Side balancing

[antawar]

There has been a lot of posts about the fact that the syrian army would be outclassed by the US army in that game, thus making multiplayer games really unbalanced.

Personnally, I dont think that's an issue. In Combat Mission, when a player plays the US with Sherman tanks and faces a german player with tigers or Panthers, do we hear whining about "un-balanced sides". Same will happen to T-72s/T-80s against M1s. As an example, you simply give 10 T-72s to the syrian player and two M1s to the US player. And avoid making scenarios including such units in open desert. They should take place in the golan heights or in urban areas where the t-72s can use covered approach routes to get close to the M1s. If the US player is bad, he will soon find out that his M1s are very killable. If the Syrian player is bad, he will soon find out that 10 T-72s employed badly dont last long against even only 2 M1s. If both players are good, it will be interesting hehe

So I dont think it's really an issue. Another way to balance things out would be to give the syrian player lot's of kornet anti-tank missiles along with the T-72S so he can use the kornets to neutralize the m1s while using the T-72s as an armored reserve ready to exploit advantageous tactical situations.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by antawar:

There has been a lot of posts about the fact that the syrian army would be outclassed by the US army in that game, thus making multiplayer games really unbalanced.

Personnally, I dont think that's an issue. In Combat Mission, when a player plays the US with Sherman tanks and faces a german player with tigers or Panthers, do we hear whining about "un-balanced sides". Same will happen to T-72s/T-80s against M1s. As an example, you simply give 10 T-72s to the syrian player and two M1s to the US player. And avoid making scenarios including such units in open desert. They should take place in the golan heights or in urban areas where the t-72s can use covered approach routes to get close to the M1s. If the US player is bad, he will soon find out that his M1s are very killable. If the Syrian player is bad, he will soon find out that 10 T-72s employed badly dont last long against even only 2 M1s. If both players are good, it will be interesting hehe

So I dont think it's really an issue. Another way to balance things out would be to give the syrian player lot's of kornet anti-tank missiles along with the T-72S so he can use the kornets to neutralize the m1s while using the T-72s as an armored reserve ready to exploit advantageous tactical situations.

Or just focus on infantry actions - call me crazy but that used to be touted as the raison d'etre of the CM system - between the regular Syrian army and the US...

[antawar]

I agree, infantry tactics will be the emphasis. PLus we will only rarely see the M1s or other big tanks. Mostly strikers and BMPs. Stryker and BMPs are pretty much balanced, especially the BMP-3s, which has superior firepower (30mm autocannon, 3 machineguns, 100mm HE gun). The syrians are rumored to have bought some.

Concerning air power, that can be balanced too. The syrians have a whole lot of SA-16 MANPADS and have now bought SA-18 Man portable anti-air missiles. Those missiles are equivalent to the Stinger and are very effective (SA-16 and SA-18 have been credited with a few apache kills and a few NATO airplanes in the balkan wars, remember that Harrier that was shot down live on TV in 1995 ? a SA-16 brought it down). Also, you dont need to shoot down airplanes to make them innefective. You can actually degrade their effectiveness a lot by area denying with anti-aircraft missiles. A LOT of missions in Yugoslavia were cancelled because of heavy anti-aircraft fire over the target area. They didnt want to risk losing airplanes too much. In Iraq, a whole Apache brigade was ventilated by antiquated Zu-23 anti-aircraft guns during a very well planned ambush. The brigade was out of action for weeks for repairs. Same would happen in syria. If the US player insists, well, then he may lose a few planes and that would impact victory conditions a lot. Thus give the syrians something to defend themselves with in scenarios involving air power.

Not to mention the fact that the syrians may be able to get some choppers in the air. Back in 1982, the Israelis had total air supremacy over the battlefield (with AWACS coverage too) and the syrians managed to use Gazelle choppers with HOT missiles pretty effectively. At one point they ravaged a column of Merkava tanks in the Bekaa Valley. So a similar situation may not be far-fetched. Terrain is difficult in the area of the Golan, so there is plenty of opportunities for concealed movement.

[ October 11, 2005, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: antawar ]

[juan_gigante]

I'm pretty sure that Steve said that they wouldn't include the BMP-3. He said that while we can't be 100% either way, most evidence says that they don't have enough to warrant inclusion.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

I'm pretty sure that Steve said that they wouldn't include the BMP-3. He said that while we can't be 100% either way, most evidence says that they don't have enough to warrant inclusion.

Yeah he did say that the first night. Something like (not a quote) that it was rumored that Syria purchased 300 of them but no evidence of them being delivered could be found.

Being a near future game I think by the time the game releases that BFC will include or exclude things as information becomes available.

[aka_tom_w]

A handfull of BMP-3's and some T80's (he he) might make the game a little more interesting I would say.... (just for "What if..." sake! )

UPGRADED BMP-3M VEHICLE

KBP and Kurganmashzavod have upgraded the vehicle with a new turret and engines. The upgraded vehicle is called the BMP-3M and the new turret includes a new automatic fire control system with digital computer, new BZS1 gunner's sight with SAGEM thermal imager and laser illuminator, TKN-AI commander's periscope with laser infrared illuminator and new ammunition loading system. The BMP-3M will also be able to fire ammunition types including new 100mm laser-guided projectiles, new 100mm HE-FRAG (high explosive fragmentation) rounds and new 30mm APSDS (armour piercing discarding sabot) rounds. Additional passive armour protection is effective against 12.7mm armour-piercing rounds from a range of 50m. Explosive reactive armour is available as an option. The new uprated engine is the UTD-32, which is rated at 660hp.

BMP-3 ARMAMENT

The main armament of the BMP-3 is a 100mm 2A70 semi-automatic rifled gun/missile launcher, which is stabilised in two axes and can fire either 3UOF HE-FRAG (High Explosive-Fragmentation) rounds or 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missiles. Effective range for the HE-FRAG round is 4,000m. Muzzle velocity is 250m/s. 22 HE-FRAG rounds can be carried in the automatic loader, total ammunition load being 40 rounds. Rate of fire is 10 rounds per minute.

The gun fires the 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missile round, which consists of the 9M117 laser beamriding missile and container. This missile is used in the Bastion missile system (NATO designation AT-10 Stabber). The missile can engage tanks with explosive reactive armour (ERA) as well as slow, low-flying targets such as helicopters. Range is 100 to 4,000m. Hit probability is given as at least 0.8 with armour penetration of 600mm. Ammunition load is 8 rounds.

Armament also includes a 30mm 2A72 automatic gun, stabilised in two axes, which fires 3UOR-6 and 3UOR-8 rounds. Ammunition load is 500 AP (Armour-Piercing) or HE-FRAG rounds. Rate of fire is more than 300 rounds/min and range is 1,500 to 2,000m. There are also one 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun and two 7.62 bow machine guns.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Even if they didn't include it in the campaign, it would be a nice toy to have available to help balance out QBs and player-made scenarios. I would encourage BFC to error towards giving the Syrians the benefit of the doubt on these issues whenever possible. The T-80 fits in this category as well. Frankly, the Syrians are going to need all the help they can get.

Why not? We got JS-IIIs and Sturmtigers in CMx1.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Why not? We got JS-IIIs and Sturmtigers in CMx1.

I think that is exactly "why not". They looked back at the amount of work they did to model every single fricking piece of armour that was ever in battle in WWII and realized, while totally cool, it is also totally a waste of their time.

[rune]

Actually the Syrians got some new toys.

Syria prepares for arrival of Russian S-18 missiles

Geostrategy-Direct, www.geostrategy-direct.com, October 11, 2005

MOSCOW - A Syrian military delegation headed by chief of staff Gen. Ali

Habib has concluded arrangements for the delivery of the S-18 Igla-S

missiles, Russian industry sources said. The Syrian delegation, which

completed a three-day visit to Russia on Sept. 30, discussed delivery,

training and maintenance of the S-18 as well as the procurement of other

weapons.

"The two countries have agreed that [s-18] delivery would begin no later

than early 2006," an industry source said.

During his visit, Habib and his delegation toured Syrian defense facilities,

including the production line of the S-18, manufactured by KBM Engineering

Design Bureau. Industry sources said Habib discussed such issues as support

and training for the S-18 with his Russian counterpart, Yuri Baluyevsky, as

well as representatives from the Russian state arms export agency

Rosoboronexport.

The sources said the S-18, originally a shoulder-fired surface-to-air

missile, has been modified for deployment on Soviet-origin armored personnel

carriers in the Syrian Army. The system is designed to fit more than one

vehicle.

On Sept. 28, Habib met Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov in Moscow. The

Russian Defense Ministry said the meeting focused on "maintenance and

modernization of Syrian military equipment by Russian experts, the training

of Syrian military in Russian military academies and potential purchases of

Russian weapons."

Habib also reached agreement with Russia for additional purchases of

munitions. Industry sources said they included the Kornet-E anti-tank

missile, procured by Syria over the past two years.

Moscow also agreed to increase the training of Syrian military officers, a

Russian Defense Ministry official told the Interfax news agency. The

official said the number of Syrian military personnel invited for study in

Russia would increase from 30 to more than 50.

[aka_tom_w]

but its a small request...

Just toss in the T80 and the BMP-3 is all we are asking....

-tom w

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

but its a small request...

Just toss in the T80 and the BMP-3 is all we are asking....

-tom w

OK - you're articulate argument has swayed me over to the dark side.

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by antawar:

Personnally, I dont think that's an issue. In Combat Mission, when a player plays the US with Sherman tanks and faces a german player with tigers or Panthers, do we hear whining about "un-balanced sides". Same will happen to T-72s/T-80s against M1s. As an example, you simply give 10 T-72s to the syrian player and two M1s to the US player.

But would that be realistic? For WW2, it just so happened to be real. The russians and americans had lower-developed hardware (T-34, Sherman vs. Tiger & Panther) but had tons more of it than the few pieces the germans could build.

Yet in this hypothetical setting, I think the Syrians actually have less tanks then the US? So you can't just give them more of their stuff for play balance reasons.

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, too.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

I think that is exactly "why not". They looked back at the amount of work they did to model every single fricking piece of armour that was ever in battle in WWII and realized, while totally cool, it is also totally a waste of their time.

I completely disagree.

As Tom pointed out, it's just 2 vehicles. Not at all every single frikin' piece of armor the USSR ever exported. Secondly, from a pure gameplay standpoint these would make the difficult job of balancing out QBs and scenarios somewhat less difficult. Hardly a waste of time IMO.

And most telling is the fact that tom and I almost never agree on anything. That fact that we are in lockstep with each other on this is a little disturbing I admit.

rune: Interesting info on the SA-18. It just reinforces my opinion that giving the Syrians the benefit of the doubt on stuff we aren't sure about is not unrealistic. The future can change without notice :cool:

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by J Ruddy:

I think that is exactly "why not". They looked back at the amount of work they did to model every single fricking piece of armour that was ever in battle in WWII and realized, while totally cool, it is also totally a waste of their time.

I completely disagree.

As Tom pointed out, it's just 2 vehicles. Not at all every single frikin' piece of armor the USSR ever exported. Secondly, from a pure gameplay standpoint these would make the difficult job of balancing out QBs and scenarios somewhat less difficult. Hardly a waste of time IMO.

And most telling is the fact that tom and I almost never agree on anything. That fact that we are in lockstep with each other on this is a little disturbing I admit.

</font>

[MikeyD]

T80s on one side and Abrams on the other... and a couple bridges between classed at under 50 tons max? THEN we'll be hearing complaints about unbalanced games! I suspect a Milan missile up the back end of an unsuspecting Abrams will be about the same as a Piat round hitting the rear of a Panther in CM1. This game will no doubt be more challenging than some believe.

[rune]

Vanir,

As interesting as the SA-18s are, I would be MUCH more worried about the kornet anti-tank missile. nasty things...

Rune

for those not familiar with it:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kornet/

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Tom had me at "but its a small request"

Oh. I thought you were being sarcastic. In that case, welcome to the dark side, Darth Ruddy.

[aka_tom_w]

And most telling is the fact that tom and I almost never agree on anything. That fact that we are in lockstep with each other on this is a little disturbing I admit.

Well ok then

perhaps I am dillusional or just forgetful but I cannot remember the last point, concept, issue or "thing' we disagreed about? (really :confused: )

-tom w

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by antawar:

Personnally, I dont think that's an issue. In Combat Mission, when a player plays the US with Sherman tanks and faces a german player with tigers or Panthers, do we hear whining about "un-balanced sides". Same will happen to T-72s/T-80s against M1s. As an example, you simply give 10 T-72s to the syrian player and two M1s to the US player.

But would that be realistic? For WW2, it just so happened to be real. The russians and americans had lower-developed hardware (T-34, Sherman vs. Tiger & Panther) but had tons more of it than the few pieces the germans could build.

Yet in this hypothetical setting, I think the Syrians actually have less tanks then the US? So you can't just give them more of their stuff for play balance reasons.

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, too.</font>

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

perhaps I am dillusional or just forgetful but I cannot remember the last point, concept, issue or "thing' we disagreed about? (really :confused: )

-tom w

It had to do with rarity.

I could list others, but it's probably better to forget. We are allies now! At least for the moment.

[aka_tom_w]

OK

this is how the victory points should go

(WAY off topic but somehow related to Side balance)

every time a weapon get destroyed or a round or missile is fired there should be database the keeps track of how much it costs (in REAL US dollars) for each player to play that game, and the one that spends the least and gets the MOST bang for the Buck wins!

I am laughing here because obviously some of the new anti tank missiles cost around US $100,000 EACH!

So the player that spends the least amount of cash to achieve the objective WINS

(oh AND yes, I am joking!)

-tom w

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by rune:

Vanir,

As interesting as the SA-18s are, I would be MUCH more worried about the kornet anti-tank missile. nasty things...

Oh, absolutely.

Something else in that report that caught my eye:

The Syrian delegation, which completed a three-day visit to Russia on Sept. 30, discussed delivery, training and maintenance of the S-18 as well as the procurement of other weapons.

I wonder if the Kornet was the only other weapon discussed...

[Renaud]

I think modeling is the time-waster. A strange hungarian tank might be a major development time-waster in CMBB since it's never used yet requires a unique model, unit data and textures. If you can include a BMP-3M without having to create an entirely new model, perhaps just by plopping on a modified turret and weapons data, it shouldn't be that hard. If you have to model some new weapon with unique graphical effects, that could be a problem. Such as the 3M's 100mm low velocity HE/rocket combo. Unless you can borrow the data and effects from something sufficiently similiar and already coded.

Theoretically adding vehicles should be easier with the new system than in CMx1 which was all hard-coded. My guess is that Charles has at least tabelized unit data for import into the source code prior to a recompile. This would allow a non-technical designer to work on OOB's and unit data seperately from the source code. Or perhaps CMx2 system allows import of unit/OOB data via a developer-only interface while running the executable. Wouldn't that be handy!

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

It had to do with rarity.

Oh yeah

OK

I will give you that one, because I never "buy units" so the whole rarity could have been something we did not agree on.

But that was not a big deal for me

Just a matter of opinion and difference of play style. NOW back to Syria and those T80's BRING 'em on!

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

This web site says Syria has ALREADY bought the Kornet!

army-technology.com Says Russia has sold Kornets to Syria!

KORNET E ANTI-ARMOUR MISSILE, RUSSIA

Kornet E is the name given to the export version of the Russian Kornet missile system. The system, first shown in 1994, has been developed by the KBP Instrument Design Making Bureau, Tula, Russia and is in production and service with the Russian Army and has been sold to the Syrian Army.

Kornet is a third generation system, developed to replace the Fagot and Konkurs missile systems in the Russian Army. It is designed to destroy tanks, including those fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA), fortifications, entrenched troops as well as small-scale targets. The system can be fitted to a variety of tracked and wheeled vehicles, including the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle, as well as serving as a standalone, portable system. The self-propelled Kornet missile system is manufactured by the Volsk Mechanical Plant, Volsk, Russian Federation.

It was reported in April 2005 that the Kornet E missile system has been ordered by the government of Eritrea.