In-game spotting system: are you kidding me?

[Kieme(ITA)]

A lot of people don't realize that CM games are not balanced, by design, as your common "rts" game. The only form of balance is in the QB unit selection roster, which is a rough and primitive form of balance in order to avoid having a player with 100 MBT fight one with 10 soldiers. 

[Stagler]

A lot of people don't realize that CM games are not balanced, by design, as your common "rts" game. The only form of balance is in the QB unit selection roster, which is a rough and primitive form of balance in order to avoid having a player with 100 MBT fight one with 10 soldiers. 

 

By balance and costings I was referring to the QB unit selection roster, things also cost the same in regular mission editing and it is intended to balance forces as such when creating scenarios. Not to artificially balance kit.

 

This is highly speculative.

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Speculative? Not at all. My day job significantly involves looking at osint among other things.

 

No, I was agreeing with Antarees previous post about the fact that it is an American game. Try to read previous posts. I am sure significant testing of the game went on. The bugs are less forgiving to the Russian player than American player as his capability is far greater. The M1A2 is far more forgiving when spotting issues occur than the paper mache T-72B3

 

Depends on angle of attack and the speed of projectile. Can Trophy intercept KH-29 at 910mph? Kornet travels at 560mph. I dont know, but the next patch is too late for the game currently running.

 

You can buy whatever you want. In a meeting medium with loose rarity, I was able to field 3 T72B3, two platoons of BMP2m (two groups of 3 BMP-2M, and 1 OC BMP-2K), one 9K22M, three dismounted Kornet teams and BTG mortar group.

I was up against 4 M1A2, and two four bradley platoons, with attached dismounted javelin teams.

I initially picked BMP-3M ERA and Arena mix, and I was only able to afford one platoon (3 vehicles) in that case and the company commander. Thats why I chose BMP-2M instead to make up the numbers. These are a rough idea of the numbers we are talking here. Dismounted Russian squads are very cheap. IFVs less so.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Stagler

[akd]

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.

 

Nope.  BFC has Ukrainian, Russian and even Crimean testers who have access to primary materials in Russian and Ukrainian, not to mention English-speaking testers who actively seek out translated materials.

 

 

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.

 

Maverick and Kh-25 are treated the same by APS.  Kh-29 is not currently in the game.  Do you have a technical reference that says how APS should deal with large ATGMs? 

 

I think rour perception is reflecting your own bias more than the reality of the game.

 

 

 

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.

 

It generally does cost less.  In latest patch build BMP-3M (APS) costs less both in value and rarity than M2A3 (APS).  The only oddity I see is that the base BMP-3M is slightly more expensive than the base Bradley (which has ERA), but this could be because the weapon systems are over-weighted in the calculation.  I'll report this as it may point to a problem (CITVs and ERA undervalued).

Edited March 18, 2015 by akd

[akd]

 

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.

 

I'm not aware of any confirmation or change to this.

[Stagler]

I thought it was mentioned in another thread that the ATGM intercept was being looked at?

 

I thought Su-34 operated Kh-29 ingame. My mistake here, sorry. However its a bit strange a brand new platform like Su-34 operating a legacy AGM. Especially because of the TV guidance suite and additional weapons operator that is not present on legacy platforms that the Kh-29 would take advantage of. Might have been overlooked or standardised to fit in with the rest of the platforms ingame, as they surely must all operate Kh-25. Kh-25ML, which is the most recent laser guided version supposedly travels at around 1000mph. Kh-29 can be used in dual role as anti-shipping, it is a very large missile in terms of warhead so even exploding at a range it may throw out shrapnel. It also comes in fire-and-forget flavour. Kh-29 cannot top attack per se, but it can be guided downward on a good day.

 

APS dealing with any projectile is based on speed and acquisition of the incoming missile. What is the maximum speed of acquisition of the APS platform in question before it launches projectiles to intercept. Then it has to make sure it launches the projectiles in loop to strike the incoming missile. If it is going fast then by the time it has launched countermeasures the missile may have closed the distance.

You would have to look at the individual specs for Zaslon, Arena-E, and Trophy for the maximum speed of the incoming missile before it cannot be tracked, although this is not something that people reveal. You might also have to look at lead time between detection and countermeasure launch in terms of how far the missile will travel in that time. 

 

I dont know what bias you think I hold AKD, but I am not Russian. OPFOR kit is often under represented, even on exercise. If nobody played devils advocate then surely NATO would be equipped accordingly and eternally prepared to combat any threat...

What sources do you/they use for your OPFOR kit? Primary material is not always the best, especially when looking at Russian vehicles.

 

Rarity cost of BMP-3M Arena is also very high, but that can be mitigated with QB selection modes. Ill take alook tonight when I get in how much stuff I can buy for a medium QB and make a table of the costs.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Stagler

[agusto]

I'm not aware of any confirmation or change to this.

 

IIRC ChrisND confirmed that the probability of large ATGMs fired from aircraft is too high and they will look into it.

Edited March 18, 2015 by agusto

[Stagler]

Depends man, all the aircraft ingame at the moment have high attack profiles. Maybe with the exception of the Su-25 which favours a wider approach with more time to put the laser in the nose on the target and fire, especially now its revealed that its using Kh-25 which is old fashioned at best.

US aircraft have either the ability to look down shoot down with the TV guidance system on the Maverick. The Kh-29 would make a good counterpart to that as it has similar capabilities, its likely that the Ukrainians would operate the Kh-25ML which relies on laser designation of the target. Russian updated versions do have TV guidance, and they would operated on Su-24, but they would not choose to operate this system over the more modern (1980+) Kh-29.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Stagler

[akd]

APS dealing with any projectile is based on speed and acquisition of the incoming missile. What is the maximum speed of acquisition of the APS platform in question before it launches projectiles to intercept. Then it has to make sure it launches the projectiles in loop to strike the incoming missile. If it is going fast then by the time it has launched countermeasures the missile may have closed the distance.

You would have to look at the individual specs for Zaslon, Arena-E, and Trophy for the maximum speed of the incoming missile before it cannot be tracked, although this is not something that people reveal. You might also have to look at lead time between detection and countermeasure launch in terms of how far the missile will travel in that time.

 

 

 

Latest Arena-E is 1000 m/s

Zaslon is 1200 m/s

Trophy is probably 1000 m/s also (can intercept gun-fired HEAT)

 

AFAIK, speed of projectile is already a factor in chance of intercept in game.

 

 

 

I dont know what bias you think I hold AKD, but I am not Russian.

 

It is absolutely hilarious that you immediately assume that I think you are Russian and therefore must be Russian-biased.  Your de facto retreat to national bias as the explanation for anything that happens in the game is the problem.

 

The programmers eat data and documentation for breakfast.  Bring it to the table and they will be well fed.

 

 

 

Rarity cost of BMP-3M Arena is also very high, but that can be mitigated with QB selection modes. Ill take alook tonight when I get in how much stuff I can buy for a medium QB and make a table of the costs.

 

Wait for patch.

 

 

 

IIRC ChrisND confirmed that the probability of large ATGMs fired from aircraft is too high and they will look into it.

 

Point me to the post please (just in case there is a confusion of separate issues).

Edited March 18, 2015 by akd

[Stagler]

If someone was to judge by my avatar and sig AKD then they might think differently if they didnt think to ask, or know me from BI forums or somewhere. Seemingly hilarious as you may find people assuming individuals nationalities, I remember accusations being thrown around of several forum members being SVR officers not so long ago...

 

Russian kit is universally under-rated in defence, this is often the case in all things regarding Russian kit whether it be simulations, wargames, etc. The experience of 1991/2003 goes a long way to provide this thought base. It is often dismissed on here as well, granted not by yourself, but has been since CMA. If I feel the need to provide data I will find a source (but not ingame turns as I dont play much turn based).

I was saying that I think an M1A2 is worth 3 T-90AM in CMBS, combat value wise. I dont think anyone has any real life hard data to back that up to be honest.

 

For aircraft launched AGM:

Top speed of Kh-25 is explained here as 870m/s, or cruising speed of 670m/s. So that would qualify for Trophy to intercept.

http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Armor-Weapons-and-Missiles/Kh-25ML_a000809001.aspx

Interestingly it also does not mention the SU-34 as an operator of the missile, but it is almost certain that it can if required.

 

Back onto the spotting topic: The inclusion of ESSA is abstract as T-90AM isnt real, but T-90S export for india is equipped with the system. It is how we say in the industry, a realistic possibility, for it to be fitted to T-90AM/MS in a hypothetical 2017 situation - the same as Trophy which is not widely distributed at this time. 

To give a grounding of my thinking and where I am coming from, my bias as you say, begs me to think that if the inclusion of Trophy was thought of for the US systems, which in October last year talks were had over the purchase of the system but nothing concrete signed I believe, why was ESSA not included as it is included in export model of T-90S, when T-90MS is also an export piece?

If we are going up against the US A-team, can we have the OPFOR A-team as well? I know T-90AM was included so the capability gap could be bridged somewhat. Hopefully by may I will have had better look at Armata, and that may be bridged further - even if it is only the crew suviving the vehicle being destroyed

Edited March 18, 2015 by Stagler

[Thewood1]

The reason people think you might be biased is you have never brought up any issues on UKR or US side.

 

You also won't put any effort to helping pinpoint problems.  A save or two would be nice.

[Stagler]

The reason people think you might be biased is you have never brought up any issues on UKR or US side.

 

You also won't put any effort to helping pinpoint problems.  A save or two would be nice.

 

Go in tech support, I have two threads there, one with a save and one with a picture set on Imgur

 

I dont play US. I like the Ukranians. In one of my threads in tech support it was a Ukrainian Su-24 that bugged out when its bombs apparently didnt drop.  I havent used their older kit so I wouldnt judge it but for the modern stuff it seems to be working okay. I have had fun smashing up T-72 with the OPLOT. OPLOT is very good, as is BTR-4.

[antaress73]

The reason people think you might be biased is you have never brought up any issues on UKR or US side.

You also won't put any effort to helping pinpoint problems. A save or two would be nice.

Maybe because they are less glaring and they affect play balance less in Human vs human combat Edited March 18, 2015 by antaress73

[antaress73]

T-72B3 is pretty good frontally against ukranian weapons when Hull down ,the front Hull armor is inadequate even with kontakt-5 on the T-90A and T-72B3

Edited March 18, 2015 by antaress73

[Thewood1]

One save...really.  With all the complaining and arguing you do and you graced us with a save.  Well thank you very much.

[kaburke61]

+1 to the Thewood1, and also those ridiculous "Murican" quotes he throws around.....

[Thewood1]

Here are only a few of your posts that seem to contribute mightily in reinforcing the opinion you have some kind of bias...does the word "murican" in the context you used it at least three times mean anything?

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118050-how-to-use-the-khrizantema/?p=1593068

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118050-how-to-use-the-khrizantema/?p=1593869

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118891-in-game-spotting-system-are-you-kidding-me/?p=1595890

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118891-in-game-spotting-system-are-you-kidding-me/?p=1595959

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118713-ainet-as-trophy-killer-sensor-wrecker-paving-the-way-for-abrams-kill/?p=1593071

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118648-russian-optics-and-spotting-in-general/?p=1591366

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118648-russian-optics-and-spotting-in-general/?p=1591756

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118648-russian-optics-and-spotting-in-general/?p=1591898

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118682-bmp-3m-mech-inf-vs-m2-mech-inf-tactics/?p=1591900

 

I am pretty sure there is more out there...I just stopped after a few threads.  So you have pointed out one possible error on a UKR plane.  Compared to the above.  It sure does look like bias.  Especially when you have accused insinuated a few times that the developers are biased.  You'd make it a lot easier for people to look at issues a lot more seriously if you stopped presenting the way you do and bring some tangible evidence to back up claims of bias.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I was saying that I think an M1A2 is worth 3 T-90AM in CMBS, combat value wise. I dont think anyone has any real life hard data to back that up to be honest.

 

If you line them up head to head against each other at 3000 meters, sure. But if used intelligently I don't think that is at all true. Tanks do things on real battlefields other than shoot at each other.

 

Someone earlier compared the Abrams/T-90 matchup to the Sherman/Tiger in WW2 and I agree with that analogy. If you look at the QB prices in the Normandy game a Tiger or Panther costs about 1.4x the price of a Sherman 76. In CMBS a M1A2 is about 1.3x the price of a T-90AM and 1.5x more than a T-72B3.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Russian kit is universally under-rated in defence, this is often the case in all things regarding Russian kit whether it be simulations, wargames, etc.

 

You can see bias anywhere if you only look at one side of the equation. Black Sea gives the Russians the benefit of the doubt in some areas. For example, Shtora has a chance to spoof TOW and Javelin missiles. It's a small-ish chance, but it's there despite beta testers telling BFC that there is no way.

[Stagler]

One save...really.  With all the complaining and arguing you do and you graced us with a save.  Well thank you very much.

 

Haha, it demonstrates the bug clearly. Is that not enough? So does my picture set. I went and provided evidence that was asked for. Does it make me any less wrong when the evidence is clearly there because I have an opinion?

 

Im surprised you took the time to find all the threads I have posted in. Well done. You missed my one about the BTR spotting though.

 

I can complain and argue all I want, someone has to on here. I also couldn't give a f about what people think about my opinion, I will voice it anyway, I think that should be obvious.

 

Also, wood, I feel as though you are directing most of your angst against me here, when Antares has similar conclusions. Is that some sort of personal vendetta I see developing there?

 

 

You can see bias anywhere if you only look at one side of the equation. Black Sea gives the Russians the benefit of the doubt in some areas. For example, Shtora has a chance to spoof TOW and Javelin missiles. It's a small-ish chance, but it's there despite beta testers telling BFC that there is no way.

 

 

I say this because of what was said to Vladimir about the accuracy of GLATGM on page one of this thread, if that isn't someone glossing over something and underestimating a piece of kit, then I don't know what is :

 

Statements like this make me question your expertise tbh.  

Edited March 18, 2015 by Stagler

[mikeCK]

Based on this thread alone, there are no capabilities that could be assigned to US or Russian equipment where everyone will say "Yep, that's perfect". So in that case, why do so many get upset because BF can't "get it right"?....what is "right".

Seems to me things are fine. Generally, US spot Russians first because of better optics. There are many other factors that can cause the opposite to occur

[Vanir Ausf B]

Haha, it demonstrates the bug clearly. Is that not enough? So does my picture set. I went and provided evidence that was asked for. Does it make me any less wrong when the evidence is clearly there?

 

I can't speak to the SU-24 issue, but I did look into the BTR spotting and I don't think it is a bug. It appears to be an outlier event. All of the CMx2 games produce them occasionally for various reasons. It's just the way the game works.

 

I say this because of what was said to Vladimir about the accuracy of GLATGM, if that isn't someone glossing over something and underestimating a piece of kit, then I don't know what is

I will let others argue real life. My understanding is that GLATGMs have had very limited use in combat so any number you throw out is going to be speculative. But I can say that in Black Sea there is no such thing as a 100% accurate weapon.

[A Canadian Cat]

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

 

I was pretty suspicious and said so in post #3.  I recently pointed out to someone on a different forum, for example, that the "forest" he used was not really a forest at all  - it was just trees on grass.  In other words, he was testing in a suburban park and thinking he was testing in a forest.  Quite frankly that was what I figured was going on here too.  Which would have been very easy to determine if the OP had shown even screen shots or better yet attached the test scenario.  Mind you I did not spend time trying to reproduce it myself - not much motivation to help out someone who is not willing to be up front with what they used for their testing.

 

You are a better man than I am.

[Vanir Ausf B]

RE: GLATGM accuracy:

 

9K119M "Reflex-M"

 

T-80 and T-90, equipped with IMC "Reflex-M" TUR "Invar" and "Invar-M", produced entirely new combat options: firing range 2 - 2.5 times the range of any return fire BPS modern tanks. This allows domestic tanks to win the battle to enter the zone of effective fire of enemy tanks. Modeling oncoming battle tank companies (10 T-90 tanks against modern tanks M1A1 10) showed that, starting with the shooting range 5000m T-90 to manage the range 2000 - 2500m hit up to 50 - 60% of enemy tanks.

http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/tyr125.htm

That's a long ways from 100%.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[Vanir Ausf B]

You are a better man than I am.

Or just more free time

[Thewood1]

"Also, wood, I feel as though you are directing most of your angst against me here, when Antares has similar conclusions. Is that some sort of personal vendetta I see developing there? "

 

Re-read my post...its how you present.  A little more tact and someone might actually go make saves for you.  Antares actually comes across a lot better than you do.  You have a very passive-aggressive style and obviously like to just stir things up.  If I remember correctly, someone from BFC agreed with that.