The_Capt

Heh, not at all. Well if it were accurate to the situation in Europe there should be roughly 42 T-72s up against those 17 M60s…now that would be a gunnery range test.

Guess it depends on what you are testing. The aim there was to show that collectively a group of Soviet tanks can spot very quickly at 2000m, not that 14 T72s can defeat 17 M60A1s...but apparently they can. Spot times come up in seconds, not minutes for both sides, which tells me CM is modelling C2 impacts on spotting.

Soviet armor is pretty tough across the board, they were no push overs. It is interesting that once we upscale, say go to a platoon, spotting for both sides goes way up. Then if you go to company it goes even higher. 2000m has to be on the outer edge of what these tanks can see individually.

Gotta, say, well spoken. As a CM "knight" I think the part that you might have missed is "history of behavior" which in this case is long and loud.

You know out of all of this, the fact that the M60 didn't see them either is interesting. Shows the rough parity we have seen elsewhere. Was that an A1?

Yes, I am a little ticked to be honest because someone keeps coming around looking for attention (even bad attention) without really adding anything to the game or discussion. Yes, but.I.did.not.pose.an.argument. You did. I never once said CM is perfect in every way, nor did I make a single hypothesis...I was "peer reviewing" yours which is pretty much as described for all to see. Now if I were to say.."hold on a minute, CMCW is modelling the M60A3 vs T72 perfectly" then, yes, I would absolutely have to demonstrate that. In this case I need only prove that your study is flawed, which has been exceedingly easy. What?! First year logic is what you are leaning in with? How about the simple fact that neither A nor B equal C, that is why we call them "simulations". Go read Plato's Republic and the Cave Allegory and perhaps we can have a conversation. By your logic I can compare CM to Steel Divisions series as an effective approach. This makes about as much sense as the rest of your argument. Look, lets be clear before any attempts to wiggle out, create strawmen or simply scuttle away are made. You made an argument, right at the top of this ol thread here. You tried to prove your argument by providing data/information based on observation. You then drew a conclusion from that and went "ha!". I have pretty clearly demonstrated, nicely at first, then a bit more forcefully, that your argument is utter nonsense built on a foundation of more nonsense. You have done absolutely nothing to actually prove your original argument. You have side-slipped, tired to make it my argument, used frankly baffling strained logic but yet have not really done much beyond that. So in an attempt to advance things. Here is a scenario file for you that better reflects the scale CM is meant to simulate...go ahead and hit play. Now what is the difference between this file and yours (oh, I used M60A1s cause the A3 with thermals is simply too easy)? Tank Spotting.btt

Ok, so looks like we will be having round two just cause. Oh, so we are supposed to give out proprietary information just to prove to you that the game works...wow, you really are the CM Karen. My point, which you completely missed, is not that CMCW is perfectly modelling RL data, it was the fact that your "test/case study" was complete and utter amateur BS. If you can come forward with some form of RL data that backs up your position it would be a start but you seem to insist that you can employ one simulation in the assessment of another simulations RL performance to back up your own opinion. "Common reference point - reality" and you have not posted a single RL source in this whole diatribe. What reality, the one in your head? Nope, no idea how SB works, I am sure it is a wonderful simulation. You are showing screen grabs of gunsight imagery as demonstration of "how easy it is to see a tank at 2000ms"...so what is seeing that imagery both in screen grabs and game? A human brain, otherwise why model it for the player? Anything that links back to a human brain is going to have an advantage, at least for now. Want proof of where the human brain is: From what I do know, SB an CM are simulating completely different levels of resolution and gameplay but "of course it makes perfect sense to use one to argue against the other". "SB behaves very natural." There it is again...based on what? We have Connaught ranges about 3 km from where I live, one of the best small arms ranges we have in the military. There is a 1000m range, not even close to 2000m. And you know what they have over every firing lane...a big number...why? Because it is incredibly easy at that range to shoot at the wrong target, even though it is directly in front of the shooter and they know it is there. What possibly gives you the credibility to be able to make the judgement statement you have made? You are citing no other sources, nor have you provided any RL experience that would back that up. "What happens in CMCW is absolutely counterintuitive and unexplainable"...to whom? You? Go find 2km somewhere and see what they actually looks like. Then imagine a tank, really small at that distance and camouflaged. Now you do not know where it is in an arc of view, say 90 degrees. Now look through a telescope and tell me how fast you think you could find it, identify it as a tank, identify it as an enemy tank. I am going to cut to the chase here and nail the real problem here, your view of the "scientific process" because that is what is really broken. "That's how science work: if one experiment refutes theory, the theory is considered to be refuted, even if other tests allegedly prove it." This pretty much says it all. The point of the scientific process is exploration not to win an argument. If an experiment disproves a theory then the point is to know "why" the theory failed, so we can build a new better theory. You do not seem interested in the least in actually exploring the issue, nope this is all about "winning" an internet argument. The "reality" is that if you could actually assemble a coherent argument on sound RL data, then we could actually try and "make a better theory of CM". But instead we get temper tantrums, false "studies" and a whole lot of your opinion.

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.

One point that I think has been missing from this discussion are the broader C4ISR factors. CM models not only point to point LOS but also factors in overall C4ISR quality via the C2 modelling along with soft factors like leadership and morale. Here, in CMCW timeframe anyway, the US has the advantage as it had begun to really invest in C4ISR as an offset strategy to the Soviet overmatch in mass. So when a group of tanks "see" in game, it takes into account inputs that would be coming via C2 and comms. I think the whole "BFC = US/NATO fanbois!" is wholly undeserved. They certainly do not model this way in the WW2 titles, CMSF2 is asymmetrical by design and CMBS might be a snap shot of the back end of US superiority - this game engine is aching for a Taiwan or Baltics 2040. For CMCW, well the (louder) critics need to make up their minds, we have seen as much "The Soviets are broken!" as we have seen "WFT happened to the US?!" No model is perfect but I suspect that in CMCW timeframe both sides are evenly matched at the tactical level and players need to learn the strengths and weaknesses of both sides...kinda why we went with 79-82 in the first place.

It looks like your ground conditions and smoke. T64A does not have thermals so once the dust comes up they go blind (yes, CM models that level of detail). They do much better in Wet conditions. Here is a quick test scenario of T64As v M60s at 1500ms. As you can see the T64As are spotting the M60s in the first 3-5 seconds, and then the shooting starts. Results are pretty even if you run through this a few times. As to armor, not sure what those blocks mean but the T64s should be better than the M60. If you switch out these T64As with T64Bs, you can definitely see the armor disparity start to show. M60 v T64A.btt

Oh you and me both, funny we were just discussing that internally. Stay tuned and maybe we can get some news out soon.

In game (and matching sources) that is exactly their value. They can kill a tank but primarily they are designed to strip off infantry, effectively breaking up the all arms team.

There it is...I suppose you want to see my manager next. No, we are not tweaking based on your feedback (beyond the Tac Air Controller, which I did most of the legwork on as your responses were extremely vague) and you should not walk away thinking that. We are tweaking based on MKs feedback because it is good. It shows screen shots of an end-mission screen and layout which does not look right. It let me narrow down a feature that was left out by mistake. Of course I made a mistake and am acknowledging them, that is why I am posting here for all to read and not offline. As to this whole "hurt puppy" routine, take it somewhere else. You have been loud, entitled and rude pretty much since you dumped on this forum. Hell, you came back for a big "I told you so" moment, and now you fall to the ground a "wounded paying customer". You gave BFC legal currency, they gave you a game and we will continue to support that game, including fixing tweaks and errors. None of it bought being simply rude to the people who are trying to build the best game with what they have for a community they have been a part of for over 20 years.

You definitely do.. Seriously, you cannot see how all of that "feedback" is not helpful in the least? Here let me help: In the "admission post", I came back to confirm whether you could see an SU-17 Cluster to try and clear up what was a miscommunication...no response. This after your initial feedback was (and I quote): "Guys, the Soviet campaign was a mistake. I mean MISTAKE." Then your copious screen shots were Campaign end-screens which really do not do much to assist in trying to nail down specific issues. You have not once posted anything to reinforce you -pretty broad-position. Frankly this all comes across as "CM Karen", not useful feedback. One thing I really do like about the CM community is that this type of feedback is in the minority, unlike the cesspools out in wild internet. So let me enlighten a bit. March or Die is by design meant to be really hard...no participant medal here. My best guess was 95% of CM players would not finish it (so you are in with the majority). It is why we built the Standard version so the average player could actually still enjoy the campaign. Mission 3 - March of Die is not "BROKEN AND IN NEED OF COMPLETE REDO". It needed a Tac Air controller at Setup (done, and this one does go to you, I did this because of your "help" btw) and score tweaking to offset the Blue Bonus lock we setup so someone could not just hit ceasefire and advance. Even with these tweaks MK likely would not have met the minor_victory requirement to advance based on his losses above (10 out of 13 tanks) BUT he should have come closer, maybe even a draw. If there is a lesson for you to learn here is a simple one, that hopefully will come with age: "Just because you do not agree with something, it does not mean it is automatically wrong/broken/immoral/evil". Perhaps a second good one is "Failure is a good thing, so long as you 1) learn from it, to avoid it becoming a habit and 2) try and do it with grace and class."

There is a lesson here, you see MK posted screen shots and detailed breakdown, not a bunch of ALL CAPS and exclamation marks like an ADHD 12 year old (unless you are a ADHD 12 year old, then my condolences to you and your parents). Digging into this and "no" THE MISSION IS NOT BROKEN!!!! emjoi emjoi emjoi (seriously, social media has destroyed a generation at least). It is very hard and there is something missing which was supposed to be put in. The reality is that mission is winnable but it takes a damn near perfect game to do it, which is unreasonable. Tweaking in progress.

And that is because it isn't...now take note, this is how to unpack something. MonkeyKing going to PM you shortly.

Fixed for next patch, hopefully on Steam release.

Repeat after me the "Soviet Campaign Player's Lament" - I am a good CM player, this is but one campaign of many. Built by a bastard with bile in his heart, I shall rise above...even in defeat - I lose for reasons, not excuses. I win on talent, not luck. - In the campaign, I am the Devil's Red Right Hand. I will shed my elegant ways and become the Hammer of War. As my pixeltroops fall in droves, I feel nothing but righteous impellation - On Mission 3, I will try the left flanking through the woods because nothing else seem to work.

So for anyone still interested. The War thunder forum (these guys are as bad as we are) has a pretty interesting thread on tank ammo performance center on the Gulf War: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/446384-m829-and-l26-shell-effectivness/ The Desert Storm report by the GAO (always watch the accountants) is pretty definitive (i.e. the Iraqis were unable to manage a single tank to tank kill, pg 4), it is tragic that your colleagues were having heart attacks over this just 5-6 years before. Dunno what to tell you John, I would love to see a picture of a Soviet 76mm penetrating the front of an early M1 too. Regardless, you can see how hard it is to really unpack true performance for some of this. There will always be outliers but they are just that. The trick is to make sure we don't take those outliers as the center of the bell curve. The other thing to watch out for is myth. I was a young troop commander in central Bosnia in 1994 during the war and there was this lunatic in the hills who would take old JNA aerial bombs and turn them basically into V1s, they made a helluva bang but he could only manage about one every 6 months. That whole thing got way out of hand with legends of German scientists and V1 stocks armed with mustard gas. The truth is often stranger but also more mundane at the same time. desertstorm.pdf

John, well if we are going to start citing anecdotes… I met a US Sergeant Major in 1997 who was in VII and at the Battle of 73 Easting. He told this story of one of his company tanks taking a T72 sabot round to the front at 500ms. The tank did come to an abrupt halt but the sabot round stuck in the frontal armour “like a dart”. At the same time they were killing Iraqi tanks at “3 miles”. Personally I will take an eye witness accounts over what sounds like intelligence community hysteria to me, I mean c’mon (heart attacks?!) these are just tanks and warfare is a lot more than that. Like if you kill their crappy Soviet logistics and they run out of fuel? Land mines and DPICM still work, let alone AirPower. And let’s not forget C4ISR, and the nuclear equation. If I saw people getting “physically upset” on tank tactical disparity alone, my advice would to stop being amateurs and start thinking about the whole system. Regardless, M1s in game are tough but not invincible, while that T64B shrugs off frontals like a beast…

John, So first off you need to play the game first- you mentioned that you have not really dug into it yet - otherwise how do you really know the extent of what we have or have not modelled? I don't know anyone who has played the game who feels like the US forces are "over gunned". Next, given the ridiculous overmatch that occurred in 1991 - and here I have eyewitness sources of my own - I am not inclined to believe outlier sources that "US armor was on the brink of extinction!" a mere 6 years earlier...things in defence do not move that fast. This frankly sound very much like intelligence/military industrial complex "chicken little squawking" for various self-serving reasons, a habit that was seen before. You were an "insider" within an organization trying to sell things to DOD, you then know this. Nor do the test we ran on T-72 after the fall of the Wall match up with it being some sort of super-tank that TOWs bounced off of. The timeframe of our game was deliberate 1979-1982 as it was literally a tipping point as the US was racing to catch up and re-establish tactical superiority, something they let lag after the Vietnam war. I think we got the mechanics about right as the US forces are not overwhelming in the least, quite the opposite based on the feedback we have received. I am afraid you would have to show some significant in-game deviation to really make a case here.

As much as I have been trying to stay out of this, I think this brings up a interesting background info point on "How to Research for a PC game". I am not going to weigh in on the specific argument, except to say I don't think we are going to see modeling of the current ammunition characteristics change dramatically - if for the reason alone that it basically feels about right. We may see minor tweaks but right now we are not advocating for major mechanical changes to weapon systems (we would like to see some shifts in ammo types but that is another issue). So as to these CIA documents. Well first off, as impressive as the CIA is as an intelligence agency (and here movies and media have probably done more to promote the myth than anything), it is in the end a government agency. Being government means that any information you glean immediately must take into account the broader context, and all of it with healthy grains of salt. So John's first link I have actually seen before and it basically lays out the "threat" as they understood it in 1984. It is a "memorandum" and as such is probably one of the better sources one could draw upon. It really lays out the Soviet "tank position" and is not bad. My only concern is that I am left wondering if it is a "say nothing new...because" report that sticks to the party line that the current administration wanted to hear...remember it was 1984 and the US was trying to attrit its way out of the Cold War, which turned out to be a good strategy. The second link I take with a lot more critical eyes. First off, it is a "thought piece" which the agency clearly puts at arms lengths ("the opinions of the authors"), so this is a trick that gets played all the time. When one is trying to make a big argument, get some reputable senior folks to write an "opinion piece". If it works, great. If it creates blowback we just say "well it was their opinion". Further, any "thought piece" sponsored by the agency that basically promotes "a modest improvements in intelligence..." (pg 2) set off that little yellow light. Was this real or was it a promotion piece to try and get more CIA funding. Then when one starts to dig a bit and open the aperture, I get more odd smells. This piece was written in the Carter administration and that was not a great time to be in the CIA (we allude to this in the CMCW backstory), or National Defence for that matter. Finally, the Director of the CIA at the time was ADM Turner ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stansfield_Turner) who not only was a big fan of technical intel (and put HUMINT in the back seat) but was Navy through and through. This thought piece is very technical - play to the boss - but also very Army who were competing heavily to get their AirLand Battle concept off the ground and fighting for tenuous funding, all after Vietnam. In this context that paper really should be taken cautiously. It does lay out what was a dangerous situation. We know the US had fallen behind both technologically but also in over all mass, all the while with no offset strategy beyond nukes...not good. But is it possible that an Army General is over-polishing the threat to simultaneously promote agency and Army funding...absolutely. In the end, when researching one has to remember that we can only see snippets of a much larger game being played at the time...and that matters. Probably some of the best historical references that I found (and used) weren't locked away in TOP SECRET CIA drawers (and trust me, government overclassifies everything) they are in minutes from appropriation meetings: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Department_of_Defense_Appropriations_for/llZ5mbGatSYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=US+defence+spending+TOW+missile&pg=PA534&printsec=frontcover These are not dark assessments, made in the shadows...this is the money trail of what actually happened. The "truth" is far more mundane in reality and is largely guarded by accountants.

Hey guys, been tracking this and a couple points that may defuse things a little: - I don't think John can prove his identity/work history without seriously compromising his personal security/information...so let's not go there - Ultimately John (along with others) are sources of information and because they are human, they are going to be imperfect sources of information. - When we do research for the game we not going to simply take any one person's word for it. (and John, taken at his word, knows exactly why). We do a lot of deep digging and cross referencing before we put anything into the game in order to try and be as accurate as possible (e.g. filtering out bias and myth). So this is not a game issue as we factor this sort of stuff in. Now if it is personal, well that is different and frankly why the forum has a private message system. But if it is worrying that somehow we are going to introduce features based on single sources...let me put your minds at ease.

Oh man how cool would that beast be?! Seriously I would love to see some of these weird and wonderfuls but we have to choose our dev priorities. I am lobbying for some cool spins in the module, let’s see if we can get away with them.

Fair points, I am kinda past the whole shock-factor “game is broken” thing…it isn’t, in fact it might be working too well. Now I am just curious how deep they actually went on this. For example, found out during development that the game model moon phases at night which varies visibility. So I am betting that AoA and partial cover are modelled as well…but how much? If I can get time I may explore…time away from building TO&Es that is.