RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Shadow Empire >> Suggestions and Feedback



Message

Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 10:57:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

...
This what I fear, ATGM APC turning into best way to counter tanks that completely not like in reality where APC is a food for tanks.
...


This is the reality, but they aren't called APC's then.

[;)]

The historical weakness of the ATGM, tracking and guidance, is diminishing significantly. Standoff is increasing. ISR platforms are improving due to digitization and miniaturization.

As an analogy, you're advocating battleship focused navies.



demiare -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 11:36:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

The historical weakness of the ATGM, tracking and guidance, is diminishing significantly. Standoff is increasing. ISR platforms are improving due to digitization and miniaturization.



Small issue here. Tanks are firing GM for a long time too :) And while their front armor usually hold hit from any man-portable ATGM - APC and infantry don't hold well a hits from tank's gun.

Guns on APC also increasing their calibers now = more range while man-portable ATGM are still limited by direct line of sight to it's target. Yes, there is a few experiments about indirect fire but with unsure results as small missile (for being man-portable) is very vulnerable to ECM.

So IMHO it's VERY hard to predict where it's going. Everything could change a lot. Carriers are great example - they are suddenly completely surpass battleships but in same time quickly became a prey to long-range super- and hyper-sonic ASM. Nobody expected that their golden age will be so short.



Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 1:29:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

Small issue here. Tanks are firing GM for a long time too :) And while their front armor usually hold hit from any man-portable ATGM - APC and infantry don't hold well a hits from tank's gun.

Guns on APC also increasing their calibers now = more range while man-portable ATGM are still limited by direct line of sight to it's target. Yes, there is a few experiments about indirect fire but with unsure results as small missile (for being man-portable) is very vulnerable to ECM.

So IMHO it's VERY hard to predict where it's going. Everything could change a lot. Carriers are great example - they are suddenly completely surpass battleships but in same time quickly became a prey to long-range super- and hyper-sonic ASM. Nobody expected that their golden age will be so short.


I'm feeling you. Don't think I hate tanks. My first, as a PC, was named "Angel of Death".

Tanks aren't going away, but they are being relegated to a supporting role (i.e. Fires)-- like battleships.

It's the need to move troops to and on the objective that tips the scales. That requirement is not going away and cannot be avoided, even with drones.

Armor (RHA) is going down, not up--just like ships--given cheaper lethality. You can't put frontal armor on the entire tank. I can personally knock out an M1A2 Abrams, from the outside and above, with a hand grenade--placement matters.

The cost ratio is becoming more disproportionate as ATGM probability of kill (Pk) is increased. Tanks become too expensive relative to their mission capabilities.

With an IFV, we keep the same capabilities provided by tanks, but add the ability to protect and move infantry.

If the same could be done at cost and with the same level of protection, it would be VTOL "Long Range Assault Aircraft" instead of IFV's. air battle positions looked great on paper, but didn't work out well in practice.

With respect only to this world, I'm not even touching on the issue of worldwide urbanization, and how that is impacting R&D.

I get it, I've played countless versions of Operation Barbarossa games. To expand strategy, etc. a game needs to break out of the thought debt created by WW2 design and simulation.

[image]local://upfiles/34589/E173ADA92FCF47C584B917904B520DBA.jpg[/image]



demiare -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 1:52:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Armor (RHA) is going down, not up--just like ships--as cheaper lethality increases.
The cost ratio is becoming more disproportionate as ATGM probability of kill (or Pk) is increased.


Your mistakes are here. Ship is a big and very expensive target so it's okay to waste tactical nuke on it (to be honest USSR & Russia naval doctrine was and still based on massed tactical nukes). Even without nukes armor capable to hold hyper-sonic missile is too heavy even for a ship.

Situation is completely different for land vehicles. While tactical nukes are still the thing - they're much more protected from them because of landscape. Hyper-sonic man-portable missiles aren't existing and will not exist at least in nearby several decades (atmosphere on low altitudes is extremely against hyper-sonic movement), while latest gen active defense systems are providing full protection against even APDS-shells. Plus advanced composite materials are holding super-sonic kinetic & HEAT quite well.

In fact even against obsolete soviet tanks at current wars on Middle East ATGM show very low kill ratio in frontal hemisphere. Usually crew simply retreated after being hit while tank still have full combat potential but this is mostly morale&discipline issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
With an IFV, we keep the same capabilities provided by tanks


Seriously? We are lacking firepower, protection and ability to advance through firestorm / nuclear fallout. So we're sacrificing offensive power for ... what? AFAIK infantry zero offensive potential was clear since WW1. And artillery capabilities only increased a lot since WW1-2. Only tanks have a chance to break through it, engage & distract enemy and allow APC to follow them.

VTOL... VTOL are magic birds. [:D] As currently we have no VTOL capable to withstand any fire - I don't think we need to waste time discussing fairies & unicorns here :)



Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 1:55:04 PM)

I get your hyperbole, I've played countless versions of Operation Barbarossa games. To expand strategy, etc. a game needs to break out of the thought debt created by WW2 design and simulation.

You don't counter ubiquitous use of lethal ATGM's with moar equivalent RHA, unless you can make a breakthrough in materials. You have to develop new strategies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

I don't think we need to waste time discussing fairies & unicorns here :)


This game, and the others, are fairies & unicorns already.



[image]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/P1000_ratte_scale_model.png[/image]



demiare -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 2:15:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
This game, and the others, are fairies & unicorns already.


Without any real-life example with actual combat experience - we can't make a constructive dialogue. Instead it will end like "You're liking Spiderman, I'm liking Batman - we're both mortal enemies". [:D] It will be funny discussion but fruitless.

Sure, game have a large inheritance from WW2. But IMHO it's a good thing as most players will instantly get at least vague guidelines. Plus game isn't WW2 in space - some things are different and some WW2-inspired tactics will not work at all. It's leaving an area for discovery and experiment without turning game into extreme sandbox do-your-own-way. Even now game is quite complex I really unsure that more complexity is a good idea (plus take in mind that we WILL get more complexity with ships and possibly aircraft DLC/expansion/patch).



Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/20/2020 2:20:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demiare

"You're liking Spiderman, I'm liking Batman - we're both mortal enemies". [:D] It will be funny discussion but fruitless.


That describes this discussion well, I think. I'm enjoying the humor. I hope I've provided you some insights, nonetheless. You seem interested in military vehicles.

For me, it's procrastination. [:@]

[image]local://upfiles/34589/2924B2827287441BADD2F5ADDEE3DF9E.jpg[/image]



Malevolence -> RE: Add infantry fighting vehicle model (7/28/2020 3:53:23 AM)

Repeat. Version 1.04b11.

[image]local://upfiles/34589/7B995AF9EF2C467E9A485AACB94605B3.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875