Tank Hunter

This is just astonishing. It's so remarkable that it is borderline unbelievable. How is it possible that there is so much incompetence within the Russian forces? I can't recall a modern war where one side was so incompetent given the resources they had at their hands.

Now a lot of European countries are rushing to increase defense budgets but I can't help to ask what for? Russian threat? Really? After this war it will take them 30 years just to get back to pre-war state within the armed forces and how scary is that? The only thing they have are the strategic nuclear forces.

This is just astonishing. It's so remarkable that it is borderline unbelievable. How is it possible that there is so much incompetence within the Russian forces? I can't recall a modern war where one side was so incompetent given the resources they had at their hands.

Now a lot of European countries are rushing to increase defense budgets but I can't help to ask what for? Russian threat? Really? After this war it will take them 30 years just to get back to pre-war state within the armed forces and how scary is that? The only thing they have are the strategic nuclear forces.

This is just astonishing. It's so remarkable that it is borderline unbelievable. How is it possible that there is so much incompetence within the Russian forces? I can't recall a modern war where one side was so incompetent given the resources they had at their hands.

Now a lot of European countries are rushing to increase defense budgets but I can't help to ask what for? Russian threat? Really? After this war it will take them 30 years just to get back to pre-war state within the armed forces and how scary is that? The only thing they have are the strategic nuclear forces.

No I don't see Russians as OP. What game got wrong is the assumption that Russia would deploy their latest HW on mass in Ukraine. We the gamers would have probably caused a riot in here if Battlefront did provide us originally with old instead of newer Russian HW.  People woud have been crying out all ove the place for their T90s, they still did with Armatas yet we still haven't see a single one; not even close to the border.  I second the suggestion to include older Russian HW + more modern AT for Ukraine as part of the future expansions. 

Here you have a map editor that is much more intuitive and it's made for FPS. So it doesn't have to be complicated.
 

Here you have a map editor that is much more intuitive and it's made for FPS. So it doesn't have to be complicated.
 

Hmm, I respect armchair but they are generally not good at reviewing games. Their reference is just not that good in gaming departement. Black Sea is a good game with great mechanics but it fails in areas such as graphics, sound, UI etc.
When Armchair claims that
 
"the game objects can be targeted and damaged or destroyed".
"When soldiers run inside of buildings you can actually see what they see."
 
Game objects can be destroyed? Really, all game objects? Did they notice lack of fire, or that it takes several high caliber projectiles to even notice any change in how the building appears?
What can you see when soldiers run inside the buildings? Abstracted rooms?
 
They also claim the game has great graphics? Really?

Hmm, I respect armchair but they are generally not good at reviewing games. Their reference is just not that good in gaming departement. Black Sea is a good game with great mechanics but it fails in areas such as graphics, sound, UI etc.
When Armchair claims that
 
"the game objects can be targeted and damaged or destroyed".
"When soldiers run inside of buildings you can actually see what they see."
 
Game objects can be destroyed? Really, all game objects? Did they notice lack of fire, or that it takes several high caliber projectiles to even notice any change in how the building appears?
What can you see when soldiers run inside the buildings? Abstracted rooms?
 
They also claim the game has great graphics? Really?

Here you have a map editor that is much more intuitive and it's made for FPS. So it doesn't have to be complicated.
 

I never said that. Please re-read my post, I never claim that these things made the game less playable for me. I have all of CMx2 games and enjoy them very much, I know where they lack and I still think they are good games that give me a lot of enjoyment but that doesn’t mean that they are perfect in every way because they are not. If we are not allowed to criticize in a constructive way then there will never be any improvement.
I only reacted to the review which I think is bad since it’s not properly done. In my opinion every review has to break down the game in areas such as
 
Mechanics – how does the game represent mathematically what it is intending to do? Are game objects interacting in a good way? Are you finding results weird or bad?
Graphics and Sound – how does the game present the results to the player? By text only or fancy graphics or just sound or everything combined? Are you immersed into the game?
Replayability – is this a 20 hour play and throw game or are you challenged in different way every time you play it?
Single Player – how much content is in there for single player and how is the AI
Multi Player – is there any and how easy is it to find a game online? Are games good or riddled with kids that rage quit as soon as they lose their first tank?
 
All of these above should be judged by comparing to the current leader in that segment with the game you are reviewing. The segment in this case would be strategy games representing individual soldiers and vehicles.  The final score should be based on scores in all these segments. Then it is up to the reader to decide if this game is something they want to invest their time and money into.
 
When AG reviewer writes "When soldiers run inside of buildings you can actually see what they see." I wonder what they really mean? I know there is nothing to see since I have the game but what about someone that has never seen the game? They may think that you can see all the objects, soldiers engaging into fierce hand to hand combat etc.. They should have instead written that you can follow the soldiers closely when they operate on the ground and follow the action, then they should also write that some actions like hand to hand and house interiors  are abstracted but that abstraction generally works well since the end result seem plausible with real world results.
 
Thant’s the kind of info I’m looking for. As for fire they should notice the lack of it since nobody here can claim that fires don’t break out regularly in an area where heavy fighting is going on. Is it a deal breaker? Probably not but it does remove from the overall immersion. The battlefield looks dull without fire and destruction..

Will be Interesting to follow. Is this PzC Sicily 43? What terrain mod are you using?

It's also very much outdated. There's been three updates since! :-)

I think Tank Hunter is correct, there will be no "major" changes and no new terrain or graphic features in the Bulge game.
The speed at which new features get included into CMx2 is very slowww...

Dont expect anything "major" new in the Bulge game. It could be just a Normandy module but BFC decided to release it as a standalone.

My initial response was "looks flat" when I saw the screenshots, that's why I raised the question if graphics looked like a step back compared to other CMx 2 releases. I also think that this is mostly due to the winter landscape and the ability of the engine to present it properly. Don't remember how it looked it CMFI but I don't remember reacting too negativily when I saw it for the first time.  What makes it so dull are all the distinct borders between the roads, landscape and the houses. Roads can be snow covered, paritly covered, muddy etc. They can also be a mix, in the screenshot the road has one certain texture and snow another and there is a sharp line dividing them, it would be nice if there were some blending effects between them. This applies to all terrain types. Snow is never completely white  so there should be some variation. Some volume and ability to leave tracks in the snow would also add to the right feeling.

Is it me or do the graphics look like a step back compared to other CMx2 titles?

Tank Hunter,
 
Thanks for these. I think having the latest and the greatest sensors gave the US the edge on detection time, but at the price of a small accuracy loss when rush shooting. Looks like the Chieftain guys weren't having a good day, particularly when you look at what that Chieftain gunner says at the other link regarding his CAT experience. The consistent German and Netherlands apparent sensor edge with the Leo 2 is evident in the equally consistent 4.1 second slower Leo 1. Nor is this delta a national difference, for the numbers also apply to a non German unit in both cases. I strongly suspect the German did a lot more live fire gunnery training than did the Canadians, and their poor showing was something of a NATO and national scandal. I would've been surprised, though, had German gunnery been poor, Historically, the Germans have been excellent gunners (see, for example, German naval gunnery at Jutland and scored here (p 756 et seq) by the British themselves as on par or better than theirs. Nor was that an isolated case. There's also Big Bertha, the Paris Gun, Anzio Annie. I'll stipulate to the Panzer aces of WW II. At heart, they're all about being meticulous about gunnery. I'd say the traditions, thorough crew training and firing experience showed up unmistakably in the stats. Besides, if having the GSFG and the East Germans across the border doesn't motivate you to excel, what will?
 
LOckAndLOad (How I wish you'd picked a handle easier to type),
 
I linked to Chieftain gunner because I had absolutely zero notion, less still knowledge, the Chieftain could be fired that fast, with at least part of the course being firing on the move. This is a tank which is firing two part ammo, after all. Also, depending on what year of the CAT you selected, the way teams got to the competition changed more and more to resemble typical crews than the best of the best which characterized the early years.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler 

John,
 
You're right this is from the CAT competition.
Here is the data I have from the book
 
Team                  -   Tank         -   Time between Detection and Hit - No Of Hits - Hit %
USA                   - M1 Abrams -   10.2 sec                                  -  44-45       - 93%
The Netherlands  - Leopard 2    -   11.9 sec                                  -  46           - 96%
West Germany   - Leopard 2    -    11,9 sec                                 -  42-45       - 91%
West Germany   - Leopard 1    -    16,2 sec                                 -  45           - 93%
Belgium             - Leopard 1    -     16,2 sec                                -  41            - 85%
UK                    - Chieftain      -     13 sec                                   - 38             - 79%
USA                  - M60A3        -     14,1 sec                                 - 37            - 77%
Canada              - Leopard C1   -    16,2 sec                                - 34            - 71%
 
 
As you can see UK did not excel in any way, their detection times was decent but hit probability was not so good compared to top tier.
What's interesting is comparison between Leo tanks, look at the times, it seems that those are what you could expect to get from Leo tank since it does not differ from country to country, hit % however is another story. Canadians had 71% in Leo 1 while the Germans had 93%

John,
 
You're right this is from the CAT competition.
Here is the data I have from the book
 
Team                  -   Tank         -   Time between Detection and Hit - No Of Hits - Hit %
USA                   - M1 Abrams -   10.2 sec                                  -  44-45       - 93%
The Netherlands  - Leopard 2    -   11.9 sec                                  -  46           - 96%
West Germany   - Leopard 2    -    11,9 sec                                 -  42-45       - 91%
West Germany   - Leopard 1    -    16,2 sec                                 -  45           - 93%
Belgium             - Leopard 1    -     16,2 sec                                -  41            - 85%
UK                    - Chieftain      -     13 sec                                   - 38             - 79%
USA                  - M60A3        -     14,1 sec                                 - 37            - 77%
Canada              - Leopard C1   -    16,2 sec                                - 34            - 71%
 
 
As you can see UK did not excel in any way, their detection times was decent but hit probability was not so good compared to top tier.
What's interesting is comparison between Leo tanks, look at the times, it seems that those are what you could expect to get from Leo tank since it does not differ from country to country, hit % however is another story. Canadians had 71% in Leo 1 while the Germans had 93%

Here is the latest Beta Tester for CMBS. Verifying that Russian equipement is modeled correctly.