NLAW Modelling

[Panzer_Leader]

I was reading about the pretty awesome capabilities of the NLAW / MBT LAW here http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/ and thought I would test it in Steel Beasts. Firing several times against a platoon of T-80Us crossing my infantry at ~300 metres range I didn’t notice an appreciable improvement in accuracy over the M2 Carl Gustav I’m more familiar with. I’m assuming the NLAW’s predicted line-of-sight (PLOS) guidance hasn’t been modelled and its in-game accuracy is therefore the same as that of other unguided light anti-armour weapons. Is that correct?

[Ssnake]

Well, the computer-controlled crews will estimate range and target velocity too, and attempt to compensate for it. It's hard to see the difference when you're not firing both in comparison directly, which isn't yet possible. So, in a way all our RPGs have computerized fire control.

You don't want computer-controlled RPG gunners to miss too often. It'll just frustrate the player even more, and at some point he might consider infantry as useless dolts, so I'm not sure what a difference you expect to see.

[Nasder]

I am curious, while they both are "computer controlled fired" in the game. Does the computer fire them differently? Eg, manually leading a target with let's say the M2 Gustav, while aiming on target with the NLAW and using the PLOS guidance?

[Ssnake]

Yes, I think so, although I am not 100% sure.

[12Alfa]

Solve the issue, give us control over the firing, ie sights and reload times.:eek2:

Then we would have nobody but ourselves to blame when we miss the target:biggrin:

[Panzer_Leader]

Well, the computer-controlled crews will estimate range and target velocity too, and attempt to compensate for it.

Just like a human crew would too.

It's hard to see the difference when you're not firing both in comparison directly, which isn't yet possible.

Admittedly it was a fairly unscientific test.

so I'm not sure what a difference you expect to see.

Well, the NLAW uses PLOS calculations and active guidance to hit the target so I assume this increases the probability of a hit over an unguided rocket by a factor of X. So, I just wondered whether the NLAW was modelled in Steel Beasts with an increased chance of hitting the target of X or not? That's all.

[Ssnake]

Yeah... but what should that factor X be?

Since X is the delta between the basic system and the one with computer assistance, even if the probability to hit is known for the computer-assisted system, you still have to set a more or less arbitrary factor for the basic system. This would depend on crew skill. Which is somewhat variable (see your Gunnery Rating).

Like I wrote, if you make the computer-controlled crews too bad, it only raises the frustration level of the player. And like some players have recently demonstrated, even with a very basic fire control system like the T-72's, with sufficient skill and training it can be accurate and deadly.

Even the computer-assisted system, in the hands of an inept soldier, would miss the target. The basic system, in the hands of a master, might hit just as often. The real difference in real life is that you need less training for a new soldier to become somewhat effective with this system/to reach a similar level of effectiveness. So the pH would actually be somewhat comparable.

[Panzer_Leader]

Yeah... but what should that factor X be?

Since X is the delta between the basic system and the one with computer assistance, even if the probability to hit is known for the computer-assisted system, you still have to set a more or less arbitrary factor for the basic system. This would depend on crew skill. Which is somewhat variable (see your Gunnery Rating).

Sure. I just thought when the NLAW was modelled you may have had some information from the manufacturer or users that indicates what X is, from trials for example.

If not, no biggie. I just wanted to understand whether there was an inherent advantage (warhead aside) of equipping infantry with an NLAW versus other light AT weapons.

[Ssnake]

No, we don't. We received a basic description of how the computer-assisted aiming works, but that was it. The missile's behavior (curved flight path) however does reflect that mechanism.

[Panzer_Leader]

No, we don't. We received a basic description of how the computer-assisted aiming works, but that was it. The missile's behavior (curved flight path) however does reflect that mechanism.

Thanks Ssnake.