Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_pudding
Successful AA capability versus NAE targets at 4 km? I doubt it.
|
<shrug> US Army tank crews have trained to engage helicopters for 40 years. And if 1970s era fire control systems could do it, I find it hard to believe that fire control systems 110 years later couldn't engage a vehicle moving about 60% the speed of a helicopter. Particularly when you start using visually targeted - amd therefore jam-proof - fire and forget weapons (widely available in 2018).
Quote:
|
This is because the principle weapons in Ogre are indirect fire. Contemporary MBTs are primarily direct fire platforms.
|
And why does that matter?
Quote:
In real life counter-battery fire can fail because the target artillery is able to decamp fast enough.
They can fire at targets that move into direct fire range, during overruns.
|
Again, so what?
You apparently are arguing that an AFV fire control system in 2085 can't effectively engage an enemy AFV moving about 70 mph at most.
And curiously, you seem to be arguing that somehow a stationary tank can't engage a GEV, but one that moves can.
Sorry, but logic suggests that if a GEV can engage a functional, unengaged tank, then that tank should be able to engage the GEV. Assuming comparable weapons, fire control and range. None of the points you've raised rebut this presumption.
This artifact is strictly due to an artificial sequence of play. One that existed in the first popular tactical wargame, Panzerblitz. It wasn't much of a problem in Ogre because of the nature of the engagement and the relatively open ground.
I think it IS an issue in GEV because it compels players to use tactics that would not work in reality (based on the assumptions we've been given about the Ogre universe). As I said, we know how tanks work in the real world. We know the assumptions in Ogre and how they change armored combat (i.e., not much except that everything can use indirect fire and infantry is now as fast as slower AFVs).
My response, if I didn't consider it a problem, would be that "it's a game and I can live with this particular abstraction."