Jump to content

IICptMillerII

Members
  • Content Count

    1,403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

IICptMillerII last won the day on July 3

IICptMillerII had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About IICptMillerII

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,887 profile views
  1. You'll have to excuse the double post here, but I feel compelled to share this. I think some of the misconception about what is happening in the game is coming from the fact that the TacAI always aims for center mass. The real world is not like World of Tanks or War Thunder, where shot placement on specific 2in by 2in spots on a tank has been developed into some kind of gamer science. In reality, all gunnery (small arms, AT, tank, autocannon, missile, etc) is based on the principle of always aiming for center mass. This is as true today as it was back in 1944/42/insert warfare date here. The modern training doctrine, ie standard gunnery in an Abrams tank, it to ALWAYS laze a target at center mass, and then immediately fire. This is called 'lase and blaze' by gunners. There are many reasons to do it this way, but the most important two are 1) if you do not lase the center mass of the target, you can get a bad laser return, which gives you an incorrect range to target, meaning your shot will miss. And 2) because even in an M1A2 SEP Abrams tank, which has a gunner and tank commander sight that is 1080p resolution with a x50 zoom, it is still hard to pick out individual parts on a tank in combat conditions. To illustrate this, here is a video of an actual Abrams on a training range. You can see the thermal sights they are using, the targets and everything. The gunner does not look for a specific part of the target to shoot at, he fires center mass after a quick and successful lase: (Btw the comments on this video are pretty hilarious) This second video shows an actual battle position (BP) engagement on a training range. Note that the tank pulls up into the firing position, scans for and engages targets (fires twice) and then reverses. All in the span of 20 seconds. This is irregardless of return fire in a real life combat situation. Tanks train to constantly reverse out of and advance into firing positions to reduce the chance of them being shot at at all: In summary: tanks always fire at center mass. Even in good hulldown, tanks still reverse out of line of sight to prevent themselves being shot at at all, and to greatly reduce the chances of them being ranged in on/hit if they are engaged. Edit: Ninja'd again, by @Saint_Fuller who makes an excellent point which my post helps to illustrate as well.
  2. This test is flawed. If you leave your tank either out in the open or in a hulldown position after it has been spotted to just keep getting shot at, of course it is eventually going to take damage/be destroyed. And the turret being more vulnerable than the hull is a product of real life. BFC did not make the hull armor on the panther thicker than the turret, the actual Germans did. In the modern titles tanks tend to have turret armor that is better than the hull, because that is how most modern battle tanks are designed. No one, and I mean no one, in a competent military is taught to stay in one place after the shooting has started, regardless of return fire. BP engagements are mobile. Tanks will come up to the hulldown position, fire a round or two, and then reverse back into cover. Rinse and repeat. Tank fighting positions are specifically designed for this. They have a built in platform to allow the tanks to reverse into cover. This principle is so fundamental that they teach engineers who drive the bulldozers who dig the fighting positions how to do this during the intro course. If you could put an M1A2 Abrams in a hulldown position and let any WWII AT vehicle fire at it indefinitely, it would likely kill the Abrams. Law of averages wins in the end. Hell, there are real world examples of this principle too. Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were dug in but did not move at all, nor were their fighting positions designed to allow them to move. They were supposed to stay in place, and they died very quickly, despite being in hulldown positions, because they just sat there. There are plenty of AARs on this forum, some even by myself, that show hulldown being effective. But I won't belabor this post with anecdotal evidence. Point is, it doesn't matter what tank/vehicle/asset you have. If you leave it in place and expect it to survive everything thrown at it, you're going to have a bad day. @Pete Wenman's test concurs what I and others I play CM with/against see all the time in game. I guess the moral of the story is, if you perceive hulldown to be bad, then stay in the open. Edit: Ninja'd by @Rinaldi
  3. BFC have stated again and again over the years that they will never open up the game to that level of modding. In short, its never going to happen, so I wouldn't even bother getting your hopes up.
  4. The bug has been patched and fix. The patches are being tested now to ensure nothing else is broken. As one of the original people who pointed out the 4.0 HE bug (anyone remember the video?) I know that it can be frustrating waiting for a patch. But, I also know that the bug is 100% fixed, having played the patch that addresses the issues. The bug is squashed, and the patch is coming.
  5. If you're talking about the reference to 'maps are too small,' then that is just a long standing joke about how some claim that the maps in CMx2 are much smaller than the maps were in CMx1. If you're talking about the reference to hulldown supposedly being bad in the game, or counter intuitive, then I really don't know what to say. The argument that hulldown is bad is a complete fallacy. It is illogical to the extreme. There are those that will continue to disagree with reality and will nitpick this to death, and I frankly do not think it is worth the time to even bother explaining how laughable their opinions are. I'll end by restating what I stated earlier in this thread: "If you think standing in the open is more conducive to your own survival, then more power to you."
  6. Its hard to give advice without knowing more, but my first hunch would be this; if you are trying to move your SBF units up too close to the enemy, they are going to be much easier to spot. Infantry crawling up onto a small rise to observe the enemy 500 meters away is much less likely to be seen then the same SBF unit crawling up into a position only 50 meters away from the enemy. You can always take some screenshots showing what is going on, upload them to imgur and then copy the image link here. The forum will automatically embed the images, and you don't have to worry about messing around with post attachments and file size limits. That way you can better illustrate what is going on.
  7. Support formations generally aren't simulated in CM unless they have a direct combat role, and even then some of the more niche combat support units are not present. Combat engineers (the actual 12B's) are in game and are already attached to the combined arms battalions, but that is the only real engineering asset you get access too. There aren't any breaching vehicles like the ABV or bridging vehicles either. I'm personally hoping that we will eventually get an engineering vehicle pack that adds mine plows and the ABV at least, but there are no plans for that as of now.
  8. Not to derail this thread but I am highly skeptical of Cold War Game. Most of the assets are literally ripped from other games. Some of the Soviet voices used are ripped out of World in Conflict, and Wargame. Plus, the game itself is literally a carbon copy of Wargame, just set a few years earlier. I'm surprised it has not been shut down for copyright infringement yet, and am still convinced it will be once it is released. Plus, I don't like the time period they focused on, and a lot of the gameplay I have seen so far appears paper thin at best. For example, I've seen M113's destroyed by enemy BMP's even though the M113's were behind a full sized building. Stuff like that. Very skeptical.
  9. Completely agree, I just can't pass up a chance to talk about the Cold War 😁 Agreed too! Although personally I believe that the fall of the Soviet Union had causes that ran much deeper than too much defense spending, but that begins to get too much into politics which I want to avoid. World in Conflict is one of my favorite arcade games. I'm a sucker for the story, the time period, and the units. It probably wouldn't surprise you that one of my favorite technothrillers is Hunt for Red October and Team Yankee. I'm a big fan of the first two Wargames, but I hate what they did with the third. Again, this isn't really the appropriate place for an in depth discussion about other games, though I will say that I have an embarrassing amount of hours in Wargame: Airland Battle on steam. And like I said, the more Cold War era games we get, the better!
  10. Well considering every military in history has trained to aim for center of mass, this seems like the nitpick of all nitpicks. If anything, its an indication the game is behaving correctly. Absurd. Aim does not get magically thrown off target just by firing. This is why recoil mechanisms exist. And if we are going to nitpick and say "the ground is shifting" well as it turns out militaries are actually competent and train for this eventuality. Weapons crews, gun crews, tank crews, etc all take this into account and make micro adjustments while firing to ensure they are compensating for these small variables. Though I know some here will refuse to accept it, I think it is clear that the game accurately models a crews overall competence depending on its veterancy level, and that is more than enough to cover this "issue." Yes, and the sky is blue. Seriously, what is the point? This is known in the real world, yet there is not a single military out there that advocates for fighting tanks out in the open opposed to hull down positions. Again, it turns out that militaries are pretty competent when it comes to this stuff. Yeah, the driver can't see anything in a hull down position. That's why the job of spotting targets is the commander and gunners job, the two people with the best optics that can see over the hull down cover. Not true. Spotting is 1:1. If less of a vehicle is visible it is harder to spot. There are tons of anecdotal examples of this on these forums alone, people complaining that their tank can't see through some bush or through some smoke or dust, etc. The more obscured from view a vehicle is, the harder it is to spot initially. The obvious answer is stop getting your tanks shot at. Regardless of what the tank is or what is shooting at it, it is never a good thing to be directly engaged. Again, this is a nitpick. Soft systems on the outside of a tank are more vulnerable than the best armored parts of the tank. This isn't rocket science. And we all know that if BFC were to introduce some form of "center mass deviation" where there was some random chance applied to shots to be off their aimpoints to varying degrees, you would likely be the first to start complaining about how unrealistic that is because ballistics are a well known and quantifiable science. Mantlets are a historical weakspot on tanks, both in WWII and the modern era. Anywhere you have a gap or disconnect between otherwise solid parts is going to create structural weakness. This is objectively false. I already know the thread where this hysterical myth first gained infamy, and I don't feel the need to restate the obvious. If you think standing in the open is more conducive to your own survival, then more power to you. Finally, its a game. It simulates combat pretty damn well. And its fun too. No game is perfect. No sim is perfect. Hell, some argue reality isn't perfect. If you can't get over that, and you really think the game is so terribly flawed in all these micro ways that add up to ruin the game, then just don't play it. Life is short. I'm sure there are better things out there than spending years constantly trying to prove the already known quantity that nothing is perfect.
  11. What's this, another CMFG thread? Despite my original misgivings with the OP, it looks like its turned into a good discussion, so time for me to weigh in I suppose. I don't disagree with you're macro point that by the mid to late 80s the Soviets were likely at a qualitative disadvantage in both equipment and training (some gaps being closer than others) due to a number of factors. However, its important to remember two things. First, quantity is and will always be more important that pure quality in any conventional war. It is a simple truth of warfare that has stood the test of time. You are better off with two basically trained infantry companies that with just one super high speed special forces gurus. There is actually a lot of math and tested theory that supports this, but that is a bit too dense for me to get into at the moment. NATO accepted the fact that on the strategic level they would be outnumbered, but they made sure that they were only outnumbered by an acceptable level. As is, they could make up for their lack of numbers with various "force multipliers." The well known 3:1 odds is a good example of this. It was built into all tactical and operational planning that the Soviets would likely have a local numerical advantage of 3:1, but NATO forces trained for that and were prepared for it. However, a 4:1 or 6:1, etc would still have been unacceptable and would have given local NATO forces a real tough time. This is not exclusive to NATO and the Warsaw Pact, but all armies across history. Mitigating factors such as technology, tactics, and the always important terrain advantages come into play of course, but no military plans for or hopes to win a fight where they are critically outnumbered. Second, the Soviets were not a backwater military technology wise. In many areas they were ahead of NATO, or on par with at the least. For example, Kontact-5 ERA was capable of defeating at the time modern Sabot rounds, fire control on most category A Soviet tanks were just as good as NATO fire control, and some of the most top of the line tanks even had decent thermal imaging capability for the time (mostly the T-80U) and the ammo these tanks were firing was more than enough to take out anything NATO could throw at them. The Abrams didn't become comfortably "safe" from Soviet tank ammo until the introduction of the M1A1HA, and this tank was largely not available until after 1990 (many of the Abrams that saw combat in Desert Storm, such as the famous Eagle Troop of 73 Easting, only received their M1A1HA's after being in country for 3 months during the Desert Shield build up). Soviet SAM/AA weapons were more prolific and more capable than their equivalents in NATO. Further, the Soviets had "smart weapons" as we have come to know them, such as laser and TV guided bombs. They weren't quite as prevalent as they were in NATO arsenals, and they were arguably slightly less accurate than NATO equivalents, but they had them in sufficient numbers to have been tactically significant has the balloon gone up. (Quick fun fact on smart/precision munitions; the first major usage of them was during the Vietnam war, during Operation Linebacker II. Smart weapons were not a "new" weapon in Desert Storm, despite their depiction as such by the media at the time. Both NATO and the Soviets had them in significant numbers through the 70's and 80's, and they would have played a large role a war). Much of the tactical Soviet equipment was equivalent in capability to what NATO had. Their standard issue small arms were comparable to NATO, their hand held AT weapons were comparable, their IFVs and lightly armored vehicles were comparable, and a tactically significant part of their airforce (though not the majority) were comparable to NATO aircraft at the time. The Soviets did have a lot of category B and C equipment, such as older models of the T-80/72/62/55 in service, but that supported and served their doctrine. There is a much stronger argument to be made that other Warsaw Pact nations such as the East Germans and Polish suffered from a massive technological gap. For example, even in 1989 there was only 1 East German armored division using T-72M1's (a massively outdated tank by that time) while the rest were using T-55's. Same issue with the Poles, the vast majority of their tanks were T-55's, very outdated models. Same can be said for most other elements of the non-Soviet Warsaw Pact nations. Don't misunderstand, there were elements of these armies that were highly capable, but by and large they were not nearly as capable as the Soviets or on par with top of the line NATO equipment. A third quick point, its important to remember that even by 1989, the US was still operating more M60A3 Patton tanks in Germany than Abrams, and many of the Abrams were the older M1 and M1IP 105mm armed Abrams. There were only a handful of M1A1's in country. The same can be said for other NATO main battle tanks of the era as well (the West Germans were still fielding mostly Leopard 1 variants and smaller numbers of Leopard 2 variants). The majority of NATO equipment that Soviet forces would have encountered in a hot war even in 1989 were not what we would consider to be top of the line. Soviet doctrine was also highly capable and modern at the time too, and the Soviet military was very proficient in executing said doctrine. So again, they were far from outdated in all aspects. This game, and a few others. It would appear that games/wargames set during a hypothetical confrontation between NATO and Warsaw is becoming more popular. Which is great for me, because its one of the eras of military history I am most interested in. The more the merrier!
  12. BFC has their reasons for not allowing hard code modding, such as adding/tweaking the stats of vehicles or TO&E. I tend to agree with their approach and reasoning, but that is a different discussion that's been had a few times before. The good news is that Black Sea will be getting a module in the future that will add more equipment and forces to play around with. I think there are a few posts from the devs floating around that outline roughly what is expected to be included, and if I recall correctly it will add the Russian VDV and US Marines and all associated equipment. Plus, the existing US Army and Ukrainian forces in game will likely be fleshed out a bit more. That module is probably a ways off, but its something to look forward to.
  13. No to both. You cannot import units from one game into another. There is not a CM game that covers the Arab/Israeli Wars. Thought I do hope that one day we get one that does.
  14. This is normal. For the most part, popping smoke is a voluntary act the player must commit. The only time a vehicle will do this on its own is if it takes a penetrating hit that causes damage, loses a crewman (such as an exposed vehicle commander that gets shot) or if the vehicle has a laser warning receiver (LWS) that triggers the vehicle to pop smoke and reverse. Otherwise it is up to the player to pop smoke and reverse the vehicle. That is definitely more of an anomaly. Usually, a unit will ignore a target command if it encounters a higher threat enemy. I and I'm sure many others have seen this happen plenty of times. Sometimes its not a good thing. For example, you might want a Bradley to continue putting suppressing fire into a building while infantry assault it, but the Bradley decides to engage a pop-up target instead, and the infantry start taking accurate fire in the open because of it. I don't think this is a bug at all. Warfare is messy and confusing, and nothing ever goes perfectly to plan. The best you can do is mitigate these risks. Its possible, but the Scimitar is definitely more armored and armed than a humvee or a pickup truck. Overall I think it is working as designed.
  15. Yes. The slow move is a belly crawl, which is extremely fatiguing in real life.
×
×
  • Create New...