c3k

gibsonm, Yours is the type of response that does you, BF.C, the RAAC, and Australia a disservice. On one hand you publicly hold yourself to be a representative of all of those entities, then you reply with arrogance, defensiveness, snideness, and rudeness. I know none of the organizations would hold with that behavior. I shall open the big can of quotes. You asked for it. All the following quotes are yours, my comments follow the bold. My comment: Here you AGREE that sometimes the loader should be up and firing his machinegun. You put conditions on it. If YOU take the time to read my postings (which I doubt you'll do) you'll see that I have postulated that the loader should be up IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS. The TacAI does this...sometimes. Regardless, let's look for the missing US doctrine you've related thrice. My comment: Hmm, you posting that the loader should be up as air sentry. I agree by definition that the loader is there to load the main gun. Where does your statement support any US doctrine about the loader's duty when the main gun is not being used? You have not told me what the actual US doctrine is. My comment: The above is the closes you've come to dicussing ACTUAL doctrine. Where, pray tell, have I tried to say that a tank should not focus on a target? (That being the gist of the relevant section quoted above.) Remove enemy armor from your preconceived notion of what the Abrams is engaging. Will the loader be up or down prior to enemy armor being spotted? Not spotted by the tank, spotted by ANYONE? How many hours of advance will a crew have prior to entering a battlespace requiring the loader to service the main gun? After entering the battlespace, if the main gun is not being used will the TC have the loader join him up top? My comment: This is a worthwhile posting. This is a good description of how to fight a tank. However, per your statement, where is this an example of US doctrine regarding a loader when the main gun doesn't need servicing? Not there... And that exhausts all of your postings in this thread regarding the duties of loaders. In counterpoint, the following are the postings by Exel. I do not know his experience, training, or background. He alludes to some Abrams experience, but that may be not be correct. ******** The rule of thumb taught to us was the loader is up if the TC is up, and buttons up when the TC buttons up. I'm not sure if that's the American procedure too, but I would think so. At least it would make more sense game-wise. ********* And yet it is the job of the loader and, in the Abrams, the TC to cover the flanks of their vehicle with their MGs. See YouTube videos of M1s advancing into Baghdad. The gunner engages priority targets while both the loader and TC fire their machineguns and handguns at secondary targets. ********* The loader and TC should be able to engage a nearby enemy AT team even when the gunner is busy engaging a BMP at distance. ********* I'd appreciate if BFC didn't override US Army logic with their own. If the vehicle hasn't been ordered to button up and the vehicle is not engaging with its main gun, the loader should stay "topside" and man the machinegun. Likewise if either roof machinegun is empty and the vehicle is not engaging or is not immediately threatened, the crew should automatically reload the machineguns. That's standard procedure, and is the only logic that can be logically expected. You may have a different logic, but how should be players be able to anticipate what that is? Especially since you don't apply the same logic to all vehicles. Either have automated crew behaviour in all vehicles or none. This "some vehicles are automated, some are not" is confusing to the player, especially when there is no GUI input about which vehicle follows which logic. ********** I would disagree, simply judging from all the footage from Iraq even during the 2003 war. You have plenty of videos in YouTube showing commanders and loaders actively engaging with their MGs. From my training I can say that the TC's primary job is to keep good situational awareness and command over his unit. That requires sticking your head out the hatch. If the vehicle is taking fire, then you'd button up, but you unbutton as soon as you break contact. While the TC is unbuttoned and the gunner is not engaging with the main gun, then the loader is unbuttoned too and manning the 240. When out of contact / when not under heavy fire it's the job of the TC and loader to secure the flanks with the MGs while the gunner secures his sector with the main armament. Likewise the crew should take the first opportunity to load the MGs. *******(End Exel's statements) So gibsonm, other than quips, rudeness, and short answers, you have demonstrated almost no willingness to make a positive contribution to this thread. (In fairness you have made some.) Also you've shown that you support CMSF in whatever its current state may be. I do not. I would like to see it improved. Part of that is to alleviate the micromanagement placed on players. Since you take exception to what I've posted, both what I see as a problem and what I've suggested as a solution, when would you, in your Abrams, ever reload your remote fired .50? Do you have that gear? Ken

That is good news.

Ahhh, yes. Thank you gibsonm for adding constructively to this. Again. But, since your sig shows you to have more of an armor background than I (again, in Australian service rather than U.S. with whatever differences that entails) when, if ever, do Australian Abrams loaders come up out of their hatch? Heck, do Australian Abrams even HAVE machineguns for their loaders? As I stated, right now the TacAI will let the loader unbutton. So is that a disappointment? I am advocating allowing USER control for the same behavior the TacAI allows. The flaw, right now, is that the OPEN UP command toggle is restrictive. I play exclusively in WEGO. To reload the Abrams .50 exposes the TC for a full minute. The loader, enabled by the TacAI to use his roofmount machinegun (despite what you say), will only do so if the user specifies OPEN UP and TARGET LIGHT. That is also restrictive. In game I must babysit each Abrams. As the .50 shoots down each 100 rounds (the capacity of its ready ammo supply) I must OPEN UP, expose the TC for a full minute, reload, then next turn un-OPEN UP. Bah. Now, I haven't even mentioned the dozens of pictures of loaders manning their machinegun and scanning from 8 to 11 o'clock for targets. Nor have I mentioned the gunshields for them. Nor even the thermal sights being added. Nor have I come up with arguments about how disappointed I am that the M256 main gun ammo loadout is missing any cannister or MPAT rounds. I'm saving up for those in later threads. So, to summarize: Abrams need tight babysitting right now. They are a high source of micromanagement. Strykers are much more capable of reasonable autonomous operation. I have pointed out what I think is missing and suggested a possible solution. If this game engine (CMx2) is the basis for BF.C in the future, I'd like it to be the best possible game engine. The binary state of Abram crews is a flaw. Add in as many "IMHO" as you feel necessary. But please do answer (for my curiosity if nothing else) about your experience. What equipment, what units, etc. And do RAAC Abrams have machineguns for loaders? What is their duty prior to armor engagements? What about afterwards? Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I've done a lot more tests. The behavior could still, I think, be improved. The crux of the matter revolves around the TC not reloading the .50 unless specifically ordered OPEN UP. In WEGO that will result in TC exposure beyond what the .50 reload for the Stryker requires. Now, I'm not trying to get the TC to reload while a hail of small arms fire is hitting the tank. I'd like him to automatically reload using the same behavior as the Stryker VC. (With, of course, exceptions: enemy armor in sight or being engaged;or if a new command, BUTTON UP, has been given.) So, that leads me to the conclusion that there should be THREE states for tank crews, not two. Right now there is OPEN UP and not-OPEN UP. I submit an additional BUTTON UP is needed. OPEN UP should operate the way it is now. TC heads up, automatically reloads the .50. BUTTON UP should operate the way non-OPEN UP works now. The tank stays shut: period. No stray round will knock out the TC at the worst moment. However, the lack of either OPEN UP or BUTTON UP should result in a modified behavior. Yeah, the TC will pop up and reload the .50 using Stryker style algorithms. Okay, what about the loader? Well, right now with TARGET LIGHT the loader mans his machinegun and the TC buttons up to use the remote firing mechanism for the .50, reloading as needed. Otherwise the loader never comes topside - he needs TARGET LIGHT. (Sometimes the TacAI will self-initiate a TARGET LIGHT.) With the new OPEN UP I'd maintain the loader should be up. Only popping down to reload the coax. If enemy armor is sighted, then the tank buttons up to fight the armor. BUTTON UP would keep the loader down. The lack of either OPEN UP or BUTTON UP would keep the loader manning the gun or the coax, unless the TacAI overrides it for a TARGET LIGHT. Regards, Ken

Okay, So the TC moves forward and fires the coax. Cool. The gunner slides to his left and loads the coax. In between loading he's free to pop up and fire the loader's machinegun? If that's how it's done, then what I saw makes perfect sense. Hmmm, another bow to the attention to detail shown by BF.C in this game. Well done. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, That means someone manned the coax and the TC's .50 was left unmanned while the other uninjured turret crew member opened up to man the loader's machinegun. I would think the TacAI logic could be tweaked a bit. Thanks Ken

Exel, Thanks. The oddity I saw was the someone manned the loader's machinegun after the loader was hit (red cross), and put out of the fight. That leaves the driver and one other...I was, and am, surprised that the loader's machinegun would be manned and not the TC's .50 or the coax. (3 machineguns, 2 men left.) The maingun is out of the fight. Nothing but swarms of infantry and sabot rounds. Reloading the coax should not take a single individuals undivided attention. I could see a lull in firing while it's being reloaded. Can the TC fire both the remote .50 and the coax simultaneously? (It seems doubtful to me.) At least aimed fire... Regards, Ken

Hmmm, it happened again...

Yeah, cool details. Anyone else see the ammo count bug?

Steve, First, here's what I put the tank against: Yeah, that's a bunch of platoons of Syrians against a single tank. Fun test. Anyhow, the crux of the matter is the choice of the weapon the TC left. Like I posted earlier, first I fired off all the maingun HEAT. The Abrams is left with three weapons against the horde of infantry: a) The coax 7.62 The remote fired .50 c) The roofmount 7.62 a) is tied into the fire control system. I would think that machinegun would have the highest priority to be kept firing. Why would the TC leave and man c)? Or, why would the gunner (if that's who it was) leave a) to man c), making the TC leave to man a)? In both those situations is left unmanned while c) takes priority (and in this case producing more tank crew casualties). It seems that if a choice has to be made between the loader's roofmount 7.62 or the TC's .50, the .50 should win. That didn't happen. Regards, Ken

Whoa, whoa, whoa! The TC took over the loader's MACHINEGUN. The maingun was out of ammo. The coax was fine. The .50 was fine. The TC left the .50 (remote fired) and its underarmor protection so he could be less protected and fire the loader's 240. The TC did NOT take over LOADING the gun. He went to a less well protected machinegun position whereupon he was promptly wounded. Is THAT what is supposed to happen? (Cool nonetheless.) Regards, Ken

Oh, So far, the three machinegun systems target enemy units individually. Very cool! Well done, BF.C. (Of course, I'm still testing the open up/button up behavior...) Thanks, Ken

BF.C, Is it possible for the Tank Commander to swap positions and take over the Loader's machinegun? This seems to have occurred. The TC is black, the loader is white. Absent any other identifiers, that's what may've happened. The Loader got hit (nice scream), and fell back inside. A few seconds later the TC showed up out of his hatch. This left the .50 unmanned. The TC only lasted a few seconds before an RPG destroyed the tank. Is this coded? Or did I catch a bug? (Screenie may be available.) Ken

Gents, I'm running some tests on the Abrams TacAI regarding its machinegun use. During a playback the .50 cal ammo count seemed to act normally. As it fired, the ammo counted down. With 5 seconds left it had 846 rounds. However, at zero seconds left, the ammo INCREASED to 900 rounds. This was the same amount of ammo that it had at the start of the turn. Bug? Screenshots: Here it is at 25:05. Here it is at 25:00. The scenario was hotseat, veteran, v1.08. Comments? Ken

BF.C, As I stated earlier, the unexpected opening up if explicitly directed to BUTTON UP (a command missing in CMSF) was frustrating in CMx1. This is done by the absence of OPEN UP in CMSF. Okay I've done some more tests... If an Abrams is out of HEAT, and not ordered OPEN UP, it will only use its coax against infantry targets. Same conditions, but ordered OPEN UP, the Abrams will use the coax. The TC will only open up to reload the .50. The loader will exhibit TacAI driven behavior and man his machinegun as incoming fire allows. (The TC ducking back down MAY be a result of incoming fire.) This is much better behavior than I previously thought. Back to more editor tweaking... Ken

Lost? Hmmm, perhaps if your loader had his head up you would've been able to spot where I was going... Okay, that was lame, but give me points for keeping the humor going. I'm running a bunch of tests on the Abrams in game. I'm finding some interesting stuff. A lot of my views on the Abrams have been from some limited experience in uncontrolled situations in various scenarios. I'm trying to control the variables and come up with solid results. (An ammo loadout controller in the editor would be hugely beneficial. I want full MG ammo and no main gun ammo. I'm having to burn off the HEAT by area targeting empty buildings.) I'll post more later. Regards, Ken

Tests underway...

Granted, all those tanks with multiple turrets have been phased out in favor of single turret designs. Therefore, multiple turret tanks have been proved to be design failures. Yet, they were produced; they did fight. How will the CMx2 engine portray them? Back to machineguns and tanks: if all your conversations (more than I've had) revolved around crew doctrine and the consensus is that the loader stays buttoned up, why then is there a machinegun for him? I'm sure it's not to balance the suspension. Under what conditions is the loader expected to pull a trigger? Under what conditions is a loader expected to open his hatch? Under what conditions is a loader expected to scan a sector? The Abrams has one primary weapons system. Yet, it also has 3 machineguns. The coax is physically and systemically sistered to the primary weapon. That leaves two other weapons. The typical loadout in CMSF is 17 sabot rounds and 17 HEAT rounds. The HEAT rounds are the only semi-useful round against soft targets. (I thought other rounds had been developed, procured, and distributed due to the shortcoming of these two ammo types. That's a different subject.) Now, after I've exhausted my 17 HEAT rounds, what good is the Abrams? The TC, IN GAME, must remain exposed for a minute at a time if I want to keep the .50 firing. (Reloading requires that in WEGO.) The loader is useless unless I have a TARGET LIGHT order. Why can't the Abrams have 3 distinct target arcs? So, I'm hitting the same points, yet, I'm not hearing direct answers. Well, other than, "doctrine demands the loader's machinegun is generally useless." I will grant that in many cases the loader should never leave his primary position. Please refer to my questions regarding the loader, above. As a former Air Force member, the most contact I've had with armor is driving a few vehicles and firing the odd gun. Admittedly, I do not have first person experience with operating procedures for Abrams. I'm trying to keep this focused on the game, not a minutiae driven argument. Regards, Ken

Steve, Thanks for the response. I continue to disagree that the loader's job is to service the gun. Yeah, sounds funny. When the main gun is going to be used or is being used, yes, that's the reason the loader is there. But using the machinegun on the roof is also one of his jobs. Heads up spotting prior to enemy contact is also his job. What happens after my Abrams has used its 17 HEAT rounds? If there are no enemy vehicles present, the only useful weapons are its machineguns. If I OPEN UP, the TC's .50 is running. The coax will be used. But, the loader's 240 is not. (Again, unless I OPEN UP and TARGET LIGHT.) I think it comes down to a matter of what the procedures are that they operate under. (I'm not sure that Australian style rules would apply, regardless of gibsonm's knowledge. ) Do we have any US Abrams tankers here who would like to chime in? Also, I am not advocating that the loader and TC time their trigger pulls or reloads in between the pinging of incoming small arms fire. It sounds like that's what you imply, above. Rather, if the .50 is out of ammo and the tank is not actively engaged, when will the TC reload? Right now the answer is never. It's livable as is: it just adds a level of micromanagement to the Abrams which isn't present on the Stryker. And it almost completely negates the loader's roofmount. Finally, an overarching perspective. The Abrams has, potentially, three separate weapons/target points: The main gun/coax; the TC's .50; the loader's 240. In real life, each one could fire at separate targets. They cannot do so in CMSF. Now, that may not make my life incomplete, but it does take a little away from the game. Regardless of CMSF, what about future games? T-35's with 5 turrets may not be on the calender, but add a Sherman's bow gun, coax, roof mount and you have the same issues present with the Abrams. Multiple machineguns used on multiple targets. Food for thought. Thanks, Ken P.S. Note Exel's post, above.

Steve, If there's logic driving the Stryker reload behavior, why can't that be applied to Abrams? If the .50 has run out of ammo, that means I'm using it, and I'll probably want to use it some more. A quick TacAI controlled pop up and reload would help. Playing WEGO means that a reload sequence is very poor. Potentially, I could run out of ammo in the first second of a turn. Then, a minute later, I order OPEN UP. The TC stays up for a minute. Then, I can order untoggle OPEN UP (for button up behavior). That's a full minute of exposure after a full minute of a weapon being down for lack of ammo. A corollary issue is the loader's weapon: Right now, with OPEN UP, the ONLY roof weapon available to an Abrams is the TC's gun. The only way to OPEN UP an Abrams and use the loader's machine gun is to also TARGET LIGHT. If you command OPEN UP and hope for full machine gun use from an Abrams, you don't get it. I'm fine with the logic that Button Up (or the untoggle state of OPEN UP) keeps the Abrams sealed. I'm sure there'd be wailing and gnashing of teeth every time a buttoned up tank's TC stuck his head up and got popped. (Hmm, early builds of CMx1 anyone?) Right now, to me, it's a bit of a kludge. Button up seals the tank. Fine. Open Up puts the TC heads up and allows his MG to be reloaded. But, the other machinegun on the roof doesn't get used against targets unless you specifically order it. How can I get the loader to protect the side of the tank? It's obvious I'd like to see the crew AI tweaked. The biggest issue would be to stay protected when ordered to button up, and that is what the game does now. It's a matter of addressing the in-between state of reloading but staying under cover in a light to medium threat environment. (And the loader. Have I mentioned the loader?) Thanks, Ken

handihoc, I've seen too much of this as well. Ken

Steve, Thanks for the reply. HERE is a thread with DETAILED information. Savegames are available. This is the same thread I referenced in the original post. Read through to the BOLD text portions. It's there that I describe the actions. (It's an M1A1SA.) I think...(yeah, here comes an opinion)...that there are three behaviors for the Abrams crew: tight button up - they don't pop up unless I order them to; Open up - TC and Loader are up, firing at will with MG's. TacAI will determine if loader ducks back in. (Doesn't that make it sound easy?). Finally, Normal ops - Tank is buttoned, but remote fired .50 gets reloaded as needed (TacAI determination). Again, savegames are available, but this is an easily replicated issue. Thanks, Ken

Right. Has NOONE else noticed this? This has gameplay implications. I would think that tank crewmember algorithms should be a matter of high priority in an upcoming patch. Ken

Yeah, I'm not trying to simulate a Richard Marcinko style op (Doom on you! ), but, like JohnO mentioned, some Rangers might be nice... Ken

Excellent! I'm glad to hear you guys are going to revamp the artillery GUI! Thanks, Ken HEY! That was a joke! Lighten up.... Seriously, I'm glad you're aware of the benefit some people would see if there were a different/increased awareness of the support functions. Ken