Looking forward to next patch

[Kinophile]

Also,  a turn's one minute of time... It's pretty tight amount of time to get all that stuff you described done.. 

 

[kraze]

speaking of LOS. Some more "generic" RTS if you will do it via adding first person camera to eye level of a given unit that is viewed via hotkey or a button. F.e. in Earth 2160 you can switch to unit's eye-level and back to check what it sees (ironically it's not very useful there).

I think it's not hard to do codewise and will be incredibly useful in a game like CM for, say, tanks where you will instantly see how many tiles you need to move them back/forth to get into a better position.

Right now an insane amount of time is spent using clunky camera controls to check if every vehicle is well hidden/sees well enough and in huge battles it takes so much time it becomes a bit tedious. Whereas a single button that will instantly switch to the "eye camera" (and back) can be a time-saver

Edited September 29, 2016 by kraze

[Kinophile]

+1

[Sublime]

The ability to get US tanks without the LWR. Nuff said 

Tweak atgm behavior pls. The only true solution i see where u wont have people complainibg to fudge it one way or another is to make a toggle like hide. If its toggled the unit only uses its ATGMs  if untoggled the tac ai will behave as present.

 

Look at the US 60mm mortars. Mortars were supposed to stop using small arms and ifnu target light US 60mms ONLY in BS they wont fire or theyll use their m4s.

Adopt Pzsaurkrauts air superiority option as a box much like the EW settings...

Edited October 3, 2016 by Sublime

[SlowMotion]

I'd like to see a new feature to all CM games:

when selecting options for a new QB game it would be VERY useful if maps could be previewed BEFORE choosing it.
Now  you can only preview the map when purchasing units.

[IICptMillerII]

I'll throw my .02 out as well. 

On 10/3/2016 at 10:13 AM, Sublime said:

The ability to get US tanks without the LWR. Nuff said 

This times a million. Good grief do i hate the LWR mounted on US tanks/Brads. I say this as someone who generally plays AS the US. I despise them so much because they make attacking with armor so flippin difficult. Whenever I try to do anything with my armor what ends up always happening is that it advances a few meters, gets a LWR hit, pops smoke and falls back. I've tried to find in game workarounds for it, but the best I was able to discover was using the 'Pause' command a lot, and even then it was only a half measure. In larger battles it really becomes a hassle, as you have to babysit every vehicle, and your efforts go wasted many times because the vehicle got a LWR hit in between 'Pause' and 'Move' commands, or something of the sort. I am very much hoping that with either the next patch or (more likely) the next module we either get an LWR free M1A2 (like a toggle in the editor similar to a vehicle and ERA) or a new Abrams variant without the LWR. 

 

Something else I've noticed that has been debated before on the forums are the Bradley and its TOW's. I've found that my Brads tend not to use them, even when faced with an identified tank target over 1km away. Seems to me like they rely on the 25mm a bit too much. I never had this issue in CMSF. The Brads always seemed to know when to use the TOWs against the right targets, and generally speaking range wasn't a huge deciding factor in the TOW's employment. Now I don't have any hard data from extensive testing to back up my observations, but it seems like ATGM behavior across the board may be a bit off. I figured if a bunch of the other systems are going to get a look at, might as well throw the Bradly in there as well. 

 

Would also like to see the Bulat spotting bug addressed, although I'm quite confident that this issue has already been solved and we're just waiting on the patch to drop to fix it for good. 

[Sublime]

My bulats spot well sometimes others not well at all.

Oplot spotting is a major problem. Then again i think a stronger argument could be made for t80s from ukrainw being used than oplots where theres what maybe 20 total in the world even still?

Aa far as brads with tows.. yes ive had problems. However they fire WAAAY more reliably than the kornets on bmp2ms ( the most flagrant offender imo ) and the reg bmp 2 sometimes seems to fire its at5s just fine other times inexplicably keeps using its autoncannon which is weaker than the brads 25mm and is pointless when facing the front of a russian tank or an american tank.

Also ags17 behavior - i have several instances of ukr or russian troops using the grenade launchers against MBTs. Frontal aspect. I think this needs to be looked at.

What possible hope could a mk19 or ags17 with HE grenade shells do to the front of an MBT? Even T72s it does nada.

Again too target light for all BS (ONLY) mortars needs to be checked i think its broken again.

 

 

Also whilst not totally realistic with many NATO units I bet thered be more integration of some units in UKR units and for example UKR tunguskas in US formations.

I wish this ability could be used in qbs - that you could select individual nations or select Allied mix and picj from any nation.  Or perhaps restrict this just to Ukr and one NATO country a time.

I mean qbs are inherently a little game like.. points spent alll that.. and mixing some forces into eachother wouldnt be completely unrealistic 

Yes NATO units usuallt fight as their own units even though a brigade may have bttns of brits and us they all fight with their own.

That said i think if the US had ADA problems UKR tunguskas would be used and Im sure the ukr would be considered more in need of embedded US troops for air support, to give the formations back bone etc. Plus i dont doubt at all the US would flood the UKR military with javelins at the least and Id lije to see this as an option..

Especially in the early days of a crisis youd see US spec ops. Advisors embedded in Ukr units  lots of javelins and light weight equipment dripped off. Airlifted strykers whilst the bradleys and m1s took trains and roads to race to the Ukraine.

BFC utterly swears that natuonality doesnt play any role in unit ability or spotting. I have no reason not to believe them. But i also believe the UKR has the worst spotting issues and feel there may be something looking into there with russia coming in as well. In the obverse rhe US spots well. Too well. I accept all of it but stil refuse to believe a tank -that is the only unit that can see a 2man atg team crawling that hasnt fired - would magically know a team was crawling up behind it calmly rotate its turret and machine gun the atg team..  i just .. no man dnt see it

Edited October 7, 2016 by Sublime

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Whenever I try to do anything with my armor what ends up always happening is that it advances a few meters, gets a LWR hit, pops smoke and falls back. I've tried to find in game workarounds for it, but the best I was able to discover was using the 'Pause' command a lot, and even then it was only a half measure.

Would you be happier if your tanks were all burning wrecks?  If your tank gets a lazer targeting warning and does nothing, there is a very good chance that it will become a burning wreck shortly after that.

The way things are supposed to work is this.  If the crew has a target and are working towards firing there is a good chance they will finish the firing solution before the react to the LWR.  If they have a fast move order the will very likely ignore the LWR and complete the move order.  Otherwise there is a good chance they will pop smoke and pull back. So, to reduce the chance of popping smoke and pulling back use fast move orders between cover.

[VladimirTarasov]

LWRs are cool but just as there is a choice for T-90AMs there should be a choice for a M1A2 without LWR please! it would make my life so much easier  

[c3k]

LWRs and Smoke: yeah, it can be frustrating, but less so than a burning wreck. Or worse, a tank with red x'es on all the important systems. (I always order the surviving crews to disembark such tanks and then use them in the van of the attack. "Better dead than lose your tread!", is what I always tell them...)

Most of the tanks will slew their turrets towards the lase, just before popping smoke. That should give you some intel on the threat location. Neutralize that area. Put a smoke barrage out there; call in some napalm runs; flank it; use surviving crewmembers to close assault it and give away the position; SLOW move a spotter up into LOS and stare at the suspect zone for ~5-10 minutes and maybe get a "?" spot; charge several tanks through the threat zone and hope that some make it through; avoid that area all together. YMMV. The key item is the clue given by the turret slew. The laser is somewhere along the line pointed by the tank's main gun (give or take some degrees).

Smoke barrages are your friend.

[IICptMillerII]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

Would you be happier if your tanks were all burning wrecks?  If your tank gets a lazer targeting warning and does nothing, there is a very good chance that it will become a burning wreck shortly after that.

In my experience, one of three things generally happens when an Abrams is lased:

1) The tank is in the attack, and is facing the threat. Unless at very close range, or facing rare Russian ATGM assets, the Abrams is going to be fine. Sabots bounce, ATGMs splash (for the most part) and nothing else really has a snowballs chance in hell of doing any real damage to my tank from the front. When my tanks are attacking, I want them to attack. I understand that the 'Fast' command will make the tank ignore the LWR, but it doesn't ignore it 100% of the time. Also, the 'Fast' command is not suitable to every action. 'Hunt' is usually more useful (because the optics on the Abrams are so good, if it does not happen to see the enemy first, it will see it after the enemy has fired, having also survived whatever was fired at it) as a general movement command with armor. 

Instead with the LWR, all a Russian has to do is lase the tank and bam, smoke everywhere and a stalled attack for no good reason. The LWR does not distinguish threats. Many times my tanks are being lased by a vehicle that poses a very low threat, such as a BMP-3. Instead of pressing on a few more meters and identifying and engaging the enemy vehicle, my tanks instead decide to abandon all hope and blow smoke. The smoke makes a real mess of things, inhibiting the spotting of targets (you know, the ones causing the LWR to go off in the first place, which leads to more LWR hits, which then leads to more reversing and smoke blowing) and ruining an attack.

2) I set up some tanks in overwatch. These overwatch tanks get lased by something not so dangerous (again I'll go with a BMP-3 because it tends to be the culprit for me) and blow smoke and fall back out of position. Now, whatever element I had moving across a danger area is unsupported. If its more Abrams, its not a huge problem, just a tactical sin. But if its thin skinned vehicles like Brads or what have you, they could be in some real trouble without the Abrams protecting them. 

Add onto this all the issues I listed with my first point, and things devolve into a real mess. 

3) Whatever it is that is lasing my tank/vehicle got the drop on me. As in, it is engaging my tank from a position of advantage with one of those rare assets that pose a real threat to an Abrams. For example, an ATGM fired at me from the side from within 1km. By the time my tank has received the LWR, stopped moving, popped smoke and started to reverse, its already dead. So the LWR just tells me its going to die seconds before actually dying. Not exactly a real help there. 

In short, I find it extremely unnecessary and annoying (sometimes infuriating, like when the tank decided to reverse through other moving vehicles/into forests) and I would like there to be a variant of the Abrams that comes without the LWR system.   

 

I understand why the LWR was added. I read in one of the earlier threads talking about this, how the beta testers said they preferred having tanks with the LWR. I understand the reasoning for including it, but I do not understand why we can't chose to have tanks without it. We can have tanks with or without active protection systems, so why can't we have a toggle in the editor for tanks with/without LWR? If there are programming issues or something along those lines, then thats fine, I can wait for the next patch/module/whenever to bring it up again. But I haven't seen programming listed as a reason as to why a toggle has not been included. 

As a gameplay note: I understand that for multiplayer, OOB's chosen by each side generally consist of the best equipment both sides have to offer. This means a higher concentration of high threat anti tank assets fielded by the Russians against the Abrams, meaning the LWR has more value against those types of force compositions. Many of the stock scenarios that involve direct confrontation between Russia and the US also feature these high threat weapons for gameplay purposes. Both to show off the new equipment and to create difficult and interesting missions for the players. However, that is not the only way to play, and if we're being strict as far as actual OOB's go, those high threat weapons are also pretty rare. 

This isn't meant as a long, pro-US armor rant or anything like that. I just find the LWR system to be more trouble than its worth, even against high threat anti tank weapons. Again, hopefully it will be an easily added feature to the editor/quick battle force screen in the next patch/module. If there is a real behind the scenes software issue with the whole thing, I understand. But if not, lets see a toggle.

Edited October 7, 2016 by IICptMillerII

[IICptMillerII]

3 hours ago, Sublime said:

Oplot spotting is a major problem

My apologies, this is what I meant. The Oplot spotting bug, not the Bulat. 

[A Canadian Cat]

5 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

The LWR does not distinguish threats. Many times my tanks are being lased by a vehicle that poses a very low threat, such as a BMP-3. Instead of pressing on a few more meters and identifying and engaging the enemy vehicle, my tanks instead decide to abandon all hope and blow smoke.

And there is the rub. Spoken like a game player who knows all and has the options calculated out - not like a tank crew.  Not trying to be glib or snarky either.  Put yourself in an M1 turret.  Yes, you know you are in the best damn tank on the battlefield.  But you are not so cocky as to think that you are invincible.  You know damn well that a T90 even in the front can take our your tank if hit hits the right spot and just about anything else the enemy possesses has some kind of chance at disabling you or putting a whole in your side.  Your goal is to take on the enemy but bring everyone home.  Don't for get that.  Now you as the tank commander are on a mission and executing the plan.  Suddenly the automatic system detects someone lasing you.  Your crew do not have any contacts at the moment you know that anything on the battle field that has a laser range finder has a chance of at least mission killing your tank and causing caulties or even killing you. You pray the automatic system kicks in and puts up a smoke screen fast enough and that your driver executes you orders fast enough.  *Then* you figure out where the threat is (with the help of the LWR system - yes it is that awesome) and make a plan to deal with it.

 

5 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Again, hopefully it will be an easily added feature to the editor/quick battle force screen in the next patch/module. If there is a real behind the scenes software issue with the whole thing, I understand. But if not, lets see a toggle.

Oh yes that would be cool.  Don't get me wrong just because I think the behaviour of LWR equipped vehicles is OK as it is does not mean I don't agree with you about this.  Additional equipment levels would be nice to have - especially for stuff that is not standard fair on vehicles now.

[akd]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

My apologies, this is what I meant. The Oplot spotting bug, not the Bulat. 

There is no known Oplot spotting bug.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

1 hour ago, akd said:

There is no known Oplot spotting bug.

But the more modern Ukrainian tanks are terrible at spotting.  I'd like to at least see a justification of why they're so bad compared to some of the Russian tanks that have the same generation of optics.

Re: No LWR Abrams

I would like very much to see:

1. Baseline M1A2 SEP v2

Basically the "real world" Abrams that does not mount ERA as standard (I mean it can, but it's not mounted constantly), still uses MPAT instead of AMP, and lacks the LWR.  It'd be much like the T-90A as far as no frills exactly how it exists right now in a motorpool somewhere.

2. M1A1SA

The model of Abrams used by the National Guard.  Sort of a "why not?" slight step down in Abrams, and giving some more choice in tanks for QB. 

[VladimirTarasov]

9 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

But the more modern Ukrainian tanks are terrible at spotting.  I'd like to at least see a justification of why they're so bad compared to some of the Russian tanks that have the same generation of optics.

Re: No LWR Abrams

I would like very much to see:

1. Baseline M1A2 SEP v2

Basically the "real world" Abrams that does not mount ERA as standard (I mean it can, but it's not mounted constantly), still uses MPAT instead of AMP, and lacks the LWR.  It'd be much like the T-90A as far as no frills exactly how it exists right now in a motorpool somewhere.

2. M1A1SA

The model of Abrams used by the National Guard.  Sort of a "why not?" slight step down in Abrams, and giving some more choice in tanks for QB. 

I second this

[IICptMillerII]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

And there is the rub. Spoken like a game player who knows all and has the options calculated out - not like a tank crew.  Not trying to be glib or snarky either.  Put yourself in an M1 turret.  Yes, you know you are in the best damn tank on the battlefield.  But you are not so cocky as to think that you are invincible.  You know damn well that a T90 even in the front can take our your tank if hit hits the right spot and just about anything else the enemy possesses has some kind of chance at disabling you or putting a whole in your side.  Your goal is to take on the enemy but bring everyone home.  Don't for get that.  Now you as the tank commander are on a mission and executing the plan.  Suddenly the automatic system detects someone lasing you.  Your crew do not have any contacts at the moment you know that anything on the battle field that has a laser range finder has a chance of at least mission killing your tank and causing caulties or even killing you. You pray the automatic system kicks in and puts up a smoke screen fast enough and that your driver executes you orders fast enough.  *Then* you figure out where the threat is (with the help of the LWR system - yes it is that awesome) and make a plan to deal with it.

I completely agree with you. In real life, hell even in the game anything that increases survivability for anything are generally a good thing. My primary problem stems from its gameplay behavior, not so much the system itself. I do not want the LWR removed from the game. I just want the ability to take tanks and vehicles that do not have LWR, for the reasons I listed above. 

3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

1. Baseline M1A2 SEP v2

Basically the "real world" Abrams that does not mount ERA as standard (I mean it can, but it's not mounted constantly), still uses MPAT instead of AMP, and lacks the LWR.  It'd be much like the T-90A as far as no frills exactly how it exists right now in a motorpool somewhere.

I second this. 

 

4 hours ago, akd said:

There is no known Oplot spotting bug.

Those darn Ukrainian vehicles... Whichever Ukrainian tank that has the known spotting bug. I would like to see it addressed. 

[Sublime]

17 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

LWRs are cool but just as there is a choice for T-90AMs there should be a choice for a M1A2 without LWR please! it would make my life so much easier  

Well theres a choice for ams with or without aps. Maybe era too. Noone has LWR yet. I think it should be optional. Even though they are that awesome US tanks as of right now dont have them and I doubt thatll change before the end of 2017 whether fiscally or gregorian calender.

Of course the US could " bolt them " on in an emergency hence why i think it should be an *option*

[Sublime]

14 hours ago, akd said:

There is no known Oplot spotting bug.

Yes there is. The commander will go to an endless  rotating loop when he spots a target from vwhat i understand.

I dont use Oplots as Ukr. Its hard enough fielding t90ams or skifs. But a tank theres less than 20 of ans probably 5 are combat ready? It feels ridiculous.

 

And i third pzsaurs suggestion

Edited October 8, 2016 by Sublime

[akd]

47 minutes ago, Sublime said:

Yes there is. The commander will go to an endless  rotating loop when he spots a target from vwhat i understand.

That may or may not affect spotting, but it hasn't been shown to affect spotting.  The "spotting bug" appears to be based on anecdote, bad tests and confirmation bias.  It is really, really hard to test comparative spotting in CM.

Edited October 8, 2016 by akd

[kraze]

Turret direction does affect spotting, that's why you set target arcs when moving tanks around - so it would make sense if commander has his own LOS too which corresponds to his turret's angle. So a constantly rotating turret may just make commander LOS go wild and useless - especially with commander having superior sights to gunner's on Oplot

Plus constantly rotating commander's turret is a bug in itself and has to be addressed in any case. And then we will see if any of the above is true for sure

Edited October 9, 2016 by kraze

[Sublime]

To be sure my only evidence of an Oplot bug is anecdotal from other people.. because again unless you guys are explicitly playing some fantasy qb I think anyone who brings even a company of oplots to a "realistic" battle is somewhat toolish.

Itd be like if I - someone whose played QBs for years - would only take crack Abrams and Bradleys with APS and never anything else. Even that would be more realistic than a tank theres less than 20 of in the world for sure...

[IICptMillerII]

2 hours ago, Sublime said:

To be sure my only evidence of an Oplot bug is anecdotal from other people.. because again unless you guys are explicitly playing some fantasy qb I think anyone who brings even a company of oplots to a "realistic" battle is somewhat toolish.

Itd be like if I - someone whose played QBs for years - would only take crack Abrams and Bradleys with APS and never anything else. Even that would be more realistic than a tank theres less than 20 of in the world for sure...

Remember that CMBS assumes a slightly alternate timeline, where Ukraine builds up and prepares its military. Its feasible that if they started such a build up a few years ago that they would have enough Oplots (hope thats the right name) to matter. 

The Russians get the T-90AM (a blueprint only hypothetical T-90 upgrade, of which no prototypes exist that I am aware of) and the US gets the Abrams and Bradleys with both LWR and Trophy, both of which have not been deployed in real life. 

I do agree with you that these assets should be scaled back when used. It wouldn't make any sense to see 30 Oplots in one tactical battle if there were only ~100 total made. Same goes for the T-90AM.

[antaress73]

There is a few working models of the T-90AM and there is serious talk  if not actual plans to upgrade the current T-90A fleet to T-90AM standards. 

Edited October 10, 2016 by antaress73

[Sublime]

Yes as antaress ninja'd me on even tho BS is an alternate timeline Ukraine HAS been preparing for war for 3 or 4 years and still has less than 20 OPLOTS. The T90A exists in enough numbers it could be adopted. And there are working examples of T90AMs. They just werent adopted by Russia. However that said theyre essentially big upgrades on T72s and therefore very feasible. Instead of Oplots Id rather see T80s from the Ukraine. The factory was there. Of course I have ZERO clue where all the worlds T80s are but Id still love to see them in game ( yes I know an Oplots a modified T80 or a T84 )

But given the factory is in the Ukraine to me it seems more realistic the Ukraine would rehab and or pump out a bunch of t80s instead of brand new oplots to help their bulats. Who knows. It just seems to me something thats beem built before and was built in the thousands there would prolly be more easily done. And the T80s bad rep in Russia is undeserved I believe. Plus theyd be on the defensive probably abd I think T80s on the defense might surprise ppl as far as a threat..

Did i mention t80s gimme wood?

In my coldwar childhood in west germany -where i naively didnt know if ww3 happened me and my fam would have been vaporized by nukes- the t80 was always the evil bad dream tank that thousands of would come over the hill and kill all of us one awful day...

Edited October 10, 2016 by Sublime