Sgt.Squarehead

I'd probably just use a tank. Sometimes it's possible to lose sight of the obvious in a sea of numbers.....The problem demonstrated in my test is what I'd call the 'WTF? Factor'. The higher the 'WTF? Factor' of a given incident is, the more likely an inquisitive player like myself is to question it and possibly to draw the wrong conclusions. Given the political rows that can break out over almost nothing in this forum, the last thing we need is mistaken conclusions leading to accusations of bias (this is precisely why I think the admin team should stand above the factional ranting that sometimes takes place here).

Combat Missions.....Sounds Fun! Let's find out.....Off to play some!

Combat Mission: Statistical Furore? or Combat Mission: Statistician's Fighting!

Can't argue with that.

I am absolutely convinced that asymmetrical warfare scenarios are the most entertaining, they present a whole new range of challenges to the both the designer & the player. Plus blowing 'headchoppers' to pieces feels righteous!

It's my recollection that the gunner of the T-72 and T-90 has a 3600 periscope whereas the Abrams does not.....This is just a recollection off hand (probably based on something I read at the Tankograd Site), post WWII AFVs are not really my thing (that would be WWII AFVs) so I don't have comprehensive references to check all the details to hand, but I can (& will) check online resources in due course. The test is attached at the bottom of the post Ian, I always try to do this, so we all know what we are talking about.....If you take the time to get to know me you'll find I'm very far from a snowflake. c3k's comments are enlightening, but not entirely unexpected, his comments regarding the sample size was something I was certainly expecting. It should be remembered though that most players won't bother to replay a scenario 200 times to see if they get a more plausible result, they'll just abandon the game in frustration and probably slag it off in a forum somewhere. As for the Abrams networking, the T-90s are within shouting distance of each other.....I did actually wonder if the sheer density of targets was skewing things in the Abrams favour. The simple fact is that most neutral observers viewing that test would very probably come to the conclusion that something just isn't right (and I don't think my testing methods would be at the top of their list). PS - Looks like I may have been wrong about the T-72 having extra periscopes.....It seems it was this quote about the T-80 (and thus presumably also the T-90) that I had in mind:

Dude, try writing some AI scripts for CM:SF.....You'll be up to your neck in zombies in no time!

If you are going to lose your 'no claims bonus', do it in style: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/tank-teaches-student-driver-in-yaris-a-valuable-driving-1708396324

CM:A is actually a slightly more sophisticated engine than CM:SF, but it also may be slightly buggy.....I've got a series of tests lined up to try to fully explore the situation with the game as it now stands. It's a great title and possibly the best balanced of all the post WWII games, it's definitely my favourite. I really do think Battlefront should endeavour to fully integrate this game into the wider post-war CM family, this campaign after all was directly or indirectly the trigger for countless world changing events across the globe.

Yeah, we'd noticed that about them.

Fair play Ian, sorry if it seemed like I was trying to give you a hard time.....Couple of points, while the Abrams does have a distinct sensor advantage, it does not have an overall visibility advantage. IIRC the T-72 & T-90 both have superior short-medium range spotting simply because the gunner can participate too. My fear is that too much emphasis has been placed on the poor performance of Russian equipment in the two Gulf Wars, to say that it was hardly being handled at it's best in those campaigns would be a monolithic understatement. If there is meaningful testing that could be done to help straighten this out I'd be glad to do it, my PC is quite capable of running one CM game while I'm editing another.

Triggers.....I'd kill for those too.

Currently it appears neither is taking place. Please don't take my comments here as an attack on BF, they are anything but.....If I didn't care about these games, I wouldn't comment (or spend hours at a time in the editor working) on them.

No doubt.

That and Russian tanks seem just a bit myopic, no matter how good they are.

I haven't seen drones doing this: Once they do we will all be well & truly ******!

Optionally, there's the 'Throw Zillions At It" technique: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-army-will-finally-be-able-to-blast-drones-with-lase-1793383695 Based on what I've seen so far I'd still choose the Eagle.....I've not flown a Bald Eagle, but I've flown other Eagles. First thing you are told when you take the bird, do not be deceived by the gloves, if this bird gets upset it will drive its talons through them like chamois and bury them into you so deep they cross in the middle.

If I was a TC in an open hatch and I saw an Abrams side on point-blank, I'd slam it down and take that shot.....Wonder why this one didn't? "Oh look, there's an Abrams! Should I tell the gunner? Nah, he must have seen it, I'll just sit up here in the fresh air and spectate." It doesn't really make much sense as an explanation does it?

It's top of my 'Most Wanted' list by a mile.....Especially if they follow LLF's formula (and thus include CM:A in the update).

More drone-hunting options are appearing: Still prefer the Dutch system myself.

That is not a terribly clear explanation of an IMHO rather irrational sounding request.....Having the vehicles sitting in the open with no other orders seems the best way of measuring their spotting ability to me. The one thing that might be useful would be to disable the smoke launchers, but we can't do that AFAIK? Steppenwulf has done the stats for you.....They are six posts above your own.

I haven't actually played CM:BS again since doing these tests.....I'm spending my time in CM:A which is much better balanced and doing anti ISIS stuff in CM:SF where there is no real issue of technological parity (and where TBH I don't give a monkeys if the 'bad-guys' get stamped on like ants, because that's really about what they're worth). Having said that I am building a couple of scenarios in CM:BS.....Fortunately these won't be at all affected by this problem as they are Blue on Blue: Welcome to Trumpton.....Still very much a WIP.

They'll have some work on their hands with all those G-36s they sold to our new eastern allies then. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/03/the-g36-controversy-intensifies/

How would you feel if the Abrams turns out to be Regular? I'm intrigued to know how good it is now.

Have you tried a mobility test on the tanks.....The T-64 came out best in five tests for me, yet it has the worst cross country mobility of the lot. All of this came about when a T-90 under my control steadfastly refused to see an AI controlled T-64BV sat in the open at about 600m, I had to make the T-90 venture into a muddy field to spot the T-64 where it took a shot, missed, bogged and was then brewed up.....Sound familiar at all? tankmobilitytest.btt