In-game spotting system: are you kidding me?

[antaress73]

LOL at panzersaurkrautwerfer's post, You are telling me that at a open field 2-3KM away with 14X zoom with a thermal the Catherine-FC cannot identify a M1A2? It is reasons such as this I will not reply to your posts regarding the T-90.  I guess the T-90A  is meant to fight tanks at lower then 2KM when it has a ATGM with proven accuracy of 100% to 3 to 5 KM. 

 

what he means is that with thermals the russian tank is more limited regarding range. He's probably using the day sight or IR (at night)  when shooting missiles at long-range. He could detect a temp difference at 4-5 km without knowing what it is and switch to IR or daysight to identify and engage it with the ATGM.

[VladimirTarasov]

Panzersaurkrautwerfer from my knowledge the Catherine-FC that Russia uses is made specially for Russian standards, The M1A2 SEP V2 may have a better thermal but I have a friend who has recently discharged from the army, And he has experience with the Catherine-FC on the T-72B3 model, He states that in good normal conditions during the day, The thermal can see individual blades of grass at 2KM. I have yet to ask him how is his standard engagement procedures and how to deal with long range targets, Although if you ask me I think thats enough for engagement ranges of 2-3 KM, I am hoping to get a detailed explanation from him about how the thermal is what he thinks about it and ect, I'll share it on here if he does. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

That's pretty far beyond what the system is capable of. I doubt it being simply built for Russia makes it several times more powerful. Not to mention doubtful at the magnification the system is known to have at 2 km

[Stagler]

switching sights would reasonably require 1 second of time, this is one second too many when dealings with M1A2s because their gunners dont need to

 

Probably two seconds to move your eye from left to right, nevertheless this should be factored into time between acquisition and first shot fired, not acquisition itself. They should be spotting faster off the bat.

 

There is an argument that in a domestic model T-90AM, a hypothetical construction anyway, that the Sosna-U would be replaced by ESSA which has 12x TI zoom. At this time ESSA is only on export designation vehicles to India.

 

At the moment M1 spotting is probably about 3x better than T-90AM, howabout making it 2x better instead. Or make T-90AM cheaper.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Stagler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

At the moment M1 spotting is probably about 3x better than T-90AM, howabout making it 2x better instead. Or make T-90AM cheaper.

 

You're just factoring the gunner's optics into the equation.  The CITV on the Abrams is as I keep mentioning, just as capable as the Gunner's Primary Sight, and usually is used to scan independently of the gunner's optics meaning a much faster acquisition cycle.  

[akd]

There is a 1.5x teleconverter option for Catherine FC that extends the NFOV identification range to 3.5km, so that may very well be incorporated on the ones used in Russian tanks.

[DreDay]

Not the first time these issues have been raised.

 

As I said a while ago, engagement sequence in Russian MBT is as follows. Thermal, IR ,Dayoptic.

 

You look through thermal, oh there's thermal a return.

Can I see him with my IR optics, because they are slightly better than day optic in low light conditions. I can.

Can I see him with my day optic gun sight. I can.

Now I engage.

I actually did not know that, but it certainly makes sense. Just out of curiostiy - what ranges does this apply to? I am not an expert on this at all, but it would seem that they should be able to engage straight from the TI sight at ranges below 1200m or so. Is that not the case?

Edited March 17, 2015 by DreDay

[Stagler]

They can engage straight from the TI if they want, its up to the discretion of the gunner what he is most confident hitting the target with at that range. If he is plowing into a full spectrum combat situation, and knows the direction of the facing of the advance and the likely enemy direction. He will light up anything straight away with the TI optic. If he wants to further examine the target however he will look through the day sight.

 

 

You're just factoring the gunner's optics into the equation.  The CITV on the Abrams is as I keep mentioning, just as capable as the Gunner's Primary Sight, and usually is used to scan independently of the gunner's optics meaning a much faster acquisition cycle.  

 

 

The CITV on the T-90MS also has the same TI system as the gunner. I wasn't factoring anything in, I was using an arbitrary number for the effectiveness of the tank vs the other tank. The Abrams is probably 3x more effective, than the T-90AM in game, it can take on 3x T-90AM and win lets say. Maybe it should be made less effective in some way, or made more expensive/T-90AM cheaper? The latter likely being the most agreeable solution. Numbers wise and 'murica platforms stronk, this, that, or the other - it doesn't make for a much fun game if the opposition is a non entity.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Stagler

[DreDay]

They can engage straight from the TI if they want, its up to the discretion of the gunner what he is most confident hitting the target with at that range. If he is plowing into a full spectrum combat situation, and knows the direction of the facing of the advance and the likely enemy direction. He will light up anything straight away with the TI optic. If he wants to further examine the target however he will look through the day sight.

 

 

Right, I get that part. I was just wondering if there is some general SOP as in - spot, identify and engage staright from TI out to 1200m; use the procedure that you've mentioned above at larger ragnges... sort of how there were SOPs to engage enemy tanks with HEAT rounds out to (say) 1200m and to use SABOT at higher ranges back in the 1950s and 60s...

Edited March 17, 2015 by DreDay

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

But again, that sort of gets to the heart of the problem, is the issue tanks against tanks, or having to realistically look at what tools you have on hand, and making them work?  We wouldn't be asking if the IS-2 or Tiger should be toned down to better let Shermans/Panzer IVs shine in one of the World War Two titles.  As the case is, the Abrams holds a commanding advantage in optics by most accounts and it's really something you just rather have to deal with, just as much as any other asymmetrical vehicle vs vehicle engagement in the series.  This also is not a game that just throws you against random people in a lobby, so if you really want a low Abrams count game against a human, find someone who wants to do that, or alternately if you're QBing the AI, just use the human selects forces options for the AI and not fill up on Abrams.  

 

Further from that if we're getting into tank types that should be uncommon, the T-90AM sort of tops the list there no?

[Apocal]

Further from that if we're getting into tank types that should be uncommon, the T-90AM sort of tops the list there no?

 

Nah, much harder getting information on (for example) IFVs, just because no one really cares. There are plenty of treadheads running around that people make good money writing articles, publishing books and releasing juicy tidbits of information on main battle tanks. Not so much for CV090s or LAV-IIIs.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I meant less information and more if we start talking about rarity the T-90AM is pretty much hypothetical at this point in terms of Russian use.

[Apocal]

I meant less information and more if we start talking about rarity the T-90AM is pretty much hypothetical at this point in terms of Russian use.

 

Oh, oops, don't know how I misread that.

 

The CITV on the T-90MS also has the same TI system as the gunner. I wasn't factoring anything in, I was using an arbitrary number for the effectiveness of the tank vs the other tank. The Abrams is probably 3x more effective, than the T-90AM in game, it can take on 3x T-90AM and win lets say. Maybe it should be made less effective in some way, or made more expensive/T-90AM cheaper? The latter likely being the most agreeable solution. Numbers wise and 'murica platforms stronk, this, that, or the other - it doesn't make for a much fun game if the opposition is a non entity.

 

The current T-90A/T-90AM/T-72B3 vs. M1A2 SEP matchup is significantly less lopsided than the Sherman/T-34 vs. Tiger matchup of the WW2 CMx2 titles.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Apocal

[antaress73]

We dont even know what kind of data the game uses. Does it take into account that the T-90AM CITV has the same TI than the gunner.. What are the ways the game takes into account sensor capabilities and which estimation of performance is used ? We dont. There is no way to know if its realistic or not, one way or the other. Russian soldiers are actually told not to discuss their training standards and its enforced . They did mention on the english russia site that they now regularly do live fire exercices . They are not very forthcoming So we have to guess even on that so imagine technical caracteristics of in service equipment.So much we dont know and so much estimation is done that some bias is unavoidable. People are still arguing if russian optics in late world war II were pieces of crap for god's sake.

Battlefront caters to a western audience so its normal that if some bias is present, it will favor NATO because its human nature and Battlefront is a business. They wont aleniate their customer base when they have the luxury of favoring a pro American bias over giving the benefit of the doubt to russian capabilities when making educated guesses. As long as the game isnt too lopsided and some level of realism is achieved, ie: America is probably superior in many fields but not overwelmingly so to keep the game balanced.

Edited March 18, 2015 by antaress73

[antaress73]

I dont think that they overestimate American equipment btw. They have first hand accounts from actual military people to base their guesses on. For the russian equipment thats another story. Even some bugs seem to penalize russian equipment more (not voluntary) like the ERA bug (fixed) and the commander of BMPs not communicating with the gunner bug (affects russians more and not fixed yet.) You cant really escape politics when making a game that is depicting a potential actual conflict and secrecy and disinformation is rampant.

Edited March 18, 2015 by antaress73

[antaress73]

Oh, oops, don't know how I misread that.

The current T-90A/T-90AM/T-72B3 vs. M1A2 SEP matchup is significantly less lopsided than the Sherman/T-34 vs. Tiger matchup of the WW2 CMx2 titles.

I totally agree, when used correctly.

[Kieme(ITA)]

The spotting system is not 1:1.

This means that different vehicles, having different kind of assets equipped/embedded, will have different spotting abilities.

Game devs, based on research done, made the M1A2 SEP V2 we have in game the best spotting platform in game. It's a choice, you can argue all you want, but it has its basis.
 

[Stagler]

We dont even know what kind of data the game uses. Does it take into account that the T-90AM CITV has the same TI than the gunner.. What are the ways the game takes into account sensor capabilities and which estimation of performance is used ? We dont. There is no way to know if its realistic or not, one way or the other. Russian soldiers are actually told not to discuss their training standards and its enforced . They did mention on the english russia site that they now regularly do live fire exercices . They are not very forthcoming So we have to guess even on that so imagine technical caracteristics of in service equipment.So much we dont know and so much estimation is done that some bias is unavoidable. People are still arguing if russian optics in late world war II were pieces of crap for god's sake.

Battlefront caters to a western audience so its normal that if some bias is present, it will favor NATO because its human nature and Battlefront is a business. They wont aleniate their customer base when they have the luxury of favoring a pro American bias over giving the benefit of the doubt to russian capabilities when making educated guesses. As long as the game isnt too lopsided and some level of realism is achieved, ie: America is probably superior in many fields but not overwelmingly so to keep the game balanced.

 

To be fair Janes is a pretty good jumping off point, and I would say that Battlefront has a subscriber membership to this site, or maybe one of its devs does. I would say that this is solely the source. Janes however is pretty crap on new Russian kit, independent research from the rest of the internet would be a better choice for this.

 

I understand battlefront is a US company and there will be bias present, but it does seem like some of the bugs effect the Russian side more. Another one yet to be mentioned is APS shooting down incoming Kh-29 missiles from fixed wing aircraft which saw me throw my game to Doug Williams over the last few turns. It seems that the US side is more refined and tested. Also proliferation of above system should be made less, or vehicles mounting it more expensive. A unit of APS mounted BMP-3M is significantly more expensive to field than that of a unit of APS mounted M2. For opponents to be peer, this needs to be ironed out.

 

US kit should be better, definitely, but Russia should have the balance in costs to make up for it.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Stagler

[womble]

 

I understand battlefront is a US company and there will be bias present, but it does seem like some of the bugs effect the Russian side more.

 

Oh, please. You really think that's deliberate?

[Macisle]

Oh, please. You really think that's deliberate?

 

Seriously. Remember, for every player playing as Blue, there is a player playing as Red who doesn't want to get shafted on equipment performance. That, and a huge part of CM's popularity is its accurate modeling of gear.

 

There is NO incentive to nerf anything. I call BS on any bias with regards to equipment modeling. If there are problems, they are almost certainly the result of two things:

1. Truly accurate information for Russian gear is difficult to obtain.
2. The complexity of making a game like CMBS means that not everything can be identified in beta testing and must be looked at after release when having the community at large spotting issues comes to bear.

[agusto]

To be fair Janes is a pretty good jumping off point, and I would say that Battlefront has a subscriber membership to this site, or maybe one of its devs does. I would say that this is solely the source. Janes however is pretty crap on new Russian kit, independent research from the rest of the internet would be a better choice for this.

 

This is highly speculative.

 

I understand battlefront is a US company and there will be bias present, but it does seem like some of the bugs effect the Russian side more. It seems that the US side is more refined and tested.

 

Do you have anything else than your subjective perception to support this claim?

 

 

I understand battlefront is a US company and there will be bias present, but it does seem like some of the bugs effect the Russian side more. It seems that the US side is more refined and tested.

 

The high probability of the APS shooting down incoming Kh-29 missiles and other heavy AT missiles was recently confirmed as a bug by the devs and will be fixed in 1.02. But keep in mind this affects all heavy missiles from fixed and rotary wing aircraft that are not top-attack capable, not only the russians. I think (but i am not sure) that the US F-15s/F-16s in game can be equipped with Maverik AT missiles, so these should be affected as well.

 

US kit should be better, definitely, but Russia should have the balance in costs to make up for it.

 

Isnt it like that already? In a Meeting Engagement QB i can buy a company of Typical quality T-90s and a company of BMPs while US can only buy a force of 1 Typical M1A2 platoon and 2 platoons of Bradley infantry.

Edited March 18, 2015 by agusto

[agusto]

 

Seriously. Remember, for every player playing as Blue, there is a player playing as Red who doesn't want to get shafted on equipment performance.

 

Call me masochistic but i enjoy the challenge of fighting the americans with inferior gear . I play most of times as russian.

Edited March 18, 2015 by agusto

[Vanir Ausf B]

All this angst over the OP's  test results without anyone questioning if maybe the OP's test was complete crap?

 

I set up a test that matches the OP's description and ran it 20 times. Results:

 

M1A2 spots first: 6

T-90AM spots first: 13

1 tie

 

If you're bored:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ddmta7sd0a9ryh2/What%20a%20waste%20of%20time%20001.bts?dl=0

 

[/thread]
 

TEST:

T-90am (elite, undisturbed, standing still in a tree line, clear weather, day)
vs
M1A2 (veteran, moving in open field, 2.5-3 km away)

(number of tries: 10. Map: Death Valley).

---------------------------

Well, despite of all conditions above and CLEAR LOS, T-90 almost never discovers M1A2 first!
Even more, in plenty of times the T-90 does not see the damn muzzle flash after m1 starts shooting!

But CM Black Sea is a funny Super Mario game, not a "tactical simulator" as promised.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh, and one other thing. RE: QB prices.

 

People are forgetting that Russians are not just fighting the US. Russian unit QB prices must also be weighed against Ukraine, which is a very different opponent than the US. T-90s are highly effective against Ukrainian forces.

[Macisle]

Call me masochistic but i enjoy the challenge of fighting the americans with inferior gear . I play most of times as russian.

 

I bounce back and forth between the Ukrainians and the Russians, with an occasional play as US. If I play as US, I use no APS vehicles.

 

I usually go for lesser/standard equipment, no matter what side I play. It's the same in CMBN/RT.

 

I want all gear in the game to be as realistically modeled as possible. If it's currently underperforming, then I want it fixed as soon as the patching process allows. But I don't buy any kind of argument that says anything is nerfed on purpose. Problems exist because getting these things right is difficult and sometimes takes time to get right.

 

Also, people sometimes have expectations based on emotion, rather than reality. The US spends vastly greater sums of money on its military than Russia does and has a population that is much more casualty-shy.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Macisle