Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them
robertiv

How accurate *is* CMBS?

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Rather than say "get good" I'll point you to some real examples of AFVs hit by artillery shells that Haiduk provided.

I think Squarehead has a solid point here.

Him having a solid point is fine. In fact, I may even agree with it. Doesn't change the fact that "get good" (or as the Germans say, git gud) is pertinent advice that should be heeded. Complaining on a forum, much like Russian "precision" artillery, is relatively ineffective against prepared Americans :)

 

Regards,

 

Sid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27. 1. 2018 at 5:10 AM, Thewood1 said:

I just ran a bunch of quick tests because I am not seeing what others appear to be seeing.  

An M1A2 without APS against AT-4Cs and AT-14s.  900m distance from each other.  In one test, the M1 is facing away from the ATGM.  In the other, it is facing 90 deg from the ATGM.

AT-14 fires and the LWS on the M1 immediately cause the M1 to rotate towards the threat and within about 15 seconds spots the ATGM.  This happens in both facings.

AT-4 fires multiple times in both scenarios and the M1 never spots the ATGM before being destroyed.

As mentioned above, the LWS is the difference.  In the older SACLOS missiles, the M1 has a very hard time seeing the firing unit, unless the M1 is looking in that direction.  With a laser guided missile, the LWS automatically orients the turret to the threat and allows rapid detection.

I haven't done a full test on the top of line T-90, but I think it will be similar.   I remember in CMSF, the automated LWS on the T-90 allowed the T-90 to spot laser guided ATGM teams.

I only ran the tests 5-6 times each, but its consistent enough to create the supposition.  This at leasts appears to be a reasonably realistic outcome.  Its more realistic than Steel Beasts, which gives AI tanks uncanny spotting abilities with ATGM.

 

So i also started to play with AT-4C and here are some pictures :) I call them AT-4C love :)

http://AT-4C love 01_zpsoojm8ooi.png

http://AT-4C love 02_zpsxm5rqvz2.png

http://AT-4C love 03_zpsqfhccxcj.png

 

 

Edited by Marwek77 aka Red Reporter

Share this post


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

Him having a solid point is fine. In fact, I may even agree with it. Doesn't change the fact that "get good" (or as the Germans say, git gud) is pertinent advice that should be heeded. Complaining on a forum, much like Russian "precision" artillery, is relatively ineffective against prepared Americans :)

 

Regards,

 

Sid

Verstanden!  Haha, I see what you mean. I admit I struggle myself against the Übersoldaten that are the Americans here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sid_burn said:

I have, sadly I was forced to abandon the game early on. It’s a difficult scenario that requires a lot of skill as the russians to avoid the attack becoming a farce. I can understand why the scenario would be difficult for less skilled players :)

Strange that.....See I've won it every time, just not using anything resembling realistic tactics or Russian SOP.  :mellow:

Did you rage quit.....I'm strongly suspecting that you did.  :lol:

17 hours ago, sid_burn said:

Him having a solid point is fine. In fact, I may even agree with it. Doesn't change the fact that "get good" (or as the Germans say, git gud) is pertinent advice that should be heeded. Complaining on a forum, much like Russian "precision" artillery, is relatively ineffective against prepared Americans :)

So basically you are admitting that this is an obvious and notable problem with the game and also that you are one of a number of active US trolls on the forum.....Bravo at least it's out in the open for all to see now!  B)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


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

Strange that.....See I've won it every time, just not using anything resembling realistic tactics or Russian SOP.  :mellow:

Did you rage quit.....I'm strongly suspecting that you did.  :lol:

 

I guess not using **** tactics lead to you winning, I'm not surprised ;)

Also I'm surprised to hear you have won it every time. The endless parade of whining would have suggested otherwise.

 

Quote

So basically you are admitting that this is an obvious and notable problem with the game and also that you are one of a number of active US trolls on the forum.....Bravo at least it's out in the open for all to see now!  B)

Lmao, I wish I could claim the title of number one active troll, sadly I think @IICptMillerII gets those honors; he's also more successful, like that time he got you put on timeout.

 

Anyways, you shouldn't be so hostile squarehead, I'm just giving you good advice, stop being bad and most of your problems, like losing t-90s to immobilized, damaged IFVs, will go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

Also I'm surprised to hear you have won it every time.

It took some pretty drastic improvisation on the first occasion and that's a fact!  ;)

14 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

The endless parade of whining would have suggested otherwise.

See now there you go characterising my pointing out a perceived (& bloody obvious to anyone who looks) problem with the game as whining.....Trolltastic.  :lol:

14 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

Lmao, I wish I could claim the title of number one active troll,

Keep working on it, I'm sure you'll get there in the end.  :mellow:

14 minutes ago, sid_burn said:

@IICptMillerII gets those honors; he's also more successful, like that time he got you put on timeout

Ah yes, the invisible muzzle flashes issue.....How could I forget that classic.  :D

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


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

See now there you go characterising my pointing out a perceived (& bloody obvious to anyone who looks) problem with the game as whining.....Trolltastic.  :lol:

 

If it were obvious it would be on the agenda for the devs to fix, yet they ignore your constant requests to fix it. 

When the people actually in charge ignore your repeated compalints, it stops being “obvious complaints” and instead becomes nothing more than the petulant whining of a sad British grog. But don’t worry, I’m sure the devs will listen to you after your 40th post on the matter. ;) 

 

 

Edited by sid_burn

Share this post


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

So we're going for personal insults now are we?

Your efforts are looking weaker by the second, you'll have to try harder than that if you want the Troll-Crown.  :lol: 

this is weak stuff squarehead, you’ve gone from bragging about your tactical acumen to pretending your above it all. Best be careful squarehead, you wouldn’t want papa Steve to come down and give you a spanking like he did last time ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't actually have any kind of point (let alone insight or knowledge) at all do you? 

You are just attempting to fan flames in an attempt to get someone (me) banned.....That's pretty classic troll behaviour.

Done with this discussion.  default_trolls.gif

 

Share this post


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

You don't actually have any kind of point (let alone insight or knowledge) at all do you? 

You are just attempting to fan flames in an attempt to get someone (me) banned.....That's pretty classic troll behaviour.

Done with this discussion.  default_trolls.gif

 

That’s very disingenuous of you squarehead, I offered simple good advice and you decided to be rude about it. I’m sad the discussion turned out this way. 

 

SLAVA Ukraine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think artillery is underpowered versus armored vehicles. Haiduk's evidence on the matter (They were T-64's?) solidified my views. I hope BFC will respond on the subject sometime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how or why this thread got personal.  It never should go that route.

As for the question about X vehicle, Y weapon, and Z outcome arguments are concerned... we never have, nor never ever in a billion years, "fix" anything without reproducible and empirical evidence that something is "broken".  Anecdotal examples is only a place to start a discussion, nothing more.  Not only is it impractical for us to investigate every single customer complaint of something being "broken" (we'd still be working on CMBO if we did ;) ), but it's not likely to produce much good anyway.  The primary reason is the underlying simulation is so vastly complex that it can very well be that Player A sees something wrong that is in fact wrong, but it is only wrong for a very specific circumstance.  We can test things this way and that, but unless we test for that specific circumstance we're not going to find a problem even if one exists.

As we've said since the beginning of the CM experience, people who think there's a problem need to prove there's a problem.  And that means doing "bench tests" to establish what the problem is and what factors are/aren't involved. Anything short of that is ignored unless it's a straight forward goof like all British forces in CMSF2 having only a single clip for their L85A2s.  Something completely hypothetical like that (heh) is easily checked out and easily fixed.  No testing necessary for those sorts of things.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, maybe take a look at the results that @Rinaldi posted on the previous page.....They do raise some questions, particularly the shot that hit the TOW launcher twice, it appears to me that the launcher is still functional (one of the two slots is still green):

1yxpzbZ.png

This in itself seems a little unlikely. 

The fact that none of these 'three round bursts' of fairly heavy artillery achieved a kill on an IFV suggests, to me at least, that something is wrong.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


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

particularly the shot that hit the TOW launcher twice, it appears to me that the launcher is still functional (one of the two slots is still green):

1yxpzbZ.png

This in itself seems a little unlikely. 

There is some abstraction around what actually gets wrecked in situations like this. So, keying into what piece of kit was hit on the model to what was damaged in the simulation will not always match. So, this is a limitation we likely have to live with.

 

7 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

The fact that none of these 'three round bursts' of fairly heavy artillery achieved a kill on an IFV suggests, to me at least, that something is wrong.

And this is the rub. This thread has a ton of anecdotal stuff about super vehicle X shrugging off all hits and being unaffected. @Rinaldi came alone and showed that was wrong. Yes, wrong.

Next, we get statements like the above. This has been debated before and I personally have no expertise so totally defer to others but really I'm not seeing a ton of stuff that shows this is totally broken. The work that @HerrTom (I think I have that right) showed some interesting things and showed some tweaking might be needed but I do not re call seeing a definitive result that things are wrong. I'll let Steve comment on how he views that. The pictures that @Haiduk have shared could be fed into something but to me it is really not clear what hit what at what time and how often. At least for some.

So, is your expectation that AFVs getting hit by artillery should be a near guaranteed burning wreck actually correct?

Share this post


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

So, is your expectation that AFVs getting hit by artillery should be a near guaranteed burning wreck actually correct?

I'm not suggesting that should be the only possible outcome or even the most probable, but it surely should be a possible outcome.....To date I've never seen it happen (with 122mm, don't think I've tried 152mm). 

20 minutes ago, IanL said:

And this is the rub. This thread has a ton of anecdotal stuff about super vehicle X shrugging off all hits and being unaffected. @Rinaldi came alone and showed that was wrong. Yes, wrong.

I'll accept that some of my comments earlier may have rather over-egged the cake, but there's a big difference between what we perceive on an 'End-Screen' to what we perceive during the game.....Can't tell you how surprised I was to see a Bradley that I'd clubbed with PGMs suddenly move off and start shooting when I activated a trigger (I believe), nevertheless it happened.  Keep in mind that this is an IFV we are talking about, not an MBT.

Share this post


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

The fact that none of these 'three round bursts' of fairly heavy artillery achieved a kill on an IFV suggests, to me at least, that something is wrong.

That's step one in a long process.  Step two is to prove there's something to be concerned about.  Step three is to try and quantify what, if any, problem there is.  Step four is to try and isolate what factors may or may not have an influence on the outcome.  Step five is to propose a remedy.

Even if experience hasn't taught us that most customer complaints are wrong when examined in detail, we simply don't have the time to do it.  Therefore, if you really care about this issue then run some tests and make a case.  Otherwise, it's probably best to not complain about it any more because every minute you spend complaining and debating people could be spent testing to see if there's a reason to complain.

Really, this isn't rocket science.  The Editor allows you to do quantitative tests pretty easily.  Sure, GOOD tests are somewhat of a dark art to come up with, but people do it all the time.  Frankly, one reason I don't personally don't test customer hypothesis any more is because I enjoy the "lab work" too much.  Yup, I think it's fun to set up bench tests and tabulate the data.  Geeky as it may be :D

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair comment fella, TBH I rather like mucking about in the editor, so I'll take a look.....Mostly up to my elbows in Shermans at the moment so it might take me a while though.  ;)

Trying to find accurate armour numbers for modern AFVs is like hunting for Unicorns.....WWII was just so much simpler.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IanL said:

There is some abstraction around what actually gets wrecked in situations like this. So, keying into what piece of kit was hit on the model to what was damaged in the simulation will not always match. So, this is a limitation we likely have to live with.

Exactly so.  To have a literal damage model would require knowing extremely detailed (and likely classified) information THEN trying to figure out how that info jibes with various types of hits.  That is very, very, very, very difficult (impossible IMHO) to simulate.  Even the military folks don't do it.  When they want to know how X responds to Y, the put it out on a firing range and hit it.  Even that's not conclusive since it's not financially possible to test enough to have a solid statistical sample, but at least it's something solid to examine.

2 hours ago, IanL said:

And this is the rub. This thread has a ton of anecdotal stuff about super vehicle X shrugging off all hits and being unaffected. @Rinaldi came alone and showed that was wrong. Yes, wrong.

Yup.  Which doesn't mean there's no problem, it just means the problem as stated isn't accurate enough to act upon.  In the famous words of some long ago poster... "fix or do somefink" is not a call to action at Battlefront ;)

2 hours ago, IanL said:

Next, we get statements like the above. This has been debated before and I personally have no expertise so totally defer to others but really I'm not seeing a ton of stuff that shows this is totally broken. The work that @HerrTom (I think I have that right) showed some interesting things and showed some tweaking might be needed but I do not re call seeing a definitive result that things are wrong. I'll let Steve comment on how he views that. The pictures that @Haiduk have shared could be fed into something but to me it is really not clear what hit what at what time and how often. At least for some.

Context is indeed very important.  The battlefield results from Ukraine, Syria, Lebanon, etc. are all very interesting to examine, but on their own likely don't offer definitive answers to any particular question.  Same for WW2.  How many times have we debated "the Sherman is the worst tank, see these pictures of destroyed Shermans as proof" or "Panthers are over powered in the game because I read it takes 5 Shermans to kill one Panther and I lost a Panther to a single Stuart!", etc?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×