Unit design: survivability and weapon slots

[PlasmaKrab]

I have two small points to raise about the parameters in some units:

First, as came up in a discussion recnetly about monkey models and comparing Western and Eastern tanks, agreement was made (?) that armor ratings were fine, but that internal design flaws (relating to autoloader, ammo and fuel loadout) made some Russian-made AFVs and tanks less than survivable.
Shouldn't there be some thought about lowering survivability value of these? I know that it could be unfair in gameplay terms, but not if there would be so much of a difference.

Second point was about weapon slot order. IIRC in SPMBT Player Info.txt file was written that weapons in the last slots got the lowest shot priority and were disabled more easily. If you look at many of the IFVs in the game, some of them have the external ATGM launcher as weapon 2.
Take a BMP-1:
-Weapon 1: 2A20 70mm gun
-Weapon 2: 9M14 Malutka ATGM
-Weapon 3: 7.62mm PKT CMG
-Weapon 4: nought...

Shouldn't the CMG be in slot 2? It is used (and destroyed) alongside from the main gun. While ATGM tube are generally a side weapon for special targets. Particularly in a BMP-1 where the missiles had to be reloaded from outside the turret, fins unfolded using some perch or other tiresome contraption, under fire? Slot 4 for this one would be fairness, and slot 3 for the majority. It is alreay so in both Bradley and Marder, two of the most preeminent ATGM IFVs.
Same for the BMP-3, where weapons go as follows: first 30mm cannon, then Gun-fired ATGM, then the 100mm gun that fires the very ATGM!
From both designer and user sources, the 100mm gun is meant to be the primary weapon, the 30mm being a super-coax and the missiles (rare and expensive) only for special cases.

That is just some thoughts I had been running around for some time, don't know what anyone thinks about it, or if it is worth the bother...

Cheers everyone,

Plasma

[kevin]

PlasmaKrab said:
I have two small points to raise about the parameters in some units:

First, as came up in a discussion recnetly about monkey models and comparing Western and Eastern tanks, agreement was made (?) that armor ratings were fine, but that internal design flaws (relating to autoloader, ammo and fuel loadout) made some Russian-made AFVs and tanks less than survivable.
Shouldn't there be some thought about lowering survivability value of these? I know that it could be unfair in gameplay terms, but not if there would be so much of a difference.

Second point was about weapon slot order. IIRC in SPMBT Player Info.txt file was written that weapons in the last slots got the lowest shot priority and were disabled more easily. If you look at many of the IFVs in the game, some of them have the external ATGM launcher as weapon 2.
Take a BMP-1:
-Weapon 1: 2A20 70mm gun
-Weapon 2: 9M14 Malutka ATGM
-Weapon 3: 7.62mm PKT CMG
-Weapon 4: nought...

Shouldn't the CMG be in slot 2? It is used (and destroyed) alongside from the main gun. While ATGM tube are generally a side weapon for special targets. Particularly in a BMP-1 where the missiles had to be reloaded from outside the turret, fins unfolded using some perch or other tiresome contraption, under fire? Slot 4 for this one would be fairness, and slot 3 for the majority. It is alreay so in both Bradley and Marder, two of the most preeminent ATGM IFVs.
Same for the BMP-3, where weapons go as follows: first 30mm cannon, then Gun-fired ATGM, then the 100mm gun that fires the very ATGM!
From both designer and user sources, the 100mm gun is meant to be the primary weapon, the 30mm being a super-coax and the missiles (rare and expensive) only for special cases.

That is just some thoughts I had been running around for some time, don't know what anyone thinks about it, or if it is worth the bother...

Cheers everyone,

Plasma

[kevin]

Ops, sorry for the last, I'm not getting how to use the quote thing here.

Anyways, I was going to say, wait did we really decide anything from the "monkey model" debate? But if you ask me, yes, that sounds to be a fair compromise from a realism stand-point.

As far as the CMG, yeah you are right. I never thought of that, but it sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps someone from CAMO could explain there reasoning on that?

[Mobhack]

if a weapon is destroyed, it is selected at random. The code has no concept of "placenment beside the main gun". You can lose the one and not the other, it just deletes weapon slots.

weapons lower down are also less of a priority, and the cmg is therefore less priority than the ATGM on most targets.

Andy

[PlasmaKrab]

if a weapon is destroyed, it is selected at random. The code has no concept of "placenment beside the main gun". You can lose the one and not the other, it just deletes weapon slots.

OK, I had just wrongly deduced from the help file I read that the weapon disabling followed a priority rule too.

weapons lower down are also less of a priority, and the cmg is therefore less priority than the ATGM on most targets

This is precisely what I was talking about. On many units with ATGMs as 'secondary weapon', I think particularly about BMPs, the ATGM launcher is difficult to fire, manoeuver and reload. There is not much ammo coming with it, and AFAIK it is therefore reserved for exception targets, even when gun-fired, since it is an expensive and field-precious weapon.

Of course in a tank-heavy battle the ATGM launcher is more useful than the CMG, but considering IFVs or armored recons (with A/C anyway), isn't the CMG supposed to fill the gap in close-range anti-personnel, since the main gun lacks sufficient ammo? It is then an important weapon and, to my mind, more readily fireable than the ATGM in any circumstances.

Anyway this is already so on the Bradley and Marder at least, on which I think the ATGM launcher is much better integrated...

That doesn't change anything to what I said on the BMP-3 though. The slot order should be 100mm - 30mm - CMG.