Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

[akd]

Perhaps the Abrams fired AMP for some reason?

[DMS]

"Sci-fi" prototypes bias the balance. That APSes, XMs, air burst ammunition. (And T-90AM with APS and BMP-3 airbursts in case of Russia vs Ukraine) Assumption that U.S. soldiers are veterans and cracks either. Last large war of the United States was Iraq, 14 years ago. Veterans of Iraq are retired or became high officers. U.S.army have superior training, but is training enough to be become immune to supression, combat stress?

Now average Bradley reacts quicker than average RPG man, that hides in bushes while Bradley is moving. May be correct partially, as FLIR is superior thing, But only partially.

You may choose regular expirience for U.S. troops and remove XMs and APS vehicles, that will make balance better, and more realistic, may be. Air burst ammunition can't be removed, unfortunately.

[Artkin]

I've had plenty of complete bull**** spotting occasions. Bmp3k rolls up to the side of a btr4e 150m away behind thin line of trees, front facing it. Bmp waits 30 seconds and then btr turns and engages. My poor VDV cant survive without their bmp... err bmd4... performing normally!

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

My question which belongs here - in real life russian APS cannot defeat TOW2B AERO?

It is going direction tank, so why no reaction to it? Maybe older models, but today? When they know, thats it flies over the tank, why not to modify the reaction to this threat?

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, akd said:

Perhaps the Abrams fired AMP for some reason?

Should APS even intercept AMP rounds though?

[A Canadian Cat]

23 minutes ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:

My question which belongs here - in real life russian APS cannot defeat TOW2B AERO?

It is going direction tank, so why no reaction to it? Maybe older models, but today? When they know, thats it flies over the tank, why not to modify the reaction to this threat?

?? the game models known equipment and a few added models and features that were in either known to have been experimented with as add ons or about to be deployed. I am sure that top attack missiles is something that the APS designers are looking at addressing but if such an enhanced APS system is not on tanks now why would it be in the game?

[Sophist_13]

20 hours ago, Douglas Mac said:

US vehicles seem to spot faster, react quicker and their APS systems seem to work nearly every time. Its getting to a point where I can always win when I play the US and always loose when I play as the Russians. 

 

Hm, i often play the Russian (becouse of i'm russian ) and i can't say that Russia is underpowered. Yes, i have some objections about russian equipment and weapon, but i often play Russian Ground Forces versus US\UA. Sometimes i win the US, sometimes my company tactical group (we usually play the company-level of the game) is broken. If you play the Russian, you can't use the same methods and tactic as if you play the US, Russian Army has its own means, tactic and weapon. And usually i use only real russian units - T-72B3 (sometimes T-90A), BTR-82A and BMP-3\BMP-3M, and i use them without APS. The only thing, what i do i use the same level of experiense and motivation for russian and our rivals, but i use different leadership(-1 for russian and from -2 till +1 for UA and +2 for US). And i use APC for my rivals, yes, i like when my foes have advantages.

Now, i want to tell about what i consider as wrongs in the game, and that is really strange:

First. RPO is useless. I'm wondering that RPO, special equipment, is completely worthless as anti-infantry weapon. American AT4 or soviet RPG, let alone Javelin are much more useable against infantry rather than RPO. It's crazy and i count it as great mistake. It must be fixed.

Second. All american armor units have ERA. Really? Are you seriuosly? I want to have a choise - Abrams, Bradly and Stryker have ERA or don't have it. Futher, i don't understand why american units are not devided according to their models. Abrams, that we have in the game is not M1A2 SEP v3. Now, it is something similar, but not enough. It would be great, if we could chose between M1A2 SEP v2 or SEP v3, to have TUSK or not to have it, and etc.

Third. Modern (modern, i mean units that are in service) russian and ukrainian weapon and equipment are not added in the game - russian RPG-30 (special RPG against APS, some amount are in service in the parts of SMD), MANPANDS VERBA, modern models of RPO, modern russian KAMAZ-5350 and URAL-63095, Tigr with KORNET and ARBALET-DM, new russian UAV; ukrainian T-64B1 (thar were intended for Kongo), BTR-3, HMMWV with DSHKM, DSHKM as support team, BMP-1U, ukrainians models of KrAZ, ukrainian UAV.

Fourth. Why russian and ukrainian forces haven't company tactical groups? As i wrote, i usually play a company versus a company, and in real life russian and ukrainian use it formations (HQ squad, 3 rifle platoons, one tank platoon, mortar platoon, grenade launcher platoon, sapper platoon, air defence squad with MANPAD and air defence squad with SPAAG, artillery battery). And the best thing would be if we could chose the structure of military formations. I want to add a recon platoon in my company directly, for example.

Fifth. BT have to do something with tanks rounds, that penetrate two standing near tanks by one shell. Sometimes i lose two tanks due to one round of Abrams or T-90A.

Yes, i speak english very bad, i know, so thanks for your reading.

 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Sophist_13

[A Canadian Cat]

16 hours ago, Chudacabra said:

I recently played a huge PBEM as the US against an attacking Russian force with a +25% bonus. The lack of any AA assets beyond Stingers for the Americans was a serious problem. His helicopters accounted for most of my tank loses. I unwisely opted for more tanks without APS, when I should have bought a smaller number of APS Abrams'. I did managed to destroy all my opponents T-90's and his Khrizantemas, and knock out something like 30 BMP-3's. Still, I was eventually overwhelmed by numbers, copious amounts of support weapons, and my own tactical failings.

I think this post speaks to what we really need to consider - points cost. People seeking to dump down vehicle X's capabilities or beef up vehicle Y are going about things in the wrong way. The vehicle / system capabilities should be modelled like in RL. The balance of QBs needs to be in the points not in tweaking capabilities. Those that are arguing that the US capabilities are too strong because they always beat the Russian forces are barking up the wrong tree.

[cool breeze]

I think the APS systems have always been working on HEAT rounds for whatever reason

[A Canadian Cat]

42 minutes ago, Sophist_13 said:

First. PRO is useless. I'm wondering that RPO, special equipment, is completely worthless as anti-infantry weapon. American AT4 or soviet RPG, let alone Javelin are much more useable against infantry rather than RPO. It's crazy and i count it as great mistake. It must be fixed.

Several people have mentioned this. I have no particular knowledge one way or another so I am not defending the way the game is or supporting what you are saying - I just don't know. What I do know is that I am unaware of any logged issue that says that RPO rounds are under performing. That means that there will be no fix because it is not acknowledged as a problem. Can you, or anyone else, provide sources for the capabilities that these rounds should have?

 

42 minutes ago, Sophist_13 said:

Second. All american armor units have ERA. Really? Are you seriuosly?

Sure why not. They add it when the feel they need it.

 

42 minutes ago, Sophist_13 said:

I want to have a choise - Abrams, Bradly and Stryker have ERA or don't have it. Futher, i don't understand why american units are not devided according to their models. Abrams, that we have in the game is not M1A2 SEP v3. Now, it is something similar, but not enough. It would be great, if we could chose between M1A2 SEP v2 or SEP v3, to have TUSK or not to have it, and etc.

Yeah, choices would be nice agreed.

 

42 minutes ago, Sophist_13 said:

Third. Modern (modern, i mean units that are in service) russian and ukrainian weapon and equipment are not added in the game - russian RPG-30 (special RPG against APS, some amount are in service in the parts of SMD), MANPANDS VERBA, modern models of RPO, modern russian KAMAZ-5350 and URAL-63095, Tigr with KORNET and ARBALET-DM, new russian UAV; ukrainian T-64B1 (thar were intended for Kongo), BTR-3, HMMWV with DSHKM, DSHKM as support team, BMP-1U, ukrainians models of KrAZ, ukrainian UAV.

I don't know what to say exactly on these kinds of topics. BFC had to draw a line some where to have reasonable sized project. On one hand there is room to add different gear for new units in expansion modules. On the other hand they wanted to only include equipment that was already deployed with real units or were very close to being deployed and might actually make it into action in 2017.

 

42 minutes ago, Sophist_13 said:

Fourth. Why russian and ukrainian forces haven't company tactical groups? As i wrote, i usually play a company versus a company, and in real life russian and ukrainian use it formations (HQ squad, 3 rifle platoons, one tank platoon, mortar platoon, grenade launcher platoon, sapper platoon, air defence squad with MANPAD and air defence squad with SPAAG, artillery battery). And the best thing would be if we could chose the structure of military formations. I want to add a recon platoon in my company directly, for example.

Again decisions were made it is what it is. You do have a pretty nice combined arms battalion formation that you can pare back to a company + size. I suspect they felt that was good enough.

 

42 minutes ago, Sophist_13 said:

Fifth. BT have to do something with tanks rounds, that penetrate two standing near tanks by one shell. Sometimes i lose two tanks due to one round of Abrams or T-90A.

Yeah, there are probably some issues with projectile deformation not being modelled enough. I look at it as a way to remember not to bunch up too much. (I know not really helpful :-)

42 minutes ago, Sophist_13 said:

Yes, i speak english very bad, i know, so thanks for your reading.

Wow, I was not thinking that while reading your post - your English is pretty darn good.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

I think this post speaks to what we really need to consider - points cost. People seeking to dump down vehicle X's capabilities or beef up vehicle Y are going about things in the wrong way. The vehicle / system capabilities should be modelled like in RL. The balance of QBs needs to be in the points not in tweaking capabilities. Those that are arguing that the US capabilities are too strong because they always beat the Russian forces are barking up the wrong tree.

No.....That doesn't solve the issue of Elite Russian tank crews completely ignoring incoming fire even slightly. 

[A Canadian Cat]

If there are bugs in the spotting capabilities of specific units then report them.

By report them I don't mean rant and rave about the Russian equipment being nerfed because you cannot win a fight vs the US. I don't mean anecdotal descriptions of the time X didn't see 10 Ys right in front of them and got killed. I don't mean saying hey haven't you been reading the forum clearly its broken. None of that helps and none of that will get anything changed.

You guys are all welcome to continue to complain and kibitz I will not even ask you to stop but if you want changes you need to have some specific, statistically reproducible scenarios that show the problem in game. Saves, scenarios etc. The testers cannot make reports like: so and so on the forum says spotting for vehicle X is broken please fix. It doesn't work like that. Be prepared for questions to be asked for your testing methods and requests made to refine your tests so something actionable can be determined.

Note you can complain all you like that testers should be doing that not you. I'll simply say we are and we do - all the time. Collectively we only have so many hours to do that work so if there is some issue that matters to you: investigate and respond constructively to the discussion.

If you feel offended by any of that - that is not my intent in any way - I'm just telling you the reality. Anyone is free to rant and rave - and I'll just ignore that. On the other hand if you choose to start a thread to investigate a problem I'll be there to help and I will not be alone.

[The Steppenwulf]

19 minutes ago, IanL said:

If there are bugs in the spotting capabilities of specific units then report them.

By report them I don't mean rant and rave about the Russian equipment being nerfed because you cannot win a fight vs the US. I don't mean anecdotal descriptions of the time X didn't see 10 Ys right in front of them and got killed. I don't mean saying hey haven't you been reading the forum clearly its broken. None of that helps and none of that will get anything changed.

You guys are all welcome to continue to complain and kibitz I will not even ask you to stop but if you want changes you need to have some specific, statistically reproducible scenarios that show the problem in game. Saves, scenarios etc. The testers cannot make reports like: so and so on the forum says spotting for vehicle X is broken please fix. It doesn't work like that. Be prepared for questions to be asked for your testing methods and requests made to refine your tests so something actionable can be determined.

Note you can complain all you like that testers should be doing that not you. I'll simply say we are and we do - all the time. Collectively we only have so many hours to do that work so if there is some issue that matters to you: investigate and respond constructively to the discussion.

If you feel offended by any of that - that is not my intent in any way - I'm just telling you the reality. Anyone is free to rant and rave - and I'll just ignore that. On the other hand if you choose to start a thread to investigate a problem I'll be there to help and I will not be alone.

This made me quite indignant Ian! How dare you to be honest:  We the consumer are paying premium prices for CM games. I think that gives consumers the right not to be expected to do the testing!! I'm happy to express my view about what I experience but it's up to the testers and BF to assess the quality of the product and correct it if necessary.
 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

If there are bugs in the spotting capabilities of specific units then report them.

Ian, the 'tankguntest' file is already posted in this thread.....Perhaps you should download it and try it yourself? 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

This made me quite indignant Ian! How dare you to be honest:  We the consumer are paying premium prices for CM games. I think that gives consumers the right not to be expected to do the testing!! I'm happy to express my view about what I experience but it's up to the testers and BF to assess the quality of the product and correct it if necessary.
 

OK not sure if you are serious or not so in case you are only joking I'll just respond to the (my) bold part - agreed, it is, we do and they do.

Edited March 20, 2017 by IanL
added "and" to fix grammar (ish)

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Ian, the 'tankguntest' file is already posted in this thread.....Perhaps you should download it and try it yourself? 

So, assuming you actually want to help, can you tell me what you meant for that test to show? You offered no explanation, no discussion of what you saw happening, no statistics, nothing. At the risk of being honest again I like to spend time playing this game just like you guys so I don't just randomly run stuff not knowing what the author thinks it shows or how they designed their test.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

10 T-90s (Elite) face 4 Abrams (Regular) on a totally open map at a range of 3200m.....In my experience the Abrams always take the first shot (despite having many less eyes to look with) and the highly experienced Russian crews show no sign of responding once their comrades start to explode. 

EDIT - OK, I have to apologise and eat some of my words here, immediately after typing this I ran the test again and for the first time in a dozen or more runs the 10 Elite T-90s beat the 4 Regular Abrams.  However once again the Abrams spotted first, fired first and then scored the first kill, but for some reason three of them then decided to turn side on to the threat and that didn't end well for them at all.  Only one of the of the T-90s fired a missile (it missed).

Edited March 20, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Douglas Mac]

Wow did not expect so much response so thank you to you all for the input.

Too much to respond to everyone but special thanks to Sophist_13 and those who gave some practical advice on how to play the Ruskies. BTW Sophist your english is pretty good!

Also to Ian L for providing a formal process for checking these claims out.

And thanks to the rest of you for sharing your experiences.

[The Steppenwulf]

37 minutes ago, IanL said:

OK not sure if you are serious or not so in case you are only joking I'll just respond to the (my) bold part - agreed, it is, we do and they do.

 

32 minutes ago, IanL said:

So, assuming you actually want to help, can you tell me what you meant for that test to show? You offered no explanation, no discussion of what you saw happening, no statistics, nothing. At the risk of being honest again I like to spend time playing this game just like you guys so I don't just randomly run stuff not knowing what the author thinks it shows or how they designed their test.

Ian are you even thinking about how your responses come across? I know that you are a good guy and have no intention of presenting the wrong message, but these responses read as just plain dismissive of a range of reports and come across as been deflective and rude - critical of players and the posts, yet avoid any focus on the actual events experienced.

From my experience the deficiency in spotting on the Russian side is so obvious that to be unaware of it one must only have been playing single player or have never played the Russian side. So utterly blindingly obvious that it's not even worthy of report.

It's not evidence that is required it's just an explanation. Does this reflect reality? BF are the experts and they programmed the game so what is the explanation? 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

So ten more runs through, six US wins, three Russian wins and one draw.  There was one oddity per side where the defeated side still had a largely intact tank, obscured by smoke from their fallen comrades, in the case of the draw, each side had two such.

Here's the typical out come, 7:30 into the battle and the final T-90 dies, one Abrams has been destroyed:

(Countless screenshots available if required, easier just to run it yourself a few times and change a few variables IMHO)

This keeping in mind that the four Abrams are Regular and the ten T-90s are Elite.....I mean what could possibly be wrong with that. 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Sgt.Squarehead]

If we are going to deal in facts and accuracy, this one should definitely be taken into consideration:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a20917/us-crews-fail-to-place-in-nato-tank-competition/

US crews aren't in fact even third rate.....That honour goes to the Poles. 

[Rinaldi]

lmfao; @IanL I truly commend your endurance. We could set our watches to threads of this type, and if mental gymnastics were an Olympic sport we'd have an all-star team

Edited March 20, 2017 by Rinaldi

[GAZ NZ]

As the top cm ladder player for cmbs on the blitz wargamming forum i can say this

Most gear is fairly well modelled for both sides

The tests shown by other players are not realistic 

I dont agree with the testing methods

Sitting tanks in open to see who spots first isnt an accurate combat test

Play 50 games as russia ukraine and us vs people in different situations then comment

The last cmbs patch fixed alot of problems with russian spotting etc

I prefer playing russia as they have more choices for units

I like choice and tactical flexibility

But spotting is generally good for both sides using there equipment and taking into account c2

 Khrizantema-S tank destroyers are the only spotting dissapointment  for russia

i would have thought they would spot better than they do / faster

i do not know the real life time spotting for these?

anyone?

also there limited in this game engine as to there real ability to pop over hill with missle only and shoot

in saying that ive found my tanks spot well for there relative points you pay

theres multiple factors in game that account for spotting and the units experience etc also

us humvee tows have never shot any tanks or apcs

they are broken to me

russia has a similar vehicle with at missles on roof of armoured car  that never shoot as they die first

no point using these two except for building demo work

US abs tanks are quicker to spot but cost more

They are not always uber at spotting stuff from my experience 

Every game is varying with them and im personally not a big fan of using these with there cost

Ive seen 1 rpg take one out

Other games it takes 13 rpgs to kill one

It all comes down to tactical situation and each game

I feel Russia Ukraine and US could have more units and weapons

Too many key ones missing 

Russia needs there heavy MG thats similar to a 50 cal

Bit smaller than 50cal i cannot recall the calibre

and there newer sniper rifles

Im sure thats part of an upgrade package

Im happy to play russia any time in a game and personally do not feel disadvantaged

 

 

 

 

[Sorrow_Knight]

Just add some ideas here =)

1. As it already mentioned- RPO is useless. Even US M25 (actually still XM25) is more powerfull, than RPO that is specific antyinfantry weapon, but in game it can do nothing. I`ve tested RPOs against infantry batallion, that was groupped in very-very tight "formation". As effect of about 20 RPO shots was only about 20-25 casualties among  several hundreds of "targets". RPGs with HE rounds killed over 150 "targets" in same conditions. Some video about hou RPO works in real life (see video below) 

 

 

2. US armor lacks of difference. In game there really should be M1 with several SEP mods, M1, Bradley, Stryker without ERA (actually  I don`t think, that "if they feel they need it, there is enough ERA sets to install it on EVERY tank, APC or IFV of task force, or batallion).

3. Russian and Ukrainian armies hasn`t some weapons and vehicles that is already in service (Sophist already mentioned the list, so I don`t think i should wright it once more)

4. Russian army don`t have much flexibility both in formations (company tactical groups, which is different from companies of batallion TG should be included in game), also in formations should be more options. For example- ability to swap sniper in BTR infantry squad with rifleman with scoped AK, or AK with grenade launcher), also I think that there should be option of scoped AKs for whole squad\certain soldier roles and there may be some weapon instead of "normal" AK.

5. Also I think, that night vision equipment and night scopes of russian infantry is too "weak" in comparison with US ones. I`ve seen that equipment, that already in service or just near it and i can say that it is at least as good as EU\US ones. It may be not massed yet, but... well it may be one more option for suggestion above.

Edited March 21, 2017 by Sorrow_Knight

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Quote

Sitting tanks in open to see who spots first isnt an accurate combat test

No but it's a bloody good test of the games basic spotting mechanic and the results are not at all impressive. 

Ten sets of Elite eyes vs. four sets of Regular and 12 times out of 13 (this evening) the Regular eyes, see first, shoot first and kill first. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead