Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Ryujin

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    667

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Ryujin

    U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    3 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

    In my opinion, go for the deep strike. You have enough assets to cover the short ground near the town. A successful drive deep with your tanks would completely throw off the Soviets here, and force them to react to you. You'll also create a larger killing ground as well, which facilitates your primary goal of causing maximum casualties. 

    I agree, probably better to end up to flanking too far than not committing to the flank enough.

    It seems like tanks across the valley should be able to cover dead ground in front of your ridge top units and be supported by them. Kinda hard to tell, but seems like the short COA would be difficult to directly support from the ridge without exposing those units? 

    It also looks like the short COA could get you bogged down in mopping up all the infantry trickling towards the town when there's armor to fight. 

    2

    U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Ryujin

    1 hour ago, markus544 said:

    So having said that does the USSR forces have some kind of advantage re ATGM fire against NATO forces..  But I would say that ATGM from USSR forces were fired from the halt.  So they could target the oposition.

    The big advantage for the soviets in this period is they have loads of ATGMs in their units. Having IFVs with missiles (BMP) while the US doesn't (until the Bradley shows up) gives them a lot, as well as having a lot of ATGMs that are both very capable and also much more portable than TOW. The other US ATGMs are functional, but not great. 

    ATGMs would have to be fired from a halt, the main advantage of the soviets having so many is that they're hard to avoid and counter if they stop and use them. There's always the risk that at least one of those ATGMs will get a shot on you and if you suppress or destroy one ATGM, another will get a shot off. 

    West Germany however should have a lot of Milans at this point, including on Marder IFVs. So the relative ATGM balance is going to depend on which NATO country they're up against.  

    0

    Hindsight 20/20?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

    Show me the game with the graphics of Call of Duty which could function as a military simulator. I would buy it tomorrow. 

    Arma3. VBS is the military version, but both are extremely similar. DCS also has some military contracts, the A-10C there is pretty much their same product for the air national guard. 

    Usually military customers don't want to pay for graphics since they don't really care. But not because that's a limiting factor in simulation. There's nothing stopping you from making a simulation with good graphics. Scale might limit you, but that's not really a factor unique to simulations, but any large game. Military simulators aren't fundamentally different under the hood from CoD. They aren't made of magic. 

    27 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

    It is entirely up to you how you play the game. RTS on the lowest setting and you don't need Intel. The fresh contact of private Jones doesn't get passed on higher up when he dies. To make the game into a tactical simulator is a challenge for the individual player. Just playing on Iron doesn't stop you from 'Borg Spotting'. Between turns or by not selecting any units when it plays. The AI has the situational awareness of an ant and that's why you need to playback numerous times. I spot as private Jones the HQ of the enemy 10 seconds before he dies. Nothing stops you as a player to order a Helicopter Strike on the HQ. The moment you do that the game stops being a tactical simulator and becomes a PC game. At least tomorrow I play on Hotseat with an individual who shares my views.  

    If the only thing making it a simulator is user rules and nothing about the software, then it follows if I did room clearing drills imposing realistic rules in CoD it is now a simulator? I think we found your military simulator with CoD graphics...

    0

    Hindsight 20/20?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    34 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

    The computer is only capable of so much. Better graphics like Call of Duty compromises the integrity of the game. 

    Yes, computers have limits, however there are different aspects to performance. Improving the visuals isn't zero sum. Shock Force 2 for example tends use maybe 10% cpu utilization and ~30-40% GPU (which seems a little high for what's on screen) on my 2700X/2060 super.  Even with CM not being on particularly modern or optimized tech, we aren't at any risk of maxing out what current PCs can do. While CMx2 didn't run particularly well when it came out, improvements in hardware have at least compensated for rough optimization. 

    1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

     God's view I don't use unless I have air support in the game.  Camera 3 depends on the location of the unit eg buildings elevated terrain. Tactical integrity depends on the users.

    If tactical integrity depends on the users for you, then why are you worried about anything compromising it? That said if the tactical simulation only comes from the users, then it's not really a tactical simulator?

    1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

     If I know a game with the graphics of call of duty with the integrity as a tactical simulator, we will buy it. 

    Something like ArmA3 with a bunch of real people and a radio simulation mod of teamspeak is probably a better simulation of the tactics aspect and "integrity". Just you, binoculars, radio, and topographical map to explain your orders to people in real time. And graphics. 

    1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

     Replays doesn't compromise the integrity you must literally put yourself in the shoes of every individual. Private Jones spotted something. We need to know what transpired between Private Jones and his unit commander. So we know what the contact Icon is with the Company HQ 2 turns later. This game let you customize as you see fit. Happy gaming. 

    Putting yourself in the shoes of every individual is precisely what compromises it. If Private Jones spots something you as the CO/BN commander don't know that. You don't know what transpired between Private Jones and his squad leader. You only find out sometime later IF it gets reported to you up the chain of command. Hopefully it's reported accurately and it's not the third report of the same tank. Things like being able comb through the replay to know exactly what Private Jones sees as soon as he sees it for an instant, even if Jones isn't in contact with anyone and dies 10 seconds later dramatically changes the tactics you use. There's no uncertainty, no inertia, it's about as realistic as if the TO&E had laser rifles for the US in WW2.  

    I like replays and I like that the game has customization, but those should be acknowledged as compromises. There's no reason to oppose changes to improve player experience solely on the basis of preserving a non-existent tactical purity. 

    Also graphics wouldn't effect any of that under the hood calculation anyway. A lot of changes probably wouldn't even add meaningful CPU load.  

     

    0

    U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    Doesn't seem like the T-64s were turned out or hull down. There's a lot of factors here so it's hard to really tell the spotting, but the T-64s shouldn't really be at a disadvantage with optics AFAIK. Being turned out, sitting in position, crew quality, and information sharing probably favored the M60s shooting first. Once they shot the T-64s didn't really have anywhere to go but slowly backwards, so they kept getting hit. The T-64 is a good tank, but I don't think the outcome seemed that strange in this situation. 

    2

    Hindsight 20/20?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Ryujin

    "Don't compromise the game as a tactical simulator" is always an odd argument. Making the game look better isn't going to compromise it. Adding better performance, models, animation won't change how it works under the hood. 

    The other aspect is tons of things already compromise it as a tactical simulator for user experience. You get a god perspective of everything, instant perfect information, replays, and a flawless robotic level of command and control. CM is a great strategy game with many realistic aspects, but getting too concerned with "tactical simulator" doesn't make a lot of sense when you're playing ww2 scenarios with the tactical control of the borg and doing things that would be literally impossible for a real commander. A few changes for user experience aren't going to make a big difference. 

    3

    Hindsight 20/20?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    A large part of this is also that they use their own engine like many wargames, which means that they have to create and maintain any engine features themselves. While there are advantages in being able to make it however you like from the ground up and not paying royalties, I'm not sure that's worth losing out on all the tools, rendering, and performance benefits for a small team. 

    Realistically I'd expect any graphics or performance upgrades are going to be super painful for them. Maybe someday we'll get a tactical wargame on built on modern tech. 

    1

    M1 vs M60

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

    Not to nitpick, and I am sure you personally know, but the M1A1 was not just the M1IP with a 120mm. The A1 came with even better armor and a new fire control for the 120mm gun as well. And it was the M1A1HA that added the DU armor. Just so everyone else is aware 😁

    Nope didn't know, thought the M1IP armor carried over to the base M1A1, with the A1 being the new gun and fcs. Thanks for the correction, do you know what changed? 

    0

    M1 vs M60

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Ryujin

    Some other things.

    M60's commander's cupola while being a weak spot does have some advantages. 

    -Has higher magnification, can reload the .50 from inside. M1 is lower magnification (good for most shooting, not good for spotting) 

    -Has a night vision sight and big forward unity sight, M1 commander doesn't have his own night vision sight. 

    -M1 has better vision blocks, where as the ones in the M60 are tiny. 

    While both tanks don't have great visibility by modern standards, from SB experience it generally feels like you get a bit better visibility from inside with the M60 as the commander. In the M1 you're pretty blind turned in. In CM you'd probably want the commander opened up all the time, unlike the later M1A2s. 

    Fire control wise, the M1 has as digital fire control where as the M60A3 TTS is built on top of old tech. M1 is going to be better at lead, firing on the move, stuff like that. If you look at the M60A3 switchology, you can see there's more manual steps. 

    M1's gunners sight is one of the highest things on the tank (on the roof, no commanders cupola), so you can peek from turret down with it without exposing much. Never really tested how well this works in CM.

    1

    U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    1 minute ago, chuckdyke said:

    My understanding is the operator need to keep its target inside the cross hairs to strike the target. Fire and forget was not developed yet. I buy the possibility they could have a sensor which could guide the missile over obstacles. 

    You can aim above the target for most of the flight and then bring it down before impact. It goes wherever the crosshairs are pointed.

    0

    Will NBC be an option?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

    This can be filed under 'Be careful what you wish for'. Some of the stuff people  ask to include for 'completeness' would bring gameplay to a standstill. I'm reminded of MLRS (fielded in '83, just outside our timescale) which would basically stop any scenario in which was deployed. Players, especially competitive 'play-to-win'-type players, would not enjoy seeing their men gradually shifting from green to yellow bases and becoming suppressed and unfit before even catching sight of the enemy. That already happens when pixeltruppen are caught in a WP cloud.

    Sure, but those players also likely play balanced, fairly symmetrical quick battles without night, bad weather, or mud. They could continue doing that as much as that wanted regardless of the other options and it wouldn't make sense to remove mud and bogging because of them. 

    Maybe I'm an outlier, but I like interesting conditions and challenges that force you to change things up rather than have every battle in ideal conditions.  

    0

    Will NBC be an option?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Sequoia said:

    Right, I think the only way that an invasion by the Warsaw Pact in the time frame would be if the Soviets did something along the lines of:

    1. Announce they would not be the first to use NBC weapons.

    2. Announce limited objectives. i.e. they'd stop at the Rhine and Dutch and Danish Borders.

    3. Announce they'd pull back once the political reason for launching the invasion was met.

    By doing the above the Soviets might be able to convince NATO not to go nuclear first.

    The other possibility is that they go through with using tactical nukes per plan and count on MAD to prevent any NATO response beyond battlefield tactical nukes. I have no idea what the decision making in NATO would have been, but an all out nuclear response to an invasion of West Germany means accepting the loss of their countries. When it comes down to it, would the president be willing to give the order and effectively end the US over West Germany?

    I can't really say the battlefront interpretation is wrong, but it seems like there's a lot of ways this could go. 

    0

    Question; Rate of Fire and Engagement Distance

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Ryujin

    18 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:

    The M249 didn't enter service until 1984, undoubtedly to address this problem, but scapegoating the M16A1 was a clever way to conceal the military's real mistake ie: being too damn cheap the buy enough GPMGs for 30 years...

    The scape goating was to avoid talking about the army choosing to use out of spec propellant during it's introduction and the all around maintenance disaster. The M16 wasn't expected to replace an MG (except for that attempt at an LMG version). 

    0

    1980's Tactics Question?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Ryujin

    Pretty sure none of the soviet equipment. The US on the other hand should have access to some thermal sights from the start of the time frame on the M60 TTS and all the TOW launchers (I think), becoming more common later. So pre M1/M2 that should be a big advantage for the US to counter the latest soviet armor. I feel like you're going to be relying on your TOWs a lot. 

    1

    Afganistan Module?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Ryujin

    41 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

    Israelis used their Uzi and the FN FAL. The FN FAL was replaced by their copy of the AK47 the Galil which was chambered for 7.62 x 51 mm NATO and later 5.56x45mm NATO

    I think they were also getting M16s in mid 70s (though I'm not sure how widely issued vs galil)

    0

    1980's Tactics Question?

    in Combat Mission Cold War

    Posted · Edited by Ryujin

    2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

    Initial production M1 Abrams has thinner turret front armor than you're used to. It must've been tactically significant enough for the Pentagon to scramble to produce the M1A1 HA and HC uparmored versions.

    There was a lot of scrambling, they go from the M1 to the M1IP with a new turret in 1984 before the base A1. The A1 upgrades (HA/HC) then got more armor on top of that. The original M1 seems to have about half the turret armor of something like an M1A1HA . 

    0
×
×
  • Create New...