slysniper
-
Posts
3,915 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Posts posted by slysniper
-
-
getting off topic, beg Suprise.
-
Face it, The Germans never once designed anything for the speed of production.
They looked at the poor quality of Russian fabrication and it likely made them vomit.
But they learned the hard way about how it managed to get the job done.
Again the Germans were their own worst enemy
-
don't take it too literal. but you bring up a good point. How much lost lower hull space comparing the christie system to a panther system.
I don't have that answer.
but I never envisioned a Russian turret, It would have been a German turret laid out to accommodate their needs.
I can dream, cant I.
The T34, taught the proper use of sloped armor, track width, simple suspension.
Add in German, better armor, Gun systems, optics, radios and the potential for a better built engine and transmission that could of equaled or improved beyond the Russian power train. I think it could have been done.
-
Ah, I will throw in a whole other concept here.
The Germans were their own worst enemy as to tank development.
We see in hindsight, what they could not see at the time for themselves.
They also had a leader taking them on design paths that likely they did not even agree on. Hilter was a great help to the Allies at times.
Weapon design was part of it.
If Germany would have seen the obvious, when they first encountered the T34, I believe that tank had the Answers to the most needed tank design for that period of fighting.
I feel the Panther was the Germans answer to that design, using many of the same principles but then as all of their projects of the time, over engineered and made it more complex than needed.
I have this view that if the Germans would have just reversed engineered the T34, realize they needed to increase quantity over quality they might have had the perfect tank and in numbers that could have made an impact.
So a panther, but a panther built on simple systems that we see in the T34 design.
So the track system should have been based on a T34, and other similar steps.
Of course all production should have been reduced to just a few models - so a Panther tank should have been that choice, but only if they had simplified it.
With the mindset they had at the time, none of these concepts would have happened. But if I was a time traveler, and wanted them to succeed. they would of had only one tank in production and it would have been a cross between a T34 and a Panther with multi turret gun and turret configs like we see in today armies.
-
Well, It does not answer the question, but it is a clue as to how the game is programmed.
I ran US Precision rounds against the M1 and even they had a result of not likely achieving a kill but Yes, a US round managed a kill. So its odds appear to be 20-25% chance.
So what does that prove to me, that whatever they have the top armor programmed at, it is defeating the other rounds.
I would assume the US 155 round has a better penetrating factor over the Russian 152 round. Now if the US round is barely managing it, then the Russian round odds would be slimmer than that.
Maybe there is a slight chance for a kill, but it might be snake eyes type odds.
But running this test I do see the other issue as clear, not (1) 155 near miss has done anything other than track damage.
Personnally, any direct hit does plenty of damage to the tank, so a kill might not be a major issue in many events. but I agree, it seems to be the odds are unrealistic, but that is to my assumed understanding of the forces involved and that I would expect more damage and maybe the crew to leave.
I can at least bring the point up and let them decide if they have the correct data they want in the game
-
CMSF does not have precision rounds for the Syrian forces or the Germans.
But the British round was designed for armor and still did not do the job.
I am going to try one more thing, going back to cmbs and use a US round on the M1, see if it has a different result
-
I am looking at both issues and so far I can find both are correct in what they are seeing and reporting.
So issue two was stated as being reported, if so, I will add additional notes and files that show subsystems not being affected by near misses. (Its a no brainer that there should be damage done in such an event) presently its pretty clear that is not is happening in the game.
Issue one is about M1 tanks not being killed by a direct hit.
I just finished a second test in CMSF THAT PROVES BRITSH 155 ARTY ROUNDS ALSO WILL NOT KILL A M1 with a direct hit from that game. So it appears the M1 is one tough mother or maybe the assigned programming is a little over estimated.
-
I never noticed an issue in CMBS, but I am sure most of my results were from use against Russian units with US arty.
Which taught me to use 3 rounds minimun to get a likely hit and kill.
Not having many chances to hit M1's with precision's rounds, in normal play, not getting a kill might not been too surprising, but seeing it now as programmed as not being possible seems likely incorrect. but not knowing what correct is also a factor here.
-
Artkin, it helps if you are as clear as possible. I am not even sure which game you are running your test from.
But I did do a test in CMBS with the Latest M1 with APS and ran the precision strikes from both 122 and 152 howitzers
and found you are correct in that a direct hit is not creating a kill, normally just substantial damage.
If the strikes are not direct hits, then as reported here, there appears no subsystem damage at all except for tracks.
Now that result, does seem unlikely. I would also expect a possible kill.
But is there a source as to what the likely sucess of such rounds should be vs the M1 top armor. I would assume pretty good, but maybe not. What is the results the game should be matching.
-
I am going to take a look at this also, he has provided the file. so it should be easy to see if we can create a similar result.
But no question that the video is appearing to provide proof that something is not right.
Sorry, that a year has past and this is still an open issue to him and he has no clue as to what efforts were made to submit an issue or if it was verified that his results were not reproducible.
-
1 hour ago, Lethaface said:
Recently completed a PBEM in which I was playing Soviets against USA, with an interesting force mix (1979, no T-64s).
Can't say too much about the details yet because it's part of a tournament and some matches still ongoing, but imo it certainly showed me what tactics can work for the USSR if you have some decent numbers.
Anyway I tried to mix some of the things I picked up in the USSR tutorials (and earlier reading) in my game. Worked quite well, although I adapted some things to the situation and my own preference/ideas.
Anyway keeping up the pressure all the time while closing the distance moving from position to position in force, committing all forces together as much as possible; especially in the final brawl and coordinated with artillery etc, did work out quite well (albeit bloody).
What certainly wouldn't have worked out good was long range sniping / shoot & scoot from hull down, committing platoons at a time while keeping others in overwatch.
It probably would have gotten some results, but I'd be playing in the hands of the USA forces which were just better suited for such a play.Running said tournament and having the ability to watch the battles, you are correct in the statement, that use of NATO type tactics just is a good way to get your head handed to you. At least in that battle anyway.
But learning how to move in mass and using Russian type tactics is also not a easy skill. Its a situation of understanding that you have no advantage other than numbers, so finding a method to close in on the enemy and getting into a knife fight is your only good option on how to win the fight. And in knife fights, the losses are generally equal, thus the larger force wins the day. But its never pretty.
So in my mind Soviat doctrine has alot of that built into it.
-
oh, here we go again. Another thread with the same old, same old.
Most of the same cast of charectors jump in and add their comments.
And then at some point the whole original discussion is long in the past.
Let people make their comments as to what they think needs to be improved in the game.
It hurts no one.
And as to the views of the original poster, likely much of it will never happen, that is his problem to deal with not mine.
But for all those out there that want change and something new and refreshing, if that is what you think will make you happy, have hope, some day CMX3 will come, and when it does. Just remember you were the ones that really wanted it and needed it.
because I recall how that played out when they went from engine 1 to 2 and how many of those that wanted all sorts of changes, many were not so happy when they actually received much of what they requested because it did not play out as they expected.
So when that day comes, just be prepared to understand, it will not meet your visions of the perfect game. It will be the third effort to make a engine even more capable to reflect the battlefield and thd combat that takes place on it. it will have new methods to reflect the same things, to some it will be great, to others they likely will complain, and thus we will see threads like this still and nothing ever really changes as to how we deal with each other on these forums.
-
19 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
The old game of 'Battleships' on the table top. You were not allowed to peek over the other side. But you can do in CM with your helicopters. If they start shooting at something you know a little more. Choppers a mix of scouts and flying artillery.
Yes, and a good use of it as a asset. I am so leary of using air if it has been given to me in a scenario. I expect something out there wanting to shoot in down. in the modern titles anyway, they are not so safe to go out and just do anything, they normally do not last long.
But thats better than not using them at all.
-
its should be simple, arty should be allowed but there is just too many players that cannot handle playing against arty. Thus many house rules are too restrictive
The rule started coming about because there were players that would use it and strike set up areas of their opponant which is totally gamey, thus a good reason for not wanting to allow it. But other than that, there is no reason it should not be allowed.
I recall one battle where I preset my arty to land where I antisipated my opponant to be on turn 3 then did some tricks to make it happen.
He moved right into the location anticipated, he screemed and whinned and said I cheated. we started over and I still kicked his butt.
But the original move was not incorrect. he should have moved knowing and thinking about possible arty strikes. But as I said, most players do not want to have to play or think about what it takes to deal with it.
So in general, they have made house rules that really hurt game play if you are playing with a country that has real slow arty times to call in and there is no way to use it in the initial stages of the attack.
It is a area that players should discuss with each other. but you have my view on it. Other than targeting set up zones at the start of a battle, you cannot justify any other restriction as far as i am concerned for the attacker or the defender.
-
Just finished "Mann Gegen Panzer"
Also a fun little battle that I enjoyed.
I managed a Minor victory in this one with a score of 1500 to 1173, prevented anything from exiting.
I had 16 men left, lost 27. Only one leader from the original group was alive.
I think the AI armor could have overrun me and make it onward. But the AI lost the will to push the attack. With what it did, it only had one tank usable in the end. Against another player, I would have been toast.
This battle was also well designed.
-
On 11/23/2021 at 9:39 PM, kohlenklau said:
A tiny Barbarossa panzer combat teaser scenario is now in my goody box!
BARB The Double Zug Hug
I just played this today, I am a fan of small battles and this was very well done. I enjoyed what you did.
I walked away with a tactical win 317 to 169 (I dont want to give anything away) but I enjoyed what I found I was up against - good challenge.
In my mind I did not win, I lost 5 tanks and that was 13 crew members out of action. Not a way for the Germans to win the war. But you know what I was up against - so you can decide how I faired.
-
Semmes
I think everyone that plays the game has opinions on ways that the game could be better.
And I do beleive the guys that work on the game and the company itself is constantly working on ways and want to make the game as realistic as possible. It is a part of the goals they have in general.
But they can only do so much, they already have list of many items they would like to see. That list is full of items placed from high priority to low.
Some times, items on the list cannot be addressed. The programming in the game engine is just not there to do it.
Sometimes its not addressed because the amount of programming for what is gained in the game is just not worth the amount of effort needed to make it happen.
So one needs to understand that only those people doing the work will be the ones that will decide how and what the game will ever be. So we need to keep that in mind.
What we as users can do, is try to make suggestions with logical data or historic facts as to items that might be improvements in the future.
But so many players get upset when they dont see the items they would like to be improved happen after doing nothing more than making the request here on their site.
But I wanted to just let you know that, yes, some of your issues have good points and yes they could be done better and no the game does not have it right presently. but what level each issue has to how the game plays and where it fits in the endless list of possible improvements for the future. Only the designers of the game know and its out of our hands. And no one that has commented in this thread has the power or understanding as to if it matters to the designer.
Some of us Beta testers do know what they are focused on improving for the near future and that is about it and we get to make suggestions and such to those efforts, and what we read on the forum helps us remember things that could be improved but it still comes down to the people writting the code and making it actually happen. And being people, there is limits as to what they can do.
But I personnaly respect the BF team and all the hard work they have done and what the game is and what they have adcheived. Others do also. That does not mean anyone thinks the game is the greatest thing ever and that its perfect or that it cannot be improved. What it means is that they have done something no one else has done and so yes, they are the best option that is presently available, but if someone else could do a better job and make a better product. I am sure the loyal following would drift away onto those better things. But for the time being, I think they need not worry, because there is nothing out there pulling people away because it does a better realistic job, that is for sure.
So in that sence, yes there is a attitude as to the game being Great because what else has adcheived the same.
-
Semmes
Some how your attitude seems to be more about complaining about aspects of the game that you dont think does a very good job as to being realistic.
And to tell you the truth, I agree that many of the items on your list the game does do poorly, there is other things that I have no clue as to why you are complaining.
But you need to understand, complaining is not going to get people to take your comment seriously.
You need to discuss your reasons with some logical facts that show how the game if falling short and then also its helpful as to suggestions as to how to make it better.
You did try that with pistols at the start of the discussion, but you only evidence was that of the work of another player that you could not explain as to what he had done to get his numbers.
Once it was looked at, still does not show a issue that seems to need addressing.
So then you went on to attack every thing you dont like about the game.
Lets talk about a few.
Units not taking cover (which I agree, the animation in the game does not show men going for cover as fast as you would exspect if it was a real person in the same situation. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it)
AI pathing issues, all units are subjected to this, not just trucks. No question, sometimes when the AI takes over the pathing instead of leaving it in players hands it does a terrible job as to what it decides on. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it) My last view of this was a AA truck I had as a key unit deciding to ignore my commands and I watch it drive onto a foot bridge and get stuck for the rest of the game.
Ai use of Arty, yes this is a weak point in the game programming and has been a known weakness for a very long time. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it)
Suppression has been discussed many times on the forum, again is it perfect, no. I think it is been shown pretty clearly that units recover from it way to fast compared to what it would be like in real life. But then again, everything in the game is happening way faster than it does in real combat. So how do you fix that and what is the correct fix. First, its a game and the blasted thing is already slow and boring as far as I am concerned. I sure dont want to make it more realistic so that it takes me twice as long to play and just that much more boring. but a discussion as to what is appropriate times for suppression should and could still be helpful for improving the game. How long should the effects likely last?
As for the comment that the AI is targeting certain important units (Leaders and MG"S and such) maybe it is and if I was the programmer, I would have designed it to do it also. Becase in real life, it sure is done. So the question should be is it programmed in the game and do we have evidence that the incorrect units are taking and using the programming in its targeting. The only units that should have it programmed into them is when its a person looking down a sight and the enemy is close enough that they can tell who is the high priority target. But presently, I dont see anything that sticks out as being unrealistic, and that is again after just finishing a game where my MG's were consistantly the first or second man to go down in almost every fire fight. But in my view they should be. And guess what, I still kick the enemies butt, because I overwelmed them with fire power and I recrewed those MG's with other men and almost evey MG I had is still in the game and is working. Just as I was trained to do in real life.
So just stop with the attitude and stop trying to act like you are the victom, you came to troll, if you want to make some real effort to discuss ways to improve one of these aspects, great.
But we have seen the list of why the game is just a game and how the hell are we accepting the fact it is not perfect to the list makers standards. it gets old. because guess what. because its a game and its not going to be perfect, ever, do you understand. ever.
But good discussions, might, just might get the programming gods to think about improvements if there is enough factors that can show the value of doing it.
-
well, the part that just made me laugh, was it takes 135 rounds to do it,
Now how many times will the game let me do that any more
I do not have that many pistol bearing men wanting to shoot that many rounds which they dont have at targets that far anymore.
At one time, the game did have pistols way too accurate, they adjusted it and now I hardly ever notice a problem.
I do think they are still a little too lethal, but not compared to most everything else in the games.
Feed the troll, he is wanting a reaction. but no one is really taking him on, it sounds like this troll has proven to be of no true interest to most and that he is just once again making a fool of himself.
-
What are you talking about, the Canadian ad was during the summer months, if it was winter, you could not film anything.
Oh I will take that back, I have been up there during the two weeks of summer that they have.
-
1 hour ago, Falaise said:
Looking at this, at least we understand, in the event of a world conflict, who will win and who will lose!
My thoughts exactly.
Which countries are training the type of soildiers that will be mentally tough when a harsh conflict does come.
But the sad thing is, I am no longer beleiving in countries and values of countries meaning much. Our political leaders are no more than puppets and the wars we are ingaged in has nothing to do with just conflicts between countries, there seems to be hidden agenda's.
When will we have lost enough trust of our Leaders to question what they are doing and where are they leading us to to say enough of this.
To sacrifice for ones country should and was at one time a thing of honor, but if as a soilder you are supporting a corrupt system, then is there honor in it.
We are living in times where we should be looking closely at those that lead us. We look at history and can say a Nazi leader was part of a evil system and it was good they were stopped. But are we falling into the same problems of supporting evil also that pretends to be doing good in our behalf. (and this falls under many countries and leaders of the world, not just a few).
So watching this and seeing how countries pull at their people to support them in their armed forces and knowing the system and knowing what their militaries are likely to be used for brings me no happiness at all, I am at a point where I cannot understand why we as humans cannot see the wickedness of it all and just stop supporting it and those that use it.
I have no hatred for people of any country, I do have a great hatred for those that lead their people to do evil.
-
Ran at 2.5 Km and the same results , 4 US tanks destroyed in the first minute.
No spotting issue until some evidence with some real info is provided.
17 minutes ago, Redwolf said:Range is not involved in the spotting artifacts that some find odd.
When I curse the spotting it is usually at point black range. As in just fire the gun you can't miss. Or viewing "through" an unspotted unit that is between the spotter and another AVF that is spotted. That kind of thing.
There is no range related issue and that is easy to test.
Tanks are actually much more blind as to things which are close, so again, its hard to say its always incorrect when the game does not spot a close danger.
But I agree, its the up close and personnal contacts that when they are not spotted, can drive one crazy. I have had my share of those that it makes no sence as to why the unit is not spotted.
-
On 10/16/2021 at 11:20 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Which Russian tanks? When? Under what circumstances?
On 10/16/2021 at 11:07 AM, dbsapp said:In the end it leads to some buggy consequences, like Russian tanks are blind beyond 2 km range in CMCW.
OK, I just ran a test to see how blind Russian armor is just over 2km.
Hmmm, 4 destroyed american tanks in one minute, Now it is T64b1's but this is why it gets old listening to these type of comments unless you are going to get some data as to what you are really seeing as being wrong.
There was spotting confirmed within the first 10 seconds of the battle.
-
How many times must one say there is bias spotting in the game mechanics before it becomes true.
well, you have 330 post, I sure hope its not 100 times already
I understand why it seems that way, but if there is any proof to it other than unfounded claims I really would like to see it.
But I will counter with the comment that the system seems pretty accurate. Why, where did the bias go in CMCW.
What, there is Russian units that out spot US counter parts in that period of play. So did they just forget to put their bias calcs to that game or is it the engine does what it is entended to do and it kicks out pretty good results.
For a game that tries it best to put every aspect to a mathimatical output from what data and infomation that is available. Its amazing how many will wish that they just throw in unreal numbers to suit threir bias wants. (what sence does that make in any way, oh I know---propaganda, that must be it)
So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by slysniper
A very good point, In the Historical context. What likely could of helped Germany win the campaign in Russia.
Their only Real chance was the one they tried in 1941, the goal to was to have Russia collapse before the winter of that year.
They really needed to take Moscow, so realistically, it would have nothing to do with better equipment, just enough army and equipment to overcome what the Russians had at that time.
It really was amazing they did what they did in 41 as it is. But I recall the shear numbers seemed pretty unrealistic when they did get to Moscow, so not sure what it would have taken to keep the offensive moving. But 1000 more PzIII and Iv"s then might have made a difference.