Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront

Call to Arms - Gates of Hell: Ostfront

Hotmod 1968
Missile carriers
Soviet missile carriers, the IT-1, 2P110 and 2P122 are too accurate, especially on the move.

For the 2P110 and 122 I can tell you exactly why: the 9M14 Malyutka missile (AT-3 Sagger) is an MCLOS (Manual Command Line Of Sight) missile, that needs to be manually steered with a joystick onto its target. This makes the Malyutka notoriously inaccurate, even in its basic form, now imagine having your launch and command platform move and bob around.

For the IT-1, I have less precise information, I don't know for example if the sight on the tank is stabilised or not, which would be important for the thing to be able to fire on the move accurately. Technically speaking its missile should be more accurate just by virtue of being SACLOS as opposed to MCLOS, but if it doesn't have stabilised sights (like the 1A40 on the T-80 able to guide the 9M112 missile), firing on the move would be an issue.

But then you have the AI bumrushing missile carriers, ripping off missiles and hitting accurately on the move. I have legit had to restart missions in conquest because of how stupid those things can be (a single 2P110 destroyed 4 of my tanks before I could even react - from the move of course).

EDIT: Some further reading revealed that it's possible (likely) that the 2P110 and 122 also had SACLOS versions of the Malyutka, *however* it seems that they didn't have stabilised sights and thus would have needed to be fired from a stationary position for good effect.

EDIT2: It's not just soviet missile carriers that pull off insane accuracy on the move. I was playing against the FRG as PPR and the RaJaPa1 also casually dumbs missiles on the move.
Last edited by piritskenyer; 20 Jan @ 4:07am
< >
Showing 1-4 of 4 comments
[HOT68] Simobombe  [developer] 31 Jan @ 12:42am 
This has been subject to a LOT of internal discussion about how we can tone down ATGM carriers. By definition they were one of the big threats to armoured formations in the day but due to current limitations in game they are a bit too strong at times.

Hope we can bring a solution to this issue soon.
Originally posted by HOT68 Simobombe:
This has been subject to a LOT of internal discussion about how we can tone down ATGM carriers. By definition they were one of the big threats to armoured formations in the day but due to current limitations in game they are a bit too strong at times.

Hope we can bring a solution to this issue soon.

That's great to hear. I really don't mind them murdering units when they themselves are stationary, but yeah...
[HOT68] Simobombe  [developer] 7 Feb @ 12:23am 
Originally posted by piritskenyer:
Originally posted by HOT68 Simobombe:
This has been subject to a LOT of internal discussion about how we can tone down ATGM carriers. By definition they were one of the big threats to armoured formations in the day but due to current limitations in game they are a bit too strong at times.

Hope we can bring a solution to this issue soon.

That's great to hear. I really don't mind them murdering units when they themselves are stationary, but yeah...

Current idea is to have ATGM's have some kind of delay to stop and fire
Originally posted by HOT68 Simobombe:

Current idea is to have ATGM's have some kind of delay to stop and fire

That actually makes a lot of sense, both balance and history wise
< >
Showing 1-4 of 4 comments
Per page: 1530 50