Whining about ATGM

[Zradnuk]

From which “Secret Document” was the information obtained that the Soviet ATGMs did not penetrate anything, and at the same time they did not hit anything, neither infantry nor tank ones. The T-80BV has less armor penetration and gun accuracy than its counterpart for the same amount, but it has the ability to miss with an ATGM (in no case will it hit)

Well, seriously, playing for the Reds, it’s simply unrealistic to fight tanks (unless you play for the 119th Regiment)

[Vindicare]

Yeah, I know it was a stupid idea to click on this thread in the first place, I was confirmed after the well known claim that system x will NEVER hit target y. Back to waiting for the next update on AG.

[Marek]

Originally posted by Zradnuk:

From which “Secret Document” was the information obtained that the Soviet ATGMs did not penetrate anything, and at the same time they did not hit anything, neither infantry nor tank ones. The T-80BV has less armor penetration and gun accuracy than its counterpart for the same amount, but it has the ability to miss with an ATGM (in no case will it hit)

Well, seriously, playing for the Reds, it’s simply unrealistic to fight tanks (unless you play for the 119th Regiment)

I know we have many documents about soviets ATGM who say something else. For example Milan 2 is artificially buffed and konkurs nerfed. Then don't let anyone tell me that this is propaganda. I know whole NATO is not Bias but have many units who are bias without historic tech. arguments. Whole soviets need really rebalance how konkurs hit nothing? Not only soviets, too some NATO atgm needs buff acurracy but not this way. And I'm not talking about tanks misilles like agona, refleks.. absolute nerfed trash. Price hight, performance low. A then figth with Abrams M1A1 HA with same canon like M1A1 but magic buff canon. No atgm need rebalance sure Soviets, NATO too.

[Sneaky_Beaky]

I remembered the answer to this dilemma.

Redfor gets 8x units with 2800m range ATGM. Blufor gets 0x. T-80UD, T-80U, T-62MV, T-62M, T-55AM2B, BMP-3, MTLB-Shturm, and the Raspira.

So, red gets better range, blue gets better accuracy.

I can see some logic behind it. Russia has really good rocket science. The West has really good computers.

It's not a direct 1-to-1 balancing. It's like, battleaxe vs greatsword. Strengths and weaknesses.

[dt Walter Robinson]

Frankly I find the ATGM to be very realistic in this game, apart from their TRUE effective range - the jerky movements, the plume, the detonation of target when successfully hit; as video-documented from the Syrian War and the Ukraine War, it all looks quite good.

[GAINSB]

Originally posted by dt Walter Robinson:

Frankly I find the ATGM to be very realistic in this game, apart from their TRUE effective range - the jerky movements, the plume, the detonation of target when successfully hit; as video-documented from the Syrian War and the Ukraine War, it all looks quite good.

Penetration values of Sov atgms are artificially nerfed, like Konkurs, while Milan 2 is artificially buffed for example, according to many documents the two have very close pen values, but wildly different in game.
When the T72 has worse computers than its counterparts it has to be nerfed to oblivion for "realism" (which killed a whole deck btw).
But when Konkurs is nerfed it has to stay like that for "balance", go figure...

[GAINSB]

Originally posted by Sneaky_Beaky:

I remembered the answer to this dilemma.

Redfor gets 8x units with 2800m range ATGM. Blufor gets 0x. T-80UD, T-80U, T-62MV, T-62M, T-55AM2B, BMP-3, MTLB-Shturm, and the Raspira.

So, red gets better range, blue gets better accuracy.

I can see some logic behind it. Russia has really good rocket science. The West has really good computers.

It's not a direct 1-to-1 balancing. It's like, battleaxe vs greatsword. Strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, and NATO has many MIlAN2/TOW2 vehicles and inf that dwarfes any Sov capacity by precision and damage, aswell as the wonderful Hellfire on helos, and pact will have more on tanks, that side of things is assymetrical but balanced, both honestly have interesting atgms capacities.
The only issues is that PACT atgms do very little damage for no real reason

[Zradnuk]

Originally posted by Sneaky_Beaky:

I remembered the answer to this dilemma.

Redfor gets 8x units with 2800m range ATGM. Blufor gets 0x. T-80UD, T-80U, T-62MV, T-62M, T-55AM2B, BMP-3, MTLB-Shturm, and the Raspira.

So, red gets better range, blue gets better accuracy.

I can see some logic behind it. Russia has really good rocket science. The West has really good computers.

It's not a direct 1-to-1 balancing. It's like, battleaxe vs greatsword. Strengths and weaknesses.

The advantages of shooting at 2800m are quite difficult to realize, few places have such distances, but yes, there is definitely an advantage to this.
Although I personally have never used such a technique, it might be worth a try, but the fact remains that even if you hit a “blue” tank, the damage will be symbolic.

[RR]

Soviet atgms have low accuracy and low damage, but it balanced but possibility to take many atgms (on bmp and tanks). And 1 sov division has konkurs-m

[Zradnuk]

Originally posted by Koshka:

Soviet atgms have low accuracy and low damage, but it balanced but possibility to take many atgms (on bmp and tanks). And 1 sov division has konkurs-m

So you think it’s the norm that all blue decks have effective missiles, but only one has red decks, and that’s a balance?
I want to play with DDR divisions, even if they don’t have powerful tanks, but they have effective infantry... But this infantry cannot fight tanks, because there are bad ATGMs and very bad ATGMs to choose from. That's not how balance works.
I want the Reds, who already have less variety of divisions, to have them all playable, and not so “play with 1-2 divisions, so there are good units”

[RR]

Originally posted by Zradnuk:

Originally posted by Koshka:

Soviet atgms have low accuracy and low damage, but it balanced but possibility to take many atgms (on bmp and tanks). And 1 sov division has konkurs-m

So you think it’s the norm that all blue decks have effective missiles, but only one has red decks, and that’s a balance?
I want to play with DDR divisions, even if they don’t have powerful tanks, but they have effective infantry... But this infantry cannot fight tanks, because there are bad ATGMs and very bad ATGMs to choose from. That's not how balance works.
I want the Reds, who already have less variety of divisions, to have them all playable, and not so “play with 1-2 divisions, so there are good units”

all USSR divisions much stronger than nato divisions. And mrls are useless (they are expensive and have low accuracy).

[Zradnuk]

Originally posted by Koshka:

Originally posted by Zradnuk:

So you think it’s the norm that all blue decks have effective missiles, but only one has red decks, and that’s a balance?
I want to play with DDR divisions, even if they don’t have powerful tanks, but they have effective infantry... But this infantry cannot fight tanks, because there are bad ATGMs and very bad ATGMs to choose from. That's not how balance works.
I want the Reds, who already have less variety of divisions, to have them all playable, and not so “play with 1-2 divisions, so there are good units”

all USSR divisions much stronger than nato divisions. And mrls are useless (they are expensive and have low accuracy).

you should play with people...

[Marek]

Originally posted by Sneaky_Beaky:

I remembered the answer to this dilemma.

Redfor gets 8x units with 2800m range ATGM. Blufor gets 0x. T-80UD, T-80U, T-62MV, T-62M, T-55AM2B, BMP-3, MTLB-Shturm, and the Raspira.

So, red gets better range, blue gets better accuracy.

I can see some logic behind it. Russia has really good rocket science. The West has really good computers.

It's not a direct 1-to-1 balancing. It's like, battleaxe vs greatsword. Strengths and weaknesses.

Hold on Hold on. We have to determine the effectiveness:
Good effective: BMP-3, T-55AM2B, T-62MV, T-62M. Little note: Raspira is not tank btw. I know Augen add Raspira like tank but really is not.
Medium effective: MTLB-Shturm
Bad effectivite: T-80UD, T-80U
So how we can see really effective is half units.
How you using your aguments about blue have good computers
T-80UD and T-80U using 9K119 Reflex missile. With an optimal range of 4000 m, they indicate a probability of destroying the target of 80 to 90%. At a maximum range of 5000 m, it is 70 to 80%. So in game have 9K119 Reflex nerfed penetration and acurracy for no reason. If we recalculate penetration from stats. in game he musst have 22 Penetration in game 21. Then acurracy max range 70-80 effective hit in game 50 hardly nerf. One more Note 9K119 Reflex can using in T-80UD and U shot with move. In game you need min 3x t-80U or UD with comander shot on abrams if you want kill him or hit :D.
I remember like BMP-3 as she had 43 percent acurracy everybody was quiet. If Eguen raise acurracy every NATO boys start crying. I see a bit of hypocrisy here. Konkurs and another ATGM is for another debate... So we have Pact nerfed tank misilles for no reason. I talk about T-80UD and U. Then I don't see the point in using them. It would be better to remove them and reduce the price of tanks. Nato designate refleks like AT-11 SNIPER in game we can change for AT-11 BLINDER :D. https://www.military.cz/russia/weapons/ptrs/ptrs.htm
https://www.armedconflicts.com/SOV-9K119-Reflex-9K119M-Reflex-M-AT-11-Sniper-t10792

[Sneaky_Beaky]

Originally posted by Marek:

Originally posted by Sneaky_Beaky:

I remembered the answer to this dilemma.

Redfor gets 8x units with 2800m range ATGM. Blufor gets 0x. T-80UD, T-80U, T-62MV, T-62M, T-55AM2B, BMP-3, MTLB-Shturm, and the Raspira.

So, red gets better range, blue gets better accuracy.

I can see some logic behind it. Russia has really good rocket science. The West has really good computers.

It's not a direct 1-to-1 balancing. It's like, battleaxe vs greatsword. Strengths and weaknesses.

Hold on Hold on. We have to determine the effectiveness:
Good effective: BMP-3, T-55AM2B, T-62MV, T-62M. Little note: Raspira is not tank btw. I know Augen add Raspira like tank but really is not.
Medium effective: MTLB-Shturm
Bad effectivite: T-80UD, T-80U
So how we can see really effective is half units.
How you using your aguments about blue have good computers
T-80UD and T-80U using 9K119 Reflex missile. With an optimal range of 4000 m, they indicate a probability of destroying the target of 80 to 90%. At a maximum range of 5000 m, it is 70 to 80%. So in game have 9K119 Reflex nerfed penetration and acurracy for no reason. If we recalculate penetration from stats. in game he musst have 22 Penetration in game 21. Then acurracy max range 70-80 effective hit in game 50 hardly nerf. One more Note 9K119 Reflex can using in T-80UD and U shot with move. In game you need min 3x t-80U or UD with comander shot on abrams if you want kill him or hit :D.
I remember like BMP-3 as she had 43 percent acurracy everybody was quiet. If Eguen raise acurracy every NATO boys start crying. I see a bit of hypocrisy here. Konkurs and another ATGM is for another debate... So we have Pact nerfed tank misilles for no reason. I talk about T-80UD and U. Then I don't see the point in using them. It would be better to remove them and reduce the price of tanks. Nato designate refleks like AT-11 SNIPER in game we can change for AT-11 BLINDER :D. https://www.military.cz/russia/weapons/ptrs/ptrs.htm
https://www.armedconflicts.com/SOV-9K119-Reflex-9K119M-Reflex-M-AT-11-Sniper-t10792

Why would I want to 1-shot an Abrams at 4000m without any battle occurring? That's not very sportsmanlike. It altogether differs little from what the blufor only players were doing last game, with the cluster spams.

I'd prefer if he had an even chance of victory, and if our respective talent at strategy was more prominent than the outcome of some arithmetic in the game's engine. Being able to dink the Abrams for 20% of its health, before the cannon battle begins, is a big advantage.

If Eugen increases the accuracy, then they should lower the range -- and we should just play more boringly, with flatly even forces.

---------------

I think your position surpasses the question of "balance."

You obviously want realistic missile ranges, realistic speeds, (high enough damage to approximate realism), etc, stuff like that.

Like a "hardcore" mil-sim kind of game mode..

[RR]

Don't forhet that soviet inf has super-super strong rpg that can oneshot best nato tanks

[Marek]

Originally posted by Sneaky_Beaky:

Originally posted by Marek:

Hold on Hold on. We have to determine the effectiveness:
Good effective: BMP-3, T-55AM2B, T-62MV, T-62M. Little note: Raspira is not tank btw. I know Augen add Raspira like tank but really is not.
Medium effective: MTLB-Shturm
Bad effectivite: T-80UD, T-80U
So how we can see really effective is half units.
How you using your aguments about blue have good computers
T-80UD and T-80U using 9K119 Reflex missile. With an optimal range of 4000 m, they indicate a probability of destroying the target of 80 to 90%. At a maximum range of 5000 m, it is 70 to 80%. So in game have 9K119 Reflex nerfed penetration and acurracy for no reason. If we recalculate penetration from stats. in game he musst have 22 Penetration in game 21. Then acurracy max range 70-80 effective hit in game 50 hardly nerf. One more Note 9K119 Reflex can using in T-80UD and U shot with move. In game you need min 3x t-80U or UD with comander shot on abrams if you want kill him or hit :D.
I remember like BMP-3 as she had 43 percent acurracy everybody was quiet. If Eguen raise acurracy every NATO boys start crying. I see a bit of hypocrisy here. Konkurs and another ATGM is for another debate... So we have Pact nerfed tank misilles for no reason. I talk about T-80UD and U. Then I don't see the point in using them. It would be better to remove them and reduce the price of tanks. Nato designate refleks like AT-11 SNIPER in game we can change for AT-11 BLINDER :D. https://www.military.cz/russia/weapons/ptrs/ptrs.htm
https://www.armedconflicts.com/SOV-9K119-Reflex-9K119M-Reflex-M-AT-11-Sniper-t10792

Why would I want to 1-shot an Abrams at 4000m without any battle occurring? That's not very sportsmanlike. It altogether differs little from what the blufor only players were doing last game, with the cluster spams.

I'd prefer if he had an even chance of victory, and if our respective talent at strategy was more prominent than the outcome of some arithmetic in the game's engine. Being able to dink the Abrams for 20% of its health, before the cannon battle begins, is a big advantage.

If Eugen increases the accuracy, then they should lower the range -- and we should just play more boringly, with flatly even forces.

---------------

I think your position surpasses the question of "balance."

You obviously want realistic missile ranges, realistic speeds, (high enough damage to approximate realism), etc, stuff like that.

Like a "hardcore" mil-sim kind of game mode..

You have truth about cluster spam. I know what you think. I agree with your opinion so that tactics prevail at the expense of the engine. Super hardcore game realisitc game can definitely bring problems. I dont wanna shot on abrmas from 4 km. I meant conversion to the game. But here is problem we have TOW-2, Tow-2 it is good according to the calculation. Then why not too Kokurs ? Is really not funny when you shot with 3 konkurs other sides and you have problem kill for example Challenger Mk2. And TOW-2 can hit everything without mistake. Yes TOW-2 is he's right stats. Why not Konkurs? The game for pact is more complicated. I dont like only victories no sweat. it's not fun if you only win. it could at least be authentic or options for reaslitc mode. There will always be problems with balance. For example in the game there is nerfed M113 front armor or accuracy Milan. I don't know what he wants Eugen. Mass Soviet doctrine or expensive tanks. I really find Abrams waves funny sometimes. Then we have 7 panzer div. with t-72 mass produced tank and Eugen nerf price and quantity? Some divisions is not authentically. But I'm happy for your constructive opinion on the matter.