Amizaur

Worth to note this "Decalog" was on of craziest piece of hatred created by late XIX/early XX cent. ethnonationalisms in Europe. Based on concepts of "intelectual nationalisms" or "saloon nationalisms" of Dymitro Doncov, still XIX cent. and rather theoretical in its roots, it bore very real genocidal fruits during WWII. It literally conditioned young Ukrainian nationalists to commit every cruelty. Point 7:
"You will not hesitate to commit even the greatest crime, if the good of the cause demands it."
Point 8:
"With hatred and deceit you will receive the enemies of your nation."
Point 10:
"You will strive to expand the strength, fame, wealth and area of the Ukrainian state, even through the enslavement of foreigners."
Later new "light" version was created, with most controversial pieces removed, but almost everybody knew old one as well and many OUN/UPA sotnias during WWII still made pledge on old version (or variations of both- many youngsters preferred old version as it was more edgy).
Out of pure coincidentality, here 10 Hutu commandments:
https://www.rwanda-nogreaterlove.com/hutu-10-commandments
It's pretty obvious Da Vinci was far right nationalist to a pont; it's almost impossible belong to RS and not having a lot of exposition to extremist views. Almost all nationalists are or end as far right, btw. It's simply nature of this kind of ideologies- they are like self-spinning wheel normal guys can't control in the end, even if they think they can. However Haiduk is right that Ukraine has countless variations of nationalisms, including some pretty odd ones, like "non-ethnic" nationalism (which experiences of XX century spectacularly refuted everywhere in Europe- but not everyone get the memo). Others, more measured and smater, imagine nationalisms as a stage for development of a country that must be gone through for a generation or two in order to let it go later. Looking at homini sovieticii in Donbas, hard to blame them...however they are also wrong in the end. Generally experimenting with these narrations almost always leads to troubles.
That being said, it is terrible that such young guys must die defending their country during this war, and far-right folks have the same right to fight for it as queer from Kiyv nightclubs. All in all, it's Russians who are fault. Glory to the braves, even if they were misguided during lifetime.

I am ashamed of the actions of my government, I hoped to the last that there would be no war and this is just a bluff. Now anti-war rallies are taking place all over Russia, no one supports this war, there are a bunch of idiots who support it, but I assure you that the majority of the population is AGAINST THIS WAR. 
I honestly empathize with Ukrainians, but in no case will I rejoice at the death of our Russian soldiers! Young guys who could live a long life and do so much good in life, and not die for the sake of crazy ideas. 
 


 

 

 


 

What is conceived as "sillines" or "unplayable" by one man, may be seen as a good solution or an interesting game for others...

I would like to point that:
1). the tank was unaware about that sniper before the sniper opened fire, so the sniper was not spotted
2). when the sniper opened fire (one shot) the tank IMMEDIATELY knew the position of the sniper and returned fire.
This is unrealistic IMO.  Even if the sniper was not hidden well enough, finding the direction of enemy fire (a SINGLE rifle shot), scanning that area, finding the sniper (which under various conditions and backgrounds possible could be not trivial even using thermals) should take some time. Especially immediately knowing the direction of the single rifle shot is totaly unrealistic for me - in the other case, specialised "sniper detection" acoustic systems would be not needed !!! 
I believe that in some conditions (clear LOS is one I guess, range less than xxx is the second) the game engine automaticly  reveals position of the shooter to the victim. I've seen this many times. An enemy tank is taken by surprise by a side shot from 500m and if not killed outright, it immediately starts to rotate turret and return fire. Not a second of hesitation, thinking, frantically scanning trough vision slots. It always know position of the shooter and knows it the very second it shot.  Even if this mechanism is needed (as removing it would broke the game somehow) it should be modified to include a random 2-10s delay between taking fire and "detecting" the enemy and some (like 20%) chance to completly fail to detect the shooter. I tlk about detecting gunfire and automatic weapons sources now.
Detecting single small calibre shots is yet another matter. There should be very small chance they would be detected at all, and even then it should take some time (for troughly scanning the surroundings at _suspected_and_approximate_ direction of fire) and not 0.01s. 
 

That "warhead like object" mentioned  is just a reflection on camera lens...  Which is obvious when the video is wached at normal FPS rate.
Reading above text further thatn that is just waste of time. 

Usually ammo explosion is caused by accelerating rapid burning of propellant charges in confined space and is indeed much slower. But sometimes the explosion is instant and powerfull -  like here  (I've seen some similar ones before).
I guess such quick and powerfull explosion is caused by _detonation_ of 120mm HE or HEAT warhead which causes further _detonations_ of other warheads and/or propellant charges (which can detonate too in specific conditions). Detonation is very different process than rapid burning, happens almost instantly and causes astronomical overpressue values, even in unconfined spaces. Such force can easily shred a tank to pieces, even if it has all hatches open.
Not every exposion is caused by detonation of high explosive. It could be also very rapid burning of several propellant charges at once triggered by HEAT jet, causing so rapid and great overpressure inside the tank, that hull sides were torn off before the turret flew away. Very rapid burning of several propellant charges at once could look very similar, hard to tell for sure what happened.
One thing to note - If such powerfull explosion (caused by cumulative jet detonating one of HE or HEAT warheads) happened after hit into the turret bustle magazine,  the armored wall between ammo and crew compartment would probably be not enough to save the crew... I know there is work on insensitive munitions going on - the propellant charges are harder to ignite and harder/impossible to detonate, high explosives  and primers/caps are less sensitive to overheating in case of fire, but I doubt that HE used are insensitive enough, to not detonate if penetrated by cumulative jet.... anybody knows if such insensitive high explosives (not triggered by direct cumulative jet hit) are used in tank rounds ?
edit: I checked internet and it seems that insensitive explosives can be _to some extend_ resistant to penetration by shaped charge jet. Especially by smaller ones. Greater the energy (mass, velocity) of the jet, smaller the chances that the explosive will not be triggered.  I think there is little chance that typical tank round's warhead will not detonate when hit directly by  jet from powerfull ATGM warhead. Second thing to consider - if the rounds used by Turkish military in their Leo2s use modern, insensitive high explosives / propellants at all. 
 

In Steel Beasts (which had opinion of being a very realistic simulation) and western tanks (M1, Leo2)  the time between lasing and shooting could be be  just a fraction of second.
After lasing the gun tube elevation was automatically and almost  instantaneously adjusted by FCS -  so lasing & shooting were almost simultaneous actions - IIRC it usually it took about 0.5s between lasing and shooting.
The target would have absolutely no time to react, it could manage to launch it's smoke grenades but the APFSDS would be on it's way (and it's not guided, doesn't care for smoke).
At least when shooting at stationary targets it was that fast. It could be a little longer if the gynner after lasing had to correct in azimuth against moving targets.
Is it the same in real tanks ? Is it the same in Russian tanks like T-72B, T-72B3, T-90 ?  Never played Steel Bests 2 or SB Pro unfortunately. 
IIRC in T-72M (which really didn't have a true FCS) after lasing only the aiming mark moved, so the gunner has to correct gun elevation manually - that could take a while, let's say  2-3 seconds. 

In Steel Beasts (which had opinion of being a very realistic simulation) and western tanks (M1, Leo2)  the time between lasing and shooting could be be  just a fraction of second.
After lasing the gun tube elevation was automatically and almost  instantaneously adjusted by FCS -  so lasing & shooting were almost simultaneous actions - IIRC it usually it took about 0.5s between lasing and shooting.
The target would have absolutely no time to react, it could manage to launch it's smoke grenades but the APFSDS would be on it's way (and it's not guided, doesn't care for smoke).
At least when shooting at stationary targets it was that fast. It could be a little longer if the gynner after lasing had to correct in azimuth against moving targets.
Is it the same in real tanks ? Is it the same in Russian tanks like T-72B, T-72B3, T-90 ?  Never played Steel Bests 2 or SB Pro unfortunately. 
IIRC in T-72M (which really didn't have a true FCS) after lasing only the aiming mark moved, so the gunner has to correct gun elevation manually - that could take a while, let's say  2-3 seconds. 

Funny scene (not mine)  from demo scenario: 
 

Funny scene (not mine)  from demo scenario: 
 

Funny scene (not mine)  from demo scenario: 
 

Funny scene (not mine)  from demo scenario: 
 

Funny scene (not mine)  from demo scenario: 
 

Funny scene (not mine)  from demo scenario: 
 

Here's the thing.  What Combat Mission tries to do is use unrealistic (in the military sense) systems to represent realistic outcomes.  This is the basis for any wargame.  The target/focus for this is to best represent the behaviors of military units operating within what is normal military practice.
 
So in that regard, the spotting systems assume two units moving into contact are doing so tactically through terrain that offers some degree of concealment.  It is not designed to properly simulate "and through the force of magic three tanks appear in a field 300 meters from each other."  The M1 has much better sensors, and as it works through the spotting checks it is most likely to pass them faster, and kill one of the T-90s, and then acquire and kill the second T-90, while sometimes the T-90's spotting rolls go well and it gets to shoot first.
 
This whole obsession with placing things more or less in the open and drawing conclusions from which is "better" is sort of....weird.  The game is not designed to support this behavior.  Nor is establishing it takes 1.34 T-90s to kill .56 Abrams especially helpful outside of measuring net trends over several battles.

I like your top three also  , but for me they are the second step. At first it's necessary (in my opinion) to fix the base game system.
 
I would pay more than 50 or 60 dollars for a good game. That's what I meant with "the price is not so important for me". But I am not willing to pay 10 Dollars for a product, if I am of the opinion that the value is not worth it. That's what I meant with "value for money". A new main game with this content is the latter.
 
When I read a response like this: "Believe me, it will get fixed". I have the feeling of being in a Catholic forum     Do you know it or to you believe it? When it will be fixed? "Maybe", "sometimes" or "it is fixed till it's fixed" would be better answers
 
Here are some examples for breaking FOW:
The problem with destroyed objects (e.g. fences) they are visible for everybody. Blasting something (e.g. Bocages) is also visible and hearable for everybody (same with mortar sounds). The problem with the water splash effect. Trenches and bunkers are changing the terrain and so the enemy will know where they are (not on every type of terrain). I don’t want to write down all known bugs. They are known and if we start to discuss about single bugs in this thread the discussion will be endless
 
You can correct me, but my state of knowledge is that the turn based system is limited by the real time system. With all the restriction that it entails. And yes, the spotting system is maybe doing what it should do, but the whole system needs to be optimizing for turn based. In contrast to this airplanes having the spotting ability of Superman.
 
ATGs are much harder to spot till the last patch? Which patch do you mean? CMRT? I didn’t read anything about it. Do you have a link?
 
My experience is that hidden units will not fire; even the enemy is inside the target arc. And unhidden units will spot too fast. That makes the possibility of ambushes much harder.
 
Another problem is that units that had LOS to a point in the setup phase, sometimes don’t have LOS to this point after the battle has started. Same with bunkers they are sinking a little into the ground and lost LOS (maybe it’s fixed now).
 
Based on my explanations I don’t use airplanes, trenches, bunkers, ATGs, maps with water etc. in battles and that's part of the reasons I am not happy with the gameplay system.
 
Finally, I want to underline that my last post has not the intention to criticize single bugs or issues. There are enough threads about them and I think that the problems are well known. My message to BFC is that they should change their development priorities. True to the motto: going back to the roots!  :cool:  I don’t need new vehicles, maps or graphic effects if the based gamesystem doesn't work correct. These new stuff will bring only new and more problems.
 
P.S.
I understand BFC's strategy. New stuff like this is better to sell and easier/faster to develop. Packaging beats content. That’s the way it goes …
 
P.P.S.
Sorry, but you can't have my brain. It's currently in maintenance and gets a 16Bit upgrade