Questions for Volcano Man (DF85_alt)

[Indragnir]

Hi Ed,

I've some questions about some values in your .oob file.

Leopard I family have HA 81/1 and defense 39
M60A3 have HA 81/2 defense 37
M60A1 have 81/1 defense 33
M48A2G2 hav3 81/1 and defense 52.

T72A/M1: 102/1, Defense 46
T72B: 102/1, Defense 50
T62M: 93/2, Defense 42
T64B: 102/2, Defense 40
T64BV: 102/2, Defense 44
T80B: 102/2, Defense 45
T80U: 102/2, Defense 51

So all Soviet tanks (but T55 family) have better defense and HA rating than Leopard I family and modernized M60A3 and A1, is this intentional? may it be a DB glitch or wrong formula?
Have M48A2G2 reserve tanks better defense than all front line formations?

Thanks in advance.

César

[Volcano Man]

Well, off the top of my head I say that it is intentional but I will have to look through the db at the formulas to know for certain. I will check it out.

[Volcano Man]

Sure enough, there was a mistake. It seems that the formulas were correct but I was using the wrong source data for the M60 series of tanks; I was looking at another vehicle on the table (must a late night mistake). Essentially, the M60A1 and A3 defense should both be 66, not 33/37! Also, I noticed that I was using the wrong source data for the M60A1 and A3 assault values. Currently their assault value is something like 15 when it should be 18.

While I was at it, I checked every MC tank in the OOB and everything else looked fine except I did catch a few other issues of far lesser severity. Anyway, I am glad you brought it up and I will correct it in the next update.

*edit: corrected a typo*

[Indragnir]

Ed,

What about Leopard I defense? it's hard to belive M48A2G2 have defense 52 and Leopard I only 39...

[Volcano Man]

Yes, this is correct. The M48 was heavily armored for its day and is probably one of the only reasons that the tank was still in service by this time, however it was extremely slow (and it is worth mentioning that the M60 too was well armored but very slow). You should notice that the Leopard 1 is about 4 hexes faster than the M48, so everything is not simply about defense and attack factors.

What I did forget to do though is give the unreliable flag to the M48. By this time they had indeed been upgraded but were very old and this is a problem since they had an underpowered engine to begin with. This unreliability and much slower speed is the difference between it and the Leopard 1.

[Indragnir]

Ok,

I've checked Leopard I... very thin armor, I always thinked it was better armored.
My source stated Leo I was given TIS in 1979, that's true?

[Volcano Man]

No that is not true. The Leopard 1A5 variant did get TIS, but that upgrade was not until 1986. Feel free to change the Leopard 1 defense values to whatever you like, but the sources that I have do not justify any other changes.

[Volcano Man]

Hmm, interesting. The real problem here is not with the defense, it is with the attack strengths. Somehow (most likely another late night mistake) I gave the M48A2G2 the ratings of a M48A5. The M48A2G2 should instead have the 90mm gun so the M48A2G2's hard attack should be 67/1, soft attack 19/1, and defense should be 51.

Still, it isn't much different on the defense but it does make more sense why the M48A2G2 was in second line service to the Leopard 1. Anyway, I will make that correction as well. I am glad you brought it up again. ;)

[Volcano Man]

I just updated both MC art packs (K85 and DF85) with these and other corrections made.

[Indragnir]

Thank you Ed,

Quick as usual.

No, I won't edit any value from your .oob, I trust in your sources more than mine.

Some more questions:

It seems artillery values are like stock .oob (unless LARS/MRLS), no problem at all just only curiosity.

Apache helos have the same HA value than Cobra helos, that's right?

BMP-2 russian infantry have SA value 31/1, the highest value in the game (excluded LARS and MRLS), more than any unit of any country, that's right?

That's all.

Thank you again.