Abrams tank

[Dillweed]

Continuing with my strat of starting new topics to strat semi-intelligent conversations instead of:

1) flames/peng threads (same thing really)

2) "what theater/time period"

3) "I'm new and have a bunch of questions that have already been answered/big fat opinions"

and of course

4) "Steve, are you going to spend weeks coding something that rarely/never happened?"

Steve has more or less confirmed at least one of the CMx2 games (I think it will be the first, but thats just me) will be modern/near future combat. We can all but assume that if it is it will include the Abrams tank. My question to you all:

Would this unbalance the game?

From what I understand it would not. The spectacular sucess in GW1 was mainly against antiquated T-55 and T-72 using solid steel shot and 1/2 propellant charges. As I understand any 120mm gun with a DU shell (which russia at least at one point was producing) can penatrate the armor. That would include:

T-72 (firing real shells)

T-80/84

T-90

T-95 (prototype)

The last one has a 150mm gun, no less!

I'm intrestead in hearing the grogs opionions on this one. I seem to remember that we have a M1A1 Tank Commander on the board, I forget his name tho...

[J Ruddy]

Don't forget the Hinds, HAVOCs, Werewolves and ground based AT-(x) systems.

[flamingknives]

Plus if you have closer engagement ranges (like in Europe, for the sake of example) you have more opportunity for side shots and close range shots. Furthermore, a full power round from a 125, at close range, would probably do damage even if it didn't penetrate.

Give the Sovs/Ex-sovs half decent crew and that would further reduce the gap.

Also, it depends when you set it. Early '80s would see the M1 somewhat outgunned (105mm gun vs 125mm) while the 125mm gun of the time was quite capable of penetrating the frontal armour.

[Sergei]

This belongs to the TacOps forum. CMx2 won't be about Cold War, Steve has voiced that clearly and all this is pointless noise.

[zmoney]

I think it might unbalance it a bit. But... I think if its going to be a modern game I think the best time frame would be in the 70s-80s. Because now the "allies" side would have to big an advantage with the germ leapord 2 the US Abrams and the English tank. Not to mention all the other allies like Italians and the French have some good armour as well.

So I think if it took place twenty years ago the Soviets would still have a chance because their equipment wasn't obsolite then. China uses the same kind of tanks too so that kind of game wouldn't work either. Assuming its a cold war/ modern era game.

My $.02 take it or leave it.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Sergei:

This belongs to the TacOps forum. CMx2 won't be about Cold War, Steve has voiced that clearly and all this is pointless noise.

Sergei, old fellow, don't you see? Cold War has been the only one ruled out specifically - Clearly a ruse, as Kip and I were getting too close to the truth.

Furthermore, Steve hasn't ruled out modern warfare. Thus the M1 may still raise its ugly, box-like turret above the berm.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

all this is pointless noise.

At least wait until I've posted once or twice before issuing this pronounciamento. :mad:

Simple courtesy. Isn't my presence the litmus test?

CMX2 won't be about balance, though. It's an old argument - the campaigns will be solo play only and deliberately unbalanced. As for head to head, one doesn't necessarily need "balance" in order to be challenged or entertained. Few real battles were ever balanced anyway.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Few real battles were ever balanced anyway.

Ah yes - but you have never seen the CM: Circus Wars demo have you? Plates balanced on sticks, tumblers balanced in assault pyramid formations, elephants balanced on platforms, its a really good example of completely balanced gameplay...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Few real battles were ever balanced anyway.

Ah yes - but you have never seen the CM: Circus Wars demo have you? Plates balanced on sticks, tumblers balanced in assault pyramid formations, elephants balanced on platforms, its a really good example of completely balanced gameplay... </font>

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Sergei:

This belongs to the TacOps forum. CMx2 won't be about Cold War, Steve has voiced that clearly and all this is pointless noise.

Yes but he has stated modern/near future is indeed in the cards. (Along with space lobsters of doom just "not nessessarily with lobsters)

One would assume a current/near future with americans would involve the abrams. And I think that a terrestrial force that the americans are fighting would probably be using soviet tanks. Unless its some hypothetical post-NATO interwar, that is.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Few real battles were ever balanced anyway.

Ah yes - but you have never seen the CM: Circus Wars demo have you? Plates balanced on sticks, tumblers balanced in assault pyramid formations, elephants balanced on platforms, its a really good example of completely balanced gameplay... </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

Aren't animal rights activists Left-Thinking?

HEE-HAW!!!! CHA-CHING CHA-CHING CHA-CHING!!!!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As for head to head, one doesn't necessarily need "balance" in order to be challenged or entertained. Few real battles were ever balanced anyway.

What about head to head? PBEM is out of the cards. :mad:

Besides, should such a game ever be published, I would call all NATO players who buy Abrams' as gamey cherrypicking crackwhores. :mad: :mad:

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As for head to head, one doesn't necessarily need "balance" in order to be challenged or entertained. Few real battles were ever balanced anyway.

What about head to head? PBEM is out of the cards.

:mad: </font>

[Peter Cairns]

So the M-1 outclasses the T-72, I think the Panther is more than a match for thr T-34/76. Does that make CMBB a bad game.

Having a few M-1's against current Chinese ( I think it's T-90 but don't quote me), would be good, War in Tiawan maybe.

Equally having to advance US armour in close terrain like woodland and villages, would still be pretty deadly if ranges were under 500m.

Oh and if you drive an M-1 over a culvert with about 100kg of semtex in it, armour or no armour the blast will flip it like a pancake ( all 70 tonnes of it).

Peter.

[roqf77]

is that a lie, a damn lie, or a statistic?

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

So the M-1 outclasses the T-72, I think the Panther is more than a match for thr T-34/76. Does that make CMBB a bad game.

Yes, that was exactly what I meant. You didn't blow it out of proportion at all. CMBB is a terrible terrible game and the only losers worse than its fans are the losers who sit around waiting for a sequal.

-D

[M1A1TC]

M1A1 series versus T-72 and T-80 is pretty much like Tiger versus Shermans.

Its all about crew training and war doctrine, supplies, air supperiority,not just how big your armor or gun is. We all know what happened to Tiger tanks...

Plus just about most of the modern infantry AT weapons will destroy any of the world's tanks.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

This belongs to the TacOps forum. CMx2 won't be about Cold War, Steve has voiced that clearly and all this is pointless noise.

But dear boy, modern/contemporary does not necessarily mean Cold War. My sense of what Steve was getting at was that CM would not be about fictional wars. There have been plenty of real wars since 1945. Steve explicitly incuded Korea as one possibility.

Michael

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

There have been plenty of real wars since 1945. Steve explicitly incuded Korea as one possibility.

Michael

Ah yes, dear Metusalem, but then there will be no Abrams tanks.

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

M1A1 series versus T-72 and T-80 is pretty much like Tiger versus Shermans.

Its all about crew training and war doctrine, supplies, air supperiority,not just how big your armor or gun is. We all know what happened to Tiger tanks...

Exactly, I had always heard that it wasn't the size of your tank gun, but.. oh well you all know the rest.

Oh and I think someone has a bug up his butt about all the CMx2 games being WW2. Can you guess who?

[zmoney]

Oh and I think someone has a bug up his butt about all the CMx2 games being WW2. Can you guess who?

I know you weren't reffering to me, but I kinda wish they would do WW2 again. Its just the most interesting event in recent history and it involved a whole lot of countries, I mean even the Finns and Canadians got to fight so you know it would be worth doing again.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

There have been plenty of real wars since 1945. Steve explicitly incuded Korea as one possibility.

Michael

Ah yes, dear Metusalem, but then there will be no Abrams tanks. </font>

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by zmoney:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Oh and I think someone has a bug up his butt about all the CMx2 games being WW2. Can you guess who?

I know you weren't reffering to me, but I kinda wish they would do WW2 again. Its just the most interesting event in recent history and it involved a whole lot of countries, I mean even the Finns and Canadians got to fight so you know it would be worth doing again. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

We aren't interested in rewriting history. So going back and simulating a Cold War engagement, between forces that never fought against each other, is not of any interest to us. So no Cold War games from us. However, do not confuse Modern (Contemporary) Warfare with Cold War. The Cold War ended, depending on how you'd like to slice it, around 1989 or 1990. A future war with Russia, or some other former Soviet state, would obiously not be considered Cold War since there is no more Cold War.

For balance, it all depends on what you mean by balance. If you mean "is there a tank that can stand up against the current flavor of Abrams in a 1:1 engagement in similar conditions" I would say that there are plenty of them. Most are NATO though, so it is hard to picture a scenario where that matchup would happen. The current crop of Russian and Chinese tanks are interesting, but they exist in small numbers at the moment and are pretty much limited to Russia and China. By the time they get their numbers up, the Abrams will have been upgraded yet again.

Plus, since when are tanks engaging each other in a vacuum? A couple of US Infantry Platoons on the defensive, without any other support than Javelin, have a good shot at wiping out a company of the best tanks Russia and China have to offer. So even if the Chinese latest and greatest can kick an Abrams' butt, I still see the US have a great advantage. And don't even get me started on the chances of the Russians or Soviets having air superiority to fly strike missions... not going to happen

Lastly, who said that a modern warfare game has to emphasize tanks? From where I sit it looks like the predictable scenarios in the near future do not have significant armor engagements in the cards. Well, at least not WWII style matchups where both sides have a decent chance of acheiving parity. I think even the best OPFOR equipment would be of seriously limited value on a full spectrum battlefield today. And since hardly any potential OPFORs are using anything but poorly upgraded and maintained 1950s and 1970s platforms, the likely scenarios don't even inlcude T-80s, T-90s, or anything else beyond a "top of the line" T-72.

What does this mean? You guys need to stop thinking in terms of ARMOR and in terms of PARITY cuz we aren't

Just my 2 cents!

Steve

P.S. Yes, WWII is certainly going to be covered. Just won't be the only thing we do.