Jump to content

slysniper

Members
  • Posts

    3,914
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from George MC in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    It started right here.
    where in this statement are you not insulting in every aspect of what you have said.
    Then make a claim it should be so easy to see why it's the soviet equipment that has an issue.
    But still to this point have made no effort as to showing logically why this statement you made is correct.
     
    If you dont like spotting in the game, thats one thing. There is plenty of players that are not fans of it and there is some good reasons why, but the system is the system used and its not going to magically changed since its the basic programming of the game.
    And there is plenty of evidence given, it affects both sides but not in your world of belief. So dont address any post that reflects that fact.
    but you have done nothing to show how the Russian equipment compared to the US equipment is not balanced correctly to each other within the game. Just one aspect "spotting", remember you keep wanting to make the statement its the spotting of Russian units, come on just show us something as to why it immediatly raises questions
     
  2. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Monty's Mighty Moustache in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    dbsapp
    You are so correct, I did not provide any evidence, because like you, if I say it is so, it must be.
    But why should or would I waste time on such a wasted effort, all the evidence that is available will never change your view, because you are set in your thoughts no matter what is brought forth.
    I love you man, you can go on and on and on, with your little war of words against whomever you think is your foe.
    And I am sure you think it is working to get to whatever you want the ends to be. 
    But in truth, you created a view of yourself that makes anyone that is on the cm team not even care to take a look at your claims as to issues within the game.
    And there is plenty of effort to look at claims and to review how the game is performing to realistic results.
    As was mentioned, there has been multiple things brought forth on these forums that have now been reviewed and hopefully adjustments will possible be made to make the game have better results in the future.
    But have you ever been the one that has brought forth any useful data that has helped with any of those reviews.
    I don't recall, like I said, at least you did provide something in this debate. It does not address the real issue. Spotting and why the US has the advantage there. But go on believing what you will, as I said it does not bother me. 
     
  3. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Vergeltungswaffe in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    dbsapp
    You are so correct, I did not provide any evidence, because like you, if I say it is so, it must be.
    But why should or would I waste time on such a wasted effort, all the evidence that is available will never change your view, because you are set in your thoughts no matter what is brought forth.
    I love you man, you can go on and on and on, with your little war of words against whomever you think is your foe.
    And I am sure you think it is working to get to whatever you want the ends to be. 
    But in truth, you created a view of yourself that makes anyone that is on the cm team not even care to take a look at your claims as to issues within the game.
    And there is plenty of effort to look at claims and to review how the game is performing to realistic results.
    As was mentioned, there has been multiple things brought forth on these forums that have now been reviewed and hopefully adjustments will possible be made to make the game have better results in the future.
    But have you ever been the one that has brought forth any useful data that has helped with any of those reviews.
    I don't recall, like I said, at least you did provide something in this debate. It does not address the real issue. Spotting and why the US has the advantage there. But go on believing what you will, as I said it does not bother me. 
     
  4. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Phantom Captain in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    And my final comment, if you really want to complain dbsapp.
    It should be about how bias the scenario design staff is, Its a group of westerners, so they focus on showing things from that view point.
    As pointed out, if you want to make the Russians shine, you can take the present game system and components and make it happen. Its just creating the situations that allow for what you want to shine to do just that. Its just not a task that is being done for the Russian side of the battle much.
    But I just finished a battle I was testing for CM and I was playing the Soviets and I really enjoyed the fact that in truth I had a pretty huge advantage, and that is a meeting engagement.
    So I know it is possible and it sure had nothing to do with My T55's out dueling his M48's
     
    Oh, and by the way, that tournament Scenario that a few of these guys played. showed one thing. Those that used Russian type tactics were those that had the success in the battle, and in truth, the odds were against them, but a few players managed to make it happen.
     
  5. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Phantom Captain in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    Oh, dont try using the 1973 war as a source for any proof of Russian armor being on equal ground.
    If you knew your wars, the majority of the Israeli armor losses were due to Sagger missiles.
    They had tactics that did not account for the new weapon system and it caught them by total Suprise. They lost a huge number of tanks trying to do what worked in previous wars and found out very quickly what the new weapon could do.
    Magically within just a few days, they came up with a whole new tactical doctrine to take on the new battlefield threat.
     
  6. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Phantom Captain in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    What I find as the most interesting part of this is you allow  dbsapp to get to you. He can have his opinion, as discussed over and over again, its never has any substance, so why bother to listen to him.
    At least this time he did find one document that was of some interest.
    And I think I can prove the game has it right, if it really needed to come down to that, which it does not.
    If you could make every thing even, The soviat tanks likely would have the advantage.
    At least when it comes to armor, size, gun firing a normal round and so forth.
     
    But the truth is, the studies that really matter for tank duels are the ones that show that he who spots and fires first is he who wins 80% of the time.
    And again CM games proves that many of a time. So it all comes down to the complaint, that the game makes the Russian tank blind, more than it should be. But as pointed out again and again, everything mentioned, shows just that, there is no way for the Soviat armor to be able to spot as well as American armor.  So its impressive that by just adjusting the crew skill level its enough to tweek the results that much. that in and of itself shows there is not a big difference between the units.
  7. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    Oh, dont try using the 1973 war as a source for any proof of Russian armor being on equal ground.
    If you knew your wars, the majority of the Israeli armor losses were due to Sagger missiles.
    They had tactics that did not account for the new weapon system and it caught them by total Suprise. They lost a huge number of tanks trying to do what worked in previous wars and found out very quickly what the new weapon could do.
    Magically within just a few days, they came up with a whole new tactical doctrine to take on the new battlefield threat.
     
  8. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    What I find as the most interesting part of this is you allow  dbsapp to get to you. He can have his opinion, as discussed over and over again, its never has any substance, so why bother to listen to him.
    At least this time he did find one document that was of some interest.
    And I think I can prove the game has it right, if it really needed to come down to that, which it does not.
    If you could make every thing even, The soviat tanks likely would have the advantage.
    At least when it comes to armor, size, gun firing a normal round and so forth.
     
    But the truth is, the studies that really matter for tank duels are the ones that show that he who spots and fires first is he who wins 80% of the time.
    And again CM games proves that many of a time. So it all comes down to the complaint, that the game makes the Russian tank blind, more than it should be. But as pointed out again and again, everything mentioned, shows just that, there is no way for the Soviat armor to be able to spot as well as American armor.  So its impressive that by just adjusting the crew skill level its enough to tweek the results that much. that in and of itself shows there is not a big difference between the units.
  9. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series   
    And my final comment, if you really want to complain dbsapp.
    It should be about how bias the scenario design staff is, Its a group of westerners, so they focus on showing things from that view point.
    As pointed out, if you want to make the Russians shine, you can take the present game system and components and make it happen. Its just creating the situations that allow for what you want to shine to do just that. Its just not a task that is being done for the Russian side of the battle much.
    But I just finished a battle I was testing for CM and I was playing the Soviets and I really enjoyed the fact that in truth I had a pretty huge advantage, and that is a meeting engagement.
    So I know it is possible and it sure had nothing to do with My T55's out dueling his M48's
     
    Oh, and by the way, that tournament Scenario that a few of these guys played. showed one thing. Those that used Russian type tactics were those that had the success in the battle, and in truth, the odds were against them, but a few players managed to make it happen.
     
  10. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Warts 'n' all in Pistols are better than rifles.   
    This issue has been brought up a dozen times in the past, And the same points have been discussed before.
    The game does not get it perfect for sure, I think the pistol is still a little too accurate and bolt action weapons take a very long time between shots. So that does impact if this is realistic.
    But the issue was reviewed, stats created and guess what, the game adjusted and its actually better than it once was.
    At this point, likely not going to be reviewed and adjusted again.
    Like was pointed out, if you are playing smart, really should not be an event that would happen much or impact the outcome of your game.  
     
    And as someone mentioned, when close to a target, An old fasion scoped weapon is very hard to aim and get on target, I will take open sights any day at those distances.
     
  11. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    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 
  12. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    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.
  13. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    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.
  14. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?   
    getting off topic, beg Suprise.
     
  15. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from dan/california in So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?   
    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.
     
  16. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from dan/california in So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?   
    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
  17. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?   
    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
  18. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?   
    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.
     
     
  19. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from danfrodo in So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?   
    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. 
  20. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from civdiv in So what tanks should the Germans have skipped, and what would have been the positive results?   
    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.
     
     
  21. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from com-intern in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    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.
  22. Upvote
    slysniper reacted to Artkin in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    Thank you!!!
  23. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Artkin in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    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.
  24. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Bud Backer in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    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.
  25. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    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.
×
×
  • Create New...