Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GD Soldat

Who's the best, east or west?

Recommended Posts

NOTE: I tested the Armored units, as well--check page 2.

...And the results are interesting.

My first test was to plunk down one "standard" infantry squad for each side--the Mission Editor default composition--and space them one grid square apart, facing each other, using open, flat land on the Desert Island.  I made the Resistance friendly to both sides, and inserted myself a distance away in the guise of a Resistance officer.  It was to be a "best of ten" type event; whichever side won the most battles would be declared the better group.  I then decided to upgrade it to a "best of twenty," to try and get more accurate results and rule out chance, if possible.  Mind you, this was only tested with OFP version 1.46, and doesn't use any of the new Resistance weapons or units.

Here's how it went down:

USA:  7, USSR:  13.

That's right, the Americans got a good, old fashioned butt-whoopin' in more than half of the engagements.  I couldn't figure out why.  The equipment and armament was more or less similar, the skill level of the soldiers was set to the default, identical level; yet the Soviets came out on top in this type of balls-out, open field combat.

I then decided to up the ante a little, by changing one of the regular Soldiers on the West side to a Heavy Grenadier.  Although he tended to miss a lot of shots, the ones that DID connect often took out multiple foes.  The odds were more than evened:

USA:  12, USSR:  8.

This development let me to wonder if the Western troops weren't doing better because they didn't have enough firepower, weren't throwing out enough lead.  I decided to see what happened if I made every soldier on the West side into a Machine Gunner.  I also decided to just do a "best of ten" for all my following tests.  The results weren't pretty:

USA:  2, USSR:  8.

It seems that for actual accurate fire, Machine Gunners are more or less useless (at low skill levels, anyhow).  Sure they, did a lot of rock-and-roll, but all it produced was a lot of holes in the sand behind the East guys.  The more methodical, more aimed 3-shot bursts from the AKs made Swiss cheese of the West.

So, remembering the successes that the additional Heavy Grenadier had brought to the West, I decided to outfit all of them that way.  It was pretty darned impressive.  Although they couldn't put down a constant rat-tat-tat like the East could with their automatics, the volleys of explosives more than made up for the lack of consistent volume.  A row of puffs from the barrels of the grenade launchers, and soon a wave of death would encompass the soldiers of the East, who flailed about like helpless ragdolls before the onslaught of my new "shock troops."  Too many dying too quickly to fight back.  The results:

USA:  10, USSR:  0.

Pleased with the results, but still looking for a more conventional remedy to the Red menace, I then decided to see how the West would fare ditching the M-16 for the G36.  Quick, accurate fire riddled the East--who would have thought that the change would have made such a difference?  Both the G36 and the Steyr netted these results:

USA:  8, USSR:  2.

Results with a squad of H&K wielders were even more lopsided; Ivan just couldn't seem to make solid contact, and looked confused in the hail of whispering projectiles:

USA:  10, USSR:  0.

Seeing the value in both bullets and explosive projectiles, I opted to try a squad of Grenadiers, with decent results (although they didn't employ their grenade launchers as often as I would have liked):

USA:  8, USSR:  2.

With the sniper rifles, there was no contest.  Even at these low skill levels, the sound of rifle fire cracked constantly.  Eastern soldiers fell to the sand, faces ruined, torsos mauled:

USA:  10, USSR:  0.

And for some odd reason, just the opposite happened with the exclusive use of the XMS; the Americans just couldn't seem to get any firepower together, as the Russians clobbered them handily each time:

USA:  0, USSR:  10.

So, I had learned that if their more specialized weaponry was employed, the Western soldiers could overcome the open-field superiority of the East.  But in one-for-one, standard squad conflicts, the ball was definitely in Russia's court.  I decided that a boost in skill was in order for the Americans to see if I could bolster their efforts some.  I bumped the skills of a standard squad (as described in the inital test) up to a full one-hundred percent.  Needless to say, the results were much better, and not surprising at all:

USA:  10, USSR:  0.

The West was efficient and deadly, and swept the test even when I lowered the skill level to fifty percent.  I then decided to raise the skill levels of all the soldiers on BOTH sides to one hundred, anticipating that once they were on even footing, the Russians would once again net more victories.  For this test, I thought it might be advantageous to return to the initial "best of twenty" format, temporarily.  I was right about the results, only the Russians did even better this time than in the initial tests.  I couldn't figure out why, except to note that the Russian Machine Gunners seemed to rock-and-roll a lot more often (and a lot longer) than the Western guys:

USA:  5, USSR:  15.

My last series of tests was to take place in a different environment--the woods of Everon.  I picked a spot that was densely forested, but on level ground.  Again, the opposing squads were "standard" infantry squads of default skill level.  They wouldn't start shooting at each other from such a distance of one grid square's width, so I made a simple "Search and Destroy" waypoint for each squad which would force them to run into each other.  And run into each other they did, with very surprising results; the West, which had seen such vicious ass-beatings in open combat, took to forest warfare like a fish to water:

USA:  9, USSR:  1.

Again, I wasn't sure what they did well.  It was much more difficult to determine just what was going on during the battle, since being the "combat cameraman" in the woods was a lot different (and more dangerous!wink.gif than peering through binoculars from a distance.  Stray bullets and nearby grenades killed me several times as I tried to stay on the heels of one or another of the forces and observe the battle, but eventually I learned what was a safe distance to keep and still keep an eye on things.  

But, in this environtment full of cover and obstacles, how would the Americans fare with the Heavy Grenadiers that had done so well in the open field?  I didn't think that the weapons would be as practical in such an enclosed space, with all the trees around.  I had to stand WAY back for this test!  Turns out that I underestimated the versatility of the troops:

USA:  10, USSR:  0.

Black Ops with their H&Ks also fared well, losing in only one engagement.  Even two "standard" squads facing off in the forest with skill levels at the max resulted in major victories for the West.

And then, I decided that I had learned enough, and was going to stop messing around with OFP for one night wink.gif  Just wanted to report my findings, in case anyone might find them interesting!

GroßdeutschlandSoldat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian soldiers have 3 modes for their rifles-they have Full Auto, wheras the M16s only have burst. That could be why they faired better in open combat.

A good read, all the same. Do you think that Ofp could be used to test REAL military strategies? Like, the USA could use it to see how their troops would fare in a battle against Iraqi troops.

Hey, you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Crazysheep @ Jan. 21 2003,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you think that Ofp could be used to test REAL military strategies? Like, the USA could use it to see how their troops would fare in a battle against Iraqi troops.

Hey, you never know.<span id='postcolor'>

Havent you heard of VBS1?

And GD Soldat, you need a life!! smile.giftounge.gif

But good reading though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's an amazing effort. I hope you took advantage of the time acceleration to run through the battles more quickly. tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ Jan. 21 2003,21:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wow, that's an amazing effort. I hope you took advantage of the time acceleration to run through the battles more quickly.  tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Uh... I... Yes, of course! wink.gif Actually, they didn't take that long. The majority of the tests on the Desert Island were over in only a minute or two. Besides, I wanted to see how things played out--WHY they were the way they were, not just who was left standing when the dust, er, sand, er, forest cleared.

As for the AK having the extra mode of fire: I didn't notice any of the AI taking advantage of that. They only seemed to know how to fire in Single Shot or Burst mode, with Burst being the most frequent style used.

GroßdeutschlandSoldat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GD Soldat @ Jan. 21 2003,12:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA:  7, USSR:  13.

That's right, the Americans got a good, old fashioned butt-whoopin' in more than half of the engagements.  I couldn't figure out why.  The equipment and armament was more or less similar, the skill level of the soldiers was set to the default, identical level; yet the Soviets came out on top in this type of balls-out, open field combat.<span id='postcolor'>

It's different every time. I put two infantry squads on the desert island too. In my first try the Soviet union beat the USA. In my second try the USA beat the Soviet union. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of it may have to do with the fact that the M-16 doesn't fire nearly as fastly in the game as it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, we have to rely on better tactics sometimes. Except in the Civil War, a fence won that one for us tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And run into each other they did, with very surprising results; the West, which had seen such vicious ass-beatings in open combat, took to forest warfare like a fish to water<span id='postcolor'>

lmao, best phrase ever! Anyhow, great stuff, I love it when people take the time to figure this stuff out (mostly because I'd never think of doing this sort of thing on my own)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow.gif2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Jan. 21 2003,23wow.gif2)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really wish I could be bothered to read all that.....<span id='postcolor'>

Well, for future reference, if you can't "be bothered" to read and say anything constructive, perhaps it's better to not reply at all.

Assuming you were bothered to read this message, of course.

And to Tex: Thanks, I like to add a little literary flare when I can, y'know? This is actually something I've been thinking about doing for a long time, but only recently reinstalled OFP and decided to try out. Maybe next time I get bored, I'll do a similar test with the armored units, too. Hm...

GroßdeutschlandSoldat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent work Soldat, although if you tried the same with armored units i can assure you unless you have a 6:1 ratio in favor of the M60s, they too will get a vicious ass-beating smile.gif

And with the abrams, they will need to be overcomed by a group atleast two times their strength (T80's that is) but there are chances that the Soviets will win if they manage to hit the Barrel of the Abrams and disable them, which they do frequently to my dismay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, thanks. I think it would be interesting to determine just how many of each armored unit it takes to roughly equal the fighting power of another... Like you said, to have some equation along the lines of: 6 M60 = 1 T72 = x number of Abrams = y number of T80, etc.

The more I think about it, the more this seems like something to try.

GroßdeutschlandSoldat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 21 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ya, we have to rely on better tactics sometimes.  Except in the Civil War, a fence won that one for us  tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

ROFLMAO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did some armored tests. Desert Island, level ground, 2 grid spaces apart, head-on orientation, orders to Seek and Destroy, standard default skill level (50%), best of 5. Here are the results:

1 M60 vs. 1 T72 = 0/5

2 ---- vs. ----- = 1/4

3 ---- vs. ----- = 5/0

1 ---- vs. 1 T80 = 0/5

2 ---- vs. ----- = 0/5

3 ---- vs. ----- = 2/3

4 ---- vs. ----- = 5/0

1 ---- vs. 1 BMP = 5/0

------ vs. 2 ---- = 0/5

------ vs. 1 Shilka = 4/1

------ vs. 2 ----- = 0/5

------ vs. 1 BMP2 = 5/0

------ vs. 2 ----- = 0/5

1 M1A1 vs. 1 T72 = 5/0

------- vs. 2 ---- = 2/3

------- vs. 3 ---- = 0/5

------- vs. 1 T80 = 5/0

------- vs. 2 ---- = 0/5

------- vs. 1 BMP = 5/0

------- vs. 2 ---- = 5/0

------- vs. 3 ---- = 5/0

------- vs. 4 ---- = 2/3

(Didn't try with 5, got the Max Units/Group and lost Preview)

------- vs. x Shilka = *

(The Shilkas wouldn't open fire on the M1A1s)

1 Vulcan vs. x T72 = *

(Same as above)

-------- vs. 1 BMP = 5/0

-------- vs. 2 ---- = 5/0

-------- vs. 3 ---- = 0/5

-------- vs. 1 BMP2 = 5/0

-------- vs. 2 ----- = 5/0

-------- vs. 3 ----- = 0/5

1 M2A2 vs. 1 T72 = 0/5

2 ----- vs. ------ = 5/0

1 M2A2 vs. 1 T80 = 0/5

2 ----- vs. ------ = 5/0

And that's all I did this time. Whew. And what did I learn?

1. The disabling turret-shot often makes the difference in a fight. Even a big tank like the Abrams can't stand up to even two T72s if the one that isn't immediately screwed can score a turret hit.

2. Rate of fire makes a difference. The Vulcan's performance against the BMPs is a good example; I've never seen a tank crew bail so fast! They never got a shot off, and looked like hamburger when they jumped out. This didn't hold true for the Shilkas, unfortunately for them. They didn't fire as constantly as the Vulcan guys did.

3. The M2A2 is quite a versatile vehicle, against both armor and personnel. The 3 different armaments give good diversity in ways to engage, and it doesn't take a lot of units to destroy even large targets like the T80, although one of them is of course going to be the sacrifice.

Hope you'll find this interesting, as well.

GroßdeutschlandSoldat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GD Soldat @ Jan. 21 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Jan. 21 2003,23<!--emo&wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really wish I could be bothered to read all that.....<span id='postcolor'>

Well, for future reference, if you can't "be bothered" to read and say anything constructive, perhaps it's better to not reply at all.

Assuming you were bothered to read this message, of course.

And to Tex:  Thanks, I like to add a little literary flare when I can, y'know?  This is actually something I've been thinking about doing for a long time, but only recently reinstalled OFP and decided to try out.  Maybe next time I get bored, I'll do a similar test with the armored units, too.  Hm...

GroßdeutschlandSoldat<span id='postcolor'>

crazy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Jan. 21 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ya, we have to rely on better tactics sometimes.  Except in the Civil War, a fence won that one for us  tounge.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah. I just saw that on the History Channel a few weeks ago. It was on a show that uses modern science to see if history was true or not. Like just this past week, they found out that the Red Baron was shot down by some infantry guy, not the pilot that claims he downed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BratZ

Great useful work GD Soldat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Jan. 22 2003,17:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (GD Soldat @ Jan. 21 2003,23:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jamesia @ Jan. 21 2003,23<!--emo&wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really wish I could be bothered to read all that.....<span id='postcolor'>

Well, for future reference, if you can't "be bothered" to read and say anything constructive, perhaps it's better to not reply at all.

Assuming you were bothered to read this message, of course.

And to Tex:  Thanks, I like to add a little literary flare when I can, y'know?  This is actually something I've been thinking about doing for a long time, but only recently reinstalled OFP and decided to try out.  Maybe next time I get bored, I'll do a similar test with the armored units, too.  Hm...

GroßdeutschlandSoldat<span id='postcolor'>

crazy.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Wuv you wink.gif

GroßdeutschlandSoldat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey GD Soldat! Is nice read things like that. Shows that many people out there have true love for the best game of all times! Nice work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"and the Nobel Prize for Combat annalysis in a computer game goes to!" LOL. smile.gif Just kidding. Great work there. Helps me understand things a bit more. Most helpful poster for 2003? We'll see. It aint the Nobel but its close. tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×