Jump to content
Douglas Mac

Russians Underpowered, US Overpowered in CMBS?

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Sorrow_Knight said:

(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).

Yes, and that's the crux of the thread; its once more what a bunch of people 'think.'

They're too busy whining to think critically. Perhaps if they did, they wouldn't be making so many Russian widows. To quote Squarehead: :mellow: First off, if you believe the US in-game (as the developers have imagined their FICTIONAL scenario) has deployed every single Abrams and IFV in its inventory to Russia than I am truly chuffed. They have more than enough ERA to equip an HBCT - and that is being conservative. The entire point of CMBS is a limited full-spectrum war between the absolute leading edge of the Russian Federation and the US Army; it would follow that both sides put their best foot forward (as, indeed, the Russians have done time and again in their post-collapse conflicts). Pesky logic getting in the way!

I'm sure if and when the developers feel the need to add  in second echelon forces, as in they head-canon an escalation of what was clearly meant to be a limited war (RTFM people, they scripted out every possible end game for their own scenario) then I'm sure we will see ERA-less tanks, M1A1HCs, etc.

I don't care what you all 'think' - I am much more interested  in what you know,  but so far I've just seen speculation, and rather poor speculation at that.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've offered my demonstration of the problem as I perceive it, it's there for you all to try and test. 

Reducing the range down to 2400m changes things dramatically BTW, when I originally posted this test I was half expecting a reply along the lines of we've adjusted the curve (so to speak) to preserve the Abrams' long range advantage on the smaller maps of CM:BS (compared to the old CMx1 maps).  I might not have completely agreed with it, but I might have accepted it.

As it is, it's really hard to explain why all those Elite Russians can't see those Abrams, especially once they start shooting.....If there's a reason for it I'd like to know what it is?  Not all that much to ask surely? 

BTW I haven't yet tried the test with the Russians turned down to regular to match the Americans, but I think we can all pretty much guess what the outcome would be.  :mellow:

Rinaldi, as I said in regard to the APS if it's based in a fictional environment none of us 'know' anything, we are working with whatever assumptions the designers made.  My problem is that some of those apparent assumptions seem rather difficult to comprehend.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

BTW I haven't yet tried the test with the Russians turned down to regular to match the Americans, but I think we can all pretty much guess what the outcome would be

Yeh I ran a spotting only test (with short arcs to prevent firing) at 1000m. totally flat terrain, no cover, short grass, day time, clear weather. 

Abrams v T90 regular troops, fit, leadership 0 - totally equal settings!

Spotting times (in seconds):-

Red - 24, 29, 34, 49,  Average: 34 seconds

Blue - 2, 9, 16, 22,   Average: 12.25 seconds

I have no problem with significant spotting disparity given the optical equipment, but over 20 seconds when who spots who first makes all the difference (on flat terrain, clear visibility).  I find it incredulous that such differential target acquisition results, under these conditions, remotely reflect reality.

 

Edited by The Steppenwulf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ran the test several times. My anecdotal comments on the tests were that they spotted each other almost simultaneously. But the Abrams hit a bit more accurate and a lot more powerful, often one-shot kills, whereas the Russian tanks made many hits, but no real damage.

I then reduced the distance to just above 2km. Surprisingly, in these tests the US spotted much faster, rather than simultanous. Same as before, they russian tanks made many, and more (they were more numerous) hits, but no real damage, despite spall effects, partial penetrations. A telling symptom was the use of smokes that obscured both sides. However, as the smoke faded the a single russian tank would be spotted first, and this would repeat until the end.

For the final set of tests, I used FAST to move ~100m+ forward through their own smoke on both sides, to avoid obscuration. Many hits, and again russian tanks almost always hit, but not real damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried a mobility test on the tanks.....The T-64 came out best in five tests for me, yet it has the worst cross country mobility of the lot.  :rolleyes:

All of this came about when a T-90 under my control steadfastly refused to see an AI controlled T-64BV sat in the open at about 600m, I had to make the T-90 venture into a muddy field to spot the T-64 where it took a shot, missed, bogged and was then brewed up.....Sound familiar at all?  :mellow:

 

tankmobilitytest.btt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that proper testing needs to be done before BF can change things, anecdotal evidence is still important and dont think Sgt.Squarehead should criticized for his methods. I would have thought the test he did would be of value and does demonstrate the US advantage in my eyes. I thinks that what we call a control in science? Sure "real world" testing ie within a battle, is probably better but Sgt.Squareheads method has some value as a control and seems to show US superiority. He gives his method and others can repeat it so why is what he did so insignificant LanL?

Anyway thanks Sgt.Squarehead for taking the time to do that and the others who have offered explanations. Much appreciated guys.

Edited by Douglas Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't actually played CM:BS again since doing these tests.....I'm spending my time in CM:A which is much better balanced and doing anti ISIS stuff in CM:SF where there is no real issue of technological parity (and where TBH I don't give a monkeys if the 'bad-guys' get stamped on like ants, because that's really about what they're worth).  :mellow:

Having said that I am building a couple of scenarios in CM:BS.....Fortunately these won't be at all affected by this problem as they are Blue on Blue:

WelcomeToTrumpton_zpssudrbnp8.jpg

Welcome to Trumpton.....Still very much a WIP.  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, IanL said:

Can you, or anyone else, provide sources for the capabilities that these rounds should have?

I'll try to do it.

Firstly, soviet\russian army have been using the different models of RPO for last 30 years. We begin to use it from 1970s, it was PRO Rys, then RPO Shmell was designed, these toys were used in Afghanistan, so we have wide experience of using such equipment :) In 1980s old models of RPO were replaced by RPO-A. We used RPO in Chechny and many other wars. In 1990s Russian army got modern RPO-M. Briefly, our army likes man-portable thermobaric rockets ;)

To my mind, there is not something strange, that the most sources about RPO in russian. But i've tried to finde some sources in english:

http://gunrf.ru/rg_granatomet_rpo-a_eng.html

The effect of the warhead is comparable to that of a 152 mm high-explosive/fragmentation artillery round.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rpo-a-shmel-thermobaric-rocket-launcher.456338/

http://modernfirearms.net/grenade/rus/rpo-m-shmel-m-e.html

The blast effect of the RPO-M warhead is said to be comparable with that of the 155mm / 6" HE artillery shell.

 

I don't state that RPO is comparable with 152-mm artillery round, i just want RPO to be a serious thing, it cannot be less dangerous against infantry than AT-4 or Javelin or RPG.

5 hours ago, IanL said:

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

 

Yes, some parts are equipped by ERA, but we can see (Syria and Afghanistan) american IFV, tanks and other units without ERA. So, they don't use it always.

 

6 hours ago, IanL said:

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.

Oh, i say about units that are used in Russian\Ukrainian Ground Forces:

RU

RPG-30 - since 2013

MANPANDS VERBA - since 2014

RPO-PDM-A - since 2012

KAMAZ-5350 - since 2003 (really, how often do you see URAL-375?)

URAL-63095 - since 2015

KAMAZ-63968 - since 2015

Tigr KORNET-D1 - test part (about 10-15 units) since 2016. Some amount were bought by Algeria

Tigr ARBALET-DM - since 2017

UA

T-64B1 - since 2014

BTR-3 - since 2001

HMMWV with DSHKM - since 2016

DSHKM - since 1938(2015)

BMP-1U - 2006

P.S. Some thoughts about 'RU is underpowered' - A few hours ago i've destroyed american company in night fight ;) (Sorrow_Knight played the US)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

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

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. 

No he is correct it is a very poor test. What we want is statistics on how long it takes units to spot each other. So isloated lanes and cover arcs so they don't shoot and time how long it takes tanks to spot. Generate statistically rellevant numbers and then decide if it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure if and when the developers feel the need to add  in second echelon forces

There is one problem - if Russia want to attack, russian army will be able to do it from own position. If US want to defend UA, they will have to place their forces in East Europe. You can see, that american units in Poland (M1A2, Stryker and Bredly) haven't ERA. And it is first echelon. It is not duel, when both rivals use their best equipment at once. One side has advantages at the beginning, another side has its at the end.

Edited by Sophist_13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IanL said:

No he is correct it is a very poor test. What we want is statistics on how long it takes units to spot each other. So isloated lanes and cover arcs so they don't shoot and time how long it takes tanks to spot. Generate statistically rellevant numbers and then decide if it makes sense.

That is not a terribly clear explanation of an IMHO rather irrational sounding request.....Having the vehicles sitting in the open with no other orders seems the best way of measuring their spotting ability to me.  The one thing that might be useful would be to disable the smoke launchers, but we can't do that AFAIK?

Steppenwulf has done the stats for you.....They are six posts above your own.

 

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sophist_13 said:

There is one problem - if Russia want to attack, russian army will be able to do it from own position. If US want to defend UA, they will have to place their forces in East Europe. You can see, that american units in Poland (M1A2, Stryker and Bredly) haven't ERA. And it is first echelon. It is not duel, when both rivals use their best equipment at once. One side has advantages at the beginning, another side has its at the end.

Except they do now.  Also keep in mind that most of the campaigns feature initial contact being between RUS and UKR (of various strength and sometimes augmented by light US forces) and maybe US Light Infantry.  Heavy (US) units don't arrive immediately in theater but when they do they are well prepared and equipped.  That's kind of like the US Army's entire thing.  If you want it to be initial elite Russian forces (which is not unreasonable) then expect them to not fight US elite forces immediately as tanks don't arrive from Poland immediately.  If you want it to be Abrams vs T-90 then understand that it's entirely feasible that the mighty US logistics train will bring them fully prepared to the fight.  Three years ago that might not have been the case but that's not when the game is set.  Also keep in mind that the T-90AM doesn't exist in Russian ground forces any more than the Abrams v3.5 or whatever as it's currently represented does.  But if you were to pit T-90A or T-72B3 against an M1A2 as it currently exists IRL you'd still see them outmatched, possibly even more drastically than T-90AM vs Abrams II: Pershing's Revenge.

The SHORAD debate really isn't worth going too far into again because of the poor way the air war is modeled.

I think the real issue here is the requirement for their to be a 100% firm contact for the AI to auto fire.  I'm curious did all those T-90s have unknown contacts on the Abrams positions?  I think there needs to be a step between "I 100% know that that is an Imperialist M1A2" and "there might be something here" where the AI is confident enough that "There is something big and hot and metal here that I am going to shoot because I know it's not mine, even though I don't exactly know what it is."  This would help the Russian gunners overcome their technological limitations and shoot sooner without being too much of a boost to the American gunners because they can get an ID so quickly anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related to this debate is the issue of LWS on vehicles... I wonder, how difficult would it be to patch this so that, like APS is currently, it was a variant available to the player, but not fitted as default? This would allow players the choice of fitting or not depending on their balance considerations and desire for 'probable future' or 'present now' technology, and might go some way to reshaping the popular perception of Blue on Red battles in PBEM? @Battlefront.com might have some comment on this? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually there is no problem with Ru underpowered, US overpowered. The only problem is that there is some equipment, that is in service, but not introduced in game, some equipment that should have a bit more options in force constructor, and finally some equipment, that don`t work as it must be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That and Russian tanks seem just a bit myopic, no matter how good they are.  ;)

may be, but esterday that myopic didn`t stop T-90 from killing my M1 while not being even seen.

Edited by Sorrow_Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

No doubt.  ;)

But I agree with you, that russian tanks and other vehicles have too long spotting\reaction time. There maybe real problem with strong identification of targets, but there should be possibility to shoot " somewhere there" if there is any signs of target especially vehicle, that is very big and very hot, and actually can`t be unspotted. There may be some penalties for accuracy, but firing at not identificated target shoud be possible.

Edited by Sorrow_Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Ian are you even thinking about how your responses come across?

Yes :) I am trying to help and be straight with people.

Sorry if my frustration is showing through. I have been around these forums for a while and I have seen this pattern repeated: people complain about how their favourite piece of kit is not uber enough, how such and such is hampered and under performing or how some perceived defect in spotting cost them the game. More than 99 times out of 100 it's just sour grapes or a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world. However the odd time there are real issues and the people on these forums are the ones that find them. We need to keep doing that. Finding those few gems of oops that's not right out of all the chaff is hard. We have seen it play out time and time again on the forums. Many times it leads to frustrated players who remain unsatisfied, sometimes it leads to arguments and hurt feelings and occasionally it ends with the game better. I'm going to do my best to ignore the first minimize the second and maximize the last. But I'm not perfect so who knows... :D

Real commanders have to deal with the limitations ofreal equipment and the imperfections of humans all the time. The good ones recognize their equipment's and personnel's limits and strengths and try to place their forces in the best possible situation they can. That is what is so fun about these games.

Like I used to tell my kids when I was coaching: we are here to win but if you cannot have fun when you give your best effort but still loose, you are in wrong game and its time to find something else to play.

 

11 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

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.

Thank you for that. I am trying to skip being snarky and focus instead on engaging with people that want to actually show they have found an issue. So, you are correct I am *not* trying to be rude but I have to admit I am being a bit dismissive but in a good way :). If the snowflakes here can't handle the heat they shouldn't be commanding forces in battle - even pretend forces :D.

 

11 hours ago, The Steppenwulf said:

Does this reflect reality? BF are the experts and they programmed the game so what is the explanation? 

Yes, BFC does believe that the behaviour reflects reality. I don't have an official explanation but as far as I can tell the performance it is based on assessments from professionals who work hard to set their personal biases aside and perform honest assessments of performance from multiple sources. No one can be perfect but they try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

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

Right, it wasn't meant to. This thread was about a power balance, that was what I was referring to.The failure to spot firing enemy tanks is something that would be worth investigating, clearly that is something you want to work on my comment about points was simply address in the power imbalance. I think we can say that an M1 will perform better than a single T90 and a Bradley will perform better than a single BMP 3 or that a T90 will out perform a T64. There seems to be at least a perception that quick battles are harder to win as the Russians the way to fix that problem is not to make the T90 more powerful or the M1 less powerful because the game is supposed to reflect the real life capabilities of those tanks. The solution, to a QB balance problem, would be to tweak the point values in quick battles.

Having said that if there are also spotting, shooting or armour protection problems with any of those vehicles then the should be looked at as well. But not from a balance perspective but from a is the game simulation reflecting real life or not.

Two (or more) separate things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

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 :D

Well, thanks but I'm not perfect by any means and I have let my frustrations show through many times. I am trying to do better but see I already crossed the line I was hoping not to this morning with my snowflake comment.

I should apologize for that to @The Steppenwulf because that was out of line. See the problem is that I could not resist the irony of our (and older) generations criticizing the younger generation for being soft and entitled when I read so much on here that seems like our generation is just as soft and entitled too with phrases like " paying premium prices for CM games" and the idea that such and such is obviously broken. I should not have singled out @The Steppenwulf because many do it. And it was totally counter productive, which I pledged to avoid. It was just so tempting and I thought it was clever but it was wrong.

Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Guys, it might well be a tempest in a teapot. You don't know how saturated development pipeline is. It might be fully planned say for the next two years so these long discussions and exhaustive testing will have no impact in real life. Just because development/testing capacity is not infinite :)
  2. I guess it won't hurt to articulate that the game balance and how accurately the game reflects the real-life may well be mutually exclusive tasks :) So firstly you may want to come to an agreement whether you discuss how to make the game more enjoyable or how closely the game follows the latest battlefield data.
  3. Changes in fundamental aspects like spotting capability will have profound effects on the whole gameplay not just tank duels. It will be a different game and that means a lot of retesting so here comes the first point :)
  4. When speaking of the balance it seems to me you somehow assume that the force structures and their application tactics should be the same. Like how many T-90s we need to kill one Abrams. May be RUS and US battlefield tactics are very different so such a comparison is not 100% relevant? May be what should be discussed is how many Msta's shells are required to kill an Abrams because leveraging fire support is exactly the RUS tactics? :)
Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sophist_13 said:

I'll try to do it.

Excellent thank you.

 

9 hours ago, Sophist_13 said:

Firstly, soviet\russian army have been using the different models of RPO for last 30 years. We begin to use it from 1970s, it was PRO Rys, then RPO Shmell was designed, these toys were used in Afghanistan, so we have wide experience of using such equipment :) In 1980s old models of RPO were replaced by RPO-A. We used RPO in Chechny and many other wars. In 1990s Russian army got modern RPO-M. Briefly, our army likes man-portable thermobaric rockets ;)

To my mind, there is not something strange, that the most sources about RPO in russian. But i've tried to finde some sources in english:

http://gunrf.ru/rg_granatomet_rpo-a_eng.html

The effect of the warhead is comparable to that of a 152 mm high-explosive/fragmentation artillery round.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rpo-a-shmel-thermobaric-rocket-launcher.456338/

http://modernfirearms.net/grenade/rus/rpo-m-shmel-m-e.html

The blast effect of the RPO-M warhead is said to be comparable with that of the 155mm / 6" HE artillery shell.

OK I will review that and put together a comparison test and see what the powers that be think about it. Unless you feel like giving it ago? Something like comparing RPO, vs 40mm grenades vs 155mm artillery. Ideally we would want a repeatable test where one round of each lands on a similarly spaced squad. I'm thinking as I write now that could be setup. I am already not sure how a single 40mm grenade could be fired. So, perhaps a different design. Or perhaps the 40mm should not be part of the comparison. I'm going to have to think about that.

If you do decide to take a crack at this I recommend starting another thread since this one has a lot of topics swirling around and testing something should be more focused.

 

9 hours ago, Sophist_13 said:

I don't state that RPO is comparable with 152-mm artillery round, i just want RPO to be a serious thing, it cannot be less dangerous against infantry than AT-4 or Javelin or RPG.

Understood.

 

9 hours ago, Sophist_13 said:

Yes, some parts are equipped by ERA, but we can see (Syria and Afghanistan) american IFV, tanks and other units without ERA. So, they don't use it always.

I actually agree that having more options would be nice. This kind of thing might come in a module

 

9 hours ago, Sophist_13 said:

Oh, i say about units that are used in Russian\Ukrainian Ground Forces:

RU

RPG-30 - since 2013

MANPANDS VERBA - since 2014

RPO-PDM-A - since 2012

KAMAZ-5350 - since 2003 (really, how often do you see URAL-375?)

URAL-63095 - since 2015

KAMAZ-63968 - since 2015

Tigr KORNET-D1 - test part (about 10-15 units) since 2016. Some amount were bought by Algeria

Tigr ARBALET-DM - since 2017

UA

T-64B1 - since 2014

BTR-3 - since 2001

HMMWV with DSHKM - since 2016

DSHKM - since 1938(2015)

BMP-1U - 2006

I'm no expert so I'll say only two things.

1) some second line equipment (eg T64B1) may very well make it into a module. The current game is focused first tier forces and they had to put some kind of box around what was in and what was out.

2) others suffer from a problem where they are official equipment and some number were purchased but are not in large scale use. If I recall correctly the PPG 30 is in that category. I seem to remember reading on here that the RPG 22 was actually given to front line units in significant numbers while the 30 was not. That specific example is from my memory but I now that was behind more than one decision about what was in and what was out.

 

9 hours ago, Sophist_13 said:

P.S. Some thoughts about 'RU is underpowered' - A few hours ago i've destroyed american company in night fight ;) (Sorrow_Knight played the US)

Yeah, its way more grey than black and white. In a night fight that usually helps the US forces even more. So, well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That is not a terribly clear explanation of an IMHO rather irrational sounding request.....Having the vehicles sitting in the open with no other orders seems the best way of measuring their spotting ability to me.  The one thing that might be useful would be to disable the smoke launchers, but we can't do that AFAIK?

Steppenwulf has done the stats for you.....They are six posts above your own.

I'll try the explanation as to why again. @c3k does this one better than me. Here is the problem with the test broken down:

1) we know that the M1 has better visibility than the T90: Therefore the M1s will spot the T90s faster.

2) we know that the fire control system in the M1 is faster than the T90: So the M1s will acquire their spotted target faster

3) we know that the M1 can shrug off a hit or two (at long ranges anyway) and the T90 will only shrug off a hit once and a while: Which means T90s are more likely to die on a first hit

Please note I am *not* saying the T90 is a bad tank. There are three or four top tier tanks in the world and the T90 is one of them. I am just talking about comparing the M1 to the T90 since that is germane to your test.

So the problem with your many to many test is those three points cause a cascade the favours the M1 and running that test over and over and stating it is wrong that the M1 should always win and therefore it means that the T90s are not spotting well enough is not valid.

The point you have been making is that you feel the T90 is spotting worse than you think it should. So you should test point 1 above. Heck many would say forget the M1 start with T90s spotting T90s and see if the numbers seem right. Then compare that the the M1. Eliminate the target acquisition and the armour projection / projectile properties. Focus on spotting.

If you think that other things are wrong then test for those. Separatly. The game works by simulating real life capabilities and then seeing in scenarios how the equipment and commanders perform. It does not work by saying X M1s should win 70% of the time vs Y T90s and therefore we tweak the game parameters to get that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sophist_13 said:

The effect of the warhead is comparable to that of a 152 mm high-explosive/fragmentation artillery round.

  1. As far as I remember it's 122mm. 152 is way too much for 2.4 litres of fuel-air mixture in RPO.
  2. One important qualification for the HE - FA comparison. When KBP provides this marketing slogan they use a little trick here. They compare the INDOOR effects of an RPO explosion INSIDE the enclosed shelter vs. HE nearby explosions OUTSIDE the shelter. You can make rough comparison by pulling the Joules of RPO mixture burning vs. the Joules of HE shell TNT contents. And certainly there's no hope for RPO to attain effects similar to 122mm HE if RPO explosion is unconfined. The trick in itself is not that absurd as firing RPO from 150m one can hope to be more accurate than calling a fire support from many kilometres away.
Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...