Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
Analysis:
- All vehicle or towed AA have Mediocre optics.
- All vehicle AA have Bad stealth.
- All towed AA have Mediocre stealth (to represent camouflaged nets, and give them more survivability, I guess.)
- All infantry AA have Exceptional stealth (two-men teams are hard to spot indeed!).
- All infantry AA have Normal optics.
HP is a heavily mixed bag:
- All infantry AA teams have 2 HP.
- All towed AA units/teams have 5 HP.
- All Humvee/VLRA-based AA units have 6 HP.
- AA vehicles base on an APC/IFV/tank have the same HP as their parent-unit. Ex: MT-LB-based AA have 10 HP. BRDM-2-based units have 8 HP.
- Other AA units have either 6 HP (BUK/KUB, 9K330 TOR, 9K33M3 OSA-AKM, M48A1 Chaparral, Tracked Rapier) or 10 HP (ZSU-23-4Ms, 2K22 Tunguska, Rolands, Fla-SFLs, Gepard 1A1)
- True to real-life, the ZSU-23-4M2 Afghanskii gets rid of its radar to cost 45 points less and store 1200 more rounds than the standard Biryusa version, but loses 700m of anti-aircraft range, 15% of static accuracy (20% vs 35%), 20% of moving accuracy (5% vs 25%), 1s of aiming time (2s vs 1s).
Discrepancies:
- The french 53T2s 20mm (standard and para) have Exceptional stealth, as if they were an infantry team. Is it to compensate for their abysmal 10% accuracy?
<2024-03-29: Fixed.>
- The soviet GAZ-66 ZU-23-2 has 5 HP instead of… 8?
- The AB M167 Vulcan costs the same (75 points) as the M163 PIVADS, while bein immobile, unarmored, having less than half ammo (640 vs 1600), and half HP (5 HP vs 10).
<2024-03-29: WORSENED: the M163 PIVADS is now CHEAPER than the AB M167 Vulcan!!!.>
- The Desant. ZU-23-2 costs the same (35 poinst) as the ZU-23-2, despite having the "Airborne" trait (that usually increases the cost by 5).
<2024-03-29: Fixed.>
- The dual-barrel, dual-feed FK20-2 20mm Zwillinge has a lower rate of fire and shorter reload time than the single-barrel FK20-2 20mm, and less ammo despite having seemingly bigger ammo cassettes. Shouldn't it be the contrary? It also has more than twice the accuracy (25% vs 10%), while most dual-barrels usually have the same accuracy but double damage as the single-barrel version.
- The M998 Avenger Paras (shouldn't it be "Airborne M998 Avenger"?) has a salvo of 4, despite showing 8 missiles ready. Also, with 55% accuracy, it's more accurate than any NATO 12.7mm HMG.
<2024-03-29: Fixed (both).>
- The Gepard 1A1 costs a mere 10 points more (105 vs 95) than the AMX-13 DCA, while being more armored (3/2/2/1 vs (2/1/1/1), dealing more damage (0.65 HE vs 0.6), having more range vs air targets (+200m), and being much more accurate (35%/20% vs 25%/2%).
<2024-03-29: WORSENED: the Gepard is now only 5 points more expensive (85 vs 80).>
- The poor Fla-SFL 57-2 costs more (100 points vs 95) than the AMX-13 DCA, but is way less accurate (15%/0% vs 25%/2%), has less range vs aircraft (-525m), a lower rate of fire (686 vs 1043), a slower aiming time (2s vs 1), lower salvo (4 vs 10), lower speed (45km/h vs 59)… and has the "Reservist" trait. It is although more armored (5/3/2/<1 vs 2/1/1/1) and deals more damage (0.88 vs 0.6) but that definitely does not justify the greater cost!
<2024-03-29: Fixed: 70 points vs 80.>
- The Gazelle Celtic costs the same (80 points) as the OH-58C/S, but has a much lower rate of fire (9 vs 22), although being a tad faster (211km/h vs 194km/h). Also, judging by the weight, the OC-58s ought to have 6 HP instead of 4, IMHO.
- Despite having AA missiles, the AH-1F ATAS, KA-50 Akula [AA], Mi-23V|D [AA] have the "Support" role, not "Air defense" role.
- The russian have two identical "Igla" teams, the one of 27th Motostrelki Division being singled out from the other divisions for no apparent reason.
- I have found several sources mentioning ATAS-equipped Apaches, Kiowas, or UH-60s, but only one showing a AH-1F Cobra.
In ZSU, Z is for anti-air ('zenith'), S for self-propelled, U is for installation/vehicle ('ustanovka'). ZSU denotes Shilka or Tunguska, i.e. SPAAG.
ZU-23-2 is just AA gun and not a SPAAG for sure (literally it's name is 'AA gun'). GAZ-66 ZU-23-2 is just GAZ-66 truck with ZU-23-2 AA gun installed on it, while ZU-23-2 is just towed AA cannon like FK-20-2, unlike SPAAG ZSU-23-4. (one can note that last number is number of barrels)
So everything is ok with these names.
Oh nice! Thanks for that information! :-)
I'll correct my post right away!
Analysis:
- Planes have no armor, except the A-10 and Su-25 (2/1/2/1).
- The smallest planes have 6 HP: Alpha Jet, G.91R/Gina
- The average-sized planes have 8 HP: F-104G, Harrier GR.3, Mirage III E, MiG-21bis,
- The biggest (= most) planes have 10 HP.
- Most ground-attack planes have Normal air optics.
- Air defense planes have Good or Exceptional air optics, depending on their generation, I guess? Strangely, none have Very good air optics.
- All SEAD planes have Exceptional air optics. Why??
- Planes don't have a stealth rating, but they have an agility one. I believe it changes their rate of turn (the more agile/slower, the sharper the turn?)
- The Tornado IDS [MW1] is the only plane that is displayed in the Armoury with the wings folded instead of extended. It's not without questions though (see below).
Discrepancies:
- The F-111F [LGB] and [LGB2] have Good air optics while the other F-111F have Normal ones. Why??
- The MiG-25RBF [HE] has Normal agility vs the MiG-25BM [SEAD] that has Exceptional one. I have no idea why.
- The MiG-27K has either Very good [LGB] or Exceptional agility [SEAD]. I have no idea why.
- The MiG-27M has either Normal ([HE], [NPLM]) or Exceptional ([AT], [RKT]) agility. I have no idea why.
<2024-03-29: Fixed: ground-attack planes now have Very Good instead of Exceptionnal agility.>
- The Tornado IDS [MW1] has Exceptional agility, while the other variants have Very good one. This is doubly weird, as it's shown with folded wing, which are used at high speed/large turn rate.
<2024-03-29: Fixed: Very Good agility for all. No change on the IDS' folded wings.>
- The Mirage 5 F [CLU] has worse air optics (Normal vs Good) and agility (Normal vs Very good) than the two other Mirage 5 F [NPLM] and [HE], despite costing 25 more points (240 vs 215). It's not even a matter of payload mass, as it carries 1220kg of bombs, while the [HE] version carries 2500kg.
<2024-03-29: Partially fixed: cost aligned on 215 points for all french Mirage 5 F.>
- [SEAD] variants usually have better ECM than their non-[SEAD] variants, except for the Mirage IV (30% for both [SEAD] and [HE])
<2024-03-29: Changed: 40% ECM for both.>
- MiG-23MF [HE] has 10% ECM, while the other Mig23-MF [AT] has 20%.
<2024-03-29: Fixed.>
- The Su-25 and T-8M have 10 HP, despite looking like average-sized planes that have 8 HP. I'm no aircraft specialist though, and they may well be sturdier than they look, considering their close air support role.
- Likewise, the F-16 looks much smaller than the F-15 (for instance), but both have the same 10 HP.
- The F-104G also looks pretty flimsy for an 8 HP plane.
- The Jaguar [CLUS] is the only plane named with "[CLUS]" instead of "[CLU]"
- The Mirage F1C-200 has no variant in bracket in its name, despite the Mirage F1 CT [LGB] existing.
- I wish the planes' loadout in brackets in their name would indicate the weapons type or role rather than weapon name, for example: "Su-22M4 [GUN]", "Tornado IDS [CLU]" (the same applies for some helicopters: "Mi-8MT [GUN 1]" or "[GUN 2]") to make their use clearer.
- Cosmetic: The F-15C Eagle [AA2] and the F-4E Phantom II [AA] are the only planes to have their AIM-9s as 2nd weapon instead of 3rd.
<2024-03-29: Fixed for the F-15C but not the F-4E.>
PS:
This list may contain more inaccuracies, as there are several versions of the same many planes (of which I'm no expert). Don't hesitate to point them out!
Actually this is on purpose, as they're lacking the Resistance vs. Suppression that Mot. Schutzen get which is their downside of being Reservists. Kinda like the Terriers getting worse weapons instead of disheartened
Aside from the prior answer from someone else, it could also simply be advances in Ammunition since IIRC the F1 is compatable with standard NATO Ammo as well, as after all the 105s first seen on M48s perform much worse when compared to the 105 on a early Abrams
as for price differences between identical vehicles based on National or even Faction lines, that's likely to do with Balancing as opposed to outright malice(Though I do have to wonder about the M4/MP5/AS VAL, however)
Yes, if :
1. "Unit buff" goes like Special forces > Shock troops > Resolute > no trait > Reservist
2. Second-rate units (National Guald, reservists, terriers, etc.) have one worse level of buff
3. East Germany’s baseline is "Resolute",
Then it makes sense for their Reservisten to simply have no trait.
Thanks for bringing that up! :-)
Yes, this would make sense.
I just wish their were different names for two "105mm CN 105 F1" then.
There’s an animated discussion on Eugen’s Discord between two schools of thought regarding units’ cost:
1. One thinks that units should have a cost based on their absolute strengths (that’s what I think).
2. One thinks that units should have a cost based on their relative strengths based on the other units of the division they belong too (I believe the more divisions there are, the more problematic this will be/come. Same if the division concept was somehow removed (mod?)).
I’m not attributing anything to malice, but most probably to different people working on units/weapons without a unified, clearly-defined logic. I hope to be able to help by spotting these discrepancies. :)
(Also yes, the M4/MP5 case has a strong smell of "I want my favorite weapons to be the best in the game because they’re so awesome" by some eager developer. :-) ).
- MiG-23MF [HE] has 10% ECM, while the other Mig23-MF [AT] has 20%
<2024-03-29: Fixed.>
It's hard to compare the cost of units that have different weapons, but I'll try anyway:
- The F-111E [HE] and [NPLM] cost the same 215 points, but the former has a payload of 227kg × 12 bombs = 2724 kg dealing a total of 42 HE and 3600 suppress damage with a 98% accuracy, vs 340 kg × 4 napalm bombs = 1320 kg dealing 9.52 HE and 1796 suppress damage with a 75% accuracy. I'm not sure how to factor in the damage-over-time of napalm, looking at those raw number, the [NPLM] variant ought to be cheaper.
<2024-03-29: Fixed: all F-111 bomber loadouts now cost the same 215 points.>
- The F-111F [HE], [CLU] and [NPLM] cost the same as their F-111E variants, while they have better agility (Exceptional vs Very good), shorter air travel time (10s vs 11s), and higher speed (1023km/h vs 954km/h).
- I'm not sure about the F-15C Eagle [AA] and [AA2] loadouts: the former is cheaper (275 points vs 285) and has more accurate fire-and-forget missiles (60% vs 50%), while the latter has more powerful (6 HE vs 5) but semi-active missiles, and 2 extra short-range AA missiles (4 vs 2). To me, they seem pretty evenly matched and their cost should reflect it.
<2024-03-29: Fixed, I guess: the [AA] loadout now costs 5 more points than the [AA2].>
- Either the Alphajet A [HE]/[CLU], or the F-4E Phantom II [HE]/[CLU] have inconsistent cost: the first pair (95 points each) carries either 2 × Mk 82 or 2 × MK-20 bombs, while the second pair (175 points each) carries either 4 × Mk 82 or 2 × MK-20. So either one Mk 82 is worth as much as one MK-20, or it's worth half as much. But in any case, either the first or second pair of variants should have its price changed accordingly. :-)
- The same goes for the F-16C [HE]/[CLU]/[NPLM] line: same price (230 points), but the [HE] variant carries 6 bombs, vs 2 each for the [CLU]/[NPLM] variants.
- The F-4E Phantom II line brings even more puzzling data, as the [NPLM] variant is 10 points cheaper than the [HE]/[CLU] variants (165 points vs 175).
<2024-03-29: Fixed: all loadouts now cost 175 points.>
- The F-4F [HE1] and [HE2] cost the same (270 points), with 12 × 227 kg Mk 82 (= 2724 kg) on one side vs 5 × 450 kg Mk 83 (2250)… but 2 extra AIM-9L missiles on the other side, so the [HE2] ought to be a tad more expensive IMO.
- The Mirage 5 E [NPLM] carries 4 × 250 kg napalm bombs (= 1000kg) vs 10 × 250 kg SAMP T25 bombs (= 2500kg) for the [HE] variants, while having the same cost (215). That's a total of 17.6 HE and 1760 suppress damage at 75% accuracy for the [NPLM] variant, vs 38.5 HE and 3300 suppress damage at 97% accuracy for the [HE] variant. Again, the [NPLM] variant should follow the logic of most other planes lines, where the [NPLM] variant is cheaper than the [HE]/[CLU] variants (… provided their loadout is similar ^^).
<2024-03-29: Changed: both loadouts now cost the same. The damage stats discrepancies stay, though.>
- The Su-22M4 [HE]/[CLU]/[NPLM] line might bring the answer: same price (265 points each) and 500 kg bombs for all, only the amount varies : 4 for [HE]/[NPLM], 2 for [CLU]. Maybe that's the cost ratio that all lines could follow?
(to be continued)
- [CLU] costs C for B bombs (with B = 2, apparently?)
- [HE] costs C for B × H bombs (with H = 2, apparently?)
- [NPLM] costs C-N for B × H bombs (with N = 10, apparently?)
Mi-8MT [UPK]'s armoury card says it has 57mm rockets but the helicopter model has 80mm rocket pod models attached to it(compared to other helicopters, I have no real life expertise about helicopter weaponry). All rocket statistics on the unit card match other 57mm rockets except for the ammo count of 40 which matches other 80mm rocket pods used by other helicopters i.e. Mi-8MT [RKT 3].
Do you mind if I report this on Eugen’s Discord as well?
There are two weapons named "100mm D10T":
- one version equips the standard T-55 and its variants (https://war-yes.com/weapon/Ammo_Canon_AP_100mm_D10T_early)
- the other equips the upgraded T-55AM2 and its variants (https://war-yes.com/weapon/Ammo_Canon_AP_100mm_D10T_late, also https://tank-afv.com/coldwar/East_Germany/T-55-AM2B.php)
1. It would be great to have a different name to tell both weapons apart, for instance "100mm D10T (T-55)AM2"
2. The upgraded version has better range and accuracy (2275m and 55%/45% vs 1925m and 45%25%), also +1m suppress radius (43m vs 42m), but for some reason has lower penetration (14 vs 15).
Same for the "105mm F2 BK MECA L48":
- one version equips the standard AMX-10 RC (https://war-yes.com/weapon/Ammo_Canon_AP_105mm_F2_BK_MECA_L48)
- the other equips the upgraded AMX-10 RC surblindé (https://war-yes.com/weapon/Ammo_Canon_AP_105mm_F2_BK_MECA_L48_late)
The upgraded version has better penetration (19 vs 17) due to the new OFL 105 F3 APFSDS round (OFL = "obus flèche" = kinetic penetrator shell) introduced in 1987 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMX-10_RC#Armament).
1. It would be great to have a different name to tell both weapons apart, for instance "105mm F2 BK MECA L48 OFL"
Done!
I saw that someone reported it several weeks ago too. A reminder definitely doesn’t hurt. :)
- Even though the "AA52 7.5mm" is older than the "AANF1 7.62mm", I don’t think it deserves -5% accuracy (30% vs 35%) as the difference between the two is mostly ammunition standardization for logistic reasons (both ammunition have only tiny performance differences).
Combined with the untrained veterancy level of reservists, it makes it doubly less accurate.
- The "30mm 24A2 BMP2" (that equips BMP-2s and BMDs) and "30mm 24A2" (that equips the Ka-50 Akulas) have different stats, despite being the same weapon: penetration, suppress radius, accuracy, rate of fire, reload time, salvo length.
- The "30mm 2A72 BMP3" is quoted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipunov_2A42#Similar_30mm_autocannons) as being a cousin of the "30mm 24A2 BMP2", with higher velocity (4 penetration vs 3 so that checks) and also lower rate of fire, but that doesn’t show in game.
- The "AS30" MCLOS missile should have the "manual" trait instead of "semiauto".
The "AS30L" laser-guided missile correctly has the "semiauto" trait.
EDIT following
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1611600/discussions/0/3883849331780202250/?ctp=3#c3955910653937773366:
I now understand that a plane missile with the "manual" trait would miss 100% of the time, hence the "semiauto" trait even for the AS30.
Also, with 35% accuracy, it has the worst accuracy of all ATGMs and RCL guns, which is consistent with an *airplane* MCLOS missile controlled by the pilot, who also has to keep flying the plane at the same time!!! o_O
/insert exploding head emoji
- The "BL755 cluster 264kg x2" has 30% motion accuracy, while the ×4 and ×8 variants have 75% accuracy.
- The GBU 24 seems very different from the other members of the GBU family (10, 12, 27) in general, and the GBU 27 in particular: it lacks the "semiauto" trait, has vastly different damage/radius, dispersion, range and accuracy.
It feels as if it’s a totally different weapon system, while the real-life difference between the GBU 24 and 27 is the modified fins of the latter.
- The "BL755 cluster 264kg" x4 and x8 have 75% motion accuracy, while all other cluster bombs (including the "BL755 cluster 264kg x2") have 30%.
- The "Mk77 340kg Napalm x2" has 50% accuracy, while all other napalm bombs (including the "Mk77 340kg Napalm x4") have 30%.
- The "Bidons Speciaux Napalm x4" have a supply cost of 200 (vs 240 for the other ×4 napalm bombs) while being vastly superior. Vive la France, I guess? :)
They also have a rather similar HE/suppress radius, while the other napalm bombs have roughly HE radius = (suppress radius ÷ 2).