Combatintman

Close but no cigar - it is called something Rumpus - or more accurately Rumpenheim Rumpus - it is one of mine and I didn't know that it was the biggest one in the title.  I should stop overachieving 😉

Was his last name Semmes?

Most PBEM players.  A 2 hour long scenario can take as much as a year to complete PBEM, therefore shorter scenarios are preferred over longer ones generally speaking.  You also don't want to spend six months playing something only to then have your opponent disappear in the middle of the night.  Just look at the size distribution of scenarios and Quick Battles that are recorded at the Blitz.  Feel free to modify your remarks after looking that up.

The wooden ones I assume ... 😉

The wooden ones I assume ... 😉

The wooden ones I assume ... 😉

The wooden ones I assume ... 😉

The wooden ones I assume ... 😉

The translation is way off ...
Him:  'See anything?'
Her:  'No love'
Him:  'Are you sure ... we're being fired at ...'
Her:  'I can't see sh1t'
Him:  'Well something's out there.'
Her:  'What do you f*****g think this is - Steel Beasts?'
 

The translation is way off ...
Him:  'See anything?'
Her:  'No love'
Him:  'Are you sure ... we're being fired at ...'
Her:  'I can't see sh1t'
Him:  'Well something's out there.'
Her:  'What do you f*****g think this is - Steel Beasts?'
 

It's an in-joke.  Back in CMx1 days there was a massive forum debate on whether Bren tripods should be included in the game.

It's an in-joke.  Back in CMx1 days there was a massive forum debate on whether Bren tripods should be included in the game.

The translation is way off ...
Him:  'See anything?'
Her:  'No love'
Him:  'Are you sure ... we're being fired at ...'
Her:  'I can't see sh1t'
Him:  'Well something's out there.'
Her:  'What do you f*****g think this is - Steel Beasts?'
 

The translation is way off ...
Him:  'See anything?'
Her:  'No love'
Him:  'Are you sure ... we're being fired at ...'
Her:  'I can't see sh1t'
Him:  'Well something's out there.'
Her:  'What do you f*****g think this is - Steel Beasts?'
 

How different do you think this thread would have gone if you'd run those tests and included them in your original post?  A lot of these 'XXXX is broken - fix it Battlefront' threads go the way this one has gone because of the way the original assertions are made.  As others have pointed out, and yes it may be a misinterpretation of your intent, your posting history makes people think that your intent with these threads is to further an agenda that there is a Battlefront conspiracy to make the Soviets deliberately weak.  This is why I talk about the presentational aspect of your initial post.  You may be right about T-72 spotting, but I'll let others who have greater knowledge and like doing these sorts of tests continue the discussion.  I will also be pleased if you are right and a fix is applied in a future patch.
I personally have not seen much of the T-72 in-game because it wasn't in GSFG at the time and so the stuff that I've produced, which I prefer to bear some resemblance to reality, doesn't have them.  I think I tested an early version of MikeyD's Between Two Autobahns which had them but didn't see anything that looked particularly odd because of the ground layout and how I put my plan together.  I did not expect the Soviet force to have many opportunities to get eyes on and target me and pleasingly enough that is pretty much what happened.
Personally I agree with others that Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission is an apples and pears comparison.  Of course there is some common ground in what they're simulating but they are fundamentally different beasts 😉 .  Steel Beasts I think is probably peerless in its simulation of being an AFV crew member, without the joys of track bashing, getting knocks and bruises from solid bits of metal, living and working under someone's armpit and a heck of a lot of noise, and its sweet spot is AFV vs AFV combat.  It does other things less brilliantly.

How different do you think this thread would have gone if you'd run those tests and included them in your original post?  A lot of these 'XXXX is broken - fix it Battlefront' threads go the way this one has gone because of the way the original assertions are made.  As others have pointed out, and yes it may be a misinterpretation of your intent, your posting history makes people think that your intent with these threads is to further an agenda that there is a Battlefront conspiracy to make the Soviets deliberately weak.  This is why I talk about the presentational aspect of your initial post.  You may be right about T-72 spotting, but I'll let others who have greater knowledge and like doing these sorts of tests continue the discussion.  I will also be pleased if you are right and a fix is applied in a future patch.
I personally have not seen much of the T-72 in-game because it wasn't in GSFG at the time and so the stuff that I've produced, which I prefer to bear some resemblance to reality, doesn't have them.  I think I tested an early version of MikeyD's Between Two Autobahns which had them but didn't see anything that looked particularly odd because of the ground layout and how I put my plan together.  I did not expect the Soviet force to have many opportunities to get eyes on and target me and pleasingly enough that is pretty much what happened.
Personally I agree with others that Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission is an apples and pears comparison.  Of course there is some common ground in what they're simulating but they are fundamentally different beasts 😉 .  Steel Beasts I think is probably peerless in its simulation of being an AFV crew member, without the joys of track bashing, getting knocks and bruises from solid bits of metal, living and working under someone's armpit and a heck of a lot of noise, and its sweet spot is AFV vs AFV combat.  It does other things less brilliantly.

How different do you think this thread would have gone if you'd run those tests and included them in your original post?  A lot of these 'XXXX is broken - fix it Battlefront' threads go the way this one has gone because of the way the original assertions are made.  As others have pointed out, and yes it may be a misinterpretation of your intent, your posting history makes people think that your intent with these threads is to further an agenda that there is a Battlefront conspiracy to make the Soviets deliberately weak.  This is why I talk about the presentational aspect of your initial post.  You may be right about T-72 spotting, but I'll let others who have greater knowledge and like doing these sorts of tests continue the discussion.  I will also be pleased if you are right and a fix is applied in a future patch.
I personally have not seen much of the T-72 in-game because it wasn't in GSFG at the time and so the stuff that I've produced, which I prefer to bear some resemblance to reality, doesn't have them.  I think I tested an early version of MikeyD's Between Two Autobahns which had them but didn't see anything that looked particularly odd because of the ground layout and how I put my plan together.  I did not expect the Soviet force to have many opportunities to get eyes on and target me and pleasingly enough that is pretty much what happened.
Personally I agree with others that Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission is an apples and pears comparison.  Of course there is some common ground in what they're simulating but they are fundamentally different beasts 😉 .  Steel Beasts I think is probably peerless in its simulation of being an AFV crew member, without the joys of track bashing, getting knocks and bruises from solid bits of metal, living and working under someone's armpit and a heck of a lot of noise, and its sweet spot is AFV vs AFV combat.  It does other things less brilliantly.

How different do you think this thread would have gone if you'd run those tests and included them in your original post?  A lot of these 'XXXX is broken - fix it Battlefront' threads go the way this one has gone because of the way the original assertions are made.  As others have pointed out, and yes it may be a misinterpretation of your intent, your posting history makes people think that your intent with these threads is to further an agenda that there is a Battlefront conspiracy to make the Soviets deliberately weak.  This is why I talk about the presentational aspect of your initial post.  You may be right about T-72 spotting, but I'll let others who have greater knowledge and like doing these sorts of tests continue the discussion.  I will also be pleased if you are right and a fix is applied in a future patch.
I personally have not seen much of the T-72 in-game because it wasn't in GSFG at the time and so the stuff that I've produced, which I prefer to bear some resemblance to reality, doesn't have them.  I think I tested an early version of MikeyD's Between Two Autobahns which had them but didn't see anything that looked particularly odd because of the ground layout and how I put my plan together.  I did not expect the Soviet force to have many opportunities to get eyes on and target me and pleasingly enough that is pretty much what happened.
Personally I agree with others that Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission is an apples and pears comparison.  Of course there is some common ground in what they're simulating but they are fundamentally different beasts 😉 .  Steel Beasts I think is probably peerless in its simulation of being an AFV crew member, without the joys of track bashing, getting knocks and bruises from solid bits of metal, living and working under someone's armpit and a heck of a lot of noise, and its sweet spot is AFV vs AFV combat.  It does other things less brilliantly.

I guarantee you it will be those benches.  Flavour Objects can cause pathfinding issues.

Yeah, right. Sure. Let’s make up more things that aren’t true.
 
 

I tested the Aachen Campaign, which is one of @benpark's, creations, who is no slouch as a map maker, or a campaign designer for that matter, and had the problem of troops handrailing the side of that street to come into the building from the opposite side.  It actually didn't cause me any dramas during testing and it certainly isn't sloppy design.  That building type, which I think first came in with the Market Garden module definitely has issues which, as far as I am aware, are documented on Battlefront's bug tracker.

While I don't disagree with the thrust of bits of this post ... how many M1 Abrams did the USMC deploy in Gulf War 1 as your post infers that the USMC deployed that platform?  I'll give you a clue ... not overly many ...
If that was not one of your points then I apologize; however, relating to the M1 upgunning to something more than that wonderful piece of British engineering (the L7 105mm gun) in the 80s was extremely overdue and I doubt that the factors you mention were paramount in the US decision to do so.  The UK ditched the L7 when the Chieftain was fielded ... I may have posted some facts about Chieftains earlier in this thread ...
 

While I don't disagree with the thrust of bits of this post ... how many M1 Abrams did the USMC deploy in Gulf War 1 as your post infers that the USMC deployed that platform?  I'll give you a clue ... not overly many ...
If that was not one of your points then I apologize; however, relating to the M1 upgunning to something more than that wonderful piece of British engineering (the L7 105mm gun) in the 80s was extremely overdue and I doubt that the factors you mention were paramount in the US decision to do so.  The UK ditched the L7 when the Chieftain was fielded ... I may have posted some facts about Chieftains earlier in this thread ...
 

While I don't disagree with the thrust of bits of this post ... how many M1 Abrams did the USMC deploy in Gulf War 1 as your post infers that the USMC deployed that platform?  I'll give you a clue ... not overly many ...
If that was not one of your points then I apologize; however, relating to the M1 upgunning to something more than that wonderful piece of British engineering (the L7 105mm gun) in the 80s was extremely overdue and I doubt that the factors you mention were paramount in the US decision to do so.  The UK ditched the L7 when the Chieftain was fielded ... I may have posted some facts about Chieftains earlier in this thread ...
 

John,  
   So first off you need to play the game first- you mentioned that you have not really dug into it yet - otherwise how do you really know the extent of what we have or have not modelled?  I don't know anyone who has played the game who feels like the US forces are "over gunned". 
   Next, given the ridiculous overmatch that occurred in 1991 - and here I have eyewitness sources of my own - I am not inclined to believe outlier sources that "US armor was on the brink of extinction!" a mere 6 years earlier...things in defence do not move that fast.  This frankly sound very much like intelligence/military industrial complex "chicken little squawking" for various self-serving reasons, a habit that was seen before.  You were an "insider" within an organization trying to sell things to DOD, you then know this.  Nor do the test we ran on T-72 after the fall of the Wall match up with it being some sort of super-tank that TOWs bounced off of.
   The timeframe of our game was deliberate 1979-1982 as it was literally a tipping point as the US was racing to catch up and re-establish tactical superiority, something they let lag after the Vietnam war.  I think we got the mechanics about right as the US forces are not overwhelming in the least, quite the opposite based on the feedback we have received.  
  I am afraid you would have to show some significant in-game deviation to really make a case here.