don't expect features that are 'standard' in WaW in this game, they're not here for a good reason.

[Epoletov_SPR]

To make for SAM, SP-SAM, etc. shooting by a volley (some rockets from one unit shoot at the same Turn).


But, that cost unit strongly did not increase.

[Marcello]

"Sand berms, sounds, walls and cosmetic enhancements are not beyond the game engine. The existing terrain and OOB features suggest that much."

Likely. Unless there is some limitation sand berms, for example, could replace hedgerows in the desert menu like it happens for many others terrains.

"To make for SAM, SP-SAM, etc. shooting by a volley (some rockets from one unit shoot at the same Turn).
But, that cost unit strongly did not increase."

Can you try to explain what you are saying? As it is I do not get what you mean.

[Marek_Tucan]

Epoletov_SPR said:
To make for SAM, SP-SAM, etc. shooting by a volley (some rockets from one unit shoot at the same Turn).

You mean the entire platoon (in game terms) firing at the same target in the same time? But that already happens with standoff SAM's and "direct-fire" SAM's are limited by visibility to target.

Where volley fire would be more useful will be in ground combat, for example for dispersing responsive opfire (kinda forming Pakfronts) but that would not be possible within code I'm afraid.

[Epoletov_SPR]

For example, SAM "Patriot" now shoots one rocket at one Turn.
To change to 3-4 rockets in one Turn (in each of four weapon slot to place a rocket).

To shoot all rockets at once, as well as at realities.
You can always disconnect weapon slot to not shoot all rockets.
Cost unit to not increase.

It is necessary to edit only OOB SAM capable so to shoot at realities.

[Marek_Tucan]

Ah, I see. But that would lead to a completely different can of worms, as say AI cannot switch weapons off and on and thus, all the SAM's would expend most of their missiles at very first target.
Also I doubt it's standard to fire entire four-cell Patriot launcher at one single plane.

[PlasmaKrab]

Marek_Tucan said:
Ah, I see. But that would lead to a completely different can of worms, as say AI cannot switch weapons off and on and thus, all the SAM's would expend most of their missiles at very first target.
Also I doubt it's standard to fire entire four-cell Patriot launcher at one single plane.

That wouldn't necessarily ruin the gameplay, just make that SAM unit a merciless killer in IA hands and reduce the ammo store that will be at least half-wasted in any case. Thing is, if you add weapon slots until full, the IA will always shoot all the slots available until the target is down.
Since most if not all of the multi-slots SAMs (i.e. those that can be reliably proven to be able to shoot and guide several missiles at the same target) are fairly recent as battleground units, they are also quite sophisticated. Epoletov mentioned the Patriot, I'd rather make that the PAC-3 with the new KE missile. The 9M96 series in the S-400 complex could probably handle it as well, plus of course the ASTER, though my CW version to this day may be just that slightly overkill...
All this just to say that even considering the IA can't stop, a SAM with 2 to 4 weapon slots will only shoot at one target while it's there.
And this is important: it will not shoot several targets in the same turn except if you fool around with the ROF rating.
This being said, you can and should fool around with the ROF rating to handle SAMs that can either fire on the move or engage several targets in one turn's length. Works with ATGM units as well BTW.

So to get back to Epoletov's original point, volley-fire is doable by SAM units as such, but effectively without much cost increase.

[PlasmaKrab]

"I know I could go on for days about ERA classes, active protection, EW effects, unit classes..."

Then start.

Maybe there is something else we can find a partial fix for.

OK, I just didn't want to hijack the thread for too long.
Go offline for two days and there's replies all over the place!

Regarding ERA, there are two little (?) things that IMO could make the whole thing more realistic.
Firstly, change the class number from 2 to say 5, from the early slim stuff you find on 80s Chinese tanks and to this day on APCs all over the world to near-future heavy-slab asymmetrical-multilayered-whatever arrays that will cover e.g. the fated Black Eagle, all through the common ERA classes.

Before you ask, this only makes sense if the ERA effect is quantified a bit more than it currently is.
As I see it, each class should be assigned a warhead size value range against which it works (heavier weapons being assumed to blast through the ERA array unhindered and lighter warheads being not enough for setting it off), a max HEAT penetration it can absorb at zero incidence angle, a similar max AP/sabot penetration value, and a chance of stopping tandem-HEAT warheads.
As such, they would be modeled more like add-on armor than like a magical bonus that can stop blunt the most powerful weapons without any remain.
That would call for messages more like "ERA reduces penetration by XX", probably with a small chance of still getting "ERA defeats HEAT warhead" if the HEAT penetration is inferior to the ERA max resistance.

Here is how it could be played out:

Code:

---

class   ERA values    max WHS  min WHS   max HEAT   max AP   tandem chance    real-life examples

1       1 to 10        4        2         30         0        0                anything weaker and lighter than Kontakt-1

2       11 to 20       5        3         45         5        0                Kontakt-1, Blazer 

3       21 to 30       6        3         60         15       25               ERAWA, DYNAS

4       31 to 40       7        3         75         30       75               Kontakt-5 and similar

5       41 to 50       9        3         90         50       90               Kaktus and other future applications

---

The values are debatable, but I think the principle can bring something more to the combat behavior of ERA-equipped vehicles.