Vanir Ausf B

OK I went and did some experimenting.  Here is a scenario with four different prepared tank positions on each side one is T90s vs M1s and one is T90s vs Bradleys.  Lot of fun even if it is not realistic.  The idea was just to show how a tank position might be made using the editor.
 
Prepaired Tank Positions.zip
 
Here is a screen shot of one M1 just before it sustained mission kill damage.  As you can see it has survived a few hits already.

 
Here is the how they are made diagrams.  I created four slightly different positions.  One two AS wide - I think that one is too wide.  One super long which I think looks silly but anyway you be the judge.  The long ones can have a lower section that allows the tank to totally hide.  During the battle when tanks withdraw after a laser warning they will stop when they reach cover.  A few times the tank in the position with the extra low section actually stopped there and therefore stayed in the prepared position most of the time they actually retreated back below the hill.  So, if you do create positions like these think about what tanks will do if they pop smoke and withdraw - do they have a safe place to go?
 
 














 

AI player doesn't fire on area targets, it either uses mission designer orders (i.e. target armor arc) or TacAI targeting. There is no problem with the TacAI not using AT weapons on soft targets (unless stressed), which was the big problem recognized initially. The problem now is when a player makes a judgement that a threat is Javelin worthy and cannot explicitly order the team to fire on it, because the game has to protect us from ourselves. (Sure that ATGM is probably going to kill one of your Strykers, but no, you aren't allowed to fire a Javelin on it. There might be a tank just around the corner, and you can't be trusted to make that call.)

The change to TacAI targeting was good. The total prohibition for player-placed targets is bad because it is not necessary. It's a solution looking for a problem.

I would wager that most of those comments professing "worship" for a tank of all things are posted by 12 year olds.

Weight.  It's the same reason the Rangers did not like the base model, and why MGL type launchers haven't got much traction.  If you've thrown body armor, rifle, 300ish rounds, water, NVGs, optics and batteries on a guy, he's already pretty weighed down.  Adding an entirely different weapon system and ammunition might make the guy simply fall over.  The weight of an M320 and rounds is not insignificant but there's a lot less than an XM25 or a larger system. 
 
Re: Rangerjection
 
The Rangers work in a way that could best be described as raid-centric.  Basically they're going to be whatever transport is mission proper (often helicopters, but in Iraq they borrowed Strykers pretty often because of how quiet and fast they could be), get booted out, and then do whatever they're there to  do  (generally seize HVTs, although hostage rescue, or high risk cache/insurgent node seizure pops up sometimes).  
 
To that end most of the fighting they do is with the initiative, and rapid movement onto and through the objective is of the paramount.  They also tend to have priority on support assets to a rather insane degree*
 
Elsewhere in Afghanistan, being suddenly under fire from a covered position while on patrol is a reality.  This makes the weight trade off more attractive because while the Rangers use the grenade launcher a fair bit, they're often using it as a launcher for other things (flares, LTL, etc), and often they're attacking the enemy in his hole where he is less likely to be behind hard cover.  Some 10th Mountain platoon however is much more likely to be checking out the local villages to see if they're still living in the 13th century, and as part of that wander into an ambush from the sort of positions the XM25 smites well.
 
*In what I view as a giant mistake, the course you take prior to being eligible for command or senior staff positions as a Captain is shared between Armor, Infantry, and Special Forces types.  My class tragically was a mix of one former scout (me), one tanker, two international students (one from Ghana, the other from Croatia), one lost aviator (they could take our course too) seven light infantry type guys, and then a whopping seven special forces bound dudes.  One of the SOF dudes had been in the Rangers from 2LT until he showed up to the course.  And I kid you not, every scenario revolved around "well we can just use our air support for that" for him.  It's like his brain just couldn't comprehend that not everyone was followed by a platoon of Apaches, an AC-130, and an element of F-16s just waiting for the word to do something.  I was about ready to kill him when he said "well in a real war, the air force would handle this!" during our heavy mechanized defense scenario which involved holding off a enemy mechanized battalion with our assigned mech infantry team.   

Hi !
 
we all know that CMx2 + AMD GPU + most drivers gives you long loading times, bad performance or graphic glitches...
And we all know that updating or downgrading the GPU driver is one of the few things that an help...
But updating or downgrading your GPU drivers is a pain in the a** and can cause problems with other games.
 
But there is a way of using a newer or older AMD OpenGL driver without changing your whole GPU driver !
 
How does it work ?
Download a older or newer (or Beta) AMD Catalyst Driver Open the the "driver_you_just_downloaded.exe" with a program like 7zip Inside that directory, traverse into ->Packages\Drivers\Display\W86A_INF (depends on the driver)\B151068 (depends on the driver) and look for the file: atioglxx.dl_ and copy (unpack) it to your CMBS folder (the folder where the game .exe is located !) Open a command window (On the start menu, type "cmd.exe" in the search box, you should see "cmd.exe" appear at the top search results. Right click on this and run as administrator) You should now be in a DOS prompt/DOS box command shell. Type CD C:\Program Files (x86)\Battlefront\Combat Mission Black Sea (or whatever, its the directory where you installed CMBS) and hit enter Now type EXPAND ATIOGLXX.DL_ ATIOGLXX.DLL
* It should say the file has inflated or expanded like 127% or similar factor. You now should see a atioglxx.dl_ and a atioglxx.dll You can delete the atioglxx.dl_ now CMBS will now use the AMD OpenGL driver from the driver you took the atioglxx.dl_ from, it only affects CMBS and by deleting the atioglxx.dll you can undo it in a second !
This works with all CMx2 games !

Yeah you can get JDAMs and LGBs out of it, so it's as capable as any other jet we have in CMBS.

I'm 100% biased for obvious reasons, but the Super Hornet and the Growler are very capable platforms.  Maneuverable, high payload, great sensors, etc.  They only lack in acceleration (which new engines could fix - and be a whole lot cheaper than a new fleet of jets) and their range is average.  They are also the stealthiest non-stealth aircraft in the US arsenal (I'd claim the world but I won't go that far) incorporating a lot of RCS reducing features.  And then you get the Advanced Super Hornet which adds a stealth weapons pod, conformal fuel tanks, and new engines to overcome all those weaknesses.  And you could still buy 2-3 per F-35, on a new and proven airframe.  Plus 2 engines is always better than one when your only alternative is swimming.

And it has a gun.

So yeah, the F-35C sucks.
 

I have finally got some time to look into this. Despite being an uncooled device it is not clear to me that the TIM 5000 is necessarily less capable than the Catherine FC. It does have a lower resolution, but it sees further into the infrared spectrum than the Catherine FC and has a more powerful zoom.

Catherine FC
Spectral Band: 8-12 μm
Field of view (FOV):
Wide FOV : 9° x 6.7° Narrow FOV : 3° x 2.2° Electronic zoom (x2) : 1.5° x 1.1°
Image resolution: 754 x 576
 
TIM 1500
Spectral band: 7.5 - 14 mm
Format 640 x 480 28 mm pitch
Field of view (horizontal) Wide 10.1°; Narrow 3.3°
Electronic zoom 2x, 3x, 4x

Are you <several dozen attempts deleted because could be considered a personal attack> kidding?

The AI in CM1 was, well a joke.  OK perhaps that is a bit harsh - no, no it is. It always did the same plan and half the time the plan was not particularly good either. In a QB I suppose it could be made to work fairly well.  But if you factor in a QB with more than one scripted plan available the scripted plan method smokes it. In a scenario it just cannot complete with the scripted AI we have right now. A scenario designer can create AI plans that take into account terrain features, objective priorities etc. and match the forces chosen for the AI groups.
 
It is theoretically possible to create an autonomous AI that can do all these things but that is a crazy amount of work.  If BFC spent a fraction of that work in adding new features to the current AI scripting (additional triggers if/then paths) plus some editor improvements, scenario authors could create an even better experience at a fraction of the cost of your fantasy AI.  You are just dreaming and you are way off base.  Spend your time convincing BFC to augment their existing script based AI.  Since they actually want to go in that direction you will have more success.

I have finally got some time to look into this. Despite being an uncooled device it is not clear to me that the TIM 5000 is necessarily less capable than the Catherine FC. It does have a lower resolution, but it sees further into the infrared spectrum than the Catherine FC and has a more powerful zoom.

Catherine FC
Spectral Band: 8-12 μm
Field of view (FOV):
Wide FOV : 9° x 6.7° Narrow FOV : 3° x 2.2° Electronic zoom (x2) : 1.5° x 1.1°
Image resolution: 754 x 576
 
TIM 1500
Spectral band: 7.5 - 14 mm
Format 640 x 480 28 mm pitch
Field of view (horizontal) Wide 10.1°; Narrow 3.3°
Electronic zoom 2x, 3x, 4x

Haha. The 90s called, they asked if they could get any tips on game design from the future. I told them not to call here again it was a waste of time.

If you all are so willing to pay for smart AI.
 
I can solve your problem.
 
You can call me AI, send your checks directly to me and I will quite my job and will be available for your services each and every day.
 
I promise you to provide a high level of play and you will have complete control over any battle and situation you would like to play.
 
I even promise to never speak a word  so that you have that true AI feeling of not having to deal with another Human being.
 

They are all worthy ideas, IMHO, however, I'd rather pay for a 64bit Windows release with multicore support.

Hi all.  Overwhelmingly happy to see this thread.  Couple points. 
 
1.  Chris and I had opposite viewpoint (or simple miscommunication) on allocating easy/hard mission.  He wound up giving hard mission to folks who do poorly in preceding one.  I thought they should get an easier ride, and folks fresh from overwhelming victory should have to suck it up.  Either use a utility (one on GaJ's board?) to decompile the campaign, run through and deliberately throw the preceding mission, or perhaps I'll hang the 'hard' version out there on the repos for a challenge game.
2.  Ravens CAN get shot down, esp. by Tunguskas.  They are harder to engage though.  Not quite sure if SAMS/MANPADs can, but TGs for sure.  As stated, GE is immune if observing only.
3.  *Spoiler*  hard version features Russian Air, US Stingers, and Russian mobile ADA systems, plus slight decrements to US force mix to up the resource management challenge.
 
Have had some folks say that the Russian mech elements pile up too much, and they don't enjoy the Kuwait/Falaise Pocket "highway of death" aspect.  However, one of the US' key concepts is to use Joint Fires to provide the lethality that our limited numbers cannot generate.  This is a test of that concept.  It highlights the difficulties inherent in going with only GPS precision guidance on many munitions, of getting observers in obsolete 'scout' vehicles to accomplish their missions, and of the challenges inherent in neutralizing an integrated air defense system.  I challenge folks to imagine what it would be like if some of us betas had prevailed in our attempts to get vehicle/soldier small arms applied into the AAA equation!  But it is fun, trying to take out a MECH BDE (-) with a Stryker PLT and a handful of scouts. 
 
Heck, this was so much fun I may have to build another like it to apply the experience from making this one!

I am currently working on a HUGE project that should be finished early next week.  its called "Clash of Titans" which will throw some King Tigers against JSII, and JSI tanks.  I wont tell you a lot... but I have worked on it for about a month and a half.. It is a Hypothetical encounter between the 505 sPz.Abt. and the 31st Guards Heavy Tank Regiment.  (at work know and don't have my notes in front of me)  There are sub forces and goals for each side.. I have designed it to be played as German vs Soviet Forces or hopefully Head to Head.  When I upload it next week on the Repository.. hopefully I can get some play testers.
 
I spent about a week or two just on the map.. and many flavor objects to add a immersive detail from almost anywhere on the map. 
I have tried to use as many Real Life names as I could find for the correct Company I was using for the Germans.  Pz.Abt 505 and the Panzer grenadier Company I also used from the 24th Pz. Division.
 
The Scenario is not historically accurate but I wanted the players to feel immersed and feel as if this battle could have taken place.
 
x1 town.. German.. Refit & Repair area, a Depot area, and a Rail, telegraph building plus an area of local inhabitants and shops.
X1 Rail station
x1 Rail Storage area
X1 large Farm
x1 Village Russian side, basically rural within a somewhat forested area.  basic village but detailed. 
Rail bridge
Road bridge
somewhat hidden Ford location.  Located near a previous battle.
The lay of the land is of low lying land with an occasional bump.??  

Keep in mind that in the next patch US Excalibur rounds will have their precision slightly downgraded.

I think Obama has a policy, and it is illustrated by the Russian-Georgian war (which was before Obama was elected, just to avoid confusion). Whether the US would have been prepared to fight to help Georgia or not was a moot point (although I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have) - the facts at the time was that the US had too many military commitments ongoing to have the forces available to do anything to counter Russia at that point. With large commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a supply train in Afghanistan that depended on Russian co-operation (Pakistan not being the most secure or reliable way of moving supplies into Afghanistan) Russia was basically in a position where the US couldn't do anything to oppose it.
 
So for all the supposed commitments to an ally - Georgia - the US basically sat by and did nothing (a fact that I'm sure the Russians were quite happy to point out to Poland, the Baltic states and other neighbours).
 
Obama's policy was simply to reduce the committed forces so that the US had the spare capacity to respond to threats that actually posed a meaningful threat. Libya and Syria never did. ISIS still doesn't - they have been contained and are being pushed back slowly by the Kurds and Iraqis, neither of which are awe-inspiring military machines. The only things that pose a serious strategic threat to the US are Russia and China. So Obama is simply refusing to get involved in wars that the US can afford to ignore without existential consequences, to be able to contain the threats that matter should the need arise.
 
Whether the diplomatic efforts to back that up have been up to scratch is probably more debatable.

It will be in the next patch, but not just for the US.
 
The other option is to just ban US APS. It's presence is speculative anyways.

Battlesighting and "lasing off" were discussed during development, the concepts being close to what panzersaurkrautwerfer wrote. They didn't make it into the base game but I have a strong feeling it's not a dead topic

Sure, obviously the murica bias is also why the same engine limitation makes every US recon vehicle useless

This is all part of the game guys. Murica

Apologies if I misunderstood. It sounded to me like you were driving the vehicles until they were barely in LOS and then stopping them immediately.
 
Anyways, I grew weary of deciphering other people's tests and did my own. BMP-3M vs Stryker M1126. Both have 2 man crews, both have a thermal imager on the gunner's sight. The moving vehicles top a rise 800m in front of the stationary ones. Quick and dirty; no spotting times, just who spots who first. 50 iterations each way.
 
BMPs moving
Stryker spots first: 45
BMP spots first: 5
 
Stryker moving
Stryker spots first 19
BMP spots first: 30
1 draw
 
Bottom line is that Black Sea assumes US sights to be more capable than Russian, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence to suggest that is incorrect. The degree to which they are better is debatable and I am not going to claim that this early version of Black Sea has it nailed at the outset. This sort of thing is difficult to quantify and usually boils down to people's gut feelings. Tweaks may be made.
 
But I also think we should put to rest the charge that stationary Russian units are routinely spotted first by moving US units, at least in cases of both having similar types of sighting devices. But if it's an older Russian vehicle that doesn't have a thermal imager and it's raining or foggy it may be time.

Apologies if I misunderstood. It sounded to me like you were driving the vehicles until they were barely in LOS and then stopping them immediately.
 
Anyways, I grew weary of deciphering other people's tests and did my own. BMP-3M vs Stryker M1126. Both have 2 man crews, both have a thermal imager on the gunner's sight. The moving vehicles top a rise 800m in front of the stationary ones. Quick and dirty; no spotting times, just who spots who first. 50 iterations each way.
 
BMPs moving
Stryker spots first: 45
BMP spots first: 5
 
Stryker moving
Stryker spots first 19
BMP spots first: 30
1 draw
 
Bottom line is that Black Sea assumes US sights to be more capable than Russian, and I have yet to see any convincing evidence to suggest that is incorrect. The degree to which they are better is debatable and I am not going to claim that this early version of Black Sea has it nailed at the outset. This sort of thing is difficult to quantify and usually boils down to people's gut feelings. Tweaks may be made.
 
But I also think we should put to rest the charge that stationary Russian units are routinely spotted first by moving US units, at least in cases of both having similar types of sighting devices. But if it's an older Russian vehicle that doesn't have a thermal imager and it's raining or foggy it may be time.

I generally try to encourage people to test things when they have questions about game mechanics, but I don't think nuzrak's tests show anything. What does "BMP-3M moving into the LOS of static M2-A3 in open ground" really mean? If the moving units are stopping the instant they move into LOS of the stationary units then the movement is irrelevant. If they are moving while in LOS of the enemy then the distance and speed need to be known. The results are further compromised by the separate commander not effectively communicating with the crew, a known issue.