In retrospect was Soviet gear too highly rated by even the more credit video game developers like Eugen?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
In retrospect was Soviet gear too highly rated by even the more credit video game developers like Eugen?
To Eugens credit union they were working under the assumption the Soviets were building their weapons properly
If compared to 1980s standards and presumed to be maintained well and crewed by decently trained personnel? Or after 40 years of degradation?
Now consider the equal ranged main guns, "poor" optics in M1A2 and similar survivability
Have we seen it in combat against a T64/72 yet? There’s still time for vindication before Putin trips and falls out of a 12th floor window
M1A2 gets medium optics, 22 frontal armor and a better stabilizer
There were no standards in 1980s USSR
Then why is my 1988 lada niva still going strong?
Black person, not two lada's are the same (or well made)
t. 1995 niva owner
there were lots of variations between those - there probably were some tanks that met requirements - but quantity was an ultimate goal then so quality suffered and cutting corners was national sport then - for example turrets on t72a should be much better armoured than t72m variants - but in reality they are equivalently shit
Not really. 90% of the failures are doctrinal. Give soviet gear to NATO member, and it will perform adequately.
Even from playing Steel Beasts I think the optics should have been rated Very Poor. You get an unstabilized periscope for the commander and a fixed 8x GPS for the gunner, plus a couple of periscopes. A basic T-72 is essentially blind.
Video games:
>tanks are immune to artillery
Real life:
>most tank kills are from artillery
funny how this worked out
One of the biggest failings of Steel Panthers MBT IMO. You get huge hexmap games of various Cold War scenarios... and arty is piss poor at hurting tanks.
Pretty sure arty in RD kills tanks if it falls on top
You can kill tanks with High Explosive damage in Red Dragon
A decently long artillery barrage from an accurate 7HE arty will kill even a superheavy. It won't take it that long too, considering it's common for tanks to get stunned by arty
>Bkans are hated for a reason
If you are good at the game and a bit lucky you can even use the Nighthawk as a tank hunter by dropping Paveways directly on the top armor of tanks.
It will either kill it or stun it to shit, panic the crew, and leave it at 1 hp which means it might as well be dead if you have something else firing at it
the UK antiarmor weapon is literally Harriers dropping Paveways
>Real life:
>most tank kills are from artillery
says who?
it's ATGMs by far
HE only works if it lands within 25m or right on top of the tank, which very rare IRL and difficult to achieve with the limited artillery in Wargame
BONUS / SADARM / SMART artillery is the actual tank killer and Wargame doesn't have that ammo
I think it was close enough. The USSR was competent enough up until the 80s, when they really start falling behind. What we're seeing now with Russia is the effect of 30 years of unbridled kleptocracy, severe brain drain, and lack of funding for their military and industry.
>says who?
>it's ATGMs by far
IRL in the middle east yeah, ATGMs and RPGs did most of the damage and tank kills. A full blown Cold War gone hot scenario would have a lot more artillery. A LOT more. Anon either overstates or was imprecise, artillery is excellent at mission-killing tanks (destroying gun, optics, running gear, etc) though a hard kill is pretty much only happening with a direct hit.
IIRC USMC artillery field manual states HE is good for harassing fires and DPICM for suppressing armored units. Destruction requires guided rounds
>though a hard kill is pretty much only happening with a direct hit.
That's what smart munitions are for, after all.
>artillery is excellent at mission-killing tanks (destroying gun, optics, running gear, etc)
that may be, but ATGMs are more efficient by far
that is why NATO's Forward Defense pivoted on the ATGM, and why massive numbers were put out and mounted on basically everything in that era
(the tactics used by the AFU in the first phase of the war date back to this period; when the frontline had been stabilised and HIMARS entered the chat the AFU pivoted to basically AirLand Battle minus the air)
>though a hard kill is pretty much only happening with a direct hit.
exactly
and that direct hit is hard to achieve with indirect fire artillery, and important
a mission-killed tank, depending on the levels of damage, is still a problem
a tank with its tracks shot out can still contribute fire
a tank with its optics shot out can still attack and shoot albeit inaccurately
a tank that can be repaired will reinforce the next attack
overall, a mission-killed tank needs killing again, properly this time
They were a nightmare in the 1950s and 1960s. Computer chips changed everything. They didn't have the quality control to compete.
Those aren't incompatible anon. Tanks are made to survive dumb arty, but arty is also the most lethal thing compared to other threats.
Most Soviet shit is at the very least serviceable even into today with the right modernizations. Problem is the typical operators of said equipment are either morons, poorly trained outside of terrorizing civilians, or poorly trained morons. Ukraine’s been performing much better with captured Russian shit or their own hodgepodge of old equipment than Russian units ever were. That said a bone stock T-72 or something is basically a death trap if it goes against something beyond 1990.
Russia’s biggest weakness beyond inherit issues with the bureaucracy of the USSR was the fact that their computing technology was dog water compared to the West in the 70’s and 80’s. That alone pretty much guaranteed that it would always be completely eclipsed by the West sooner or later, and already was in various ways by then. What was the absolute cream of the crop or prototypes for the Soviet military were becoming standard issue for NATO, and of course once the wall fell it was all ogre anyways.
you don't have to be good to nighthawk a tank, its just spot and attack a tank's name tag, the only "skill" is to split the bomb
Never bothered to look deep into their deck.
There are cluster shell for directly contacting the roof of a tank.
>There are cluster shell for directly contacting the roof of a tank.
what, IRL?
they only have the HE power of a grenade
Roof is wide and weak. Without NERA or ERA, and angled enough, HEAT punch through anything else like butter
regardless, cluster bomblets don't kill tanks
Rockeye bomblets can penetrate like 200mm of armor. The M483 has submunitions that can penetrate 70mm. The Turret roof of the T-72 is like 40mm.
Basic DPICM submunitions are shaped charges and they will penetrate basic soviet tank roof. ERA will most likely stop it though.
Sub munition lands pretty steep angle like 60 degree down. I don't think any roof ERA is defending against that when they are laid flat.
>'t think any roof ERA is defending against that when they are laid flat.
Kontakt-5 has ERA module angled inside box. There were Soviets test, it degrades shaped charge performance even with 90 degrees hit. M77 DPICM ain't gonna pen 40mm roof after Kontact-5, Mk 118/BL755 can.
Kontakt-5 akshually is pretty advanced stuff.
I think the Blitzkrieg engine games handle artillery properly. You can win most missions just by scouting with your sniper and saturating enemy locations with artillery fire.
I killed 2 is2's with one arty drop l. I am king
>Video games:
are immune to artillery
You wut?
>Real life:
>most tank kills are from artillery
You wut?
>most tank kills are from artillery
>You wut?
Most everything kills in Ukraine are from arty. Followed by mines
The Wargames series has a lot of wonky stuff they changed/twinked for balance and gameplay reasons.
It is not a simulation nor is it close in any way and I don't think Eugen has ever claimed that it was.
>literally every aircraft has a gimped AAM range
>the fricking HAWK is in the game and it has a range against aircraft of 4 km
>the irl range is like 20 km at low altitude
>any realistic HAWK would kill most aircraft before they even got onto the map
yeah it's basically a clean sheet rts with cold war vehicles to make it look cool. i don't know why anyone would consider it realistic.
It's realistic-y enough to be cool.
it's realistic in the abstract sense. the numbers aren't accurate but the way the units interact with each other are
>but the way the units interact with each other are
Have you ever had a single armored engagement in the game? Tanks don't have health bars, and ~95% of the time, the first tank to get a shot off wins the engagement.
>Tanks don't have health bars, and ~95% of the time, the first tank to get a shot off wins the engagement.
this has been the IRL meta for over half a century
given two tank forces made up of the same tank and equal capabilities, it is likely that it will take multiple shots to kill 1 tank, and it is likely that the first hit, despite not killing, will put out a sight, the FCS, disorientate, panic or injure the crew so its ability to return fire effectively is degraded
that is why all armies train in platoon firing on 1 single target, and why NATO always strives to push the envelope with regards to FCS, optics and accuracy. because 1 way to upset this scenario is by having a better tank with better first-hit probability even on an individual basis
That's not what that anon meant, obviously the game is simplified a lot and made more forgiving for the sake of fun
However, within the constraints of balance and gameplay concessions like health bars
The game still manages to depict modern warfare realistically enough that most of its rules still apply about as you would expect
>someone post the meme image comparing morons helorushing in red dragon to the Russian invasion of Ukraine
>That's not what that anon meant,
But that's exactly how you'd read it. The unit interactions in Wargame are just not realistic at all. The game just isn't realistic in an abstract sense, unlike what anon claimed.
>enough that most of its rules still apply about as you would expect
They don't, I'm sorry. The dynamics of the game's combat are just not realistic.
>moron team-mate brings a CV ship to Another D-Day in paradise
>proceeds to lose it pointlessly
everi tiem
> KA-52/MI-28 pairs
> unsupported heli rushes
> 4th gen fighters doing gun runs on boats
> MIG-31M doing deterrence work from edge of map
> TOS-1 being burned as it gets ready to fire (game sadly didn't get it exploding in a huge fireball right, huge miss)
>Tanks don't have health bars,
In Eugen's Wargame? Yes they do.
He probably meant that [IRL] tanks don't have healthbars etc. but forgot that crucial element
Because a commander irl has to micro his units to best utilise cover and maintain LOS with avenues of approach.
it's a video game you sarcastic moron
Tbh I just wanted to put my dig in, it's always pissed me off that I have to individually micro the shit out of my tanks to make sure they have sightlines to where i need them, while IRL guys have the braincells to understand "sit in that treeline and shoot anything that comes up that road"
Because there isn't really much which comes close in RTS, particularly when you compare it with WIC or, heh, Red Alert.
they twinked these changes? I might have to check this game out
Wargame is relatively realistic, but unit stats and the types of units chosen to be in the game (balancing around arbitrarily selected prototypes) are absolutely bullshit.
Also yes, Soviet gear is overrated in pretty much every videogame.
Play WARNO guys
I will play Armored Brigade 2 in the vain hope that someone will finally produce a replacement for Combat Mission - a game that's got a two decades old engine and a boomer dev team resting on their laurels.
The current engine is only 16 years old or so
if Eugen admit they're a bunch of arrogant smelly Frenchmen who took 2 years to adequately balance a very simple RTS game, then maybe
Shill me wargames and sims. Currently enjoying Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought and eyefricking Modern Combat Operations.
>Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought
Rule the Waves
nta but would you recommend Rule the Waves or Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought? Both are on sale on steam rn and I can only afford one
Rule the Waves by far. UA looks pretty, but ship design and combat is much better executed in RtW.
>Ultimate Admiral Dreadnought?
It's a trash on the engine level and salvageable trash. At first glance it's pretty but then you understand how it's artillery mechanics work and it's fake garbage.
Main issue how artillery simulation works. Instead of real process simulation: Launch random rounds with certain dispersion and lead and see where chips fall. Game does reverse simulation process: game calculates hit probability by internal formula and launches rounds with dispersion that should achieve that probability. You have hilarious moments when you shooting at destroyers, one moment they sail straight and you rounds land in tight pattern, next moment they start turning and suddenly you salvos land in 10 times larger 1 km wide pattern and this complete bullshit.
Also thing how hut probability formula designed it calculates hit probability basing on max gun range, hit probability is small at max range and grows at closer ranges. It means that higher caliber main guns outhit small caliber secondary guns by many times at secondary caliber ranges that makes secondary useless. And this is complete bullshit too.
At first sight game looks decent you think simulation is going but you look closer and this is just cardboard silhouettes momvee by sticks and it's can't be fixed with any patch.
Rising Storm 2 Vietnam
>welcome to the jungle fricker
Extremely janky and unfun game but it's got atmosphere and it's not like we have anything better.
Un most cases, high stats for soviet gear in video games is the result of incessant pitching and spamming from vatniks trying to live out their "rossiya stronk" fantasies
cool fanfic bro
it's actually true though. take one fricking look at war thunder.
that's only one game
In Battlefront's Combat Mission Black Sea it was just a honest mistake
They even apologized after the Russian invasion last year saying they were sorry and they couldn't have known the Russians were this bad
I fricking hate Red dragon T-80s
c**ts are nigh unkillable and their fricking gun launched missiles slaughter everything sent in to get them
Skill issue, chunk armoured is a meme
The thing is that while ON PAPER soviet gear seems impressive, it rarely transforms into reality.
Like the quality of components, the grade of steel used etc. was often below specs. Soviet system had work quotas like "Produce X amount of tanks in a month". But if the steel mill can not produce enough high quality steel to meet the demand at the tank factory, the tank factory boss is in danger of not meeting his work quota. So rather than miss the quota, he might switch to using sub-standard steel because that is more readily available. The tanks roll out of the factory line as expected, and boss gets off the hook.
Now take that example and apply it ALL OVER the soviet union. That's why their stuff was notoriously crap. Everyone was cutting corners, or stealing from supplies, cooking the books or some other form of soviet corruption.
So just because their wargear might SEEM impressive, does not mean that it actually is. And now we see the results as they are being pushed into service, and underperform across the board.
WRD is alternate timeline, some my guess is this was one where soviets and RedFor were far more competent in terms of weapons production, although yeah they are breaks in reality like infantry teleporting from building to building.
This is most certainly a factor. Another aspect of Soviet design is something having an attribute that is incredibly good, but it coming at the cost of immense concessions in other areas that render it pointless in practical terms. Maybe causes concern in NATO initially, until they learn of it's actual capability, it leaving much to be desired.
I'm willing to give the Soviet's one benefit of a doubt. In that units stationed in East Germany likely had equipment that was reasonably up to snuff. Outside of that, quality, readiness and ability of units & their equipment was a crapshoot.
ease of use, ease of maintenance and durability are all key factors which I've never seen any RTS incorporate in the model, and which does play a decisive part in the difference between NATO and Soviet systems
Soft factors are hard to replicate in simulations outside of the realm of abstraction. The only games I see them being somewhat used are grand strategy, but even then it is more providing a stat boost in some area.
I've only seen them in the very edges of edge case RPGs, and as optional rules because of the crunch involved
but there it is, it really does make a difference. Uke militia have gushed about how easy it is to use NLAW and Stinger with just a few hours' training, and of course the overall ease of use of NATO equipment in general contributes to the AFU being able to steadily pump out trained reinforcements (of GOOD quality) to hold the line and turn the tide
I'm just so impressed. and excited. like many other I'm sure, I'm seeing 21st century warfare concepts originating in the 00s proven in real time. these have always been contentious because they've never been proven, unlike most Cold War concepts.
I mean, frankly if Soviet gear wasn't buffed in vidya, there wouldn't be much of a game to play
you guys think warthunder is trying to get americans to leak abrams documents
>no DU armor
>no spall liner
>etc
don't play top tier. Don't give Gaijin ideas.
Abrams doesn't have spall liner.
Bradley has.
>T-72M Optics: Medium
>M1 Abrams Optics: Poor
I can understand some degree of abstraction but this is just damn silly.
even with that nerf, the m1 abrams is still the silver standard for tanks. it hits all the right spot for armor, guns, and price
>even with that nerf, the m1 abrams is still the silver standard for tanks. it hits all the right spot for armor, guns, and price
Sure, but it does emphasize how stats are really leaning towards balance only for the literal monkey model export T-72's to be rated as having better optics than NATO MBT's with thermal gunsights.
Some export T72s do have better optics than NATO mbts though.
>Some export T72s do have better optics than NATO mbts though.
Which ones? And how many of those are from after the end of the cold war when former Warsaw Pact states could get access to Western Electronics?
Zero, i waded without following the reply chain.
>The fact that Ukrainians with Soviet gear buttfricked Russians with Soviet/Russian gear proves Soviet gear sucks
The great minds of /k/ at work.
>with Soviet/Russian gear
no, honey
euwho?
>Thinking games like Wargame go off of historical accuracy
Dawg... This is Graviteam Tactics or Combat Mission.
in general, it's funny how often video games go
>we need to nerf the US for balance reasons because a full power US would be miserable to play against
which is reasonable, and then end up in a situation where the US has none of its real life advantages and a shitload of fictional shortcomings due to holes where capable equipment got cut out without replacement
like yeah i guess a US without a javelin in every squad for game balance reasons would be pretty light on man portable antitank but lol cmon
The real US Army infantry don't have a javelin on every squad, just on the weapons squad in a platoon.
It was overrated by everyone, anon. Even as we watched Soviet gear fail miserably in every conflict after the Korean War, both NATO and the USSR crowed about how muh reliable and battle tested Soviet designs. When we saw it fail in real time, the Soviets (and later Russians) always had excuses that were laughably bad in retrospect.
>muh monkey models
>muh improper training
>muh made for eastern europe
Each time they had an excuse, and each time the world believed them. And now, here we are full circle: non-export Soviet equipment, operated by Russian troops, in eastern Europe, and it's fricking shit. Not only is it shit against western stuff, it's even shit against other Soviet stuff. There's no denying it anymore - it was always terrible, and it was always a lie. The question is, why did everyone hallucinate about it for so long? As it turns out, everyone had their reasons for imagining that the Soviet military was something special.
>ussr
Imagine telling your people that your military is worthless.
>usa
You don't get American levels of defense spending without a credible opponent.
>nato
You don't get the USA subsidizing your defense spending without a credible opponent.
And here we are, watching the state propaganda machine struggling with its own bullshit, carefully avoiding the question of how the Russian military is so bad that it got speedbumped by a third world kleptocracy a fraction of its size, while still somehow remaining an existential threat to the rest of Europe and the US.
>In retrospect was Soviet gear too highly rated by even the more traditional table top game developers like the Kremlin?
FTFY and Yes. teh Russia army does not even come with dice. A push out cardboard spinner and a toothpick (not included) are need to roll for what went wrong.
Used to play a VDV deck in WG:RD but post-Hostomel the suspension of disbelief is too much, I just can't take it seriously anymore. Nowadays I just play PURE logistics. Max FOBs open to everyone, run trucks back and forth to the front. Maybe bring some SAMs, SHORAD, Recon, and Air if I've got the extra points
Game needs to be fun.
SU was way too strong in Wargame for sure.
Not really, the basic infantry is unrealistically bad.
Just wait for Wargame: Black Sea (or something equivalent) in a decade or two, then you’re going to have great time with realistic 2023-tier mobik or Storm Z(ombie) -filled divisions.
Gonna have the greatest time with putting a deck of 3rd Armored against some mobiks with T-62 Obr. 2023s.
>Not really, the basic infantry is unrealistically bad.
Basic Soviet Infantry being really bad seems entirely believable given Afghanistan and Chechnya.
T-72,T-64,T-80 and T-90 should all have lower hit points due to lower survivability post penetration.
Annoyingly in Warno they have implemented ERA as +2HP which makes no sense at all and gives T-80BV, T-80U ect more HP than tanks like the Abrams which is dumb.
There should instead be an unsafe stowage and a safe stowage perk that reduce/increase by 2hp respectively.
Another annoying thing was that in Red dragon they basically made sure that every faction had a heavy tank, which results in all of the eastern block nations having artificially boosted T-72s and there being a bunch of annoying glass cannon tanks in minor decks with boosted AP values.
I think this ironically makes for a somewhat blander gameplay experience as well as not being terribly realistic.
>Eugen refusing to improve the Wargame formula in any way
Honestly, what did we even expect