Jump to content

slysniper

Members
  • Posts

    3,915
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    slysniper reacted to akd in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    A Marine talks to a Marine about fighting in Ukraine (and they go straight to the potential obsolescence of the tank):
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/03/american-volunteer-foreign-fighters-ukraine-russia-war/627604/
  2. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Well, if people would just listen, the day of the tank as we presently know it is coming to an end.
    Here is some statements from those that might have a little more insight than most of the rest of us
    But there is still a need for what a tank does, what that will look like in the future will come down to what  man will design to compete on the battlefield of the future at a cost they can afford.
    No question we will see, unmanned, lighter faster platforms that can bring a heavy punch to a area needing clearing.
    Also, I expect that counter measures to drones and drone type warfare will change and be added to soon. It really should not be hard to develop systems for the task. Because just as important as winning the skies with air power has been, winning the skies with drone power could be just as important.  So ground troops will need light weapon systems that can get the job done as to removing such threats. Actually I think the US has some systems presently that can remove enemy drones from the battle. 
    But no question, warfare will evolve from this conflict if we don't go too far and turn this into the last war we as mankind sees.
    But what we call tanks in the future (20 - 30 years) will likely change as much as what a tanks from WW1 has changed from our present day  
  3. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Grey_Fox in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Well, if people would just listen, the day of the tank as we presently know it is coming to an end.
    Here is some statements from those that might have a little more insight than most of the rest of us
    But there is still a need for what a tank does, what that will look like in the future will come down to what  man will design to compete on the battlefield of the future at a cost they can afford.
    No question we will see, unmanned, lighter faster platforms that can bring a heavy punch to a area needing clearing.
    Also, I expect that counter measures to drones and drone type warfare will change and be added to soon. It really should not be hard to develop systems for the task. Because just as important as winning the skies with air power has been, winning the skies with drone power could be just as important.  So ground troops will need light weapon systems that can get the job done as to removing such threats. Actually I think the US has some systems presently that can remove enemy drones from the battle. 
    But no question, warfare will evolve from this conflict if we don't go too far and turn this into the last war we as mankind sees.
    But what we call tanks in the future (20 - 30 years) will likely change as much as what a tanks from WW1 has changed from our present day  
  4. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Well, if people would just listen, the day of the tank as we presently know it is coming to an end.
    Here is some statements from those that might have a little more insight than most of the rest of us
    But there is still a need for what a tank does, what that will look like in the future will come down to what  man will design to compete on the battlefield of the future at a cost they can afford.
    No question we will see, unmanned, lighter faster platforms that can bring a heavy punch to a area needing clearing.
    Also, I expect that counter measures to drones and drone type warfare will change and be added to soon. It really should not be hard to develop systems for the task. Because just as important as winning the skies with air power has been, winning the skies with drone power could be just as important.  So ground troops will need light weapon systems that can get the job done as to removing such threats. Actually I think the US has some systems presently that can remove enemy drones from the battle. 
    But no question, warfare will evolve from this conflict if we don't go too far and turn this into the last war we as mankind sees.
    But what we call tanks in the future (20 - 30 years) will likely change as much as what a tanks from WW1 has changed from our present day  
  5. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Cobetco in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Well, if people would just listen, the day of the tank as we presently know it is coming to an end.
    Here is some statements from those that might have a little more insight than most of the rest of us
    But there is still a need for what a tank does, what that will look like in the future will come down to what  man will design to compete on the battlefield of the future at a cost they can afford.
    No question we will see, unmanned, lighter faster platforms that can bring a heavy punch to a area needing clearing.
    Also, I expect that counter measures to drones and drone type warfare will change and be added to soon. It really should not be hard to develop systems for the task. Because just as important as winning the skies with air power has been, winning the skies with drone power could be just as important.  So ground troops will need light weapon systems that can get the job done as to removing such threats. Actually I think the US has some systems presently that can remove enemy drones from the battle. 
    But no question, warfare will evolve from this conflict if we don't go too far and turn this into the last war we as mankind sees.
    But what we call tanks in the future (20 - 30 years) will likely change as much as what a tanks from WW1 has changed from our present day  
  6. Upvote
    slysniper reacted to DerKommissar in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Chieftain's dropping some logic bombs in this one.
  7. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Actually, I have felt that CMBS game have shown how this two aspects could affect the modern day battlefield.
    The ability of light infantry with modern ATGMs to be able to hit high value targets.
    I think CMBS has show that afv's are becoming tools of the past.
     
    The use of drones in reconnaisance, fire control and as weapon systems.  
    CMBS has reflected this in a small amount, but now seeing how it is affecting this war, the game is only giving a hint compared to the present power of drone warfare.
     
    On the other hand no war game would have thought to model
    The willingness of Russian troops to abandon important equipment.
    Crowd-sourcing intelligence from a friendly population.
     
    And as Steve mentioned here, the game does help one understand how these factors affect the outcomes in battles.
    And that in turn affects operational and  strategic decisions and outcomes.
     
    I think there is way too many factors in war that are always present and unforeseen for war gaming to be a tool that can be used as a crystal ball as to what the future will bring.
    But I do see it as a tool that can be used to practice concepts as to new uses of equipment and or tactics as to seeing if it would be a possible new method to employ and also as a tool to practice methods one is planning to use in the future.
    So war games can help in planning and finding possible best methods in fighting conflicts. So there is a place for them , just not as lofty of a tool as some would hope for.
  8. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    I have been staying out of the conversation about the war.
    But have been watching the thread daily since this is somewhat my best news source.
    but I do want to point out (who would have thought CMBS AI was playing the Russians more realistically than we ever thought)
     
     
    A nice group packed way too close together, the Russians seem to keep doing it, each day they don't seem to learn from the last.

     
     
     
     
     
     
  9. Upvote
    slysniper reacted to L0ckAndL0ad in How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?   
    Hi everyone. Nikita here.
    I'm still in Crimea. I have to be careful with every word, especially after being detained on 24th by police and FSB, so I will be brief. I am literally shaking as I type due to adrenaline, but we all need to be strong these days.
    1) Ukraine will be free. The bastards will fail. I can clearly see it.
    2) We witness an insane amount of heroism. Which is truly inspiring.
    3) Thanks to Steve and other people from here who were kind to me in the past and took time and patience to communicate with me. It made a lot of difference in the end and made me a person who I am today.
  10. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Splinty in Proof that spotting is broken in CM   
    Oh no, all that matters is my tanks in the game cannot slide out of control like that.
    man, these games are broken. Maybe I should not play them or start protesting for months on end until we get that slide out of control modeled in the game.
  11. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from BeondTheGrave in Proof that spotting is broken in CM   
    Oh no, all that matters is my tanks in the game cannot slide out of control like that.
    man, these games are broken. Maybe I should not play them or start protesting for months on end until we get that slide out of control modeled in the game.
  12. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from IMHO in Proof that spotting is broken in CM   
    Oh no, all that matters is my tanks in the game cannot slide out of control like that.
    man, these games are broken. Maybe I should not play them or start protesting for months on end until we get that slide out of control modeled in the game.
  13. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Phantom Captain in Proof that spotting is broken in CM   
    Oh no, all that matters is my tanks in the game cannot slide out of control like that.
    man, these games are broken. Maybe I should not play them or start protesting for months on end until we get that slide out of control modeled in the game.
  14. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Weird stuff in CM. Why is CM great?   
    Well, for the original poster.
    if they come from other games and most games do nothing to try to reflect the aspects he is not use to. So of course it does not feel natural to what he is expecting.
    If you never been in combat, again many of the chaos type events in the game do not make sense either.
    Does the game have it correct, well not exactly, but as mentioned, its the only game that even tries to simulate it. 
     
    Now the sad thing is, as for infantry fire, the game might actually be over accurate compared to real life. So dont complain too much because most test I have seen or done seems a little too accurate compared to RL.
    Spotting does have flaws and is not perfect by no means. But in the big picture can be accepted because there should be some fog of war aspects that no game ever hardly reflect.
    But What will be interesting is when cm ever gets the next engine released, spotting is likely getting a whole new treatment, and I am sure it will be an improvement from what they have learned doing it in this engine.
     
    SO  if you dont try to expect the game to give the results you think it should have, but look into trying to understand what the real environment is more like. You will learn that the game is doing things that can reflect more realistically than most other games do. 
    Can there be improvements, sure, but it will not be the borg type aspects that most are use to from other systems.
     
  15. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from arkhangelsk2021 in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    Well, if you would spend a few moments and run some test in the game and compare it to the professional information that you share, you might learn to stop making incorrect statements.
    So I did an adjustment, Ran a few samples of the test. Now T62 (1975) vs M60 A1 
    at the range that this data is shown at, 1500 meters
    combat for only one minute.
    Results quickly show that the Russian tanks have the advantage losses were 30 M60a1 to 17 T62,s
    spotting seemed about equal as to who were getting off first shots. 
    As for shots on target, I would say the game was a little under the percentages shown in the charts.
    Or course all this can be tested out to get accurate numbers.
     
    But wait, what's this the T62 is Out performing the M60A1   in almost 2 to 1 losses.
    within a matter of minutes I have a test proving the T62 is performing better than the M60 and your world should be great. But you keep saying they are incorrectly modeled. 
    Learn to take the time to find out what the game is doing. 
    If you are having problems with the tank, it has to do with who is controlling it, the tank has the advantage.
     
     
     
     
     
  16. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from arkhangelsk2021 in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    I went ahead and just did one set of test to see what I could find any unusual aspects as to how the game is performing as to spotting or anything else when it comes to Russian armor. 
    So I ran test on T55-a vs M60a1's at a range of 2000 meters
    What findings I found, 
    if the tanks were unbutton. The m60's were approx. 5 seconds faster than the T55's in spotting the enemy unit.
    With many able to spot in under 10 seconds. 
    If Button, the T-55 was having a much harder time spotting compared to the M60 approx. 10-15 second difference.
     
    as for killing power, both sides were generally lethal on a hit.
     
    As for accuracy of rounds, this was where I would say the M60 was again receiving better stats but I did not take the time to get accurate numbers but it was clear they were getting a few more hits on target in the same time frame.
     
    Kill ratio for 2 minutes of combat was (4) M60 losses to (10) T55 losses.
     
    What conclusions could I make  
     
    A slight spotting advantage to the early version US tank.
    If buttoned, The T55 is suffering spotting affects and is at a distinct disadvantage.
    Accuracy and time taken to get a round on target was the main advantage as to which tank performed better.
    Rounds on target were taking about a minute of combat to happen. So spotting was giving a slight advantage, but accuracy was appearing to be the possible bigger factor.
     
    For balance on the battlefield a ratio of 2 to 1 would be required with the added numbers also providing the Russian side to out position the enemy in a flanking position if the situation allows.
    But since most shot were producing kills. Spotting and hitting first was the biggest factor. getting to a range where ones shots would hit quickly would increase the who spots first as the bigger impact.  So the most important Russian aspect would be to engage with 3 to 1 ratio where the disadvantages would be removed because the rounds on target would turn to their advantage
     
    Did anything here appear out of place to what is known about the units and how they should perform, not that I know of.
    This is the approach one should take before making statements that are unfounded, then if game data test show numbers that seem off compared to real world data, that can be shown. then there is something to talk about and discuss as to the accuracy that is being portrayed.
     
     
  17. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    I went ahead and just did one set of test to see what I could find any unusual aspects as to how the game is performing as to spotting or anything else when it comes to Russian armor. 
    So I ran test on T55-a vs M60a1's at a range of 2000 meters
    What findings I found, 
    if the tanks were unbutton. The m60's were approx. 5 seconds faster than the T55's in spotting the enemy unit.
    With many able to spot in under 10 seconds. 
    If Button, the T-55 was having a much harder time spotting compared to the M60 approx. 10-15 second difference.
     
    as for killing power, both sides were generally lethal on a hit.
     
    As for accuracy of rounds, this was where I would say the M60 was again receiving better stats but I did not take the time to get accurate numbers but it was clear they were getting a few more hits on target in the same time frame.
     
    Kill ratio for 2 minutes of combat was (4) M60 losses to (10) T55 losses.
     
    What conclusions could I make  
     
    A slight spotting advantage to the early version US tank.
    If buttoned, The T55 is suffering spotting affects and is at a distinct disadvantage.
    Accuracy and time taken to get a round on target was the main advantage as to which tank performed better.
    Rounds on target were taking about a minute of combat to happen. So spotting was giving a slight advantage, but accuracy was appearing to be the possible bigger factor.
     
    For balance on the battlefield a ratio of 2 to 1 would be required with the added numbers also providing the Russian side to out position the enemy in a flanking position if the situation allows.
    But since most shot were producing kills. Spotting and hitting first was the biggest factor. getting to a range where ones shots would hit quickly would increase the who spots first as the bigger impact.  So the most important Russian aspect would be to engage with 3 to 1 ratio where the disadvantages would be removed because the rounds on target would turn to their advantage
     
    Did anything here appear out of place to what is known about the units and how they should perform, not that I know of.
    This is the approach one should take before making statements that are unfounded, then if game data test show numbers that seem off compared to real world data, that can be shown. then there is something to talk about and discuss as to the accuracy that is being portrayed.
     
     
  18. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Amedeo in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    An interesting side note, Because dust does impact spotting on older tanks. I am pretty sure there is an advantage if you are in a tank duel and you have the wind blowing into you face.
    Its an item I have wanted to test to see how much it impacts spotting, but have never done it. but make sure during any testing to not have wind as a factor.
  19. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from The_Capt in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    I went ahead and just did one set of test to see what I could find any unusual aspects as to how the game is performing as to spotting or anything else when it comes to Russian armor. 
    So I ran test on T55-a vs M60a1's at a range of 2000 meters
    What findings I found, 
    if the tanks were unbutton. The m60's were approx. 5 seconds faster than the T55's in spotting the enemy unit.
    With many able to spot in under 10 seconds. 
    If Button, the T-55 was having a much harder time spotting compared to the M60 approx. 10-15 second difference.
     
    as for killing power, both sides were generally lethal on a hit.
     
    As for accuracy of rounds, this was where I would say the M60 was again receiving better stats but I did not take the time to get accurate numbers but it was clear they were getting a few more hits on target in the same time frame.
     
    Kill ratio for 2 minutes of combat was (4) M60 losses to (10) T55 losses.
     
    What conclusions could I make  
     
    A slight spotting advantage to the early version US tank.
    If buttoned, The T55 is suffering spotting affects and is at a distinct disadvantage.
    Accuracy and time taken to get a round on target was the main advantage as to which tank performed better.
    Rounds on target were taking about a minute of combat to happen. So spotting was giving a slight advantage, but accuracy was appearing to be the possible bigger factor.
     
    For balance on the battlefield a ratio of 2 to 1 would be required with the added numbers also providing the Russian side to out position the enemy in a flanking position if the situation allows.
    But since most shot were producing kills. Spotting and hitting first was the biggest factor. getting to a range where ones shots would hit quickly would increase the who spots first as the bigger impact.  So the most important Russian aspect would be to engage with 3 to 1 ratio where the disadvantages would be removed because the rounds on target would turn to their advantage
     
    Did anything here appear out of place to what is known about the units and how they should perform, not that I know of.
    This is the approach one should take before making statements that are unfounded, then if game data test show numbers that seem off compared to real world data, that can be shown. then there is something to talk about and discuss as to the accuracy that is being portrayed.
     
     
  20. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Suzuya in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    you want change, then spend the effort to make change happen. 
    But of course, lets try to make someone else do the work that you cannot appear to do or want to do yourself.
    And AM I attacking your character, you better believe it. I can do it as easy as you can.
     
    What, you do not like it when its against you, instead of you against someone else.
     
    So go ahead and take another shot, I have lowered myself to your same level, so I am no better than you and maybe I am making some out there hate my guts also. But you know, I was bored, and all this done was show you cannot handle it any better than anyone else when the target is you. Imagine that.
    But it will not likely make you think for a second on how you should address things in the future when it comes to trying to have a productive discussion on how to possible improve the game.
  21. Upvote
    slysniper reacted to domfluff in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    The Soviets had three defined uses for smoke. Smoke was used on their positions to screen movement, it was used on the enemy to shape the engagement, and it had a third defined use, for deception (I have an anecdote about that).
    Yes, thermals change this equation, but that's true for everything in Cold War.
    If you're trying to blind the enemy, you certainly want to use smoke rather than relying on dust. If nothing else it lasts longer. The important thing with smoke is that you never want to be moving or fighting through your own smoke, so smoke missions should be used to create temporary local advantage by shaping and defining space.
    The "deception" anecdote was a cold war pbem, on a map that was divided down the centre into two distinct halves. 
    I decided to swing my attack to the right, but I dedicated a couple of on-map mortars to laying down a smoke screen on the left.
    On discussion after the match, that smoke meant that my opponent was expecting a push down my left, and so didn't think he could afford to move the forces on that side away... two mortars had managed to tie up half of his force, and in addition half of his air assets were covering that approach...
    Now, that kind of thing is never going to work against the AI, of course, but its still a pretty cool story.
  22. Upvote
    slysniper reacted to Lethaface in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    I don't directly see how addressing the T-62 optics, including the type of rangefinder which The Capt already mentioned, and FCS would require multi page referenced research. 
    TheCapt basically already did the work for you: he mentioned the optic, type of rangefinder (including it's appreciation) and lack of FCS for T-62. 
    So if you have better information addressing that shouldn't require much more time & effort than his post. Or rather, considering you already have an opinion about the subject it should require less time. Because, how can you have a well researched & sourced opinion that something is wrong if you don't have knowledge at hand about what is wrong?
    That insinuation would lead me to believe you don't have specific knowledge of the subject and thus have formed your opinion on other grounds: bias / emotion.
    Which is very normal for people to do and we all do at times. But it is also why humanity has developed the concept of science / scientific research and how one can draw validated conclusions.
    --
    I don't ask you to do multi page referenced research; it's rather you who state that something is wrong and should change. The onus is on you to provide arguments and facts into why something should change.

    I don't think this aspect is modelled incorrect in CMCW, so there is no reason for me to do research.
    --
    Why does my post creates doubt in your mind if you should do what you wanted to do (and provide proof that T-62 optics should be improved ingame)? 
    Perhaps it is you that is fragile and you need to be complimented before you dare to take such a step.
    The only reason why I addressed your communication style is that I was 'bo(the)red' by it. You post here regularly, as do I. So over time I have taken note of your style of communication and it isn't a very positive one. More than one constructive thread became unconstructive due to the way you post.
    You won't make a lot of friends that way, I can guarantee.
    Not that I care much about it, but sometimes I feel like calling a horse a horse especially if I'm bored by something.
    Concluding: there is nothing wrong with being critical of the game. It is a perfectly fine position to take that in your opinion USSR spotting isn't modeled well in CMCW, or that you have the impression that there is a USA bias.
    I myself have some gripes about CMSF2 Syrian ammo stuff in QBs, among other things. The CMBS US Javelin issue was fixed much faster than those ;-). But there's also logic in that, as probably most of the paying customers are from US and not from Syria so would complain more about Javelin issue compared to an RPG/PKM ammo bug in QBs.
    However the more important question is how to present yourself / opinion and gather attention and support for the issue you see/feel. Using expletives and such is usually not the way to go.
    At least in my life / experience.

    Your mileage may vary; good luck with addressing the things you would like to see changed! You'll need all of it I guess
     
    Edit: If you don't like posts dedicated to you, you could try changing your style of posting. Or rather: chill out.
  23. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from George MC in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    It started right here.
    where in this statement are you not insulting in every aspect of what you have said.
    Then make a claim it should be so easy to see why it's the soviet equipment that has an issue.
    But still to this point have made no effort as to showing logically why this statement you made is correct.
     
    If you dont like spotting in the game, thats one thing. There is plenty of players that are not fans of it and there is some good reasons why, but the system is the system used and its not going to magically changed since its the basic programming of the game.
    And there is plenty of evidence given, it affects both sides but not in your world of belief. So dont address any post that reflects that fact.
    but you have done nothing to show how the Russian equipment compared to the US equipment is not balanced correctly to each other within the game. Just one aspect "spotting", remember you keep wanting to make the statement its the spotting of Russian units, come on just show us something as to why it immediatly raises questions
     
  24. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Monty's Mighty Moustache in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    dbsapp
    You are so correct, I did not provide any evidence, because like you, if I say it is so, it must be.
    But why should or would I waste time on such a wasted effort, all the evidence that is available will never change your view, because you are set in your thoughts no matter what is brought forth.
    I love you man, you can go on and on and on, with your little war of words against whomever you think is your foe.
    And I am sure you think it is working to get to whatever you want the ends to be. 
    But in truth, you created a view of yourself that makes anyone that is on the cm team not even care to take a look at your claims as to issues within the game.
    And there is plenty of effort to look at claims and to review how the game is performing to realistic results.
    As was mentioned, there has been multiple things brought forth on these forums that have now been reviewed and hopefully adjustments will possible be made to make the game have better results in the future.
    But have you ever been the one that has brought forth any useful data that has helped with any of those reviews.
    I don't recall, like I said, at least you did provide something in this debate. It does not address the real issue. Spotting and why the US has the advantage there. But go on believing what you will, as I said it does not bother me. 
     
  25. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    you want change, then spend the effort to make change happen. 
    But of course, lets try to make someone else do the work that you cannot appear to do or want to do yourself.
    And AM I attacking your character, you better believe it. I can do it as easy as you can.
     
    What, you do not like it when its against you, instead of you against someone else.
     
    So go ahead and take another shot, I have lowered myself to your same level, so I am no better than you and maybe I am making some out there hate my guts also. But you know, I was bored, and all this done was show you cannot handle it any better than anyone else when the target is you. Imagine that.
    But it will not likely make you think for a second on how you should address things in the future when it comes to trying to have a productive discussion on how to possible improve the game.
×
×
  • Create New...