Apocal

If you're referring to my results, no. I didn't notice prior to a few hours ago and don't have nearly as many datapoints as they like to see.

Oh, oops, don't know how I misread that. The current T-90A/T-90AM/T-72B3 vs. M1A2 SEP matchup is significantly less lopsided than the Sherman/T-34 vs. Tiger matchup of the WW2 CMx2 titles.

Yeah, sometimes weird results happen, and without a post-mortem damage analysis, we (as players) can't really say if it's just reality being unreal or something wrong with the modeling. I recall at one point a game with such a system realized that they'd modeled the gun components directly behind the mantlet by ten times; as a practical matter, it meant hits on the mantlet would always bounce -- any projectile from any aspect at any range. In CMx2's case, we'd just complain about mantlet's perceived effectiveness, Steve/Charles/etc. would shoot back that the mantlet's values were fine and so it would go until they looked deeper behind the scenes. On the other hand, I've seen stuff like a tank tilted right, turret trained out to the left which deflected a shot down into the track and immobilized the tank. People would scream bloody murder if you saw such a result in most wargames -- "How the hell does a non-penetrating turret hit take out my goddamned tracks?!" -- but **** happens. That being said, I ran a quick test in CMBS because I do remember oddness with AFV damage in CMSF being a little too consistent for my liking. I got six good "test cases" out of it, being intact enough to take a look at damage and as it happened in the first case. First case: A few hits, none penetrating, one to the front upper hull, the rest to the right front turret. IR optics knocked out, that's fine, but immobilized? For the record, this tank is hull down and nothing landed lower than the upper front hull. A few more non-penetrating hits to the turret strip off various exterior systems (laser warning system, smoke launcher, radio, CITV, etc.) but its only a partial penetration through the mantlet that knocks out the main gun and coax. Looks like locational damage is at least somewhat present and working well. Second case: Mislabeled hit text or wrong location for decal, but that is minor. Due to the way the track is orientated, the shot would have traveled through the turret. It didn't do much except degrade the laser warning system with marginal degradation of the tracks. I don't know where the laser warning would be located inside the track for CMBS' purposes, so I guess that (other than the track damage) this is alright. Third case: OK, WTF? Upper front hull hit, deflected by reactive armor... but tank is immobilized due to track damage. I actually looked all over this tank for other hit decals, especially around the tracks, but could find nothing else. Other than the tracks being knocked out, the rest is fine. Fourth case: Sole hit is high, just above the barrel sleeve, on one of the observation devices. OK, so locational damage isn't perfect in game; no redlined targeting, CITV or IR optics, but you do have a KO'd radio... and degraded track, yet again. Fifth case: Single hit just behind the Shtora "eye," mild exterior damage to the usual suspects, moderate damage to IR optics and tracks. Sixth case: Two hits behind the Shtora's eye, both deflected by reactive armor. Shtora (labeled as "EO Jammer") is degraded but operational, in spite of having two rounds smack inches behind it and splatter. However, the track falls off, possibly out of fright? As an additional datapoint, I've personally seen the CROWS take a sabot through-and-through, causing the system to be destroyed but leaving everything else on the tank in perfect working order. So, in conclusion, there is some degree of locational damage modeling as in the first case and to a lesser degree in the other five cases with exterior "soft" systems. That being said, there might be an issue with track damage being too common outside of actual hits on the lower hull or tracks themselves.

It's "mud guards."

I'm pretty sure (from what Steve has said) CMx2 is at or near the top when it comes to modeling the armor itself. The damage system does have room for specific subsystem damage. I saw on multiple occasions (testing the tank fighting positions) the Abrams' CROWS eat a sabot (hole decal and all) and show as redlined on the damaged subsystem display with nothing else damaged. However, I've had bizarre outcomes, like penetrating hits right through engine blocks leaving the engine perfectly intact. It seems like exterior systems (radios, machine guns, smoke launchers, etc.) have hitbox damage but interior stuff is dice roll.

Nah, much harder getting information on (for example) IFVs, just because no one really cares. There are plenty of treadheads running around that people make good money writing articles, publishing books and releasing juicy tidbits of information on main battle tanks. Not so much for CV090s or LAV-IIIs.

I don't know about all their titles, but the armor modeling in Steel Fury and Steel Armor is simpler; they use a greyscale map alongside the normal texture to determine thickness in RHAe. So let's say you were modding in a Sherman and wanted to have a particular bit of 35mm thick armor, you'd set the RGB value to 35 on the greyscale map and the engine would calculate it as 35mm. Of course, you could do other stuff, like adding a track link on the front hull, then assign it an additional armor value via the greyscale map -- let's say 10mm RHAe -- and the engine is smart enough to take it as 15mm + front hull armor value, with all the associated downsides of slabbing armor. As for damage modeling, it uses internal hitboxes with (I believe, I never got this far into the guts) a similar color-code for functionality. So engine, transmission, ammunition stowage, fuel tanks, vision blocks, suspension, roadwheels, links, drive sprockets, gun breech, gun barrel, turret drives, external weapons, different crew, etc. are all simulated. War Thunder (Ground) has a similar system for damage (internal hitboxes) but its more advanced, with a full-out spalling simulation, interior "armor" of some components (spalling won't do much to a solid engine block, but the ricochets off the block might bounce around and brain your gunner), internal explosions, fires, oil leaks, power failures, etc. On top of that, it has a much more advanced armor model (compared to Graviteam) that does incorporate different types of armor, hardness, spaced armor, skirts, rudimentary anti-HEAT schemes, etc. The high point for me was when a 122mm HE round blew a spot welded slab of add-on armor off the front of my tank, while simultaneously knocking the two crewman directly behind the impact unconscious.

Yes. Someone on another forum cued me and I used this article for translation of the relevant bits. "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies." In one of their last large-scale exercises (Zapad 2009), Russian conventional forces flat out lose and the situation is only salvaged for Russia once they nuke a few Polish cities whereby NATO declines to escalate to a general exchange since getting LA, NYC, Paris and London nuked isn't an acceptable tradeoff for avenging Warsaw in kind.

They've been implicitly suggesting they'd escalate straight to nukes in case of a NATO response to Ukraine basically since the whole thing began. Perfectly in line with their doctrine as well, they don't think they can defeat NATO with conventional means, so if we ever threaten what they consider a vital interest (in this case, Ukraine not being in NATO, where they'd become untouchable) Russia is going to nuke some off-brand, non-nuclear NATO member as a demonstration of resolve. That's why the NATO reaction to Ukraine was to firmly rule out any kind of direct intervention.

Steel Beasts and War Thunder (Ground) get pretty nitty-gritty with armor/damage modeling. I think WW2 Online got pretty deep as well, but that was years ago for me. It might be cool if CMx2 ever got a post-mortem damage reporting system, because it can be pretty informative.

Fifteen meters is just about right for regular (image intensification) night vision in foggy conditions at night. I don't have enough experience to say that the thermal figure is just as accurate, but it fits the general trend and within the ballpark I'd expect.

Yes.

Perhaps impassible tiles? I don't know, it might be that in-game it isn't as much a concern, although the automatic smoke deployment definitely is a spoiler.

A foggy night? I would say ten feet is extreme, but yeah, regular (non-IR) night vision gear is pretty well degraded in those conditions.

I just setup a quick test map with the two-tier fighting positions. The laser warning behavior causes tanks to do weird things. Since the TacAI doesn't account for terrain, the tank will orientate towards the threat and reverse, even if it means driving sideways out of their fighting position instead of just backing down to the turret down position. You can kind of micro-manage two tanks in real-time (or at least I can anyway) to get them to go hull-down, get off a shot, reverse to turret down and reload, then pop back up for another engagement, but I can't think of any way of performing the same feat in WEGO.

Got a handy diagram of how these positions would be arranged in relation to each other?

They are more reluctant to do it (compared to CMSF), but they'll still sometimes let one fly.

Doubler doesn't say anything about Stuarts firing canister in Closing with the Enemy. He mentions Stuarts only in passing and in the chapter about the bocage fighting, doesn't once refer to canister rounds.

Nah, each dude uses his own spotting gear when he goes into SPOTTING status. It's why sometimes the Javelin gunner or marksman will be the only one engaging a target while the rest of their squad or team just stand there like they don't know what's going on.

Yeah, I've just never seen a round get a full pen on an MBT and fail to damage something inside. It may be because my (limited) sampling includes mostly vehicles with terrible internal arrangement prone to exploding though...

Honestly, who gives a **** about YouTube comments?

It is modelled; run an Abrams out of HEAT rounds then have it fire the main gun on a BTR like 2km away. The round will (sometimes) go right through without doing much of anything. Or, you could simply watch a Tigr being hit by the CROWS 50; a lot of full penetrations, but not much damage done on a per-round basis.

They'd still occasionally fire Javelins of their own initiative if they spotted something.

Now that I think about it, I've never seen that happen to a full-up AFV in-game even though it apparently happens IRL often enough.

JonS argues that the US would never deploy the A-10 in the face of modern air defenses, which justifies its exclusion from CMBS. panzer argued that the same line of thought should apply to the Su-25. I mentioned that the MQ-9 is completely defenseless but still made the cut. Now they are arguing about Luftwaffe CAS during WW2.