Some Unit Stat Questions

In this thread you can discuss any thoughts you have about balance within the game. Does a particular unit need a specification changed? Is a stealth plane not stealthy enough? Do "Belli Bar" levels need to be changed? Let us know and discuss it all here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Noble713
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Nov 27 2005

Some Unit Stat Questions

Post by Noble713 »

Well, as I've been playing the game more I've been finding more and more things that make me go "HUH?!" The questions below aren't so much to address game balance as to just get an understanding of why the developers chose the stats that they did. I'm wondering if they have taken things into consideration that I'm missing. So here goes:

V-22 Osprey
Soft Attack: 14
Hard Attack: 20
This thing is practically unarmed, with provisions for an upgrade to a pair of .50 cal machine guns. Why does it have higher attack values than some wheeled IFVs?

M2A3 Bradley IFV and M3A3 Bradley CFV
IFV Hard Attack: 22
CFV Hard Attack: 18
The Cavalry variant carries fewer dismounts but they have AT missiles. Regular mechanized infantry don't have much AT firepower. Shouldn't the values be reversed?

I originally had some others but I've sorted out suitable answers on my own. These two above still have me stumped though.
Black Metal IST KRIEG!
http://tinyurl.com/ctyrj7
User avatar
ainsworth74
Colonel
Posts: 484
Joined: Apr 17 2004
Location: Middlesborough, UK

Post by ainsworth74 »

I would guess it was a typo in the equipment file...

It certainly dosen't make sense that a pair of 50. cals has better stats than a 25mm cannon and tow missles :-? .
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Sir Edmund Burke
User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

Post by bergsjaeger »

Well the M3 is a recon and if I'm not mistake there is less Bradleys in the recon version. there for less Tow missiles. Maybe that's y its got a lower Hard attack. As for the Osprey. Don't U think it will eventually be like the UH-60 and have rocket pods? I would equiped them with such weapons if I was in charge of them.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
User avatar
Noble713
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Nov 27 2005

Post by Noble713 »

bergsjaeger wrote:Well the M3 is a recon and if I'm not mistake there is less Bradleys in the recon version. there for less Tow missiles. Maybe that's y its got a lower Hard attack.


Are the unit stats a function of the battalion's strength? I got the impression that a battalion of 1 would have the same atk/def values as a battalion of 50, it would just only be able to sustain 1 casualty. So fewer Bradleys in the cav unit would mean a smaller battalion, but not lower attack values.
As for the Osprey. Don't U think it will eventually be like the UH-60 and have rocket pods? I would equiped them with such weapons if I was in charge of them.
The vast majority of UH-60s don't have rockets, only a pair of miniguns. There were plans for a gunship version of the Osprey but it was cancelled (lack of funds, as always). The heavily-armed Osprey would escort the cargo Ospreys, as the current Marine attack heli, the AH-1, cannot keep up with them. SR2010 has a AH-22 Osprey unit, which would be the gunship version, but the bog-standard cargo-carrying V-22 is unarmed.
Black Metal IST KRIEG!
http://tinyurl.com/ctyrj7
User avatar
bergsjaeger
General
Posts: 2240
Joined: Apr 22 2005
Location: Woods Bend, Alabama,USA

Post by bergsjaeger »

:lol: Well I was just assuming. I'm not a dev so I can't say y or how come something is like it is in the game.
In war destroy everything even the livestock.
Slash78
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 583
Joined: May 09 2003
Location: California

Post by Slash78 »

Both M2 and M3 Bradleys carry TOW missiles. Osprey is a POS and its values are too high. Their "soft" and "hard" attacks should be about the same, the M3 should have a smaller "close attack" (as they lack the infantry). The PG series was stupid for arbitrarily making recon units weaker.

All stats are per squad/vehicle, not per battalion.

Unfortunately none of the values come close to reality. The TOW might be good for taking out tanks, but its ROF is ungodly slow if you happen to miss your target (at least 40 seconds per missile). That and most ATGWs are cost prohibitive to use in large number on the battlefield. For the cost of one Javilen ATGW launcher and missile you could purchase the two-person 25mm gun turret w/ FLIR/optics and for the cost of a reload you could purchase several hundred (if not more) rounds of 25mm ammo. If you ever wonder why the occupation of Iraq is costing so much, it is because we regularly use Hellfires, Mavericks and Javilens to do the job an vehicle mounted autocannon, SMAW/AT-4 or a mortar round (even a Laser guide round) could do many times cheaper.

I know, I know, this is when someone points out the fact that BS Light Infantry can't always take even light tracked vehicles into certain terrain, ignoring the fact that such terrain is of absolutely no military or political value other then that is where the "bad guys" choose to high because it is unaccessable. Ok, if they want to go rot deep out in some jungle or hide is some caves, oh f---ing well!!! How are they going to get regularly resupplied? THEY AREN'T! How are they going to threating territory with greater Pol-Mil value w/o coming out of their hide-aways? THEY AREN'T. You don't need BS light infantry and sh--head chest pounders to go in after then. You don't need buttheads who feel they must ride in vulnerable wheeled vehicles less their masuclinity is question by riding tracked vehicles.

How about a little history lesson. Humans started using horses (as well as mules, camels and even elephants) on the battlefield because WHEELED chairots didn't had poor or no mobility over bad terrain. TRACKED VEHICLES replaced WHEELED vehicles during WW1 as the main COMBAT vehicle because, once again, WHEELED vehicles proved to be incapable. WHEELED VEHICLES HAVE BEEN AROUND A LOT LONGER THEN TRACKED VEHICLES AND THEREFORE THEY AREN'T "NEW" OR "THE WAY OF THE FUTURE"!!!!! In the attempt to perform more like tracked vehicles, wheeled vehicles have become much heavier and more expensive at the same time technology has allowed tracked vehicles to become lighter and cheaper. On top of this, multi-wheeled vehicles need several axels, which take up a lot of internal space, while adding weight and height to a vehicle, whereas tracked vehicles only need on set of final drives, thus being a smaller and shorter target, as well as a lighter vehicle while carrying the same number of troops, ammo, weapons and armor.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

We have of coures had some of this discussion before :)

For the record, much of the balance of SR2010 accepted the principle of current wheeled LAVs being equally capable to tracked vehicles of same tech level (meaning Stryker is rated better than M113A3 because of tech level). If right or wrong (and if we in the dev team believe it to be) doesn't matter, that was the balance we chose.

Me personally on the issue, I've spoken to Canadian service men that have been in M113 and LAV and "feel safer" in LAV.

The Osprey values, in hind-sight, do seem high compared to the infantry, but they are in line with most of the other helos (maybe a little high still there...) meaning I'd probably want to review the entire balance there if I started making changes. Unfortunatly we've closed off work on SR2010 to focus on our new projects. If someone wants to make a "custom equipment list" with those stats changed we'd be happy to host it for download.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
Slash78
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 583
Joined: May 09 2003
Location: California

Post by Slash78 »

Me personally on the issue, I've spoken to Canadian service men that have been in M113 and LAV and "feel safer" in LAV.
Many US Soldiers would rather go to combat in a Stryker then any other vehicle in the US arsenal. Why? Disinformation, misinformation and hyperbole. And just because you "feel" safer doesn't mean you ARE safer. If a little kid puts their head under the covers, believing they are safe and no one can see them because they can't see anything, does this mean they are invisible or safe? No! Of course not. But the Stryker and LAV-III have been touted so much that they have risen to the level of "safety blanket". The same way "armored" HMMWVs were throughout the '90s. Also, I'm not sure what additional armor packages the Canadian Army has placed on its M113s. If the answer is none, then they are safer in a LAV-III. If they have been retro-fitted with armor that is anything close to what US M113s have been fitted with well after the fall of Baghdad, then they would be much better off in the M113.

The nice thing about the 14.5 (metric) ton uparmored M113A3s is that they are still light enough to fit on and be dropped froma C-130 and 5 can fit per C-17. In fact the M113A3's weight can be increased to 15.3 (metric) tons and still have 5 fit per C-17. Only three Strykers can fit on a C-17 because of their overall length and at over 19 tons (US tons?) the uparmored Stryker has to be stripped down to make weight to go on a C-130.

Of course their are those who will wax poetically about the virtues of the LAV-III/Strykers on-road speed. They shouldn't. Some of the worst battles the US Army and MC fought during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were ones to take good roads and bridges, as both services lack the ability to sustain their fighting forces across country and neither force has the ability to cross inland water obsticles and sustain their forces on the other side. Their large fleet of helicopters are tied down moving large numbers of immoble "Light Infantry" from place to place. That and it makes those in combat units feel like "warriors" to have a large number of "underclass" support personnel in large numbers of underarmed and unarmored vehicles to wait on them 24/7/365. Vehicles that need good roads to move. Good roads that make it easier for the enemy to guess which direction the US Military will advance from. Good roads that can be mined, blocked or attacked, bringing the US Military juggernaut to a grinding halt. But that's ok, HMMWVs, 5-tons and the "underclass" support troops are "easy" to replace because they recieve so little training and no professional development. As the 507th Maintenance Company showed, the "underclass" support troops don't even get officers that are capable of reading road signs or maps.

Ok, great, we can move infantry quickly on good roads. But not through mountains, not across rivers, not through bombed out cities, not across swamps or any kind of marshy land, through jungles, across trenches or anything that is remotely difficult. It is a good thing that the world is only made up of interstates and flat, open, dry desert.

Though I will say one thing about the LAV-III. It does have a good weapon system. This definately will give it the ability to reach out a touch the enemy at a much greater distance then either the Stryker or M113. Of course their is at least one fully stabilized turret with the same gun and similar optics/FLIR that could be fitted to the M113A3 (or MTVL). This weapon system will make the vehicle handier in open terrain, but in close terrain nothing and I mean nothing beats physical protection. Though the same weapon system could spell doom for all that ride in the vehicle if its ammo isn't placed behind a fire-proof bulkhead.
User avatar
Noble713
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Nov 27 2005

Post by Noble713 »

I wish I had noticed these posts sooner. It appears we have attracted one of the rabid adherents of Mike Sparks, also known as the "Disciples of Sparky". Please take everything they say with a grain of salt.....make that an entire 5 lb. bag of salt. Sparks does have some good ideas and legitimate gripes, but he also runs an extremely loud, biased, campaign opposed to wheeled combat vehicles, and sees the M113 APC as the solution to every problem.
Many US Soldiers would rather go to combat in a Stryker then any other vehicle in the US arsenal. Why? Disinformation, misinformation and hyperbole.
a short blurb about Stryker protection:

http://www.strykernews.com/archives/200 ... _army.html
Lt. Colonel Gordy Flowers, commander of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment, said more than 50 percent of his Strykers were tagged by roadside or car bombs or hit with rocket-propelled grenades.

No soldiers in his battalion were killed in such attacks, Flowers said.
There is a very good discussion about Stryker combat performance here:
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=12215
The nice thing about the 14.5 (metric) ton uparmored M113A3s is that they are still light enough to fit on and be dropped froma C-130 and 5 can fit per C-17. In fact the M113A3's weight can be increased to 15.3 (metric) tons and still have 5 fit per C-17. Only three Strykers can fit on a C-17 because of their overall length and at over 19 tons (US tons?) the uparmored Stryker has to be stripped down to make weight to go on a C-130.
The Congressional Budget Office has written several good anaylses on the deployment times of various brigade/division organizations. Bottom line: air transport is a horrible way to get large, vehicle-heavy forces anywhere.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6348&type=1

Of course their are those who will wax poetically about the virtues of the LAV-III/Strykers on-road speed. They shouldn't. Some of the worst battles the US Army and MC fought during the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were ones to take good roads and bridges, as both services lack the ability to sustain their fighting forces across country and neither force has the ability to cross inland water obsticles and sustain their forces on the other side.
What does any of that have to do with the road speeds of LAV-IIIs? How would you sustain a 300km-long logistics tail without roads? Are you suggesting that all of our LMTVs and HEMTTs should be replaced with tracked vehicles? Any experienced tanker will tell you (I know several), tracked vehicles break down more frequently than wheeled ones. Instead of a 300km blitz it would have been a 100km one.
Their large fleet of helicopters are tied down moving large numbers of immoble "Light Infantry" from place to place.
The Soviets achieved very positive results in Afghanistan using heavily-armed light infantry deployed by helicopters. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... hp?t=75608
Still, your point is largely invalid. The US Army's only major Air Assault (i.e., helicopter-deployed infantry) formation is the 101st Airborne Division. All of the light divisions other than the 82nd Airborne have sufficient vehicles (even if they are Humvees) to move troops around without the use of helicopters. Heavy divisions also have entire aviation brigades with several dozen transport helis. Are you going to claim their CH-47s and UH-60s were also tied down moving "light infantry"?

Stryker brigades are intended for a very specific type of warfare: counter-insurgencies and police actions. Don't think of it as a replacement for Bradleys in heavy divisions, but as a replacement for Humvees. Instead of an unarmored truck that only carries 3-4 dismounts, you have a slightly armored truck that carries 9 dismounts. Note that the Army calls Stryker units "Interim Brigade Combat Teams"; they are not permanent. Like everything else, they will eventually be replaced (about 20-30 years from now) with the Future Combat Systems, which are tracked vehicles.
Black Metal IST KRIEG!
http://tinyurl.com/ctyrj7
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

That assumes the FCS program every reachings completion. There are also the European FRES and SEP programs but so far there is very little information. The FCS program could easily go the way of the Comanche/Crusader programs.

Thanks for all the links!
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
tkobo
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 12397
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: In a vast zionist plot ...RIGHT BEHIND YOU ! Oh Noes !

Post by tkobo »

Enjoyed the links thanks.

I had heard about the strykers zero loss claim(no deaths due to IEDs) a while back, but it was in a "news" article and they didnt really give the source to back it up.
And i never got around to looking for it myself.

So i really apreciate that one link in particular.
This post approved by Tkobo:Official Rabble Rouser of the United Yahoos
Chuckle TM
User avatar
Lightbringer
General
Posts: 2973
Joined: May 23 2006
Location: Texas

Post by Lightbringer »

Some "News" source actually reported anything positive AT ALL about the United States Armed Forces and anything they might have achieved???????????????????????????????

(falls over in a dead faint...:P:P:P)

{wait....maybe the story was that noone had died in a Stryker while running over little old ladies and newborn babies?} :roll:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” -Winston Churchill
User avatar
Noble713
Captain
Posts: 109
Joined: Nov 27 2005

Post by Noble713 »

tkobo wrote:Enjoyed the links thanks.

I had heard about the strykers zero loss claim(no deaths due to IEDs) a while back, but it was in a "news" article and they didnt really give the source to back it up.
And i never got around to looking for it myself.

So i really apreciate that one link in particular.

Some more praises for Stryker protection, this time from a friend of mine. He is serving in the 2nd Infantry Division in Iraq, driving Strykers. About a week or two ago a VBIED rammed his Stryker and exploded. Other vehicles in the convoy said the blast consumed the entire 4-lane road they were on. :o Everyone inside survived with mostly minor injuries. My friend sustained burns on his arms and neck but is otherwise okay. The Stryker itself was completely destroyed.

He keeps us updated about every week or two on another forum, in case anyone is interested in that as well:

http://forum.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=102893
Black Metal IST KRIEG!
http://tinyurl.com/ctyrj7
Post Reply

Return to “Balance”