Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Stagler

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,164

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Stagler

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Stagler

     

    firstly if the Armata really does use an radar system at the core of it's APS then that is fine and effective for almost all potential opens until it comes up against the US when it will be electronically lit up like a Christmas tree and last minutes.

    Any realistic BS scenario with a Regiment of 30 Armatas against the US would have artillery and air support cut that to less than 10 before the US force even entered the map.

    Assumptions much? You also forget Peter, this is Black Sea, air support cannot into interdiction before a battle.

    0

    Firepower Upgrade Planned for Strykers

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    I don't know how realistic it is, but in-game the 40mm grenade launchers are quite deadly against anything smaller than a MBT, up to around 1km

    All US GMGs have the HEDP round, on paper which is capable of penetrating 90mm of RHA. But pretty much goes through anything the Ukrainians or Russians have ingame.

    The AGS-30 actually can fire GPD-30 enhanced blast rounds, but I don't think they are ingame. :rolleyes:

    0

    A Modest Proposal regarding Abrams tanks

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    http://armyrecognition.com/ausa_2015_show_daily_news_coverage_report/general_dynamics_land_systems_displays_m1a2_sepv3_most_advanced_digital_main_battle_tank_11210157.html

    The M1A2 SEP v3 has been revealed (or rather, it's made an official public affairs sort of debut) at the AUSA annual exposition.  It looks pretty much spot-on for the current M1A2 SEP v2 in game minus ERA (which is actually a kit that can go on any M1 Abrams), LWS (again, another bolt-on kit) or the APS (which is a hypothetical bolt on kit).

    I propose for a follow on module we split the current Abrams into six basic vehicles:

    M1A2 SEP v3 APS/ERA
    The current M1A2 SEP V2 from game+ERA+APS

    M1A2 SEP V3 ERA
    As above with APS omitted

    M1A2 SEP V3 Base
    As above without ERA

    Above all should have different lower profile CROW too.  While modeling is not "simple" it doesn't present too drastic of a difference in performance.

    Then:

    M1A2 SEP V2 APS/ERA
    As current minus AMP (so MPAT and CAN rounds instead), and LWS,  

    M1A2 SEP V2 ERA
    As above minus APS

    M1A2 SEP V2 Base
    As above minus ERA

    And as a special bonus:

    M1A1SA
    M1A1SAs remain in the inventory of some National Guard units, and offers a narrower gap between blue and red forces.  It would require new model, and would likely at least need both ERA and non-ERA models.  

    The M829A4 remains compatible with older model non-data link Abrams, and would likely be the theater standard Sabot.


    Conceptually the M1A2 SEP v3/v2 would represent the US Army mid-refit.  The varying degrees of ERA and APS would also well model different levels of preparedness, a unit with lots of APS and ERA would represent a long build up to conflict, while the base models would reflect a shorter faster build up.  It would also allow for more granularity in QB selection, I could trade off AMPs and LWS to squeeze in another Abrams or two, or make the choice that ERA isn't so important as having V3s over V2s.  

    Just a thought.  In terms of modeling, as mentioned earlier the real visual difference will be a shorter profile CROWs.
     

    Seems legit.

    0

    Purchaseable EW formations.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by Stagler

    I think Stagler's suggesting them as "off map", "largely abstracted" elements that would simply and purely have the effect of changing the EW environment for the cost of some/many QB points, rather than assets which could be targeted on the playing field.

     

    Thats exactly what I had in mind.

    I dont know US EW assets very well, but this being 2017 I assume they have a deployable platoon size EW unit that supports ground operations.

    Many people would if playing as Ukraine vs Russia, or Russia vs the US, it would balance out for example fact that you cant hit the Grey Hawk or Zala, by having them hampered by deployment times and reporting accuracy by EW - which in turn effects the high technology precision strike capability of both of those factions.

    For a relatively heavy investment in deployment points, it would be worth it if your pitted against an opponent with multple offmap UAV/CAS/Artillery platforms using precision strike. Lets say about 4000 deployment and 2000 rarity points buys you one EW Plt, which is the equivalent of giving your enemy "Light" EW jamming as per the QB set up. Thats the equivalent of 2 strike aircraft, or 4/6 batteries of artillery. You could choose to buy 2 EW Plts if you wished but youd be spending a fair chunk of your points cost and rarity on off-map supporting assets - bringing balance.

    0

    Purchaseable EW formations.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    Suggestion:

    How about introducing purchasable EW units (EW platoon?) purchasable as part of a combined arms battalion or BTG for both sides, with high rarity and high cost.

    That way it is possible to leverage EW upon your opponent without having to agree before the game on set levels (who would really take a voluntary nerf?), and as a way to surprise your opponent who decided to invest heavily in drones or air support. Ensuring high price and rarity keeps this from being spammed or gimmicky, as investing heavily in pricey EW would hamper the size of your force.

    Thoughts?

    0
×
×
  • Create New...