Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Companion

  1. Like Ssnake said, wiki "armor painting" picture does not necessarily reflect actual armor model as implemented in game. Though it would give general idea. Current exception is T-90S I believe, which has bugged ERA right now that actually make the vehicle more vulnerable. One time, someone asked about a (in-game) Challenger 2 frontal turret penetration right under GPS by Leo 2A6E default KE ammo. Answer was that due to space needed for GPS housing, that part has only about half the armor thickness compared to rest of the turret front and is thus relatively weak. Wiki data does not reflect details and quirks like this.
  2. SACLOS missile guidance system "talks" to the missile through wire, but it need to "see" the missile's IR beacon to talk proper guidance into it. IR dazzlers try to create ghosts for the guidance system to see and botch up the flight correction
  3. Thanks for answer. I just assumed that all Soviet/Russian tanks post T-64 have same 68 degrees glaces. Yeah, assumption is bad :redface:
  4. Ssnake, Thanks for fixing the issue. However I'm not sure if I understand the following: Does that mean in-game T-90 actually has two armor layers? (one ERA one main?) If so, is it same with other vehicles with ERA too? Because right now, T-80U, which uses same Kontakt-5 as T-90S, is much harder to kill.
  5. I think SB armor model operates on rather simple RHAe figures. Hence my original post.
  6. For T-80U, areas protected by ERA are quite resilient to M829A1 at various ranges. Against M829 and DM33, nigh impenetrable. Anything above M829A1 level cuts through easily, but that was to be expected.
  7. Good day sirs, I made this thread some months ago http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/showthread.php?t=19821 and suggested a discrepancy between T-90's armor protection as represented in SB Wiki http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/T-90S and actual in-game model. The topic abruptly ended with dejawolf commenting "that's strange." With the new patch, I tried missions with T-90 again and felt nothing was changed regarding this (to be fair, there was nothing about T-90 armor in release notes after all) I ran the old testing mission about 10 times and saw no changes indeed. (as in: T-90, when hit on any location of the front hull, is easily defeatable with both M829A1 and A2 at ranges exceeding 2km) So I lowered the bar and used M829 and KE-W, which produced similar results at ranges 1000-1500. I disregarded obvious guaranteed penetration on driver's visor and lower hull of course. But the older rounds repeatedly failed to penetrate at very close sub-500m ranges. Now I am confused :confused: At any rate, if what I am observing is as it should be, (which would suggest that wiki data is obsolete) then I have no problem with it. I can make do with T-72M4 and older ammo to adjust mission difficulty to my liking. However, if there indeed is something amiss, please look into the issue. PS: can't upload screenshot image :confused: "The Dimension limits for this filetype are 700 x 0. We were unable to resize your file so you will need to do so manually and upload it again. Your file is currently 1075 x 690. " 03-10-14.zip
  8. Again, in your test, try using something other than Eastern kit in T-80's place. I'm pretty sure that when crewed by AI, Leo AS1, M60, etc. would produce similar long range hits as T-80U did. Ssnake's reply above is what you're looking for; when AI shoots, dice roll dictates hit. It might be that dice rule need some adjusting to keep up with upgrades of the software. In any case, I highly doubt that there is some pro-Eastern kit bias as some posters here implied. (Quite the contrary, some of the Eastern kits are currently underrepresented)
  9. I believe it's not the tank but the AI giving you problem. I won't have my dongle with me for some days so I can't run tests but did you try your test with NATO tanks on OPFOR side? I used to fool around with crewable T-72M1 against Western equipment and I remember experiencing similar excellent gunnery by AI.
  10. RE: Weak APFSDS for 115mm / 100mm The KE rounds modeled in-game for both calibers are very old vintage, from 60s~early 70s. I asked Ssnake quite a while ago about any plan to add more relatively modern rounds (70s~80s, plus some non-Russian export rounds) and the answer was that there simply isn't enough data for performance estimation of those later rounds. So... yeah, one would have to take that in mind when making scenarios with historical background. The current selection is good enough for Arab-Israeli war scenarios though. (100mm actually need even weaker rounds for early wars)
  11. Well I thought T-62's slaved optic was bad... until Rarden tried to infect me with cancer. Now I wonder if Grom would trump Rarden in worst gun handling department.
  12. Is there a general guideline for what bumpiness level to choose for specific terrain? For example, Bumpiness A for soft, easy-to-dig grassland, Bumpiness B for rocky Afghan mountain slope, etc. I'm thinking of tweaking old scenarios for personal use in response to large caliber artillery's high lethality against infantry
  13. So both models have identical armor? Thank you for information. That explains a lot... though I did nowhere near enough repetitions to make even a remotely valid statistic lol :c: I took it for granted that in game A and B models would differ in armor model, B being later mod and all. But couldn't be so sure with what Esimgames chose among all those myriad of Soviet changes to T-64 armor configurations.
  14. If the results seem strange even to you, there might indeed be a problem... I hope it's not too complicated. On a side note, I'm getting a mixed results from shooting T-64A/B with old 105mm rounds. It's as if A is better armored than B... At least both models' glacis KE resistance seems to be around 330. correct?
  15. Thanks for the picture So I've shot a few dozen more T-90s (shootings at about 1km) and results don't quite match with the picture. Added some screenshots. It seems M829A2 has a very high chance of getting through T-90A glacis. M829A1 seems to be able to pen only the driver cutout you've mentioned and the bottom of Kontakt block at the lower part of glacis. I also blew up a few T-80Us with M829A1 and it seems as if penetration is somewhat random within a boundary. In the T-80U screenshot, M829A1 sometimes pen and sometimes doesn't on that very spot on the glacis. Maybe AAR is not perfect as to showing exact hit location or I am doing something wrong? Oh, and one more thing: Does SB take into account the edges of each Kontakt block? The shooting I just did and past memory seems to suggest that M829A1 had a high chance of killing T-80U when landed on the seams where Kontakt blocks join together.
  16. For leo2A5/6, Chally2, M1A2, is there any ammo currently modeled that can pen that turret front anyway? In eve online terms, they are "overtanked" Jokes aside, is Mr. Lakowski likely to work on new set of estimations?
  17. Unless one is concerned about historicity of units for a given mission (i.e. using T-80U is not correct for a 1982 based scenario, etc.) armor/shell performance of opposing sides can be balanced with various tank/ammo combinations. So I'd say M1A2 would be the best proxy to approximate SA capability against fictional OPFOR.
  18. You are talking about chance of hitting the weakly protected area on or near the tank's center mass. I was talking specifically about chance of penetrating the target when the shell hit the protected area of frontal hull glacis, not weak areas.
  19. I did some shootout test, about 2km, only did about few dozen targets though Using the armor paint picture you've posted earlier as reference: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/9/9f/T90armour.jpg except for the 4-digit protection level corners, the whole glacis is a fair game for M829A2. Target tank either dies or gets damaged after every hit on that location.
  20. Didn't P0 meant pen at muzzle? Editor has pen values at "P0" I'll be sure to use A1 next time around Or I can just use chally :clin:
  21. I know SB uses abstracted RHAe estimation for both shell and armor but Is there some sort of close range bonus? Values slightly randomized maybe? I played a Zipuli's scen just now with friends but with equipment edited I thought M829A2 (770mm pen) would be not so reliable against T-90A glacis (800mm) even after accounting for vertical angle changes due to terrain but well, the round (thankfully) never failed once (cheked the AAR). Map being Finnish restricted terrain, virtually all fight occured under 2km, mostly about battlesight ranges. Maybe the range mattered? Any info would be helpful for those of us who likes to swap equipment in otherwise well balanced scenario; frankly, M1A2 w/ M829A2 vs T-90A w/BM42M felt rather easier than using M1A1HA against BM42 armed T-72M1. I know I should've playtested beforehand but equipment changes like that usually happens impulsively at the last moment :1:
  22. Only if AI tankers would behave as the real tankers do...
  23. Sir... WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!! This sabotage to mankind cannot go unnoticed, I'm calling Inquisition right now. :decu:
  24. Thanks, looking forward to Sinai OP anyway. Oh, and while minor armor model changes are not worth the wiki update, surely new additions - like... T-64, T-64 and... T-64 - are fair game? RE: Autoloader advantage: I remember Vasily from Tanknet once stated that main concern for going autoloader was to minimize crew performance degradation under NBC hazard ridden battlefield condition, as in sick/tired loader does his job far worse than similarly sickened gunner/commander. Truly scary days.
  • Create New...