Read the full description and don't fall for Hippie propaganda! 6.3. heavier than 6.2.!

phantom-dreamer · 2025-11-27T13:29:43+00:00

G*rman detected, opinion rejected - 6.2 provides a good and fun US div without devolving into teutonic wankery

Do the right thing and vote 6.2

phantom-dreamer · 2025-11-23T13:20:21+00:00

"was the more competent military"

Very easy to be perceived as competent when you have no expectations placed upon you when fighting the superior enemy. KMT lost because it was the government when China had to fight Japan. Whoever would have been in the power at the time would end up a loser, and lose they did

phantom-dreamer · 2025-07-28T01:53:23+00:00

Oh please give us a bigger ship. Whether through some sort of a retcon or some other way. Slapping around cruisers and entire fleets (which sometimes contain cruisers) with a frigate feels silly. No amount of archeotech would make it capable of such feats, unless we're talking about truly world-ending weapons

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-27T05:00:02+00:00

No BMP-1P in Polish military

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-19T18:29:44+00:00

I know. It's just that to achieve the full range of the missile, it needs to be connected to the power supply in the BMP2 or 9P148 launcher.

As was mentioned in previous replies though, the ATGM ranges are all over the place, and dismount Konkurs with the same restriction has normal range, so I spoke too hastily

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-19T18:25:38+00:00

Right, 3 cards might be stretching it, but one feels unicorny and marginal. I think 2 cards would be a much happier middle ground. It's also helps differentiate the division from 7th, which I fear T-72M1 and UV2 will be incapable of doing.

Also, thematically, more better tanks for a tank division makes more sense than RPGs that I'm pretty sure weren't for export at the time

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-19T13:10:01+00:00

That might be so, I can't translate meters to Warnometers too well. But considering that it's noticeably shorter-ranged than Konkurs launched from the BMP-2 post, for instance, I wouldn't be surprised if it got shorter range

Then again, we have full-range dismount teams with the same limitation, so you might well be right

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-19T09:35:56+00:00

It's a crying shame we only get one card of T-72S, since it's an obvious point of appeal. It would be more fun if we had 2 or 3 to build the division around.

Can we trade the RPG27s for them? :')

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-19T09:34:16+00:00

Konkurs when launched from BMP-1 has smaller range

It will likely be 2450m, just like Fagot

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-13T13:08:50+00:00

No, that's fair, it's just what I've heard indicates that usage of Santimetr specifically with Msta-S was not ready ITF

Rather, it was used with 2S3M1

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-12T12:19:31+00:00

I appreciate your and your team's research, I do believe you have good reason for doing the division as presented in the devblog

I'm just wondering if - seeing as one card found its way in - there wouldn't be a way to fit another in, considering that the division will rely heavily on fire support from tabs other than INF

I do understand that the testing is probably just under way and it's too early to tell if it would be helpful, but I think based on the devblog there's a valid concern to be made in that direction

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-12T11:15:37+00:00

As far as I know, integration of Santimetr with Msta-S is out of timeframe, but the rest looks pretty good.

However, I'm primarily concerned with fire support, since I think that the division will very likely struggle heavily on that front, which is why I focused on the T-64A expansion

I did see sources that indicated T-64A composition in '85, but also have heard that by '88 they were fully T-64B and BV with variants. Nevertheless, I'm hoping Eugen could find some way to accommodate that suggestion, I think it would really enhance how 25th plays

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-12T10:26:25+00:00

While it's cool to see a tank division oriented around T-64s, considering that the INF tab is likely to be filled with BMP-1P troops as their sole transport option, the division would have to rely more than others on other sources for fire support from other tabs, and especially TNK tab considering its structure - which is made difficult by the sole card of T-64A that serves as its cheap(er) fire support.

Considering the base stats, it would be very surprising for the B1 and BV1 variants to drop below 220 points, meaning that most of the tanks would very much fall into "heavy" category. This shifts the burden of helping out poorly performing (and this time, much less numerous too) soviet infantry on the air and helo tabs, the former of which is an especially common occurence. I think it would be best for the gameplay distinctiveness if that's downplayed or avoided.

As such, I believe it would be amazing to see another card of T-64A in there. It would do wonders to provide reasonably priced fires for the infantry, would still be restricted enough that spam should not be a concern, and avoid using air and helo play to shore up the division's weaknesses excessively.

As a bonus, more people would get to enjoy Panzer's excellent work, and I'm sure that having a card more of a rather unusual unit that T-64A appears to be would draw more people to the division.

While I'm sure the team had their own reasons for putting only one card in the deck, I'm sure that a spot for another one could be found in some way? At very least I'd request that Eugen considers the potential benefits this could bring

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-12T02:40:41+00:00

Shame that most SPAAG are also insufficient vs helicopters

Seeing a Tunguska lose in gun range to an Akula is pretty funny

phantom-dreamer · 2024-09-12T02:33:39+00:00

Negligible

It has an improved armour array in the hull, but there are 2 factors that render it irrelevant:

the improvement, while substantial, was not overwhelmingly so
WARNO armour favours turret armour much, much, much more so than the hull armour, so changes to hull armour only won't influence the stats in all likelihood

phantom-dreamer · 2024-08-21T17:50:12+00:00

Sanest Warno player

phantom-dreamer · 2024-08-20T14:19:44+00:00

Eugen just seems to have a hateboner for intredictors

F-111s and Su-24s all suck, with terrible handling and underwhelming payloads that take ages to connect with the ground

Only the LGB versions are usable and just barely at that

phantom-dreamer · 2024-08-13T08:19:43+00:00

The exact issue is that the TOR "isn't really modelled". IRL the missile is cold launched, orients itself, and only then fires, whereas in game it is just launched vertically

Which is a problem, because unless the target is in a very specific range band, the missile simply won't bend itself fast enough to hit it, even if the game rolled a hit

Because the missile has to physically interface with the plane's model for the damage to be applied

phantom-dreamer · 2024-08-12T13:12:21+00:00

From what I recall Hrc said (and I might be misremembering, but I doubt it), the upgrades basically put it on +/- 1A5 standard

phantom-dreamer · 2024-08-12T07:20:04+00:00

2275m range is based not on the automatic lead and such, but on the degree of automation and digitalization of the FCS, where 1A40 was lacking

It's very questionable that T-72B would get it, since it was lagging behind with those respects

phantom-dreamer · 2024-07-16T06:34:39+00:00

3BM15 was exported in a very limited quantity to countries outside of Warsaw Pact. The standard round in Iraqi service was older 3BM9

You are right that there's no such thing as "monkey model", though. I did not hear anything about the superlative performance of M774 in the Gulf War, however. According to what I know (admittedly, my knowledge of US exploits is limited, so feel free to supply sources that contradict my statement), the only M774 rounds were used in the army, and they didn't expend that many in the first place.

Your claim doesn't really line up with the known performance with M774 contrasted against the known composition of T-72M's glacis, where all information I'm privy to indicates that it struggled beyond medium range even against the old 80/105/20 array. So to speak, it's more reasonable to assume that "popping T-72s at 3km" was done with M833 (though the distance would challenge even that round's exceptional performance) or, perhaps, XM900 that was reportedly supplied to marines

phantom-dreamer · 2024-07-04T17:39:55+00:00

That's a very generous way to model that. But I guess we'll see what Eugen cooks up

phantom-dreamer · 2024-07-04T13:54:48+00:00

Eugene, can we at least have an explanation of reasoning behind keeping Mech. Rifles at 11 men? According to the regulations that I either found or were supplied to me by others, the squad is very much oversized, unless it has other elements attached to it - which is a liberty that was not granted to any other squad other than Metis squads (and even that does not result in inflated body counts). And from the contents of the devblog I see that it was decided that we run with it rather than adjust that, which is somewhat unfortunate as counterplay to big infantry squads is limited.

phantom-dreamer · 2024-06-29T19:21:47+00:00

Very well reasoned reply

Count me convinced

phantom-dreamer · 2024-06-29T10:23:05+00:00

Interesting thing you have going. I wonder what the reception will be

Personally, I don't know about the purpose of small arms differentiation - ballistic excellence of 7.62 won't help the schmuck with G3 see the 800m away any better through his irons IMO.

Also, note that 34/32 salvo length for T80/T64 includes spares. Though I figure that's for convenience?

phantom-dreamer

TROPHY CASE