WARNO
169 arvostelua
SURM
19
4
3
5
7
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
   
Palkinto
Lisää suosikkeihin
Lisätty suosikkeihin
Poista suosikeista
Tiedostokoko
Julkaistu
Päivitetty
6.177 MB
21.9.2023 klo 15.31
11.5. klo 18.38
159 muutosilmoitusta ( näytä )
Kuvaus
I will be off doing big mountain things starting next week with limited to no communication for roughly 4 weeks. I expect to be back in mid June. If Eugen release an update in this time, I will not be able to merge it. The mod is not dead, but you may need to use the rollback features to play if an update comes out during that time. In the highly unlikely event I fall into a crevasse and am never seen again, I've updated the source code upload to the current version.

Greetings!
Welcome to the Stupidly Unrealistic Realism Mod.

There are a lot of realism mods for WARNO but they all use words like "reasonable", "fun", "balanced", or "playable" to describe themselves. That's far too practical.

Here we make no such concessions. Want to have your heavy tanks sniped from 8km away by an AH-64 on the other side of a mountain using LOAL? How about positioning your troops for a perfect all around defense of a critical town only to have the entire place leveled by a battery of BM-30s firing from 50km off the map? Perhaps you'd like to watch helplessly as a T-80UD shrugs off a couple dozen LAWs before wiping out your entire platoon. You're in the right place.

This is a mod for people who laugh at the concept of balance. After all it's not all that "realistic" for East German reservists to hold off the US 3rd Armored, so get ready for extremely unequal levels of challenge.

If all that weren't enough. This will chug on all but the most powerful rigs (maybe those too, but I don't own one) so it kinda takes the "real time" out of real time strategy.

Yes this truly is a stupid mod, but what about the unrealistic part?

Basically everything here is based off wargaming websites, poorly sourced forum posts, YouTube videos and other similar sources of solid gold academic research material. Then of course, there are all the engine limitations, especially in spotting that really render the entire exercise silly. I promise there are serious accuracy issues and biases here. You will be mad. All that said, if you see something that's wrong (and care) you can post it with a source and I'll look into it.

"Realistic" Mechanics
SURM undoes the range compression of the vanilla game and applies "realistic" ranges, aim times, and speeds. The damage model is completely reworked, with penetration mechanics and critical effects like subsystem damage and crew casualties. When penetrated, most armored vehicles will either be bailed out, or suffer catastrophic ammo explosions (autoloading Soviet tanks are more likely to explode, newer NATO tanks with separate ammo storage are more likely to be bailed out). A bailed out tank is recoverable after battle which can be important for AG campaigns. Larger explosive weapons now feature both wide area fragmentation that damages light vehicles and infantry, and more extreme damage from direct hits or close misses that can blow apart even heavy tanks.

Most damage to vehicles is not repairable, the only repairs that occur are fixes by crew to things like computers and tracks. Infantry casualties cannot be replaced. Damaged or understrength units can be sold.

Spotting has also been overhauled. Fires from napalm, burning vegetation, and destroyed vehicles block LoS, as does dust from explosions. Stationary units are harder to see, but easier to hit. Infantry will dig small scratch shelters and get a defensive and stealth bonus after several minutes in one place.

Suppression mechanics have also been changed with suppressed infantry being harder to see. They will eventually get pinned down before routing in terror.

"Realistic" Formation Structures
Battlegroups are intended to be roughly battalion-sized, made up of companies of units. For infantry, there will be fighting sections, platoon HQs (for some nations these are mixed into a section, for others the HQ is a separate team), and company HQs, Soviet companies also have weapons sections (Pulemetchiki) with Metis and PKM. Tank units are simpler, with the tanks for the company, and company HQs of one or two tanks. Platoon HQs can capture zones, while company HQs can capture zones and give units in their radius +1XP level.

Mortar batteries are organic, some formations have limited amounts of howitzers available for attachment. AA, anti-tank units, attack helicopters, and aircraft can all be attached.

Command units under the logitic tab function as battalion commanders. These cause all company HQ units to provide +2XP levels instead of +1XP level.

"Realistic" Fire Support
Artillery is called in through forward observers, "standard" observers (or observer vehicles) are avilable in the artillery tab. These have commom support for a given formation, typically 155/152mm howitzers, and BM-21s for Pact forces. A single special observer is available in the logistic tab. These have access to more powerful strikes (8" howitzers, M270, BM-27, BM-30, LARS, etc). Observers can use radios so if one observer is in range of a target, all observers can direct accurate fire onto it.

Air strikes are significantly more powerful, but also rare. Aircraft turnaround times are long and damage cannot be repaired, so typically you will only get a single strike. Beware that large aerial bombs send fragmentation over a very large area and should not be dropped close to friendly infantry.

Lots More
Including:
  • Radar jamming
  • New Belgian division
  • Buccaneer bombers
  • Under-barrel and rifle grenade launchers
  • HE rounds for some infantry AT launchers (RPG-7, LRAC, Carl Gustaf, etc).
  • New supply system
  • Slower loading and unloading of units
If this somehow convinced you to play this, a more detailed (but still high level) change list is on the discussion page.

Potentially Useful Stuff
penetration calculator:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GifiEq8iow0JTDMBsA6UGYvjMjnRHb_oBHCsF9bT_Cg/edit?gid=723810577#gid=723810577
code (Dec 27, 2024):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BTLDi1juWn0WOp0ulMU5IQQ0O7-dDbID/view?usp=sharing
discord (set up by @piratepengu):
https://discord.gg/vHp3bbu7BD
Good maps:
Depth of Field by Kel:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3355294791
WEST FULDA by Silver:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3363584349
Suositut keskustelut Näytä kaikki (20)
36
25.4. klo 15.48
TÄRKEÄ: Crash reports
themediocrity
10
4.2.2024 klo 23.34
Sample Decks - OUTDATED
themediocrity
4
11.7.2024 klo 14.16
Feedback - suggestions
Szybs
1 573 kommenttia
themediocrity  [tekijä] 3 tuntia sitten 
All, be aware that I will be gone for roughly 4 weeks starting week with limited to no communication. Announcement on the description above.
themediocrity  [tekijä] 4 tuntia sitten 
Minor crash fix update.
Old Spice 6.5. klo 19.51 
@Orange, yes it is but you'll experience some glitches.
Koreets 6.5. klo 12.34 
New critical bug with crash with NVA 7pz:
fireeffect_rocketinf_RPG22_64mm missing in Mimetic World Descriptor.

Screenshot:
https://disk.yandex.com/i/9uQsGvwqwvCmNA
Orange 6.5. klo 5.53 
i just saw this on youtube and this mod is amazing
themediocrity  [tekijä] 1.5. klo 13.35 
Maneuverability is hard. Current stats for those fighters do align to reasonable g-loads at those speeds (assuming I did the math right, which I might not have). Of course, in reality, dumping speed will get you a faster turn, but the game enforces that aircraft go only one speed so you get somewhat wide turns at high speed vs tighter cornering at lower speeds. I could make the fighters shower, but that increases MANPADS threat. The game just doesn't have loads of aircraft simulation built in.

Based on that feedback, it sounds like having the dive bombers come in higher would work reasonably then. I can do a few other tricks to get all the bombs released.
Koreets 1.5. klo 8.48 
My friend and I played a lot and continue to play SURM and, in our experience, the most survivable (and effective) bomber without LGB is the MiG-25RBF. Su-24 and F-111 are also good. And they all are flying at high altitude. So the benefit of low altitude is relative when main AA is close ranged (like MANPADS). Only the Su-25 and A-10 stand out. Maybe try to reduce the bomb load (half of current or less) for low-altitude aircraft, but significantly increase their agilty and speed so that they can quickly leave the air defense zone? Then the problem of incomplete bomb dropping may go away. By the way, best fighters, including the F-15 and Su-27, also do not seem to have realistic maneuverability at the moment.
themediocrity  [tekijä] 30.4. klo 19.15 
@ Koreets, yeah I think it has to do with some consequence of unit conversions and a lower maneuverability. It seems to work when I push up dive bomber flying heights, but that makes them more vulnerable so I've been trying to nudge them up gradually to where they seem to work.

I wish I had a nice way to take a poll on whether people prefer to see low altitude level bombing or dive bombing with a higher altitude, and thus more risk from SAMs?
Koreets 30.4. klo 6.40 
Thank you!

About bombers: NF-5A started to drop bombs sometimes, but only 1 of 2 and not every time. Many bombers still dropping not all of the bombs
themediocrity  [tekijä] 29.4. klo 19.13 
small fix for the 53T2 crash and attempting to get the dive bombers working.