Marwek77 aka Red Reporter

Did you all just skim right over Steve’s last post in that thread?
 

I believed the same but then I found a post from Steve:
"there is a bonus for spotting things within an Arc"
Also:
"The spotting bonus is only within the colored area of the arc. Outside of that there's no bonus."
Links:
 

Targeting arcs do not increase chance of spotting inside the zone of the arc beyond:
1. Their effect on unit facing.
2. In the case of turreted vehicles, their ability to set different facings for turret vs. hull crew.
They are fire control orders, not spotting orders, and in fact these can be and often are contradictory purposes.  How spotting works in game by default: the 90 degree arc toward the unit’s front has the highest probability of spotting enemies, the 90 degree arc to the left and right has less and the 90 degree arc to the rear has the least.   If targeting order arcs were to increase spotting in their highlighted zone, they must necessarily decrease spotting outside (otherwise it is obligatory micromanagement the player is forced to use constantly because you would only gain an advantage with nothing lost).  However, decreasing spotting outside the area of the arc is not necessarily what I want.  I may be giving the order for control of range of engagement only, I may be trying to prevent an HE chucker from throwing HE at enemy that are close to friendlies, etc.  I certainly don’t want my unit to decrease their awareness outside the arc in those circumstances.  And arguably it is tactically stupid to do so in any circumstance beyond the default “weighting” of awareness toward the frontal arc.  It is imagining the battlefield as a range with pop-up targets.  “Don’t pay any attention to your flanks” is not an order I ever imagine being given on an actual battlefield.
See above.

I am a tanker.
In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc.
They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

It's that time again:

You mean that it's one of those things in the game that is visualized, rendered, you can see it, but in fact it's not really there so you should not count it. 
Contrary to those many things that are not visualized, not rendred and players can't see, but in fact they exist and should be taken into consideration. 

Hapless has put up a new Combat Mission video, this one, surprisingly, playing CM Professional! Hail Pertunia!
 

There's a hatch on the roof for loading.

Working as designed.  The BMP-1, BMP-2, M901 and Bradley all had hatch and launcher arrangements so that the crew was essentially under armor while reloading.  Rather than bespoke animations, simply staying buttoned is considered closer to reality than having crew completely expose themselves above armor.

BMP-1P, however, basically bolted a ground ATGM mount onto the roof, so crew had to reload from above armor.

Ok, so no aircraft in mission for Soviet side.
But what about Helicopters? They are more blind then my grandfather...

As I've several times noted in the last two decades, regardless of appearances, the PT-76, armed with the same gun as the T-34/76, was a potent tank killer, thanks to a HEAT round designed specifically to defeat the highly advanced steel-glass-steel armor planned for the T95 MBT, which was never produced because the US went the M48 route. The Israelis captured some of these rounds in the Yom Kippur War, but didn't provide any to the US until 1984. The only way the Egyptians could've gotten them was for these  first to be declared obsolete and replaced with something even nastier. That was when live fire tests found that it would frontally pierce the mighty XM-1 which had highly classified siliceous cored armor, the same thing the T95 had. Great was the consternation, and this is why the M1 HA was crash developed and fielded. Worse was to follow, for historically the US static fired HEAT warheads to test penetration. But the US discovered the Russian HEAT rounds, when tested dynamically, could penetrate as much as 40% better than static detonation showed. This was because their HEAT was specifically designed to take advantage of the velocity from the cannon launch. Source for these shockers was Dr. Joseph Backofen (world class HEAT expert and the CIA's SME on HEAT) at the Soviet Threat Technology Conference (U) 1985. This was a SECRET//NOFORN /WNINTEL  (No Foreign,/Warning Intelligence (Sources and Methods) Involved) no notes conference in which a terrified CIA, in the Year of the Spy, brought in its top Soviet weapon experts and told the defense industry threat people how bad things really were. Please understand that because its reports drew on contractor data and other proprietary information (PROPIN), we contractors hardly ever got to see what the CIA knew. During my 11+ years as a Soviet Threat Analyst, the only CIA reporting I saw was at that conference.
What we saw, in topic after topic, was terrifying, and it's a wonder no one died from one horrible shock after another. Not kidding! At least one guy was removed from the auditorium after getting into some sort of health difficulties. To give you some sense of how bad it was, thanks to great memory and specialized memory training, I came back and wrote up the entire conference, topic by topic. The resulting 40-page report turned the Operations Analysis Department manager's face paper white and moth agape. He was my boss's boss there. After reading it straight through and surfacing from that reading visibly traumatized, he decreed that only I, he and his boss were cleared to read it in its entirety, and others in the department were permitted to read only that part directly pertinent to their work--under his direct and constant supervision. Stated simply, in practically every military field, the Soviets had us dead to rights, and that was without factoring in the devastating crypto penetrations resulting from getting the crypto gear from the seizure of the USS PUEBLO and the key cards from the tremendously effective Walker-Whitworth spy ring. In the armor-anti-armor presentation, not only could they penetrate us and we couldn't penetrate them (T-64/T-72/T-80), but every anti-armor weapon in the inventory other than the Hellfire and the Maverick was judged useless frontally. The get well program cost the US billions. As if that wasn't bad enough, by the time we found out about a particular tank, it was often a decade or more before we got to really learn about it. The T-64 was kept in the interior military districts, well away from western eyes, to such effect we didn't see it for 20 years, dubbing it the M1984! 

Am hoping that CM: Cold War reflects these and other grim realities.

Regards,

John Kettler
 

RELEASED!

You can find both campaign files at www.cmmods.com at the moment.
I am preparing compilation for patch 1.11 now, so update will come very soon!

Good luck and good fight!

ok, I was referring to a M60 A3 version before.
So just to tease you with the forth coming game.
I did a quick test  of dueling tanks, pool table conditions at 1300 meters.
T64A VS M60A1 (WITH NO EXTRAS)
ALLOWED COMBAT FOR ONLY ONE MINUTE.
Both tanks unbuttoned
 
Results.
T64a was the first to spot and fire
30 tanks tested.
11 - M60A1 losses
1 -T64A LOSS
 
BILL WAS RIGHT IN THAT THE T64A IN THIS TEST ANYWAY WAS ABLE TO WITHSTAND MORE HITS THAN THE M60
AND THAT WAS A FACTOR FOR THE RESULT.
 
 
 
 

What's the difference? 
Exactly! 
  More of a T-80U man myself:

Hopefully we'll see a few more varieties in a few more of the games. 
Hell if Steve & Co. were feeling expansive enough we could even have 'em in CM:SF2, Yemen has them.....Just the thing for the inevitable counter-offensive to Riyadh! 
 

This is something I threw together in my own time. Please remember that this is from a beta build of the game and is subject to change. 

I'm deeply suspicious of Red vs Blue in CMSF in a multiplayer sense. I'm sure it's possible to win as Red, and it's possible to have balanced scenarios, but the disparity is so large that this is extremely difficult - even in an ideal situation, you'll be working significantly harder than the Blue player to keep level.

Still, if you're up for the challenge, this is the theory:

Imagine a Quick Battle, where the enemy are a US Bradley platoon. These are three squads with attached assets, javelins and the Bradleys themselves. Each element outperforms you in every way.

The main threats in order are then:

- Javelins
- Bradleys (TOW and 25mm)
- Infantry

So, how do you take this apart in the attack?

You obviously have cheaper forces, so you can build around an infantry platoon (say, BMP-1 or BMP-2 mech infantry), and attach assets to them.

- The Syrian army is derived from the Soviet army, which means the single most important asset is your artillery. Planning a good fire mission (or missions) are critical for success. The main artillery at this level would be 120mm mortars (on or off-map), ideally with a TRP or pre-planned. This assumes great recon, since the call in times are inflexible. Mortars aren't going to hurt the Bradleys, and can't be relied on to kill the infantry, but they will do an excellent job of suppressing the Javelins, so a lighter, longer fire mission is what you're aiming for. This obviously implies taking an FO.

- The second most important asset are reconnaissance forces. Having a squad or two available for recon - even just doing a leader recon with the platoon's HQ and the FO - is tremendously important. You need to know where they are. 

- The Bradleys badly overmatch either model of BMP, so you'll need something to improve the odds. Typically Soviet platoons would have a single armour asset attached, so bung in a T-72 or T-62 there. Either should give you a chance to hole a couple of Bradleys at least, but obviously the more modern the model, the better the chance. ATGMs are also possible here - all of them can take out Bradleys, but the AT-7/AT-13 are the ones designed for use in this scenario, since they're a little more mobile. The ATGM can join in the leader recon quite effectively, especially with the better models.

- Then, when the primary threats are dealt with, the BMPs can be fully engaged. There's been a lot written on these forums about keeping a chap in the commander seat to increase spotting, but I actually disagree with that (partly as you need the space for additional attachments). You should dismount BMPs later than you would with a Bradley, keeping the troops inside for a little longer, and making use of their forward-firing smoke for cover. When deployed, the BMP and squad should (at least initially) stick within 4 action spots or so, so that they can share information with each other effectively - that way the dismounted infantry are the eyes of the BMP. The BMP-2 is a significant upgrade on the BMP-1, but points may be a premium here, and the points may be better spent on the previous assets.
The infantry attack is basically mopping up. With the co-ordinated artillery, armour and ATGM attacks you should have shifted the odds significantly in your favour, so quality differences in the infantry are wiped out by excessive firepower. Tactically, the BMP plays the role of the squad's HMG - it's a fire support asset, with the squad as the manoeuvre element.


The thing is, this is *really hard*. It's inflexible, and relies on you using all of your assets effectively and in concert, to identify and counter each threat in turn. It relies heavily on having solid recon, and if something unexpected happens, you may not have the tools to deal with it. You also need great timing and a little luck. Blue needs none of this, so the balance is firmly in their favour.

Physically then, the battle will look a little like:

- Recon phase. Scouts out, find the enemy, start setting up ATGMs and plotting a fire mission.
- Move the armour and BMPs into a forward position, out of sight.
- When the suppression has started, the ATGM and tank can start taking out their vehicles
- With the Bradleys mostly dealt with, the BMPs can roll up with infantry mounted, in line, and slowly advance under the cover of the tank and the continual suppression.
- At a reasonable distance (300m?) the BMPs fire smoke and dismount infantry, who move ahead of their transports. Again they advance in line and move towards the enemy positions, whilst the mortars are still falling, under cover from the MBT. Infantry and BMPs now clean up, mopping up any survivors.

So 1st October today,
 
can we start new thread Will Russia Attack Ukraine in October?
I am sure you will find another former US general ready to give us some warnings...

So 1st October today,
 
can we start new thread Will Russia Attack Ukraine in October?
I am sure you will find another former US general ready to give us some warnings...

So 1st October today,
 
can we start new thread Will Russia Attack Ukraine in October?
I am sure you will find another former US general ready to give us some warnings...

So there is water you just simply blocked it? How heroic, Slava Ukraine!
If you are not sure, yes I mean it ironic...

COngratulation!
I have almost all of your games and still remember the CMBO DEMO where my CM journey started.
Thank you.

COngratulation!
I have almost all of your games and still remember the CMBO DEMO where my CM journey started.
Thank you.

NIce mod,
 
but its Chernarussian or Chernorussian? Because on the patch is written Černaruské ozbrojené síly (by the way its Czech) so it should be Chernarussian.

So I spent a lot of time to put together an artillery table for Russia and the USA. Currently Ukraine is completely missing. My main motivation was that whenever I was putting together an ORBAT, I had no idea about artillery strike call in times and available ammunition. Now I can check and compare it very easily.
I am sharing it with everybody in case also somebody else finds it useful.
Please note there is a sheet for each nation, and everything was recorded with Elite difficulty settings and Regular experience levels (for both arty and spotters).
Link to CMBS Artillery spreadsheet

The fires are called in by the forward based artillery officer, not the manuever unit commander. As such I am not sure how the above is applicable.
Incidentally this is why you get separation between commander's vehicles and senior officer's vehicles down to battery level, one moves with the troops, the other stays with the guns. Such direct and competent control of arty, all other things being the same, allows for faster fires.