Holo

How much time is needed for Javelin crew to pack up after firing, and change position? My view of this matter is that one of the advantages of Fire and Forget, if this period is reasonably short, you can relocate quickly and thus be harder to spot by enemy. Maybe I'm all wrong on this, but if not, it would be really nice to see in CM:SF Javelin crews have an option to behave something like Shoot and Scoot, that is, move out of cover, take a shot, and hide again.

Can anybody tell me what ammo type is Syrian army using now for their T-72's? In the light of recent events, and Russian Kornet-E missiles in theatre over there, is it posible they purchased something new and more lethal?

In the meantime I conducted a little test in CM:BB. I confronted Elite Panther D against line formation consisting of Elite T-34 M43, T-34/85, ISU-152 and IS-2. Range was 1000m. I let crews pick the targets, which means AI was responsible for target selection from the start. In 10 out of 10 times I have tried this, Panther's crew first picked T-34/76. Then I shuffled the Russian tanks, keeping them in line formation, and conducted another set of tests. Same results – 10 out of 10 times Panther picked again T-34/76. Notice that in this setting IS-2 and ISU-152 are the ones that can hurt Panther. To experiment further, I've replaced Panther with King Tiger, and run the tests. Same results – 10/10 for T-34/76. Since none of the Russian tanks can really hurt KT, I've observed with curiosity what would happen next. It was T-34/85 picked next, then ISU-152, and finally IS-2. To broaden the experiment I've setup the similar conditions in CM:AK. On one side Elite Churchill XI, and on the other line formation of Elite PzIVH, Panther D, Tiger and JagdPanther. 10 out of 10 Churchill crew first picked PzIVH, which has no chance of hurting Churchill XI at that range. I've replaced Churchill with Firefly V, just to get the same results. Finally, I've replaced German formation with PzIII(short), PzIII, PzIVF and PzIVF2. As they all have very similar front protection I was very curious to see what happens. 10/10 for PzIII(short) – in this setup PzIVF2 is only true opponent. I am not sure what to derive from this experiment. The obvious one is that AI chooses target that is easiest to destroy, but that might be jumping to conclusion. But, what seems to be certain is that AI is definitely not choosing highest threat for survival of the tank as a primary target, what should be expected to happen – in first setup, Panther should have picked IS-2, in the last Firefly should have picked PzIVF2 – after all, you must survive first in order to go on with the mission. Any improvements in this area?

Steve, as there is still no answer to my questions, I can only presume that: a) Somehow they are not legitimate I dared to compare CM with some other game, thus offending team Battlefield beyond forgiveness c) Aliens abducted you So, any answers, please?

I have just finished an armour exercise QB in CM:BB, and although I won, I was quite unsatisfied. I've played as German in Allied assault map, gave the Russians +100%, which translated into me being able to buy only 3 Panthers, and some infantry, while for the Russians I've purchased 18 T-34/76, infantry company and appropriate number of M5 APCs. Having only 3 Panthers, and playing huge map, I have decided that it is best for me to wait them to come in range of 1000m and then to open fire, so I've made appropriate vehicle covering arcs. All went fine, Russians were approaching, I've moved my Panthers in hull-down once I've decided they're close enough, they started blasting on everything that moves in arcs hitting one by one, but then IT happened (not the first time I must say) – one of their APCs was quite a bit to the left and one of mine Panthers turned to target him. It took him some time to traverse the turret left, to aim and to fire, the action giving the first shot hit. In the meantime, one of the Russian T-34's came out from behind the trees, aimed at Panther, and hit right side turret knocking it out in first shot (the Panther some 300m to the right of the knocked one took care of him a few seconds later). Now, although this might be entirely my fault for making covering arc too wide, every time I try to prevent something similar to happen I have tanks covering smaller arcs which doesn't risk their side turrets like this, but instead they become potential sitting ducks for surprise attacks from sides. In real life I presume that commander would abort engagement of APC, and immediate threat would be took care of first. However, I know nothing on that topic so the real... ...Question is: How the covering arcs are handled in CMx2? For example, (and I have spent many hours pondering on this ever since Steel Panthers I) I've always wanted to see some sort of assessment of the threat to my unit from oncoming targets. In above example, knowing that the Russian APCs don't have any capability to hurt my Panthers I would put something like Hard Armour covering arc. Maybe this wouldn't be necessary if their is some other way to tell the tank how to behave on its own, and not to act as above, but one way is to make more types of arcs, and even make more than one to be available at the time - lets say for example I make in above example Hard Armour Arc at 1000m, Soft Armour at 500m, and Infantry at 250m. In modern terms, I guess it could be something like 3000m, 1500m, and 500m, respectively. The other thing I've always missed is hit chance threshold. Let's say, in above example, that I have put covering arc at 1000m, but I really don't want start shooting unless I'm pretty much certain I have a decent chance of hitting. If I'm making initial commands before turn starts I can decide on my own which target is most likely to be hit, but once the turn starts my crews are on their own (compared to old turn-based games like SP where for each unit you can determine which enemy is most likely to be hit on each shoot/turn). So, if having some feature like Hit Chance Threshold, in above example I would be able to tell my crews not to shoot at targets that have less than, let's say, 50% hit chance estimation, so to save their ammo, especially, since them being in hull down, enemy has even less chance of hitting back (and in this case it's T-34/76, so I really don't need to worry that much). However, just to make sure I'm not endangering my tank too much I would give something like Fire Back if Hit, which will make the tank shoot back at attacker although Hit Chance Threshold is not achieved, and Fire Back if Threatened, assuming case were all of a sudden something big like SU-152 is popping out behind the hill, my tank commander recognizing it and becoming very aware of unexpected threat (when I way back in CM:BB first started experimenting with covering arcs this was on several occasions just the case – T-34/76 were unable to do anything against Panthers, but then I would suddenly see few SU's rolling out, firing and knocking out my precious armour – that teached me a lesson or two). So, essentially, the general question is how much of the additional control conditions will we have on our disposal to set unit's behavior (in this case tanks), while not making the game 1:1 handling of every little detail?

It seems to me that situation with MBTs and ATGMs is developing in direction where later are becoming more of the threat than oposing MBTs. Especially in "not so flat and open" terrains. Ooooh, I can see them clearly flying all over the battlefield in CM:SF, just blasting away everything that moves. :cool:

I have no idea if it's really possible to hit ANYTHING 5km away with any ATGM, especially in war conditions, let alone specifically lower hull front, although I presume that 2-3km may give results, but the real question was if hit there what would happen in the game, in the light of estimates, manufecturer's specifications, and recent performance in Lebanon.

I am wondering what penetration tables, accuracy tables and armour protection levels are used for CM:SF? The reason I ask this is while playing CM:BB and CM:AK I was on more than one occasion puzzled with data given there, not to mention the changing stats from game to game for the same weapon type - for instance, ELITE King Tiger targeting T-34/85 at 1000m frontally on all flat, prop free terrain, gives only 57% hit chance, which is very different from data that states King Tigers performance at 100% practice, 85% combat hit chance with PzGr. 39/43 (Jentz, Thomas L.); the same is with penetration of 88mm KwK 43 L/71 at 1000m (30 degrees from vertical) – CM:BB – 146; CM:AK – 159; Jentz, Chamberlain, Doyle – 165. Now, WWII happened a long time ago, and although, obviously, there is a lot of difference from source to source, it is hardly that any data on this matter is classified, as opposed to current systems, where all that can be found on net are various estimates. Therefore, for example, when looking for stats of modern mbts on net, you can come up with something like this: M1A2 SEP Turret Front: 940-960 RHAe against APFSDS; 1320-1620 against HEAT Glacis: 560-590 RHAe against APFSDS; 510-1050 against HEAT Lower Hull Front - 580-650 RHAe against APFSDS; 800-970 against HEAT Also you can find this, concerning Kornet-E ATGM (www.army-technology.com): "Armour penetration for the HEAT warhead is stated to be 1,200mm. Range is 5km." So, at least in theory, this two sums up to conclusion that from range of 3-4km Syrian soldier equipped with Kornet-E fires a missile, it hits lower hull front and penetrates Abrams. Hmmm....is this really possible? What the CM:SF outcome would be?

I agree, that's only fair, and although I didn't have in mind specifically CM:SF for all that nice guided thingies, it seems (as I see from the other posts) that at least some of the guided ammo is being fielded now, so.... And, naturaly, I don't expect to see in CM:SF Chinese tank self-defense high-powered laser that directly attacks enemy ATGM's optics and gunner's eyes, just because it's :cool: , but I am hoping that I will see it in some future instance of CMx2 games (as well as full squad of OFW's on the very same battlefield). [ August 14, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Holo ]

Thanks for link, I hope that some of the development mentioned here will make into the at least some future CMx2 game, and that we won't have to wait for FCS to be fully deployed to see it in the game.

The reason I ask that is that although (as it seems) all of the programs I've mentioned are canceled, it seems to me that sooner or later there will be some variant of guided munition fielded for beyond LOS capability (8km ranges are mentioned), so although it may not have much of the impact in game like CM:SF, maybe in some other CMx2 game/module it will (I can clearly picture in my head UAV way up front spotting T-90 or Type 98, and M1A2 firing from 6-7km

This I like, since I am of the sneaky gaming bunch that likes to stalk the armour with ATGM's Since we're on the subject of guided missiles do you know (or anybody else) if US Army started to use any of more advanced guided 120mm munition types like TERM, STAFF and X-ROD, and if it had, will it make it into the game?

Has it been found that it's not usefull enough or what? I thought that Russians were using their Shtora-1 counter measures system along with laser warning packages on more than just T-90. Am I wrong?

You got me confused here. I thought that TOW-FF program was canceled in 2002 (or my data is old). I presumed that US Army is using either TOW-2A (direct attack) or TOW-2B "flyover shoot down" top attack mode missiles, but they are both wire guided. You haven't answered me about switching between direct (bunker busting) and top attack (tank busting) mode, for Javelin system for example. About the lasers, does this mean that Kornet system will not make it into the game? [ August 11, 2006, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Holo ]

Sorry if this was already mentioned, but I was wondering how the different anti-tank missile systems will be treated in the game? For example, Kornet is laser beam-riding guidance system, Milan is wire-guided and Javelin is fire and forget system. So (correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm no weapons expert), when Kornet or Milan are fired, the operator only needs to spot the target, to fire a missile, but then he has to guide it to the target, whereas (as I understand), Javelin team must track vehicle for a couple of seconds, lock on it and fire, but then can immediately relocate. Also, will we be able to choose between direct/top attack modes, for systems that have these modes? One more thing related to ATGMs – how the tanks will react when targeted by laser beams?