Apocal
-
Posts
1,833 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Apocal
-
-
I meant less information and more if we start talking about rarity the T-90AM is pretty much hypothetical at this point in terms of Russian use.
Oh, oops, don't know how I misread that.
The CITV on the T-90MS also has the same TI system as the gunner. I wasn't factoring anything in, I was using an arbitrary number for the effectiveness of the tank vs the other tank. The Abrams is probably 3x more effective, than the T-90AM in game, it can take on 3x T-90AM and win lets say. Maybe it should be made less effective in some way, or made more expensive/T-90AM cheaper? The latter likely being the most agreeable solution. Numbers wise and 'murica platforms stronk, this, that, or the other - it doesn't make for a much fun game if the opposition is a non entity.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. -
One of the reasons I am pushing back a little on claims is some of the very weird stuff I used to see in CMSF. The one example that stands out is a rear hull hit by an RPG taking out weapon controls.
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.
-
(mud guards? not sure of the technical term)
It's "mud guards."
-
So how does that compare to CM2?
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.
-
Further from that if we're getting into tank types that should be uncommon, the T-90AM sort of tops the list there no?
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.
-
Can you definitively say that GT uses the path of the penetrating round to determine which subsystems (including the meatware components) are affected? Or might it be that they model a greater number of discrete systems because they're using a "damage table" for behind-armour effects and it's easy to put a few more specific things into a table?
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.
-
Hmm... Did you read Russian nuclear doctrine and condition which permit use of nukes?
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.
-
The mere fact that he explicitly stated he was even considering nuclear options in the context of violating Ukraine's sovereignty, is enough for me. However, I would love to get a direct translation. I haven't found a transcript yet in either Russia or English.
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.
-
There simply is no other game out there that models the penetration characteristics and protection levels the way CM does. HEAT is different than APFSDS. ERA is different then RHAe which is different than composite armor. All is modeled.
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.
-
Checked out the spotting distance again. It was actually 15m in dense fog + night. My US opponent says he can see up to 50m with thermals. So do you think the distances are alright?
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.
-
Won't it run out of smoke after one or two uses though, granting even that is a bother?
Michael
Yes.
-
OH yeah that would be a problem. In my simple test the threat was nearly straight ahead so I did not see any over the side reversing. Humm that could be an inconvenient problem.
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.
-
I know I asked this before and accepted the arguments about inferior equipment but the Russian infantry with their NV scopes cannot spot a single thing in a foggy night. Is that a accurate? The US troops and vehicles are actually at arms length and I still cannot see them. Can't even do blind fire on sound contacts.
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.
-
Yeah it could. Sadly I have to many projects on the go. Are you thinking of giving it a go? Could be a nice deep map where if could engage at long range while other forces hold a skirmish line.
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.
-
That'll certainly do it for building a scenario.
For folks building said scenerios, at least in US Armyland:
You have the following flavors of fighting positions:
1. Primary. This is where it is optimal for you to shoot the heck out of the enemy and where you would like to fight from.
2. Alternate. Still focused on the same engagement area as primary, but in a different position. Usually intended as where the tank displaces to once the enemy identifies the primary position
3. Supplementary. If there's two avenues of approach, the primary will focus on the most likely of the two, while a supplementary position will be available if the enemy does the unexpected
4. Subsequent. This is where the tank goes to once the first set of positions is threatened, or conditions are met to merit moving back. Often part of a defense in depth (so the enemy gets attritted to some degree, company withdraws to a subsequent position while the enemy is disrupted, crosslevels ammo and then gets ready to do it again).
This can take a LOT of engineering work and time, so in practice not all of these are full on fighting positions, like the Primary position might be a hull down position, while the alternate is simply a handy berm, with the supplementary is some low ground that offers cover, or might be fighting positions to different degrees (primary is turret down, alternate is merely hull, supplementary is a simply a scrape made by the company's M88)
All the same just an idea if you want to do it right, and it'll leave a convincing number of positions scattered around the map as effectively decoys.
Got a handy diagram of how these positions would be arranged in relation to each other?
-
Ok, so to confuse things I built a quick battle with TOW and Javelin ATGW's and fired them at soft (infantry) targets. What gives?
They are more reluctant to do it (compared to CMSF), but they'll still sometimes let one fly.
-
Bulletpoint,
Do you have canister? Stuarts in Normandy did and used it quite effectively vs MG nests in the bocage. Doubler in Closing with the Enemy directly states this as a tactic in Normandy for getting across the farm fields without getting eaten alive by the MGs firing from opposite corners, unfortunately, you can't duplicate the tactic, since you can't put infantry on them to blaze away when the tanks breach the hedgerow.
Regards,
John Kettler
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.
-
Would the assistant leader and squad leader getting optics actually have any spotting effect? I thought the entire squad had to have the optics to make it work as such.
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.
-
The damage system can be pretty random as an AP round can go thru a tank without much effect as well, we know energy past armor is the kill criteria but it's very random. More tests...
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...
-
Non of us want WW3 John but haven't you noticed that most times you may read comments on Youtube concerning tanks it could be any tank the Leo 2 always comes up as "The Best" yet it hasn't even been tested in any theatre of war concerning tank on tank combat as of yet.
It irritates me sometimes that they blindly worship something which could turn out to be a total failure.
Maybe I worded it wrong but you know what I mean.
Honestly, who gives a **** about YouTube comments?
-
For one it might just be never modelled. And even if it does the TacAI always chooses the proper ammo before firing.
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.
-
Split off AT team. Problem solved. Far more flexible than current total prohibition.
They'd still occasionally fire Javelins of their own initiative if they spotted something.
-
Thanks Womble IanL and Kieme
So in a way it is sort of like a real life simulator, although sometimes reality can have its glitches too like perhaps a shell can go right through a vehicle not damaging a thing but only creating a superficial hole on either side.
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.
-
Alright now I am confused about which of you is taking which position. And that isn't just the kimchee talking. Please if you are going to argue, put enough info in your reply that I can track what you are arguing for.
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.
How does the damage system work for vehicles?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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.