Zala Capabilities

[Hydaspes]

Certain people claim that Zala should be forbidden in  tiny,small and medium maps since it cant be shot down by US troops. and in huge maps it doesnt really have impact that much(not a bugg,it says in the manual that thaat is the case) 

what are your thoughts? 

considering russian equipement is just inferior to the US equipement ,what do you think? (no abrams,no javelin,arty calling time is longer,less capable precision arty in a sense that russian troops need los to call it,no optics for infantry squads,no fancy weapons on squad level ) 

yes they have cheaper troops but not THAT cheaper since their company is like american platoon (in terms of numbers)

[Sublime]

You just need more practice with Russian equipment. Its a house rule I dont buy it because it cant be shot down. You want balance play Wargame airland battle or something. This is a simulation and the fact is US forces DO have better equipment. Thats not to be said as Russian if you practice enough you cant either win consistently or at least make the win very costly for the US

[Hydaspes]

You just need more practice with Russian equipment. Its a house rule I dont buy it because it cant be shot down. You want balance play Wargame airland battle or something. This is a simulation and the fact is US forces DO have better equipment. Thats not to be said as Russian if you practice enough you cant either win consistently or at least make the win very costly for the US

well ,banning zala, is aiming for balance, isnt it ? and i don't want to ban zala

[Sublime]

it is in qbs. but quick battles are more to test opponents ability. and its only banned because it cannot be shot down at all.  This is different than say nerfing US equipment for balance, or whatever. Its a house rule to make QBs fair. Not balanced because one side still uses Russians and the US still gets all it stuff. But just like you could say not buying all super heavy artillery anr CAS and preplotting strikes on your opponents setup zone is  doing balance its really just to ve fair. If zalas could be at least even shot at Id allow them.

I also generallly dont allow APS in my QBs. the US doesnt currently have APS and because this is a gamw that cant model a number of factors that in real life would help the Russians I see a great reliance on ATGMs and therefore prefer no side uses APS .

Regardles noones forcing you to not use zalas and you can play anyway you want. Just not against me.  You opened the thread for thoughts and discussion and I gave you mine.  No one is forcing you to do anything. And if in the future the game was edited so the Zala could be shot down like all other drones ( except gray eagle in observe mode iirc) than Id allow it in QBs. Since i play as Russians in 99.9% of all my QBs in BS its not hurting my opponents but me with the Zalas.  The no APS hurts them more than me because Javelins go right through Russian APS but I feel Abrams and Javelins more than make up for that issue ( the Russians have no fire ans forget ATGMs let alone top attack ones)

This however is how I play the game and in QBs against an other player. I also dont do attacks n assaults. In WW2 titles the defender against a himan is almost certainly doomed from the start and its more glaring in BS. instead i play probes that still do attack defense and give the attacker more points but not such a huge disparity.  I want qbs to tests of player skill but not artificial ones - i.e. I dont continue to play people who consistently cherry pick the very best trained and highest order equipment, use gamey tactics, or dont follow agreed upon house rules.

[Bud Backer]

 

the US doesnt currently have APS and because this is a gamw that cant model a number of factors that in real life would help the Russians

I don't know if you explained this before, but if not can you clarify what factors are not modelled that would be beneficial to the Russians? I'm genuinely curious.

[A Canadian Cat]

I dont continue to play people who consistently cherry pick the very best trained and highest order equipment, use gamey tactics, or dont follow agreed upon house rules.

LOL I'm in trouble then (aside I failed my basic reading and bought APS equiped tanks in a recent QB against @Sublime, even after agreeing not to  ).  My personal take is to play with less house rules, the more there are the more chances of making a mistake (or not) which can lead to disagreement and the more there are the more it indicates someone is trying to shape the battlefield.  I personally would rather have few to no house rules (I'm in favour of the no preplanned arty bombardment for the defending player for example) and let the battles play out.  But I am flexible too cause I'm still playing @Sublime :D.

BTW there are combinations of UAV and precision artillery the Russians can use.  I forget what they are but I have done it.  Loads of fun to wreck an M1 with precision artillery.

[hattori]

"the US doesnt currently have APS" ... in all fairness, this game is set 2 years from now.  As for the zala, if I have my stats right, it's 40cm by 80cm with an electric engine.  I would guess that would very difficult to detect, and hard for software to differentiate from a bird (just a guess though).  

IanL -- I must be completely misinformed.  I had thought the Russians needed line of sight with a laser in order to do a precision strike -- but they can order one from seeing the target through just the UAV?

[A Canadian Cat]

@hattori you are making me nervous now   I am certain I have done it but I think only certain UAVs have a lazer designator on them. If someone does not beat me to it I'll put together a test and give you the run down.

Edited September 16, 2015 by IanL
spelling

[Bud Backer]

@hattori you are making me nervous now   I am certain I have done it but I think only certain UAVs have a lazer designator on them. If some one does not beat me to it I'll put together a test and give you the run down.

I could not find a UAV of any kind for any side with a laser designator. Did I miss something? I don't believe you can use UAVs for laser designation in the game. If one can, please tell me which, as that would be very handy!

[Rinaldi]

 I personally would rather have few to no house rules (I'm in favour of the no preplanned arty bombardment for the defending player for example) and let the battles play out.  But I am flexible too cause I'm still playing @Sublime :D.

 

We're in total agreement here. The only rule we play with is, like you said, no pre-planned artillery for the defender - and that's only for QBs. I remember doing a Shockforce PBEM of a pre-made scenario where the Defender got strong intel about the attacker's deployment (to simulate radio intercept + indigenous sympathies). My opponent asked if he was allowed to do spoiling fire. I replied that the scenario designer clearly intended for it, so all bets are off. One of the more memorable matches.

[Rinaldi]

I don't know if you explained this before, but if not can you clarify what factors are not modelled that would be beneficial to the Russians? I'm genuinely curious.

He's referring to Russian comms-warfare and E-Warfare. Which I will tell you pointblank is just plain more matured than anything the United States or Canada has to offer. If comms went dark for an extended length of time, a lot of us would have trouble coping. IIRC the campaigns have generally captured the mutual impotency of fixed-wing air support; the Russians having a sizable strategic air net to hamper NATO but a laughable and aging fleet of their own.

If 2008 is any indication (hint: It is), the Russians are able to punch holes in comms, completely disrupt or hijack civilian media (a key route of information flow) and had great success in jamming communications. We're a bit behind on the game in that spectrum, we think we can defend our e-net if it comes under attack, but we're not really capable of jamming in return to the same degree.

[Vanir Ausf B]

well ,banning zala, is aiming for balance, isnt it ? and i don't want to ban zala

Nope, realism. While spotting and shooting down mico UAVs is not trivial it is not impossible in real life. They fly only a few hundred feet off the ground. Their present invulnerability to US forces is because of game engine limitations.

[Vanir Ausf B]

As for house rules, I understand the appeal of limiting them to a bare minimum. I have cut down on mine from a few years ago. But if the only one you ever use is the pre-planned bombardment rule you are risking some highly unrealistic and very un-fun battles. To each their own.

Edited September 16, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[A Canadian Cat]

OK did some testing.  I created a quick battle and let the US side pick what ever it wanted. I picked a small security detail plus three FO teams and three air controllers along with one each of the drones and two 120mm and two 155mm batteries.

Here is the Pchela-1T being used to call a precision strike:

The air controller doing the same with the Orlan-10 (forgot the screen of his observe mission)

Now with the 120mm mortar and the Orlann-10

The Zala 421 cannot call the precision fire but can call regular

Here are some of the rounds coming in - not neccessarily from the calls pictured because the enemy was moving way to much in the early turns so my first barrages missed.

And from the end screen - all M1s are imobilized and messed up and the other vehicles are all toast.

Here are some game saves so you can play around:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/tkgo2on4l33sghm/UAV Artillery test.zip?dl=0

 

Edited September 16, 2015 by IanL
removed extra screens

[hattori]

Awesome, thanks so much for the info.  So the zala has it's trade offs then.  Can't get shot down, but no precision arty strikes.  I guess I stupidly only tried out precision strikes with a zala before.

[Sublime]

axtually jamming and comms werent what i had in mind when I saidbthat and I be glad if you refrained from speaking for me in the future when we dont talk or know eachother.

What I mean is its a game so forces act more quickly and robotically than in real life. Its also hard to get a SoP down for vehicles where in real life Russian BMP drivers would often know when to shoot their Kornets when in game they use the autocannon. Also in real life the khriz can engage two targets seperately and has the ability to operate with only the missile launch mast exposed buy not in game. 

Real life just has so many soft factors and other issues no game will ever be able to cover and unfortunately a lot of those would be beneficial to the Russians since the US equipment is already better. Super fast and robotic responses to spotting enemies does favor the better tank which the US by far.

APS yes and Ive also heard the argument that the US could quickly buy and bolt some onto tanks quickly in such a situation. However it is late September 2015 and afaik the US still has no active plans at all for the next several years to equip forces with APS.  A year and a half isnt long at all for military hardware development time and if abrams were that close to having aps installed on them Im assuming we.d have heard something about it by now. Regardless if the US could buy several hundred aps units and reloads and install them flawlessly within weeks of a conflict APS is still way too widely used imo and should be much rarer. 

Oh and the sandbox nature of the game. Theres nothing to be done its a game. But in the wide open world there are no map edges to hug or know the enemy wont come out of and this is another factor that favors whateber side has superior equipment.

[Sublime]

all i ask is no aps or deploymebt zone stonks. or blatant gaminess like realizing you can see into and fire into my entire deployment zone when im the attacker and havent even moved and asking me if im aware and would like to continue like a certain player did recently.

the zala thing doesnt come up much i prefer russians and everyone else prefers americans because theyre easier and they like to win whether or not they feel theres a challenge involved or not. except the more expetience i get with russians the more i realize they are a winnable side even against competent human players.

I just dont buy zalas because im not a gamey loser who.ll buy something I know the enemy could.shoot at in  real life and at least drive off but cannot in game. And hattori electric motor or no istr a post here mentioning russian troops complaining in 08 of lousy pic quality and it being loud as fu(k to the point that Russia is  buying its dronss from Israel at the moment.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Sublime

[Rinaldi]

axtually jamming and comms werent what i had in mind when I saidbthat and I be glad if you refrained from speaking for me in the future when we dont talk or know eachother.

lmfao...

I have no words except 'step back.' How's this: I don't care what you had in mind, then; but my point is no less relevant.

 

 

PS: Even phones have spell-check, J-H-C.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Rinaldi
lmfao

[John Kettler]

Since the Zala can't conduct precision fire, this means it has no LRF/LTD. In turn, this means that maneuver restrictions on its flight path imposed by such presumed capability are no longer relevant, making the Zala much harder to hit. As I showed in another thread, hitting such a target, even when it's "fed" to waiting MGs in a very narrowly defined angular subtense and range band is very difficult. Additionally, I've shown it has almost certainly has tiny radar and thermal signatures. My brother and I both agree that of a bird is about right. Were Avenger in the game, for reasons I detailed elsewhere, I believe it would effectively have nil capability. The HROF .50 HMG on the Avenger wasn't ever intended to deal with a micro UAV threat, for it was focused on full size fixed wing and rotary wing threats. A Pchela? That I'd see as doable, though not necessarily easy. I don't have a handle on its speed or maneuverability, other than it's a dog compared to the Zala. This is based on video of it in flight, its construction and loud, hot IC engine. The drone artillery direction tests illustrate the vital importance of tactical dispersion!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited September 17, 2015 by John Kettler

[Sublime]

ya a spellcheck that autochanges words. Im all set. I had just worked a twelve hour shift. Im glad you could care less what I think, but then I dont know why you didnt put that as your opinion instead of saying ' what sublime meant' you have no idea what I meant and I actually was pretty polite in telling you so. Step back? From what? And wtf does j-h-c mean?

 

Hitting the zala still may not be necessary, if you were some junior private flying the Zala with your platoon Sgt. breathing down your neck seeing a flood of fire coming up at it he.d probably wave away your rafar cross section references and tell you to back off. Plus now you knownthe enemy is there and in some strength. I dont know how readily a Russian platoon or company would risk its drone to a golden BB.

[A Canadian Cat]

And wtf does j-h-c mean?

I had to look it up to and I strongly suspect it stands for Jesus H Christ  Mind you I would not want to speak for @Rinaldi

And we all know that wtf means Why the face.

[Sublime]

suurrree thats what it means

[hattori]

Sublime -- in 2008, the Zala was model 421-06, the first attempt at a UAV by that company.  Since then they have made a 421-12 and are developing a 421-20 model.  I don't think we can say for sure zala's are still noisy.  I do know they are pretty small, can fly up to 3.6km above sea level which could make them near impossible to see, and electric motors are capable of being insanely quieter than gas powered engines.  I can only assume they have really attempted to address each flaw with each new model.

I don't know one way or the other, but I'm also not willing to say zala's are gamey because we for sure would be able to see them and shoot them down with small arms in real life.

[Sublime]

you mean you are willing to say they are gamey? or not?  I just think that if US drones can be attacked and targeted by Russian weapons than the same should be true of Russian drones. And since this particular one isnt targetable or even able to be shot at because of game limitations I find its use gamey.  I dont dictate how everyone plays the game, and most people are happy enough to let me have the Russians anyways so it only affects me negatively. I dont mind at all.  I can however come to an agreement that dictates how people I play with will conduct themselves in the game, and considering there are only like 2-3 house rules and theyre very mild I dont think it shapes the battlefield very much at all.  After all an Abrams is still an in game super tank without APS. APS just makes in basically undefeatable by Russian ATGMs.  Since besides T90s (which take a lot of practice begin to even get abram kills with and 90% of my kills with said tanks involve either a majority in numbers, ambush positions and or both Russian ATGMs are crucial to their combat of tanks.

A good example is Russian infantry in WW2 titles.  Without AT guns or tanks theyre near helpless against any German armor.  You tank Abrams tanks which are able to successfully take on 3-4 T90s apiece in an open fight without a problem and add APS you get the same situation as the Russian infantry in WW2. You're near helpless.  Sure you can get lucky kills and the like in but still.  I wouldnt mind APS  IF the rarity was HIGHLY increased, for both sides but more so the US since Russia is already fielding APS, and if players didnt cherry pick - for example perhaps your bttn HQ and company HQ have APS, your other abrams dont. Or one out of four.  Instead you see entire formations of Abrams and Bradleys all with APS.

[hattori]

I believe I said zala's aren't gamey, just as I don't find APS gamey.  Maybe difficult to deal with, but both seem to be realistic possibilities of what equipment could be like in 2 years.  Zalas also have the disadvantage of no precision arty strikes.

I'm well aware APS makes it very difficult to deal with Abrams for the Russians if you're ATGM heavy, which you like to be.  Another way to deal with APS is to throw numbers at it (or at the very least, something I'm playing with), with vehicles that are not affected by it.  I've been playing around with different setups, and if you're attacking with the Russians, you can throw an entire regular Russian Tactical Tank Battalion (T72Bs, change out the BTRs or BMPs for trucks, remove the AA platoon) with a Tunguska at a single American armoured rifle company.   That's around 30 tanks to their 4, and you have plenty left over for the inevitable javelin kills (which can be mitigated by having your tanks in woods).  You also have a company of infantry and a platoon of engineers.

Or if you're defending, you have enough points to have 2 companys of T72Bs, and enough left over for some infantry, Tunguska and/or Khriz.  The Americans could come at you with an armoured company with 2 platoons of Abrams, but you still have 1 company of tanks for each of his platoons.

Anyways, just some other thoughts as dealing with APS is a serious challenge.