Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/16/2021 in all areas

  1. The Battle Continues Bravo The battle continues! Bad news, another AT-14 team is spotted on the left side of the map behind defilade by Bravo. Luckily, they won't be able to get a shot on my men unless they reposition. Bravo will keep a close eye on them and report in. The BMP-3 that was harassing Bravo's men reappears, pouring down coax fire onto SSG Raney's position. Luckily, his grenadier SPC Bannon was able to send a 40mm HEDP round onto the front of the turret. This round partially penetrated the turret, but more importantly scared the **** out of the BMP-3 crew. Bravo's 3rd platoon takes contact from a SLA sniper across the bridge leading into town. Other than that, Bravo's sector has no other significant events. Delta Back to my company. The first spotted AT-14 is knocked out by my first platoon (led by 2LT Valente, a great armor commander), specifically SGT Lerner's M1A2 SEP. The last major event of the second minute of combat is the spotting of a second AT-14 on the mosque hill by my men. Luckily, the 107mm mortars are doing a great job of keeping the crew's heads down. Unluckily, from what my men have reported, the AT-14 crew is unhurt. Good thing I have tanks Had a bit of a hiatus between turns, but I should be back to posting updates pretty regularly! In the meantime, enjoy some action shots of us boys from TF 1-8. (My company is so close to helping Bravo, but we can't rush in and get murdered by those AT-14s) (SPC Bannon taking aim with his M203) (PFC Olson laying down fire with his M249) (SLA paratrooper shooting at Bravo Company men with a Krinkov) (SGT Lerner's M1A2 SEP engaging an AT-14)
    9 points
  2. IanL

    Professional.

    Thank goodness for that. I hate subscription software - except for things that are actually services (like file sharing, web hosting, email stuff that actually has running costs). I have dumped companies when they moved to subscription only. Having said that there would be no where for me to go if you guys decided to do that but I would *HATE* it if you did. ;D
    7 points
  3. Wanted to jump in real quick... There is a lot going on in a combat formation, spotting is only one aspect and one of the many things they juggle at the same time. The way a real world formation works is they spot for activity in a sector or general area, each part of a formation having a different assigned sector, then as potential areas of interest start to pop up (in CM terms FOW icons) these formations can conduct a detailed focused search of those areas to determine what, if anything is actually there. This takes time. Just like it often does in CM. It is rarely fast, unless the enemy units are moving or firing... then units get identified very fast indeed. Works the same in CM by the way. I truly believe that CM has spotting about right.. not perfect and there are always odd situations... but its close enough to be a very good representation of small scale combat, in my opinion. As for Steel Beasts.. I have played it many times though I sold my license several few years ago. I also preferred to play it as a wargame, but I had a lot of frustrations doing so that I would prefer not to get into on this forum. Suffice it to say that SB is a wonderful game that has a lot of wow moments, but it has a much different focus than CM. They are not really comparable, other than the fact that they represent combat in 3D... the approaches are miles apart. I would be curious to know how detailed the SB spotting system actually is.. but to be honest, the fact that many say they prefer it, and that spotting is easier in SB than CM tells me that it is probably more abstract than you might think it is. In my experience if some aspect in a simulation is easy and works as expected, that simulation is probably flawed in some way. Bil - Co-designer/creator of CMCW
    7 points
  4. Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
    7 points
  5. I think this might go beyond "strategy" and deeper into personal philosophy. Try not coming across as a rude troll, for a start. This is our house and "no" you cannot comment on anything you like...try it and see how fast this thread gets locked up and you facing a ban. I am not a "CM homer" (seriously how that poor name got dragged through the mud us beyond me and a testament to a big problem of our time. How one of the greatest writers of all time got that name hijacked by a yellow cartoon character makes me cringe)...I am a CM "owner". Bil, myself and Cpt Miller, with BFC and some outstanding beta-testers built this floor of the house and frankly I find it offensive when someone comes here to promote an outside game while denigrating ours. I would never think of, and would condemn in the strongest terms, anyone going over to the SB forums (or any other wargame forum) and exhibit this same behavior. CM is not perfect, no wargame can ever really achieve that, but it is the best in the niche it has (my opinion) and we are going to work very hard at keeping that up. Go play SB, hell after all this talk I am getting tempted to really go try it out...it looks like a good game and I wish them all the luck the angels of heaven can spare. Wargaming is a niche market so anyone playing anything is a win for all of us working in it but, for the love of all that is good and righteous, try not to be a rude jerk about it....the internet has enough of those already.
    6 points
  6. Ok, this is not even close to "scientific" and the fact that some might actually think that is 1) a poor reflection on the modern education system and 2) frightening based on what we have been living through for the last 18 months. Based on this "study" SB could be just as inaccurate as CMCW is claimed to be as none of this is linked back to RL data. It is linked backed to a lot of assumptions, which are again not linked backed to any real world data. The main assumption/bias is "it should be easy to see another tank at 2000m because I can do it in SB therefore CMCW is broken." The OP is in effect using one simulation (SB) to try and prove that another simulation (CMCW) is not working properly without ever establishing that the first simulation (SB) is accurate in the first place (beyond a vague "Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel", but then so is CM, huh?) How easy is it to actually see an armored vehicle at 2000m? Having spent time in AFVs and tanks..."not easy" was my experience as 2km is a very long way away. But I never tried it on a flat open field nor in either an M60 or T72. Just because you point the tanks at each other does not mean the modeling behavior is anywhere near the same. First off there is TACAI in CM where SB has a human brain that not only set up the test (so knows there is a tank out there) but is specifically pointed at where it knows there is a tank. Take SB, create a 360 field and then don't tell the human subject where the threat is, or that there is a threat at all...now time how long it takes for that human to see a threat at 2km? Still likely be faster because it is a human brain in a totally different simulation. The issue here is actually "simulated individual buttoned up spotting". (Take the same test and open up the T72, you will see spotting increase dramatically because you now have TACAI scanning the horizon with binos as opposed through a sight. Now do a whole tank platoon and you will see spotting happen even faster because the tanks are talking to each other). So the questions being asked is "which individual tank has better buttoned up spotting: the M60A3 or T72? and "Does CMCW model this correctly?" and (apparently) "Does SB model RL behavior better?" So if you want to be "scientific" you would first have to build a real-world framework of how these tanks have (or should) behave based on sound data, then test each tank, in each game system under identical conditions (which is nearly impossible...human brain) to try and deduce which game is modelling RL better.
    6 points
  7. I am a tanker. In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc. They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.
    6 points
  8. Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel. Combat Mission Cold War and Steal Beasts have a lot of things in common, so it would be interesting to compare how two games simulate combat. In order to do that and to make as precise experiment as possible I put t72A (m1) tank that is featured in both games against M60 TTS tank that is also present in both of them. To keep experiment clean I used default "flat map" and the same weather and time conditions - clean weather, the time is June the 1st, 12:00. In CMCW I had to use additional "formation" units of observers, but I put them behind tall walls, so they didn't interfere in the process. In CMCW skill level of both of the tanks was put on "regular". Steel Beasts doesn't have skill level feature. Under created conditions t-72A looks directly at M60's side. It is oriented from South to North, M60 - from West to East. The distance between them is 2 km. The conditions are the same in Steel Beasts and Combat Mission Cold War. That how it looks like in Steel Beasts: How it looks like in CMCW: What T72 gunner sees from his position from the very start: As you can easily notice, M60 is immediately and perfectly visible from gunners sight. The same with T72's Commander's sight: The results: In Steel Beasts t72's AI spotted M60 almost immediately, which is not surprising, taking into account that it has perfect view on the target. It took t72 about 2 seconds to spot the opponent and about 18 sec to hit and destroy it. In CMCW something opposite happened. I ran several tests and t72 couldn't spot m60 once. Its optics was not enough to spot the tanks directly ahead of it at the distance of 2 km during clean daylight. In fact, every time M60 spotted t72 first and killed it. It took about 2-3 rounds and from 1,5 min to 5 min to kill t72. t72 didn't see the opponent despite m60 was firing at him. How it ends in Steel Beasts: How it ends in CMCW: The CMCW test scenario is attached. You can make your own conclusions. T72VISION TEST.btt
    5 points
  9. Lending credibility to this document, Paul Gorman is legit. He was a TRADOC guy all the way back to DePuy's tenure in the mid-70s, so hed had over five years working on solutions to this very problem. I'd argue hes was a bit more willing to.... instrumentalize his analyses for the sake of pushing an agenda (usually based on the gear he was hoping to get the Army to acquire), but overall pretty good. The analysis, though, like most US analyses, overrates the T-72 in glaring ways. Take, for example, the fact that on pg. 12 he bases part of his conclusion on the fact that the T-72 had a laser rangefinder. As weve discussed, it didn't. It used coincidence, less quick and accurate. The information you cite from page 14 is something you see pretty commonly in these documents. "Oh no! The T-72 is 63% better than the M60A3! See my numbers!" Except that much of that assessment is based on soft factors which are nearly impossible to quantify, and even if they were almost always tend to overrate strengths and ignore or downplay weaknesses (because, I'd argue, theyre sales pitches. But thats another conversation entirely). This document, I think, is really trying to get at what Gorman thinks is "faulty intelligence" regarding the capability of the T-72 and the potential detrimental effects it might have had on US R&D at the time. Hes especially concerned that if the armor and strength of the T-72 had not been revised upwards, the US may not have proceeded with the "XM1-E1" upgrade program (we would know it as the M1A1) or the I-TOW, and instead focused on the Dragon and bringing the M60s up to snuff. I would suspect, though I dont know for sure, that this has something to do with the sudden realization in the west that the T-64, -72, and -80 were indeed all separate designs of progressing quality. For many years the T-64, for example, was called the T-70 and the US was a bit unsure as to what its relationship was to the T-72. This only cleared up around the late 70s, though that hadn't filtered down via TRADOC training documents. I have an old edition of FM 100-2-3, think its from 1980, that calls the T-64 the T-70 and only hypothesizes about better armor (if memory serves). All this is to say its an interesting document, but being used out of proper context here. The US didn't know at the time what the later T-series tanks were all about, nor did they have a good grasp on equipment and capabilities. Keep in mind the last tank the US had gotten a hold of were T-62s from the YK war. I dont even think the T-72 came westward until Desert Storm. This led to an analogous to WWII "Tiger mania," T-72 mania. Desert Storm really shattered that illusion because so many officers had grown up in the 70s and 80s fretting about the T-72 just to find out that it wasn't as good as they one they had planned for. That is to say, Gorman's mostly actually wrong here. Now I think the pendulum often swings too far the other way, the T-72 was still pretty good especially in Soviet hands. And Gorman is allowed to be wrong because hes living through the fog of war, and anyway isn't quite trying to do what the title makes you think he is (classic Gorman). BUT I think that also makes this document, for our purposes, suspect.
    5 points
  10. The Forty-Eighth Minute Objective ROT Here you go Sgt Plucky, have some of this! The scouts continue to advance and get a spot in the trees outside the objective. It's another AT rifle team. I wonder if this is the same one who fired on me from the scrub at the start of hostilities and retreated? A Tiger and a Panther are moving into firing positions. The Panther starts firing this turn on the reverse slope at the western end of the village. Next turn the other panzers will be moving up and start to area fire on the objective. The scouts will stop and engage the AT rifle team while the rest of the zug catches up. The SPWs are going to be moved up too. NAI5 The AT rifleman is taken out very quickly by a burst from a SPW. I must admit I'm impressed with the accuracy of my troops thus far. The contact icon is still there so I assume his pal is still alive. I'm going to start advancing towards the treeline net turn. SITMAP Still quiet on the right, the attack continues on the left. As I identify units in the objective this map could get messy so I'm going to provide a close in view whilst the attack is underway. Things should start heating up nicely now. It'll be interesting to see how he reacts to these attacks, if at all. MMM
    5 points
  11. JM Stuff

    JM´s Corner

    Some news in my Corner ! Limbered gun ! Unlimbered ! Auch die Deutschen sind auf den Weg !! German are also on the way !! So far for now JM
    5 points
  12. I believed the same but then I found a post from Steve: "there is a bonus for spotting things within an Arc" Also: "The spotting bonus is only within the colored area of the arc. Outside of that there's no bonus." Links:
    5 points
  13. Sequoia

    Professional.

    It was a faction of the Sicilian Mafia whose leader was a Combat Mission fan who put up the cash for Fortress Italy as he wanted to play a game set in his homeland. He was a really good player, proving "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line" !
    4 points
  14. MikeyD

    Professional.

    Back-in-the-day a nerdy college friend told me how he once found himself sitting at a table with the publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine at some event. He proceeded to spend the entire time bending the poor guy's ear telling him EXACTLY what was wrong with the magazine and how EXACTLY to fix it. I'm sure the publisher guy reeeeeally appreciated all that valuable input from a random pimply 17 year old.
    4 points
  15. danfrodo

    Professional.

    so maybe instead of endless discussion of things Steve's made clear are NEVER going to happen, we could return to the fine forum tradition of harrassing BFC about what are next releases and when will we get pre-order. And after pre-order we can harrass them about delivery for a couple months. At least we'd be complaining about something that is real instead of all these fantasies.
    4 points
  16. 4 points
  17. 4 points
  18. Great detail - well done. Good slight rises here and there where they would be realistically. You also punched the streams down one level, which generally makes sense, and provides cover for infantry or vehicles into risks. There's a few other map tricks I and others use to approximate the way the world looks as best as able- -Tall Yellow Grass under fencing in areas where it isn't generally trafficked by foot, also works along walls. This also adds LoS cover for infantry where one could expect it in real life. -Tall Grass types along the streams in areas where it gets overgrown. Maybe some rare tiles of mud, if they aren't overly annoying in game-terms. The extra cover works well for infantry in a game that pretty often rewards realistic-terrain maps with good gameplay. I play a good deal at the ground or near level, and these things matter in looks and game-play when zoomed in. Looking forward to it.
    4 points
  19. The longer German campaign is designed in 3 phases, just like the Soviet one. The Germans get armor reassignments just about every 3 battles (Konrad I,II,II - KG Darges/Wiking twice, and once with s PzAbt 509). It is winnable (in game terms), but it’s the tougher of them - it’s the German side in 1945. The infantry need to watch out for taking losses in that campaign - a concern of the Soviets at this point, as well. Both are designed to highlight the issues that both forces faced historically. This is also highlighted in the lack of transport for the German side during Konrad I-III. Getting that balance is the trick with campaigns based upon historical situations where one force is the focus.
    4 points
  20. How different do you think this thread would have gone if you'd run those tests and included them in your original post? A lot of these 'XXXX is broken - fix it Battlefront' threads go the way this one has gone because of the way the original assertions are made. As others have pointed out, and yes it may be a misinterpretation of your intent, your posting history makes people think that your intent with these threads is to further an agenda that there is a Battlefront conspiracy to make the Soviets deliberately weak. This is why I talk about the presentational aspect of your initial post. You may be right about T-72 spotting, but I'll let others who have greater knowledge and like doing these sorts of tests continue the discussion. I will also be pleased if you are right and a fix is applied in a future patch. I personally have not seen much of the T-72 in-game because it wasn't in GSFG at the time and so the stuff that I've produced, which I prefer to bear some resemblance to reality, doesn't have them. I think I tested an early version of MikeyD's Between Two Autobahns which had them but didn't see anything that looked particularly odd because of the ground layout and how I put my plan together. I did not expect the Soviet force to have many opportunities to get eyes on and target me and pleasingly enough that is pretty much what happened. Personally I agree with others that Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission is an apples and pears comparison. Of course there is some common ground in what they're simulating but they are fundamentally different beasts . Steel Beasts I think is probably peerless in its simulation of being an AFV crew member, without the joys of track bashing, getting knocks and bruises from solid bits of metal, living and working under someone's armpit and a heck of a lot of noise, and its sweet spot is AFV vs AFV combat. It does other things less brilliantly.
    4 points
  21. Your unit would turn to face that direction making the center of the arc the new front facing. Think about this: micromanaging arcs to improve spotting would create a game within the game that the AI cannot play at all. Every one of you (except Sgt. Squarehead; he’s special) that believes arcs improve spotting is using your god knowledge of enemy unit locations to place narrow arcs on the locations of enemy units that you have knowledge of, but that the unit does not (if it had C2 knowledge it would receive a ? spot that would itself increase chances of spotting). That is certainly a game to be played if it worked that way, but it is in no way realistic in overall outcome.
    4 points
  22. @dbsapp +1. What @Sgt.Squarehead said above is probably a large part of the problem. I'm not sure if its a bug or engine limitation but it is shared across all nationalities. If you want to lobby Battlefront to model telescopic sights I'm with you, my friend. We can add unconventional forces with demo charges and modern mine plows to the list. It's in our gaming interest to have the simulation as realistic as possible and our small community as united as possible.
    4 points
  23. The problem here is that no answer will be good enough. The fact is, if someone thinks that CM is so fundamentally broken, then fine. Play Steel Beasts. End of discussion. Life is too short to throw temper tantrums, especially pointless ones.
    4 points
  24. pintere

    Favorite/ Easier Force

    Both historically, as well as from a gaming perspective, I'd say the main issue is less of which force is better/easier to use as much as which side has more variability in their options. Let's take a look at how each side stacks up: Infantry Although the Germans do have their good machine-guns, almost all Soviet squads have a higher complement of automatic weapons overall, and their mix of light MGs and SMGs will usually overwhelm the typical German infantry unit that still is mostly filled out with soldiers equipped with Kr 98 rifles. If the German unit is equipped with StG 44s (i.e. Begleit, Sturm & Volksgrenadiers) then the balance swings in their favour, but most units do not have StG 44s. Although the German infantry does have a distinct edge in anti-tank weapons (Panzerfausts/Panzerschrecks are far superior to anti-tank rifles), most of the time it is fighting other infantry and not tanks, and so I'd give Soviet infantry the advantage overall. Mechanized Infantry This definitely goes to the Germans, with a catch. The German halftrack units have an excellent array of weapons and vehicles that gives them a considerable degree of flexibility on the battlefield. The Germans also have lots of special vehicles (e.g. AA vehicles) that the Soviets have no equivalent to. However, it should be remembered that both historically and from a gaming perspective, most German infantry (and even mechanized infantry for that matter) did not possess that many halftracks and other specialized vehicles. So this advantage usually doesn't mean all that much. Armour This comparison is interesting. From a purely technical standpoint, Panzer IV < T-34/85 < Panther, and Tiger < IS-2 < King Tiger. Thus, again, although the most powerful German armour is technically the "best", the Soviets have standard issue tanks/assault guns that outclass the more frequently encountered German armour (which is already rare enough as is). So I'd give this one to the Soviets as well, although only from mid-1944 onwards. In a nutshell, I'd say being the Germans is easier when you have the best they have to offer. A force equipped with Panthers, halftrack equipped infantry (especially Sturmgrenadiers), Sdkfz 251/21 AA vehicles plus armoured cars/scout halftracks represents a very powerful armoured fist that ought to be reckoned with even in the last days of the war. However the bread-and-butter Soviet complement of T-34/85s, IS-2s and SMG equipped infantry will usually be more than enough to deal with your average German infantry/armour. So I'd say that, for the period RT covers, the Soviets are easier to play when averaged across the board, but whenever the Germans can assemble the best mechanized elements they've got then they can absolutely tip the scales in their favour.
    4 points
  25. The Fiftieth Minute Objective ROT The bombardment continues. I make a stupid mistake and try to move some teams up without having established fire superiority and I lose 3 men, 1 KIA and 1 WIA in different fireteams. The DP gunner spotted last turn took the first two out, not sure who got the third. I've not heard a peep from Sgt Plucky so I assume he's been knocked out of the fight. One of the casualties was a MG gunner so I will try and recover the weapon. The panzers are inching closer and now in range of the forces in the town and start taking small arms fire but nothing bigger than that so far. I would expect there to be 45mm guns defending the objective, he may have them keyholed further back so I still need to be quite cautious. My advancing infantry do get a spot on another squad in the building next to the one spotted last turn. One of the Panthers also has the spot. The SPWs got in on the action this turn, plenty of fire going into the objective now. NAI5 and KG RECHTS Nothing to report, the infantry continue to advance and no further contact. SITMAP 1 Kompanie are almost at their jumping off point. I think I'll give it another minute or two of suppressive fire and then they can close on the objective. I'll share my plans of how to do that in the next update. On the left I noticed that the trees at NAI5 are actually on a slight reverse slope and I can only see into it from the left side of the road so I'll be moving my scouts over onto a small rise so they can put some fire in there and see who shoots back. The new contact in the objective has been added: MMM
    3 points
  26. Combat Mission: Shock Force 2 AAR Attack in Brandenburg By: beeron Introduction I decided to create this AAR after being inspired by my wargaming heroes, Bil Hardenberger, Jeffrey Paulding, IICptMillerII, Domfluff and several more on the CM discord and forums. You will see their influence in this AAR. For this battle, I chose GeorgeMC's excellent scenario "Tactical Vignette 98-3 Attack in Brandenburg SF2". The battle is an intense one, with the remnants of a company team fighting for it's life against a competent near peer threat, while a QRF rushes to save them and finish the mission. I have modified many aspects of my game visually, including BLUFOR and OPFOR skins. Feel free to ask if you'd like them. Mission TF 1-8 INF is to push through the town of "Brandenburg" in order to secure the bridge that crosses the "Ohio" River. Bravo Team was ambushed while rushing to set up a SBF position, and must be rescued before they are annihilated. Brigade has ordered me to take over their mission to secure the bridge and rescue their survivors. Objectives Neutralize Sahrani Liberation Army resistance in the town of "Brandenburg" Occupy Objective White Rescue surviving elements of 1st platoon, Bravo Team Reach Route MOE, the MSR Desired End State Resistance in the town suppressed Bridge across the Ohio River secured Surviving elements of Bravo Team rescued and casualties MEDEVACED Tactical Map Enemy Forces S-2 had limited intelligence on the enemy, they suspected veteran SLA mechanized airborne units reinforced by Crack Special Forces elements. Unfortunately, they were right. Bravo-6 radioed they were ambushed by a company sized element of SLA mechanized airborne, reinforced by a few BMP 3s. To add insult to injury, my Delta Team has spotted several SLA Special Forces AT-14 teams by the Mosque, a serious threat to the well being of any human being in an armored vehicle. These forces are no joke, an overconfident commander could easily take heavy casualties before reaching the town. The AT-14 does a good job at killing any American armor put in the wrong hands. The are the biggest threat to my company right now, located on the southern part of "Brandenburg" by the mosque. These AT-14s occupy the high ground, which gives them the ability to overlook any avenue of approach my company team can take. They must be neutralized before I can execute my maneuver plan. (SLA SF Operator) (SLA Airborne Trooper) (SLA Airborne BMP-3) (A Knocked Out Special Forces AT-14 Team) Terrain & Weather The weather is good, if hotter then hell. There is a gentle breeze from the west to cool off the troops just a tad. This town hasn't seen rain in about 2 weeks, leaving the sky clear and the ground very dry. Off road driving should not be too complicated. The terrain surrounding Brandenburg is hilly, with both the north side and south sides of the town containing high ground. I expect plenty of ATGM teams from both sides. The town of Brandenburg itself is pretty small, with tiny communities on the outskirts. Civilians have evacuated the area, and only a few remain leaving the ROE extremely flexible. However, before my company team can reach Brandenburg, they either must cross two streams, or take the MSR that Bravo was ambushed on. I decide I don't want to suffer a similar fate to Bravo and opt to cross the streams. Troops I am in command of D/1-8 INF attached to 3rd BCT, 4th ID. Delta team consists of two tank platoons of a mix of M1A1HCs and M1A2SEPs and a platoon of mechanized infantry riding in M2A3 Bradleys. None of my vehicles are equipped with ERA or any extra protection against shaped charges. Supporting fires consist of a platoon of 120mm mortars, with the addition of a 120mm mortar carrier riding into battle with my company. (A Squad Leader from my mechanized platoon engaged with the enemy) Initial Scheme of Maneuver The time is 11:10 and I have 1 hour and 20 minutes to achieve my mission. Delta will move to the high ground at Hill 37.9 and then into the town to rescue the remnants of Bravo and destroy the enemy. Delta's preparatory fires will be with a section of 107mm mortars firing airburst on the AT-14s down south. Bravo has called for danger close mortar fire across the street onto enemy positions, practically on top of themselves out of desperation. They are fighting for their lives and must be rescued as soon as possible.
    3 points
  27. landser

    Professional.

    What a thread, not the first time the curtain's been pulled back, and thanks to Steve for engaging. Not much I've read here surprises me, and Combat Mission is what it is as a result of this mindset. There's good in that and bad in that. Each player/customer can judge what that is on his own criteria. I'll continue to vote with my wallet as all of us can, and should, do. Ultimately the buck stops with Battlefront, it's their skin in the game, and rightfully they should call the shots as they see it. Any other thing is just noise. I'll be critical of Combat Mission, but not of Battlefront. I could just make my own damn game if I don't like it. Well, no I can't, but you get the point.
    3 points
  28. And for those still tuning in, ran a couple more tests. Lone T72 at 1000m vs M60A3 (had to dismount the A3 as it was starting to see a lot better even from the back at 1km) So interestingly, the arc length the tank has to scan (at 90 degrees for arguments sake) is half that of that at 2000m (1570m, makes sense) and its mean time to full spot drops from 85 secs to 39 secs...slightly better than half. And then back out to 2000m but I put a full platoon of T72s (4 tanks) on a line about 100m apart...very interesting. So as we can see, spot times go way down when these tanks are working together, but that is not the interesting part. The arc length at 90degrees/2000m is 3141 and 785 is about 25% of that per tank if they divide the arc up evenly (again makes sense). 21.5 seconds is 25% of the 86 seconds we saw in the original to-full-spot time for a lone tank at 2000m. Not definitive but those tricky lads at BFC appear to have linked spot time to scan distance, or at least this is a working theory.
    3 points
  29. Well as has been demonstrated here, repeatedly, I really don't have to do anything, apparently. See, I can come on an games forum and then compare it to another game, not owned by that company. Then I can make a bunch of unfair and misleading claims based on that outside game. Oh, then I can berate players that they don't know anything about that other game...in their own house. And then I can think that this is somehow not really rude. The only comments I have made about SB is 1) it is a different wargame [aside, there used to be rule here that other games were to be discussed in the General Forum] and comparing it to CM is apples to steam ships and 2) it clearly has a human in the loop targeting option. The screenshots in the OP opening post clearly show the player able to peer through a scope and see a target. Very interesting that it can be completely hands off, and if the OP ran AI only tests (something that he really has not claimed) then at least we are comparing AI to AI (again a little rude). Regardless according to those screenshots a human can still see and interpret what the AI is seeing very differently than CM. Now, let's talk about "backing off" for a moment. Your current angle is to come on a CM forum and promote an outside game, which you are clearly doing, this is very bad form. If you want to participate in a discussion on how to make CMCW better, welcome. But coming into another game forum to essentially advertise another is really just...well, you get the point.
    3 points
  30. Trust me, BFC is very aware of all the spotting complaints. Personally - just speaking for myself - I think there is a combination of factors that skews things a bit. For one thing I'm not sure that gamers realize how difficult it is (per veteran accounts as well as various 'spotting tests' done in the 19th century - the human eye hasn't changed since then) to spot anything at all on the battlefield - up to and including stuff that's firing directly at you. I'm also not sure that gamers fully appreciate what a human being looks like at 700 meters (for example). On the one hand you have to make spotting such that a game can function (the empty battlefield) and on the other hand you have to try and make something that an average gamer can reasonably associate with reality and that's a difficult wire to walk (gamers who may or may not have an appreciation of what something actually looks like 800 meters away). I think probably the biggest spotting 'hole' in the game (if you will) is probably anything movement related. Movement draws the eye and assists in spotting something. Binoculars will bring something a lot closer through magnification, but of course your field of view is way more restricted than it would be with the naked eye. So typically I would expect that if something was stationary (even sitting in the open) it would be difficult to spot at various ranges (for example, an infantryman standing in the open might not be seen with the naked eye beyond 700 meters if he isn't moving). However if something is moving you should notice it even with peripheral vision with the naked eye at reasonable ranges (not at 2000 meters for example) and then binoculars could be used to scan the specific area where movement was detected in order to firm up the 'spot'. Infantrymen could walk through an open field at 2000 meters and it's unlikely that you would even know they were there if you were looking just with the naked eye.
    3 points
  31. Did you all just skim right over Steve’s last post in that thread? So the "bonus" is, as I mostly remembered correctly, primarily due to the Facing of the unit and not a special bonus artificially assigned. This should clear up all questions being asked in the past page or two. Specifically: 1. The primary spotting advantage of a CA is to keep the unit from shifting it's Facing due to other tactical distractions. Meaning, if you absolutely want to make sure you keep a narrow portion of the battlefield under observation, CAs work better than non-CAs in theory. But reality means it comes down to distractions because... 2. A unit looking in the same exact direction in the same exact situation will spot exactly the same whether it has a CA or no CA (and not Hiding, obviously). 3. Units that have a 360 deg CA don't see any benefit from it other than limiting engagement range. 4. As I've said several times now, the "bonus" isn't that big of a deal. People trying to "game the system" by using CAs to increase spotting chances are wasting their time and possibly causing themselves some harm. Hope that helps. Steve
    3 points
  32. As soon as we are able…working on it right now.
    3 points
  33. Personally the US feels how it should. But the t64's legit cant see anything in front of them. Ive had M60 (A1?) on grishof spot vehicles deep in forests but my tanks are unable to spot HUGE m60s in the open. I would love to send people my save file. My entire match has been ****ed. Ive had better performance from t34/85. My post on the fgm with a few screenshots.. That was just 1/3 of the very odd spotting. https://thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/potential-issue-with-cmcw.33112/page-2
    3 points
  34. Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect.
    3 points
  35. It doesn't require any additional evidence to understand that optics of Soviet tanks in late Cold war period could easily detect targets at 2 km distance during daylight under perfect weather conditions. In fact everybody can spot tank at 2 km in the open field using cheapest binoculars, not to mention tank optics that costs dozens or hundreds thousands in USD.
    3 points
  36. On a range it doesnt make a difference (and the scenario discussed above is basically a range scenario) but even in open country there is no distincton between thermals and primary sight. The absolute longest you can take is while shooting under emergency conditions using the backup turret drives (which are very slow), the backup sight and manual ranging and then you have a max of 30s. And do note that isnt shooting at full sizd tanks but targets that only represent the internal volume. And the looking through a soda straw effect really doesnt matter at 2000m. For the primary daysight with the highest magnification it stopps being a noticable hindrance at 3-400m and lower magnification backup sights or the thermal low magnification push that way down. Yes youre never able to see everything at once but scanning is a thing.
    3 points
  37. The translation is way off ... Him: 'See anything?' Her: 'No love' Him: 'Are you sure ... we're being fired at ...' Her: 'I can't see sh1t' Him: 'Well something's out there.' Her: 'What do you f*****g think this is - Steel Beasts?'
    2 points
  38. One of the most irritating small things about the CMx1 command delays was that if you had a line of AFV's, HT's, trucks, whatever, you can bet that some were normal, some were green, some were vet, etc., and it really made a mess of the give the second vehicle a 5 sec delay, 3rd a 10 sec delay and so on, since different experience levels had different inherent delays. It made for some serious micromanagement to get down a road.
    2 points
  39. VAB, thanks for that, I think I may be starting to unpack this mystery a bit. Ok, so out of an abundance of curiosity I ran a series of ten tests on a different test set. I remembered something Steve once said about flat ground "not being flat and empty ground in CM". So even though it may look like a bald grass covered plain, in CM the numbers under the hood take into account small divots, grass clumps etc. So I tried an trick from the old days and put these tanks on pavement (see attached) and comparing to VABs original test it seems to make a significant difference. If you recall (third post on this thread) ranged from 9 sec to 443 (7min, 23 sec) for the T72 to spot at 2000m. In my test series it saw nothing nowhere near as long. So the longest for the T72 to do a (?) spot (i.e. there is something there) was 1 min and 28 seconds. Shortest was 15 secs. Longest to clear spot (I see an M60, lets kill it) was 2 min and 5 secs. Shortest was an immediate clear spot at 24 secs (gotta be honest, that one feels a little fast) The T72 won 8 out of 10 engagements but I had the M60 turned around backwards (the fact that it managed 2 wins is pretty interesting, that beast can see). With the longest time to first hit at 3:02 (but this was really crappy gunnery because they had a clear spot at 2:03). The shortest was 55 seconds. So what? Well first off we cannot look directly into the scopes of the gunner and commander in CM. I suspect that the TACAI basically scans the horizon until it "sees" something. To scan a 90 degree arc at 2000m is covering approx 3100m of scan distance (https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/arc-length, note I am not sure it works this way in RL and my math may be off), at the noted looking for a 3.6m tank...that is not something done in a few seconds. Then the TACAI has to fully identify the threat (is it a tank or a barn? It is a tank, ok whose tank?) So where does this leave this whole discussion. Well first off there does not seem to be much distance between CM and SB as originally proposed. Someone would need to do a series of AI-only test in SB to see how the numbers stack up. I also suspect that the game engines model open ground differently based on this pavement test. Some of the RL data is pointing to the T72 having visibility issues And probably should be seeing worse than the M60. Still at an average Zero to See/Start Shooting time of about 85-86 seconds at 2kms, for a last gen tank than is not bad at all. That may feel like a long time for a player with his feet up and ass in a chair, but for a crew operating a tank that is not a long time at all. Tank Spotting.btt
    2 points
  40. There was an unusual spotting bug discovered with Tiger I some years ago. The tank commander had bad forward spotting ability. It was found that the (invisible) tank commander was sitting sideways in his seat and the vision block wasn't in front of him. That was our first indication that there's more going on 'under the hood' with situational awareness than we imagined there was in the game. I recall spotting targets with the good-old T34-76 where the commander also acts as gunner. Commander up in cupola spots a target, slips down to his gunner seat and loses the target, pops back up and spots the target again, back down to the gunner's seat and loses it again. The 3 foot(?) height difference between commander's and gunner's station was the difference between seeing and not seeing the target.
    2 points
  41. You look at two SU76's at 250 meters and people think that CM is not realistic in spotting. Just turn of the icons and be honest with yourself. I exposed the shadows in post processing. They are actually more visible now. Spotting is at the first instance done with the naked eye. If you look through binoculars without knowing what you're looking for you suffer tunnel vision aka legally blind. Your C2 is important in other words a lone AFV is unlikely to spot anything.
    2 points
  42. @The_Capt Can you please continue the phrase "t72 in the above-mentioned .btt scenario can't spot enemy tank in the open field during daylight at the distance of 2 km that is straight ahead of it because..." Without going into generalisation about "spotting is hard", "thermals", "Soviet doctrine" etc. Just concrete explanation of this particular case. Thank you.
    2 points
  43. The inconsistency is mainly a function of the high variance. At 2000 meters tanks can spot each other in 5 seconds or 5 minutes. The average may be realistic but when a player rolls snake eyes on the spotting dice they think something is broken, especially if they are testing on a "firing range" which is not the environment the spotting model assumes. The other issue is that because spotting checks are by far the most CPU intensive task in CM they are every 7 seconds rather than continuous.* This means fast moving units can occasionally move over open ground without being seen for several seconds or even longer if first spotting check is snake eyes. *There are exceptions to this, I think mostly when units are firing.
    2 points
  44. The Forty-Third Minute Objective ROT The scouts return fire and it doesn't take long to supress the AT rifleman. The other half of the squad run over the road to get a better view. They engage and take him out with a burst of MG fire. The range is about 300m. Meanwhile the weapons zug (2 x MG sections) and the rest of 2nd zug push over the bridge. The first Panther arrives to link up with the Tigers. Meanwhile 1st Kompanie push along the road overwatched by the SPWs. KG RECHTS All's quiet on the right. The probing continues and I bring some SPWs up to try and make a bit of noise. I now suspect he has an OP in the farm buildings ahead as it would make sense given he needs someone with LOS to call in the mortar fire on the woods. Given the limited visibility this is the obvious place. It will be getting a burst of fire soon. SITMAP 2nd and 4th zugs from 2 Ko. are pushing over the bridge and advancing towards the objective. They are still well out of range of the town itself. The Tigers are going to move over next turn, I would move the SPWs first but given I suspect he may have ATGs in the area, or even T34s, I will be sending the big boys first. 1st zug/2 Ko. are nearly at KT7, they will be passing straight on through and investigating NAI5 which has the added bonus of providing a bit of flank security. 1st Ko. continue to advance. MMM
    2 points
  45. BornGinger

    Engine 5 Wishlist

    Now let's go to playing the game: 10) It would be great if there could be a cellar to some of them. This would be useful in scenarios where one party's defense line goes through, or very close to, those houses. If the attacker would use a lot of artillery, especially just before an assault of tanks and/or infantry, the defender could rush his troops into those cellars for shelter. There weren't always bunkers or pillboxes in hastily arranged defense lines during WW2, so cellars would be useful. And as bunkers and pillboxes are so easily spotted in the games, defenders inside cellars could hopefully be more of a surprise for the attacker. 11) Another thing about buildings. If the buildings wheren't only one large box with one or more floors but instead one large box divided into different sections on each floor, the destruction of buildings being shot at would have a more proper look and the floors would be more functional for the defending troops inside a building if the building was being destroyed section by section. The result of this would be that the ruined buildings could still be used for defending although some sections were in ruins. Another good reason for this could be that the house to house fighting could become more challenging for the attacker as each floor would have two or more sections (rooms) to clear of enemies. 12) If we could position AT-guns inside large enough buildings and barns, with parts of the walls missing so they can shoot from inside them, the fighting in the game would be more like in WW2 times. The Germans and Russians, and probably the Brits and Americans too, used this way of positioning AT-guns. They seem to often having had the doors to the barns not completely closed or the holes in the walls covered a bit to conceale the AT-guns. 13) Another thing that would be great would be to be able to hide AT-guns and tanks behind ruined buildings so they can be positioned on the side of the building facing away from the enemy, see the enemy through the holes of ruined building, and shoot at the enemy with the shells going through the holes of the ruined building. The way it works now the inside of buildings is a blocking entity with some kind of invisible wall so the direct fire line gets blocked as soon as it enters the inside of a building even though there are large holes in the walls. 14) To protect the infantry much better, the games would preferably get the kind of shelters which were built into the soil and covered with logs and dirt for some protection against artillery shells. These kind of shelters, and pillboxes, would hopefully not only offer more protection to the defenders but also be harder to spot. 15) It is also a bit silly that 75mm light infantry guns and different AT-guns are so slow to move around. From watching documentary WW2 footage it is obvious that the repositioning of them should go much quicker than they do in the games. The speed in which the crew is able to reposition an AT-gun or a 75mm light infantry gun could often make or break a defensive situation in a scenario. Below is a test of moving different guns forward 40 meters on a flat and grassy surface. When comparing those minutes of movement to what is shown in the video clip above it's obvious that the crew should be able to use at least quick movement when repositioning their guns. The dash movement should most likely be possible to use too, at least for the 75mm light infantry guns. Moving Guns 40 meters German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG18 2.30 minutes German 75mm light infantry gun IeiG37 3.15 minutes German 50mm AT-gun Pak 38 4.00 minutes German 75mm AT-gun Pak 40 4.20 minutes German 76mm AT-gun Pak 36 5.00 minutes German 150mm heavy infantry gun SiG33 5.00 minutes US 57mm AT-gun M1 3.30 minutes US 76mm AT-gun M5 4.20 minutes 16) One of the most annoying things in this game, and something that removes the fun of playing it, is the sometimes stupidly bad line of sight function. Many times a team of infantry, or an armoured vehicle, can be positioned two rows of trees deep into a forest and not see the enemy which is standing, or rolling around, just in front of them and many times a team of infantry or an armoured vehicle can be positioned behind a dense forest with bushes, corners of houses, telephone poles and other things between the other side of that dense forest and the enemy with thats unit being able to see the enemy and even shoot at them. If you're standing in a part of a forest which is for example two or three trees distance away from the beginning of the forest, you are able to see what's standing or rolling outside of it. And as far as I know a dense forest gets darker the deeper you look into it from a position outside of the forest. All the things between a forest and a person or a vehicle standing far away from the forest are also making it near impossible to single them out among the blend of different colours and shadows. So to have a unit being able to see through a dense forest and all the things between the forest and the enemy seems a bit strange, especially if it is part of a game which some people call a good simulation of the reality. 17) A similar notice can be given to windows in houses and how easy it often is for a force to see what is inside the house even from a quite good distance away without using a binocula. From inside a house one can easily see what is happening outside the window as long as it isn't too far away. But if one is standing on a field or a road, even quite close to a house, it isn't always easy to see who or what is standing or sitting inside a house unless they are standing close to the window or the lights are turned on in the evening. Unfortunately the game's line of sight function doesn't show this. The picture above is showing US soldiers rushing forward in an attack. The house to the left is on fire and so is the ground in front of it. I read somewhere that houses and ground on fire used to be part of the earlier versions of these games and it would be great if that function came back. 18) To have the ground and houses, and maybe even trees, sometimes being able to start burning if they have been hit by a bunch of high explosive rounds or if a vehicle has been hit close by would make the game more fun to play. If BFC is worried that some players would exploit this function I'm sure there will be some H2H player rules about this. BFC could also make changes to programming the AI-groups and make it possible for the scenario designers to move the AI-forces out of an area if there would be a fire in the woods. I read somewhere that both the Soviets and the Germans put woods on fire especially to force the enemy to leave those areas. So to exploit this function in a game should maybe not be frowned upon too much. 19) Trenches and foxholes that are more correct. Trenches could be a bit deeper so the troops have to stand up to shoot and don't have to crawl to avoid being shot at. If there was an animation which have the troops moving while slightly bending over, they would be able to walk in those deeper trenches to avoid being shot in the head or chest. To have trenches more correct would also make trench fighting with the troops more fun and interesting while they carefully move along the trench line and clear corners where enemies might lay in wait. Foxholes could preferably be deeper, single ones and more spread out instead of being shallow and in close groups of four as they are now. 20) It shouldn't be so easy to spot trenches and foxholes. If foxholes and trenches were made different than they are, moving your troops towards or beside them and being shot at would be an unpleasant surprise and not something you expect. 21) If a heavy machinegun-team is wiped out of their pixel life and a squad or a team of other soldiers are close by or are moving into the area where the hmg is standing it would be great if one or two of the men in this squad or team could move to the hmg and use it instead of having the hmg being viewed as abandoned. 22) When talking about machine gun teams I'd like them, and all other troops as well, to be able to move backwards a short distance instead of having them turn around immediately before they move to another position behind them. If you for example have an MG-team that you want to move back a bit to a better position, the team could be able to move to that position backwards instead of having them first turn around 180° and then move. To have troops being able to move backwards a bit would way avoid having them get shot in the back. Infantry that are tactically retreating doesn't always have to do that by immediately turning their back towards the enemy but could also move backwards a few meters while on the ready to shoot while doing so before they turn and move away. In a book about the German army during WW2 is mentioned the words "We went on long marches, carrying all our gear... We even had to practise retreating in a series of backward leaps — a skill which might always come in handy". I get it that those backward leaps were exactly the movement backwards during a tactical retreat while keeping their eyes open for attacking enemy soldiers. 23) It would be great if the armoured vehicles, like for example halftracks, could reverse a bit slower. Just as lorries, armoured vehicles and tanks can go forward in four different speeds it could be useful to have them reverse in different speeds. To reverse a halftrack slower could be useful if the crew want to use their machine gun when they are doing a tactical retreat and that way support the infantry which is falling back with them. 24) And to have tanks and other vehicles being able to reverse without shooting out smoke grenades every time would be great too. 25) Infantry units that are using the slow movement (crawling) are often not aware or their surroundings but only aware of what is on the ground. I have read on the forum that units see what the animated troops look at. As the troops who are crawling always look down and thus have their eyes on the ground just below them, they often miss to notice enemy vehicles and troops being fairly close. 26) I wish vehicles wouldn't get stuck in a splash of mud as easily as they do now when the weather isn't soaking wet. Dry weather, damp weather and cold weather would most likely not have the mud sticky and deep enough to cause them to get stuck, especially not if the splash of mud, which is one mud tile, is by the road and there is only one or two mud tiles where the vehicle is going. Mud on the fields on a day with very wet and rainy weather or after a long period of rain would more likely be more treacherous and cause vehicles to get stuck and immobilised. This would especially be true if the vehicle has went over more than two mud tiles as it takes some time for the mud to build up under a vehicle. If an AI-tank with AI-tankriders would get bogged down and immobilised the result is that the AI-tankriders sit on that AI-tank throughout the scenario. It would be preferable if AI-tankriders could jump off a tank by themselves if it has become immobilised, or been standing still for too long, and later on follow their AI-groups movement orders to make the battles more enjoyable. It isn't fun to have a look at the map after a battle is over and see a large bunch of soldiers sitting on vehicles that have got stuck in a splash of mud in the beginning of the battle. 27) Armoured vehicles could determine better when to use HE and when to use the MG. It happens sometimes that one single enemy soldier who is running away or popping up from a foxhole for a look is being shot at with HE when it would have been enough to use the MG. A bit stupid to waste HE on that. 28) It would be useful if the different gun crews were be able to abandon their gun and later on man it again. It sometimes happen that a gun crew is being attacked which makes them run for cover just to have the threat gone and them unfortunately not being able to return to and use a fully functional gun. That's it for my list of changes.
    2 points
  46. Battle of the Bands?
    2 points
×
×
  • Create New...