The_Capt

This is fantastic stuff but who is "we"? Did someone write all this up before (very likely)? Do you have a link? I am not surprised to be honest, we have saying "amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics, masters talk C2...God holds the dice" and it would appear that this road is leading there.

CMx3..next year in the holy land?

I would be interested to see what the T80 can do.

Nope, 10 random tests as they came, if you are using exactly the same conditions then we are probably talking dice rolls. Those are good documents but I am still having a hard time accepting that a tank built in 1979 has a worse backup targeting system than a Soviet tank built a decade earlier...but stranger thing have happened. That, and competition range conditions is going to work very differently than wartime tactical friction. AKD is correct, we would probably need to do 100 plus run throughs to really see the curve but these conditions are very controlled if you load and run the exact same scenario 10 times. Scan arc looks like it is definitely playing a role here...and I am wondering how it handles broken terrain now. My results of a single tank at 2000m look very much like Centurian52s with mean time to clear-spot being only 4 seconds faster for the T64. I am pretty much past the whole "spotting is broken!" thing at this point. I am not really keen on comparing SB to CM because we might find ourselves in an awkward position; SB is SB and looks like a really good game, CM is CM and is a good game. Both are wargames with different emphasis/game engines and wargamers should stick together. What I am finding interesting is Tank Platoon behavior at the moment. So when the target gets spotted, not all 4 tanks immediately spot it. Normally one does and then the rest follow up, particularly after the first tank start firing. This might give us a sense of how C2 works. Communicating a target to a friendly unit is incredibly hard to do (it is there...right there! Where is there?), we have developed a lot of procedures and tactics to do it, simplest being "follow my tracer". CM looks to have something under the hood going on but I have not pinned it down yet. I can see why UK Mod got onboard with CM Pro because if you can simulate effective tactical C2 under various conditions repeatedly, you are moving past a training support tool and entering into operational research territory.

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.

Oh that is exactly the kind of study we need on the T72, except I cannot find the range to the targets...did you? I agree on terrain effect, I suspect that is why we see a disparity between CM and SB, or more directly in CM between "open ground" (which really isn't) and pavement. I think it is a leap to say that a Leo II and T72 has the same optics (even without using the thermals) but both are using an 8x sight. Questions remain: how quickly/easily is the sight traverse? How clear are the optics? Ergonomics of the sight itself. Stability. That said crew quality definitely matter and I would say the Leo II crews were not "Regular" by Soviet standards but that is again a guess.

Sorry I am not familiar with german tank gunnery standards. Which ones? Which tanks? When? Not sure, would have to test. Again CM is simulating RL, not RL, so how it creates delays of RL situations is bound to vary. You and me both, probably should have said "RL commentary" VAB posted a lengthy commentary, am seeing stuff around but no actual honest data on T72 spotting and gunnery ability...that might take a trip to library. Agree to disagree. T72 (or T64) has no thermals and is doing this thru an 8 power sight, or zero power periscopes. The time to spot "something" is less, time to identify that something with enough resolution to engage (CM does not model free-fire zones), 1 minute and 25 seconds is not crazy. I think this is the heart of the matter...how long should a T72 tank take to see, identify and start shooting at a stationary, none firing, tank 2000m away, in 1979? As I posted well back, I have tried to spot someone firing at 1500m and it probably took us at least a minute (we weren't really timing) with binos and to get sights on that target, it is the only real reference that I have but we all do have opinions I guess.

That matches what BTG and I saw, so pretty consistent. You might want to check weather conditions and time of day as well. I ran tests unbuttoned and in platoons and times were much faster.

Well it proves that spotting is a range of outcomes and that you are seeing similar behavior across platforms. None of it points to Soviet tanks being totally blind at 2000m, in fact in some circumstances I think we are being too generous (2 second to clear-spot?! So that one definitely landed directly on the scope.)

Oh man, those two snakes have been wrestling in the jar since we invented the damn activity. Another spin is time of day, I am seeing a lot different numbers for lower light (duh) but I am starting to think sun position may matter - not sold on this yet but... Also interesting is that for the T64A in your test (and someone check my math) it looks like the time-to-"I see it. let's shoot" is also 86 sec? But with larger outliers. AKD is right, one would have to do this 100 times to get a really good sense of the curve.

Interesting, so I assume you turned the M60A3 back around. This is not surprising in the least to be honest as the M60A3 has TTS which means that the T72 is a glowing dot on the horizon. It also matched some of the RL commentary VAB turned up. That plus an onboard real targeting, computer I am surprised the T72 stood a chance at that range. Absolutely and I am more and more convinced this was why Soviet doctrine was what it was. Not sure what the spotting capability of the T64 was but those results are also pretty telling, it won 8 out 10 engagements (not counting mulligan)? I am starting to wonder if it needs a nerf. Ya the unevenness we see is really how CM models tactical friction, which is highly realistic. Crew commander spills coffee on his lap, get a bug in the eye or happens to see the silhouette perfectly and the gunner is actually sober for once, all this is very realistic in warfare and every wargame models it differently, hence why I am not a huge fan of cross comparisons. As akd, just noted, at this point we are beyond spotting and really looking at engagement results.

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

So digging around on this (now a side hobby), does anyone know if the commanders sight on the T72 was fixed or free. I think it was fixed, which means the whole turret had to spin for target acquisition but I can't seem to find easy proof. Starting to see a trend on T72s spotting ability (about 14:24): And from wiki: "The basic T-72 design has extremely small periscope viewports, even by the constrained standards of battle tanks and the driver's field of vision is significantly reduced when his hatch is closed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72 This matches a lot of the western post-Cold War analysis I have heard before, but how much of that is biased is an interesting question. I don't think there is any doubt the T72 can see a target at 2kms in either game, the question is how easy it could do this in RL?

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.

Cool, on this we can agree entirely. I would recommend that whatever you set up, do it at least 10 times to give a sense of the range of results. Also anything anyone can find that links RL examples is very good. I am not keen on comparing game engines to be honest, for a lot of reasons but if one does they need to do those multiple times as well. Then switch up the variables to try and see when it works like you think it should. Lastly, were I you, I would take a pair of binos outside and see what 2km range really looks like...it is a very long way. Anecdote time! (put your helmets on, grampa has a story) So back in Kandahar we were doing overwatch for one of our jobsites (long story there, go watch "Hyena Road" for a crappy movie version). So as they will the good old TB decided to shake things up and drove up a technical to started firing at about 800m onto the workers on the site, basically harassing fire. We are up on a big hill back from the site so that damned technical with the PKM was close to 1500m away from us....we could barely see it with the naked eye (it was a shade of red). In fact we had to follow the tracers back to the source. We ended up in this dumb MG battle with us plinking away at the max range of our GPMGs (hitting exactly sweet FA) and them continuing to make local workers scatter. It was all fun and games until the Leo 2 pulled up and then hilarity really ensued. So couple lessons, a Leo 2 can see out to 2km like an evil bastard and make something die very quickly. Three guys with binos and a GPMG have a much, much harder time of it. Not sure where a T72 sits but I am not convinced it was easy. Oh, and it has been so long that I really buried it. I have seen a T72 hit something at 2kms but it was a school, and it could do a job and half, so that really does not help...the lesson being the problem with anecdotes.

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.

You realize that no lawyer in the world would let a client answer a question like this..."leading the witness!!" But in the spirit of making the game better (which we have all agreed is your true motivation here)...we don't really know. I am going to say right up front that I did not download your test file, virus checker went all "red whoopie light" and even though I totally trust you my PC does not. So I have run a few test of my own, VAB ran a whole series and posted them two posts down from your original which shows a whole range of spotting times, some happening in less than 10 seconds. Demo ran a test on page 6 that actually mirrors your results in SB very closely, My own tests look more like VABs, again a shortest time of about 14 seconds to spot, longest over 2 mins. So based on your single test run (unless you did more), my only guess is that you hit an outlier or there is a condition on your test that we missed somehow (what time of day is it in your test?). Your test is also problematic in that there is no time stamp on when that T72 died, all we know is that the M60 saw it first and killed it (which VABs test definitely show can happen). Beyond that, we really don't even know if that T72 is realistically supposed to be able to see a stationary tank at 2000m. My guess is "yes" but it is not anywhere near as easy as you have assumed it to be; however, without real world data it is very hard to tell one way or the other. So, despite a really leading statement (e.g. it implies heavily that the T72 should be able to spot, which it might not and if so, not likely very easily), there is simply not enough here to make a solid judgement call on what actually happened to your poor lone T72. All I can say with better definition, because I ran parallel test with different conditions, is that opened up the T72 spots a lot faster, which makes sense. Also, having T72s in a group and C2 makes a significant difference in spotting ability, so that all checks out. So in case that does not satisfy, my best guess is that your lone T72s spotting probability was low and it wound up spotting after it was dead on the curve...happens. Based on everything I have seen I am not sure I am ready to put in a bug report and ask for a change without more substantial data. So if you really want to help, try running that test multiple times and then play with the conditions like range, stationary vs moving, time of day. It might help us pin down if there is an issue. I for one am going to keep looking around for some concrete data on the T72s actual spotting ability. It has been a long time but as I recall it was not great but evidence/data on kills at these ranges would be a start.

I saw the M1 numbers too and based on other sources I think they were optimistic but if I were to look at 3rd Armd 50-50 would be my guess as well as they were frontline units in the theatre. I will have to get back to you on the Shtrum as I have not touched it since building the US campaign. I do recall it got nerfed because it had a TTS on it but that did not show up until much later. I will have to look into that one to be honest.

Well both sides seem to be fudging with poor quality tanks to be honest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_tank_formations The Canadians are reporting 195 Cougars and that thing was barely an armoured car. Can’t speak to that scenario, some are phone booth fights by design. We have tried to really max out map sizes where possible and are doing so again for the DLC (cant say where but we are making maps). A 4x3 km map (terrain dependent) is not a bad fit for a Coy TF when we factor in ATGMs etc.

Ouch, I assume you have been jockeying too. Well some games the gods of war are just not onside. Never a good idea to get into a tank sniping battle when Soviets, if you can avoid it (except maybe T80s). Soviets have to move and always push, no way around it. If they lost momentum then doctrine says they simply push another unit forward and around…they had something like 50k tanks for a reason.

I stand corrected, clearly SB sounds like a first rate simulation. So let’s try this: Unlike SB, which has a human-in-the-loop option for targeting as clearly demonstrated in the opening post (complete with screenshots) which started this ridiculous apples-oranges-Tuesday comparison engagement, CM does not and can only be played with human-outside-the-loop…etc etc.

In my experience unless you get unlucky with a first round hit (rare) they button up as soon as shots start landing or wizzing past. Opening up has worked for me, but hey it is a risk to balance with poorer visibility while buttoned up…each to their own.

My advice based on quite a few hours playing the Soviet is: - Open up. Soviet tanks spot a lot better when opened. They will button under fire (duh) but it gives them a much better early spot before the clang the hatch. - Keep them in effective C2. Tanks are designed to fight together and Soviet tanks spot a lot better when in C2 contact. - Know your effective range. Not all tanks are equal and they shine at different ranges. E.g T62s are really good at 1000m, I have frontally killed M60A3s at that range. But do not expect them to do as well at 2kms. - Troop quality and soft factors matter a lot. So in a game keep that in mind. Unlike SB, there is no human-in-the-loop in the targeting cycles so the player can only try and setup the best conditions for success. For the Soviets, with exceptions, the best practice is to not try and mince around at 2000m and play peeky-snipey, that is a western game. Close fast and hard, let your ATGMs do the long range work and then use speed and mass both of which were in good supply for the Soviets.

Huh? Not sure what is happening there. So Artkin is saying that the M150 is lit up even though no one can see it? My advice for all Soviet tanks is to open up, they spot dramatically better (except maybe for the T80) opened up...learned that one the hard way during the AAR fight. A lot of this sort of behavior is what makes CM realistic to be honest...and frustrating at times. The player is god, all seeing and floating over the battlefield. The player can clearly see the M150, or even if it reduces back to a "?" spotting, you know it is there. The TACAI is not really self-aware, and that is ok because troops in combat often are nor either (scope eye is a real thing). So CM models a bunch of weird stuff under the hood that often leaves the player screaming "but they are right there". More realism = less control, (still too much control if you ask me but it is a game after all). So looking at Artkins screen shots, is the tank out of C2? It is buttoned up, so if it is also out of contact it is about as bad as it can get for a Soviet tank. [went back and checked and in one shot, yes the tank is out of C2 with platoon and company which is not good]

As soon as we are able…working on it right now.