fireship4
-
Posts
495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by fireship4
-
-
Discussion aside, can we avoid quoting pictures in our responses lest the thread become un-navigable.
Statistics from WW2, pictures etc. will be of limited use - if they can tell us how the gun was rendered un-usable, and how representative this was of events in the field, that is useful in making sure the game reflects reality (our goal: admonitions to not put your tanks in dangerous situations miss the point), but I think it will be more instructive to see if there is anything about the way gun barrels, their subsystems, and projectile hits in general are modeled which would give large differences in results. Is there a problem with high angle-of-attack hits? Are the barrel and muzzle-brake modeled as one system? Etc.
This is most easily done by Battlefront, it may even be a known issue which is a design trade-off. Apart from this the cause can be narrowed down by further testing in the editor.
-
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean its a 'bug'. It just means it sucks going up against autocannons. There's a reason why autocannons in the game target tanks when smaller caliber weapons don't. If a Shilka or Tunguska fires a burst into your turret front there's not going to be much it won't break, from optics to antenna mounts to the gun barrel. The 20mm gun Wiesel in CMSF2 has up to 4 times the rate of fire as the 25mm Bushmaster gun on Bradley. Its hard to argue the incoming rounds should avoid hitting the gun barrel.
I am frustrated by my surmise these are in fact bugs, in part due to the thread by RobZ, and:
I believe the main gun on a MBT would be hard to knock out in real life, since it occupies such a small area from the front, and would be at an extreme angle of attack if from the near front. Other shots (from the side for instance) would likely be directed at the mass of the tank.
To put a barrel out of action would I imagine require significant damage, since it is effectively a tube.
The chances of loosing a main gun when hit by an autocannon seem to be very high. In the aforementioned mission, my Oplots lost their gun in perhaps 50% of cases where a BMP (3M?) autocannon hit them from the front. Other systems were degraded the more hits were taken, and lost on occasion, but the main gun was always at great risk. These were normally head-on encounters, normally with neither attacker nor defender hull-down.
Furthermore my frustration was compounded by the fact that my Oplots seemed to have baked bean juice on their optics, since they would take significant (minutes on occasion) time to spot BMPs showing the vast majority of their hulls while ordered to look directly at them. And finally by the fact that I will likely not see this bug fixed wihout paying for an "engine upgrade". This however is not the place for a discussion on the latter point, on which I concede the fact that the game remains frustratingly moreish, despite the achingly slow progress on the engine.
-
Another day another interesting post by John Kettler!
-
I would also like to see this fixed among other bugs, I just ragequit an attempt at the "Shield of Kiev" campaign in Black Sea: I lost at least main guns to apparently invisible BMPs firing autocannon through the smoke my hapless Oplots deployed on being lased. I am on the last patch that didn't require paying extra though so I'm not holding out much hope!
-
Thanks John, from a fellow Shtrafbat watcher (currently about halfway). As to your post, I believe this is part of a 5 film series, as mentioned above. The rest can be found on same channel (the official "Mosfilm" Youtube channel) in the playlist I have linked below. In the first film, detailing operation "Citadel"/The battle of Kursk in 1943, which is all I have seen so far, keep an eye out for T64s/T72s (?) used in place of T34s, and the apparent mixing up of the Tiger/Panther (Tiger ("our newest tank") being sent back for more armour because it was penetrated from the front by Soviet AT guns?) at the start of the film.
-
Always posting interesting stuff Mr. Kettler, thanks.
-
Thanks for the link, I understand about the Russian Army being partly professional partly other, I was just hoping the document would be telling me that and how it affects things - that is what it puports to be for after all.
-
Thanks for the link.
EDIT: At a glance this looks a much better/more serious document. Its got maps and diagrams up the wazoo as well. Man this looks like one of those 90s PC game manuals where the manual was better than the game.
Wikipedia in fact has links to most or all versions of SMP in .pdf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Military_Power
-
On 06/10/2017 at 2:01 AM, John Kettler said:
...The material you seek is on pages 52-55...
I think you may have misunderstood me - the section you mention includes info about BTGs etc. as you say, however I was looking for information on the fielding and doctrine behind Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons, ie tactical/theatre nuclear weapons. There is a little in the below section:
QuoteTransition to the New Look Program
Moscow’s limitations in modernizing its military had led to heavy dependence on its aging nuclear forces to defend the state. But while the presence of a robust nuclear deterrent
dissuaded potential aggressors from directly attacking the Russian Federation, it was not flexible enough for Moscow to use in small, local conflicts such as Georgia or as a tool of power projection. The New Look program was...But that is basically it from what I can tell apart from the mention on pg 31.
Since I'm already skimming and criticising, I have another couple of thoughts. Who is this document aimed at?
QuoteOur policymakers and commanders must have a complete understanding of Russia’s military capabilities, especially as U.S. and Russian forces may increasingly encounter each other around the globe. DIA will continue to provide our leaders decision-space, ensuring they have the time and information necessary to protect our nation. The wrong decisions—or the right ones made too late—could have dire consequences.
Ok, fine, so non-military personell? Politicians/civil servants who don't have a military backround but would make better decisions with a bit more?
The section I quoted above, apart from the new look program, a couple of other interesting things
Quote...Partially- manned Soviet-style divisions were reorganized into what were planned to be fully-manned brigades; officer ranks were trimmed from 350,000 billets to initially 150,000, although later the number rose to 220,000; the contract manning effort was reshaped and reinvigorated, with a goal of 425,000 professional enlisted personnel in the force by 2017...
And then in another section:
QuoteThe centerpiece of the 2008–2009 New Look reforms was the elimination of the divisional/ regimental structure and its replacement by the
brigade. The Russian Ground Troops currently have about 40 combined arms brigades.399 In the winter of 2013, one motorized rifle brigade and one tank brigade were reformed as divisions, and in the spring of 2016, it was announced that four new divisions would be formed in the Western and Southern Military Districts and one in the Central Military DistrictWait but they are moving some back to divisions? Is that indecision or budget or what?
QuoteThe re-introduction of some smaller divisions may be based more on their potential intimidation value than they are on their potential value in combat.
What? Well anyway, I read there is a mix of volunteers and contracted soldiers? And it affects things to the extent that you want to separate them when trying to form a BTG?
QuoteMost, if not all, New Look maneuver brigades have one BTG, manned entirely or mostly with contract soldiers,
Ok great that looks like something interesting to read about - how much of the army is volunteers and how do they stack up to their "contracted" comrades?
QuoteAgain, I haven't read the whole document, but from my skimming (which may be all a civil servant may have time for) I would venture:
- The target audience seems unclear. There is a "New Look Motorized Rifle Brigade" TOE at one point, and every so often there are lists of the number of personel or tanks in this or that, or the aforementioned MiG29 is most capable table, which all seem pretty pointless without context, especially to someone who has not been to officer school.
- Several interesting narrative threads which look like they could have been followed to provide some insight aren't followed, and information that is mentioned tends to be scattered around the document.
I never read SMP to my knowledge but I assume it was not like this. It feels as though what we needed was a book written by David M. Glantz, giving us a little history, a little 90s collapse and consequence, a little new look reform, a little differences in doctrine, a little dont assume they wont do this or that or use this or that - this is how they see this... etc. You know, what actually military analysts worry about. And then a lot of nice colour maps to show where things are and how big this or that is and what a division is supposed to do.
To reiterate, I haven't read much of the document, just commenting on what I have in the mean-time. Apologies if I have over-stated a position on too little information, but I wanted to put the conjecture out there.
-
Oh no, it just crossed my mind to check for it - I'm sure it's a good document otherwise. Thanks again your posts are always appreciated.
-
Thanks Mr. Kettler.
Edit:
After a quick scan, it seems very little attention has been paid (1 paragraph on page 31) to Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons and doctrine - from what I understand the scenarios in which they may be used differ from the West, and I was hoping this paper would deal with this issue as it is one area where a flawed understanding could lead to escalation.
-
Greetings, another old UO (and before that TG(!)) member here. Give them all my best, I'll be back one day.
-
Does it still happen?
-
If I understand correctly, he means that the infantry aren't prioritising their HE rockets when they have them against infantry. This might be a good idea, as if you knock out the infantry you have more left for armour. Is this with the 1.03 patch?
-
After losing a few units due to cover arcs, I now often use extremely wide/deep ones - this allows you to set facing (on two tanks bounding for example) without leaving them vulnerable to surprise.
-
Probably the store/retail phrase was added when CM games were distributed by that other distributor, what was it, paradox?
The post was modified in 2014, so I don't know if they had (or ever had - my boxed copy of CMSF was published by Battlefront) a separate publisher then.
-
IIRC, the activation system does not apply to the boxed copy of the game - if you buy a physical copy you can install and reinstall it. I read this earlier today on their helpdesk site and have linked it below, but you should confirm with them to be sure.
-
There is laser-guided artillery and GPS guided artillery. For the former the UAV (or spotter) needs to have a designator and have LOS. I think a UAV may also need to be set to point target on the vehicle if it is the spotter.
There are game manuals in the game folder somewhere and it is covered to some extent at least in there.
-
Hello Bil, enjoying your mod, thanks.
In the spirit of constructive criticism, I find it makes it a little harder to see when an icon is flashing to indicate casualties etc.
-
I'm impressed at the AI's behaviour don't get me wrong.
I saw the diesel thing on "Top Gear" a good but way too scripted car program in the UK.
-
You guys have said "desirable behaviour" but even better would be not to deploy smoke in that situation unless that tank had actually spotted the LAV - reversing back into cover and therefore not wasting precious smoke rounds.
Btw in real life maybe it is possible for crews to reload smoke dispensers? Might be nice if left alone for a while a vehicle could do this in game?
Injecting diesel into the engine to produce smoke also rings a bell... maybe too much to ask for. Though im sure it wouldnt be so hard to add an extra button so a cloud is produced behind the vehicle, you could create lines of smoke...
-
Roger Mark, I'll try that (as well as maybe try on a different computer and without mods).
Merry Christmas and nice patch (im serious).
-
So far
1) US Armour as defender on a tiny QB map, no units
2) I had a Stryker moving Fast and the turn ended. I cancelled the move order, gave the infantry inside a move order and gave the Stryker a replacement one. I started the turn and the infantry popped out immediately as the Stryker was at full speed to its objective.
3) I'm having trouble mounting troops onto Strykers who have multiple waypoints, even if I pause the Strykers. The infantry seem to sometimes go to the Stryker and sometimes it's final waypoint. How to I get it working? is it a matter of the order in which I make the orders?
4) Can't give dismount order to passengers if vehicle has other orders or if passengers drive. Similarly cant give orders to driver if he is mounting this turn.
I'm in WeGo btw.
-
I'll check that out Mark, cheers.
Two more bugs one quite large, all during turn based combat. First, my Stryker w/mk40 fired three shots in one - I saved straight after if that is any use.
Second, I had a Stryker moving Fast and the turn ended. I cancelled the move order, gave the infantry inside a move order and gave the Stryker a replacement one. I started the turn and the infantry popped out immediately as the Stryker was at full speed to its objective.
Finally I'm having trouble mounting troops onto Strykers who have multiple waypoints, even if I pause the Strykers. The infantry seem to sometimes go to the Stryker and sometimes it's final waypoint. How to I get it working? is it a matter of the order in which I make the orders?
Other than that, good patch, like the blue bar.
Tank Gun Damage
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
Some very early testing results. These are based on a few quick tests in the quick battle generator.