Battlefront
-
Posts
650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Battlefront
-
-
9 hours ago, kraze said:
I like how russian cope maps went from "successes of special operation" where they captured 1/3 of Ukraine and Transnistria being there
https://twitter.com/robbieburr/status/1512586971813584904?s=20&t=mzdWDRg54ZrauGmzqXnLuw
To "ongoing special operation", with the "containment zone" in the north (whatever that means) and Transnistria evaporating
https://twitter.com/KyleJGlen/status/1512523742009823240?s=20&t=mzdWDRg54ZrauGmzqXnLuw
In the USA we have a sports analogy for this (from American football):
"Moving the goalposts"
If the first declared objective fails, just change it to something easier!
-
6 hours ago, TheVulture said:
Yeah, I'm sure that's why they are doing it, and not because they've frittered away the ability to support those axes in any meaningful way.
Charles
-
3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
Not exactly. It can be fired in a direct attack mode in that it doesn't rely upon the aiming system, but the missile still fires down. It has no forward explosive capability as far as I know.
The distance between shooter and target matters a lot when you start talking about angle of attack issues. Firing from a 2nd story window against a tank 400m away will probably work. Firing from what looks to be a 3rd or even 4th story window against something that's directly below is an entirely different matter.
And if it was fired from the 2nd story, it's unlikely it had armed itself by the time it impacted. As AKD pointed out it has a minimum range as do most missile systems.
Steve
Do we know for sure that the missile was an NLAW?
Assuming it was, then what Steve said about the NLAW shaped charge being angled downward is correct. It's a rather unique construction.
Here's how NLAW works: it's designed to "overfly" the target, sense its presence (I think magnetically) and then detonate the shaped charge downward into the tank's thinly-armored roof, from about 1 meter above.
It stands to reason that aiming steeply down at a target below could cause problems with this sort of attack geometry, although interestingly the Saab website says, "You can fire down 45 degrees".
I wonder if the problem has more to do with range.
The NLAW's minimum range is reportedly 20 meters. That's excellent for a (semi) guided missile, but in the video, the target tank is awfully close. I wonder if it's even closer than 20 meters. Maybe just 15m? Couple that with the steep downward angle, and it might explain why the detonation didn't seem to work properly. (It seemed to explode a bit too early).
Charles
-
Thanks for the feedback everyone. We are investigating now and will get this fixed as soon as we can. Thanks for your patience!
-
I am am going to, once again, scrap the entire install and install to the documents folder. It's never easy.
(MacOS) Please install to the Applications folder. That's how it's meant to work. Trying other locations may cause some files to be placed incorrectly.
-
Can't see a way to enter pack activation serial no.
On the Mac, please go to the "Documents" folder where your CM Battle for Normandy app is located.
In "Documents" you'll see an icon for "Activate New Products". Run that. It will let you enter your BPack activation key.
-
Not seeing any new QB maps; latest ones I have are dated Feb 2015.
The new QB maps are there, but just have older file dates. Look for any QB map with a "BP1" at the beginning of its name.
-
Everyone,
Sorry about the file name problem. It seems many of you have got it working already but just in case not, please rename your downloaded file to:
Windows
CMBN Windows 3.12 Update Installer.zip
Mac
CMBN MacOS 3.12 Update Installer.pkg
This has been corrected on our server for future downloads. Apologies for the confusion and I hope you enjoy the Battle Pack!
Charles
-
I got it working. Started in administrator mode in the start menu and it ran fine. I thought I had tried this before but this time it worked. Nice demo.
Thanks, and I'm glad everything is running smoothly now.
I take it the random battle generator is not operational in this demo?Right. It lets you peek at the setup screen, but won't generate a quick battle.
-
We fiddled with a few dials and levers under the hood for v1.20.
Er, I meant to say, under the "bonnet" for the British Forces.
-
The computer player and human players all have equal spotting abilities. There is no difference.
-
Anyway, I don't think that Charles' rationalization of the easier spotting of crew-served weapons is based on thermal sights in the first place.
Mostly not, but it is a little bit related. For example, the optics on the Stryker do get a small bonus even in daytime because of thermal abilities. It's pretty abstract because it's difficult to attach precise numbers to this sort of thing, but high-quality optics/thermals do generally give CM soldiers a modest spotting advantage.
Mainly it's the big ATGM though. CMSF's environment is intentionally sparse, and even the brush is "light" brush. There just aren't many places to hide in the desert. And at less than 500(?) meters range to the enemy, the ATGM teams are starting out in a situation that's not ideal for them. They'd rather be at 1000m or more, where they can hit but are harder to see and (mostly) outside of small arms range.
-
Thanks but it won't be necessary. It doesn't appear to be a bug.
Hiding doesn't add much concealment to troops when they are mostly in the open (i.e. they have nowhere to hide) and/or have a big difficult-to-conceal weapon like a tripod-mounted ATGM.
-
v1.20 allows the specific spotting of heavy weapons, like large ATGM launchers on tripods that stand out quite plainly in a relatively open landscape. And once you see the ATGM launcher, you know where to look for the crew. It's not hard to find them, especially when there are dozens of eyeballs looking, many with binoculars, at soldiers who are in what is very nearly open ground, as in the example posted just above. Additionally, the ATGM crew does not appear to be "hiding" as claimed (hiding is a specific state in the game). They are prone, but that is not the same thing.
Everything looks fine to me about that situation.
-
You're right - it shows unallocated ammo. But it ought to show total ammo, so this is a minor bug. I'll fix it.
-
Troops who are panicked will skedaddle and end up facing the direction in which they moved. And then they might do some more skedaddlin'.
These guys are scared and thinking most about running away.Troops who are not panicked, but make an evasive move, will turn to retain their original facing after the evasive move. These guys are still under control and prepared to fight.
-
Thanks to flamingknives for the video link, it had a lot of good stuff in there. Also to JasonC for the insights from the USMC guide.
I have made these changes to the CMSF building penetration model, which you will see in the upcoming v1.08. I also updated my earlier post in this thread to reflect the changes.
</font>
- Versus buildings, all small arms projectiles include high-speed shatter as part of the penetration calculation, so you'll notice a "shatter gap" in the updated data. I had to estimate a lot here, since there is little hard data to go on.</font>
- 5.56mm x 45 (used by the M4A1 rifle) is additionally reduced in penetration capability due to its especially high tendency to fragment on impact.</font>
- Versus buildings, larger projectiles (e.g. .50 caliber) do not provide quite as much extra power as one would expect from normal armor-penetration behavior.</font>
- I made an error yesterday when translating the CMSF data to some of the percentages I posted. The error was not in CMSF but in the way I reported it. That's corrected in the updated post as well.</font>
-
Re: Body Armor
The protection provided by body armor in CMSF is reduced by a factor related to the "armor" penetration capability of the round striking it, in much the same way (though simpler) that we handle anti-tank shells hitting tanks. In other words, body armor won't do much to stop a .50 caliber round.
Re: Progressive degradation of cover
We simulate this abstractly. That's why you see a broad range of percentages for the bullets penetrating building cover in my previous post, instead of a more black-and-white yes-or-no answer to "does this bullet penetrate?".
Re: Absolute data on cover penetration
Nope, we don't have any either.
This sort of thing is really hard to find, and even if we could locate some, I doubt we'd be able to do a reliable direct apples-to-apples comparison between all the different ammo and gun types and cover types we have in the game. So instead we base the game equations on known data like bullet mass, caliber, velocity, and other factors like steel core, etc. Re: Is every bullet counted?
Yep! It wasn't in CM1, but in CMSF we count 'em all. Even so, it takes an enormous number of bullets expended to cause each enemy casualty in real modern warfare (on average). Of the top of my head I remember estimates for this from Vietnam and it was something literally in the tens of thousands of bullets fired for each enemy hit.
Re: M4A1 vs AKM
Adam - if you have specific information concerning M4A1 rounds not penetrating cover well please let me know. I can make adjustments if necessary. Actually I just saw a bit on Wikipedia saying that the M4A1 ammo can potentially shatter on impact if the striking velocity is above 823 meters/sec. This would reduce penetration capability at close range where the bullets are fast (and we saw the same phenomenon at work with British 2-pounder and Sherman 76mm AP shells in CM1) so I will look into it.
As for the AKM not shooting through walls very well, please state precisely why you think it should be able to do so. It's a relatively slow, lightweight, "short" round. Those characteristics do not make for good penetration capability. It's possible that the M4A1 penetration should be reduced (due to potential shatter effects) but I do not see any reason why the AKM penetration performance should be increased.
Re: 5.56mm x "39"
Oops, typo, yes that should be "x 45".
I edited it above. -
I thought you guys might find some of the inner working of CMSF interesting as it pertains to this thread, especially because it's been updated for v1.08. Here's how CMSF rates the following weapons for their ability to penetrate a typical CMSF building's outer wall at various ranges.
CMSF buildings are considered to be "medium" strength. They're not rickety old shacks but they're not stone or concrete bunkers either. Keep in mind that CMSF allows shots to go through windows and such in buildings too, so we're only looking at the chance to penetrate the building wall here.
You may notice that sometimes penetration is better at longer ranges. This is due to the "shatter gap" experienced by projectiles striking the target at especially high velocities.
Weapon: AK-74
Muzzle velocity (m/sec): 900
Round: 5.45mm x 39
Round Weight (g): 3.25
Chance to penetrate CMSF building: </font>
- 0m: 4%</font>
- 100m : 13%</font>
- 200m : 0%</font>
- 300m : 0%</font>
- 400m : 0%</font>
- 500m : 0%</font>
* * * * * * * * * *
Weapon: AKM
Muzzle velocity (m/sec): 710
Round: 7.62mm x 39 (actual diameter is 7.9mm)
Round Weight (g): 7.97
Chance to penetrate CMSF building: </font>- 0m: 31%</font>
- 100m : 16%</font>
- 200m : 0%</font>
- 300m : 0%</font>
- 400m : 0%</font>
- 500m : 0%</font>
Notes: The 7.62x39 round used by the AKM is not a "standard" rifle bullet - it's smaller and lighter. It packs less punch than a typical WW2 rifle round, for example. It's much closer to the "kurz" ("short") round fired from the infamous German MP44 of WW2.
* * * * * * * * * *
Weapon: PKM
Muzzle velocity (m/sec): 825
Round: 7.62mm x 54R (actual diameter is 7.9mm)
Round Weight (g): 9.58
Chance to penetrate CMSF building: </font>
- 0m: 34%</font>
- 100m : 41%</font>
- 200m : 34%</font>
- 300m : 24%</font>
- 400m : 8%</font>
- 500m : 0%</font>
This was the standard Soviet rifle cartridge of WW2. It's the same diameter as the round from the AKM, but the PKM fires this one with a higher velocity, plus this round is heavier because it's longer. Higher velocity and greater mass hitting the same-sized target area yields greater penetration.
* * * * * * * * * *
Weapon: M4A1
Muzzle velocity (m/sec): 905
Round: 5.56mm x 45
Round Weight (g): 4
Chance to penetrate CMSF building: </font>- 0m: 10%</font>
- 100m : 0%</font>
- 200m : 10%</font>
- 300m : 0%</font>
- 400m : 0%</font>
- 500m : 0%</font>
Notes: A very high muzzle velocity and a heavier projectile (compared to that of the AK-74) suggest that penetration ought to be pretty decent at short range. However, the bullet is constructed such that it often shatters upon impact at high velocity, reducing the expected penetrative performance. There is a noticeable shatter gap too.
* * * * * * * * * *
Weapon: M240
Muzzle velocity (m/sec): 853
Round: 7.62mm x 51
Round Weight (g): 9.56
Chance to penetrate CMSF building: </font>
- 0m: 37%</font>
- 100m : 44%</font>
- 200m : 39%</font>
- 300m : 33%</font>
- 400m : 23%</font>
- 500m : 8%</font>
* * * * * * * * * *
Weapon: M2
Muzzle velocity (m/sec): 899
Round: 12.7mm x 99 Mk211 AP-incendiary
Round Weight (g): 43.48
Chance to penetrate CMSF building: </font>- 0m: 86%</font>
- 100m : 81%</font>
- 200m : 86%</font>
- 300m : 82%</font>
- 400m : 78%</font>
- 500m : 74%</font>
Notes: Ma Deuce doesn't play around.
* * * * * * * * * *
Weapon: KPV
Muzzle velocity (m/sec): 1005
Round: 14.5mm x 115 BZT
Round Weight (g): 59.56
Chance to penetrate CMSF building: </font>
- 0m: 100%</font>
- 100m : 100%</font>
- 200m : 96%</font>
- 300m : 91%</font>
- 400m : 87%</font>
- 500m : 90%</font>
Notes: Ma Deuce's Russian cousin is even bigger and badder.
[ March 09, 2008, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront ]
-
There are still a lot of uncontrolled variables in there. What two squad types are you using? Are the soldiers exactly the same in both type and number other than the difference of holding an AK-74 vs AKM? What other weapons are involved that might be skewing the results (e.g. RPD, RPK, SVD)? I'm not sure CMSF even has two squad types precisely "equivalent" like this.
Certainly for starters I can tell you that the AK-74 guys will have substantially more ammo than the AKM guys because their rounds are smaller and lighter. They can "spray and pray" for a longer time than the AKM guys can. This is important because when firing into a well-protected target (like a building) you have to expend a lot of ammo to do some damage. The AKM guys will simply run short earlier than the AK-74 guys do.
As a general rule, better Syrian troops carry the "74" series of small arms while the lesser troops (e.g. militia, reserves) carry the older "47" series. There are differences between these forces beyond the small arms, even if you're already correcting for experience levels. For example, the body armor they have (or don't) often differs.
There are a lot of potential differences here that are probably not possible for you to control when picking a couple of squads from the TO&E, and these are the likely factors you're seeing take effect in your tests, not differences in wall penetration capability.
-
It's fixed for v1.07, which will be released in a couple of weeks.
-
No worries guys, this bug has been identified and fixed for the v1.07 update which we expect to deliver in a couple of weeks.
-
Guys, I found the bug and fixed it. It will be part of the next update (which is not coming tomorrow or the day after either, so don't start refresh-monkeying just yet.
). BTW, anyone reporting bugs in hilarious comic-book format immediately gets first priority from me.
-
Keep in mind that the game may be showing the muzzle flashes but that doesn't mean that the particular soldier or vehicle of yours sees those same muzzle flashes. If he did, then the enemy unit would also be "spotted".
We let the muzzle flashes show even if only some of your units see the enemy shooter, just because it looks cool.
If it's confusing people, maybe we will remove that. The point is that all of your guys don't always see all of their guys, even when some of your guys see some of their guys. And we don't want to give your troops some sort of mind-melded uber-brain where what one man sees is instantly acted upon by a different man in a different location who does not see the same thing. But this being a game, the player (you) is, in a sense, that uber-brain that connects the "thoughts" of all your digital soldiers in a way that does not exist in real life. So we have to put some constraints in there.
As for reconnaissance by fire, troops have to have some idea where they should shoot. In real life your vehicle would not even know that enemies were in those buildings at all, most likely, and especially not which building specifically. Add to this that 85% of that building is not in his LOS, and it's pretty artificial to expect that the crew would not only choose to fire, but to choose to fire at that exact building (where the unseen enemy happens to be, not any of the 4 other buildings right nearby), even though they don't see anything happening. It's a problem born of the fact that one human player controls all the soldiers on his force, and his knowledge is effectively "shared" in a way that does not exist in real life.
We implemented relative spotting to solve the major part of this problem. Putting some modest constraints on area fire is the other part of this. The only restriction here is that if your unit can only see a small portion of a building, you can't area fire at it. That's all.
I edited it above.
This was the standard Soviet rifle cartridge of WW2. It's the same diameter as the round from the AKM, but the PKM fires this one with a higher velocity, plus this round is heavier because it's longer. Higher velocity and greater mass hitting the same-sized target area yields greater penetration.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Apologies if this has already been posted but I'd like to mention that over the last several weeks I felt bombarded by news about how Ukraine was planning a counteroffensive in the south. Yes, get ready Russia, Ukraine is coming and they're going after Kherson, hoping to slug it out and recapture some ground near the Black Sea. They're focused and you'd better believe they're putting everything they have into it. This news was repeated for a week or more, like a drumbeat.
Then BAM. Blitzkrieg up north.
To Ukraine: well played, sir.
They didn't just fool the Russians. They fooled the (largely) credulous media, which then helped fool the Russians even further.