Pelican Pal

Your complaints are valid but you are playing a game that is fundamentally 15 years old or so. The systems work well enough for its age but there are definite holes and frustrations that come with that. What I can tell is that for the current games no spotting improvements are ever going to happen so what you have right now is what we are all stuck with.

IIRC the big X means that the subsystem is non-functional and that can happen to any subsystem. But before that happens there is a degradation period where it works less well. The most obvious one is tracks where like yellow tracks and the vehicle will be moving noticeably slower.

I've tried it a few times and I'm not sure dust blocks thermals but in most U.S. tanks only the gunner has a thermal in this time period (IIRC) so it will lower the tanks overall spotting capability. As far as mortars I use them pretty extensively against armor since they are fairly accurate and a direct hit can M kill M60s of various types. But you need to watch where the shell lands a bit more than with larger artillery. A shell to the engine is just going to kill the engine, a shell to the cupola is just going to frag the TC, and so on.

Near misses can immobillize a tank but that is pretty rare. What you will likely see is track damage so the tank is just permanently slower for the rest of the match. Artillery fragments aren't modeled against any other tank systems though so to reduce a tanks effectiveness outside of movement speed you need a direct hit.

So over a large number of games I'd say that CM's spotting model works out okay. But on any individual game you're going to run into edge cases that are intensely frustrating and part of that is the game systems are fundamentally more than 15 years old at this point. So imagine that its not 2023 but instead 2011 and the whole thing seems much more impressive. Anyway turning out your tanks and having C2 info sharing will help quite a bit to ameloriate some of the issues you are having.

Specifically the artillery system doesn’t model fragments against tanks. So no external systems can be damaged except by a direct hit. This lack of fragmentation modeling also means that a hit to an ERA block won’t cause any damage as it’s not calculated as a direct hit. —— im not sure why we’re rehashing this when it’s a well known, tested, and logged issue.

Yea, dismounted ATGM are difficult to spot especially if you are able to position them well. Ideally you are able to rely on these over the BMPs, but if you do want to use the BMPs then getting a spotting marker bonus, keeping at long range, and getting multiple BMPs on one target are all beneficial. Charging forward with them pretty much guarantees that they are going to have the worst possible outcome. Being more easily spotted along with their accuracy being far worse. Re: the rocket artillery. Since fragmentation against tanks isn't modeled you need direct hits and the best way to achieve that is to use point targets and try to rack up a small advantage that you can further exploit with your dismounted AT-4.

Like @womble said some people in this thread are confusing ease of use for some sort of unique capability. The assault command exists to allow a player to quickly bound a squad to a location. Its functionally worse than manually splitting the squad and doing it yourself. The only provided benefit is that it takes less time. The Assault Command exists for real-time players. If you have the time you will get better results by manually splitting the squad and moving each element yourself. Using Quick, Fast, pause commands, target commands, and so on. IIRC the longer the waypoint the longer the legs are

Everyone is focusing on the trees but it looks like you are firing over two rows of low hedge which I've long suspected provide too much concealment in Black Sea. Either because their visuals don't reflect their values or their values or off. This is a problem with how CM handles LOS. For an engagement to occur the shooter needs a full spot. Realistically yea the BTR gunner could be like "I'll just pump some rounds over there" but that can't happen in CM without the player directly ordering the vehicle to fire.

Turning shaders off might help. Not sure though

CMBB moment

Maybe I'm missing something here but the removal of the tanks from the Tiergarten didn't literally happen? It looks like a number of cut together clips and then some editing as a sort of ad so I don't quite get why people have been arguing over it for 2-3 pages.

If you have a modern video card you should be able to use that to easily record the game. Although YMMV with CM. My Shock Force 2 install detests being recorded while Black Sea and Cold War are a breeze.

My tests were tank vs tank since I was interested in how that interaction plays out. However, you are right that infantry in CM do a solid job spotting armor. IIRC you showed how you use mounted infantry on tanks to increase their spotting chances on the Discord a few weeks ago. That sort of thing would be great here too.

To reiterate my original post the game gives you a dramatic buff to concealment. I ran 62 tests and in nearly half of those the hull down tank wasn't spotted. It also points to the importance for the attacker to do reconnaisance since getting spotting markers and sharing those via C2 can really narrow down the defenders hull down advantage. Hull down only provides a minor buff to hit chance but its not something I'd rely on. CMBB and CMAK have a hull down command. Not sure about CMBO. ---- I see the Hull Down command as being similar to the Assault command. You will get better results doing it manually but the command acts as a time saver if you don't want to commit even more of your life to CM. Playing against the AI I tend towards the command while in PVP I tend towards doing it manually.

You would have to run tests since Charles isn't going to reveal the inner-workings of the code and I strongly suspect none of the beta testers get that info either. What most of this comes down to is that, regardless of what would happen in real life, CM is a game whose core code is 13-14 years old (if not older). Its closer in time to the release of CM:BO than today. That leaves room for meta-gaming outcomes based on how the code is biased. Although even a brand-new game will be biased by the programmers assumptions and code limitations. ---- The logic behind movement commands having an impact to the combat cycle isn't totally outrageous since it would be an easy way to add in abstracted inputs. Although if I had to put money down I would say it doesn't.

From a player perspective engine generated screens would be useful to allow follow on elements to cross exposed terrain. Pushing tanks first across terrain and then following with BMPs/BTRs/AAA you need to keep them fairly close behind to avoid the enemy from refilling the gap. E.G. pulling back as your armor rolls through and then pushing up to engage follow on forces. Tank generated smoke screens would seem an obvious way to provide concealment for that follow on force.

No, iirc, most artillery smoke is WP which ought to have some window/amount of degradation against thermal sights but its not modeled in-game. As far as the game is concerned there seems to be either IR blocking smoke or non-IR blocking smoke and its a binary label.

Ah okay, I found info on the 126 when checking some bugs with the Syrian C2 network. There were 2-3 locations that describe the 126 as being used by the squad leader with a separate radio in the track for communication with the platoon leader. Tankograd is the easily findable english language site the others were in Russian and tracking those done was a pain. IIRC there were also mention of R-147 and R-147(P) although those are 1970s era. @Simcoe If you check out https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2017/03/field-disassembly-bmp-1.html you can see the layout for the BMP-1 and that visually emphasizes how the Soviets intended the vehicle to fight, imo. If you notice the SL isn't in the turret but behind the driver so he isn't in a great place to spot targets/guide shots in for the gunner anyway. He doesn't have a great view to his right and if he is turned out the gunner cannot rotate the gun to the left without endangering him. Additionally in a hull down position the SL won't be able to see above the berm. ---- Within CW I find the BMP-1 to be pretty unpleasant to fight against. It can give the M60s a run for its money in a lot of situations and combined with tanks can overpower a lot of yankee positions. E.G. 1-2 platoons of BMP-1 + a platoon of tanks is no 7-10 vehicles capable of killing armor.

I suspect that there is also a bit of CM bias operating. As far as I can tell each SL had a radio linking them to their respective BMP crew. SL 1 -> BMP 1 SL 2 -> BMP 2 SL 3 -> BMP 3 In CM this sort of communication gets a bit of short shrift since it goes through the C2 system while all the men within a vehicle tend to share borg spotting. Within a vehicle if the VC spots an enemy tank the rest of the crew pretty instantaneously knows where that tank is at. Even if, for example, the gunner is looking through a straw. Within the context of a dismounted BMP SL he has a radio connection to the crew and should be able to inform them pretty directly of any spotted targets but since, within the game logic, he is a separate unit he doesn't give the crew borg spotting just a spotting bonus. The quote is referencing a BMP-2 but the R-126 radio entered service a few years before the BMP-1

I haven't been following the conflict that closely, but when looking at Russia's possible weapons production I think it helps to consider their expenditure up to this point. I kept on seeing, in the first week, comments along the lines of "Ukraine is doing well but wait for the day of the Grad" and that didn't happen. And that sort of unleashing of air/artillery/missile power to soften and pave the way for ground forces didn't happen. So either Russia is intentionally holding back while we watch Ukrainian farmers haul away a veritable zoo of vehicles over the past 40 days or they don't actually have that much to throw around. I'm betting on the latter over the former. If they had the means to produce a bevy of new munitions then why wouldn't they be using them? --- Just sorta of broadly I keep seeing some sort of optimism about the Russian situation and I frankly don't know where its coming from. Like fundamentally Russia is still dangerous to Ukraine but its dangerous in a way that is non-lethal to the State. It can kill, it can wreck, but it can do that in a limited fashion. Russia pulled out of the Kyiv area what like 2 weeks ago? Where are those troops at in the East? Where is that big push out of Izyum to pocket the UA? Even Mariupol which has been isolated since the start of the war is still holding on and we're supposed to believe the the fall of that city will free up some imaginary Russian force that will change the balance of power?

RE: Troop Comfort I don't disagree that troop comfort can be beneficial to combat. But my point is more that if you find yourself in a military where comfort is considered you are likely in one that is relatively well funded and relatively professional. So the troop comfort is a low level representation of the quality of the force. If you have a water heater in your tank your officers are probably competent and you probably have other good equipment. If you gave the Russians troops outside Kyiv heaters in their tanks they wouldn't have done any better because the Russian army is not professional and not well supplied. ---- Troop comfort is a symptom of professionalism and economic input and both of those are beneficial to military success.

RE: Ukrainians being pocketed South of of Izium. The Russians haven't shown the capability to fight their way out of a paper bag excepting the first 2-3 days near Kherson. While the Ukrainians have shown good capability to fight defensively and at the same time I've not seen any evidence that the Ukrainians are capable/wanting to launch counter-offensives that have to wrest ground from the Russians. Keeping troops in the area seems to make good sense. It plays the UA strengths and RUAF weaknesses. I'd also just question the capability for the Russians to seal the pocket and liquidate it? How many men would you need to seal the pocket, then to defend against UA attacks from the outside of the pocket, and also liquidate it? Troop comfort seems tied pretty tightly to economic power so I'm not entirely sure how important it is on its own. During WW2 the USN had entire ships dedicated to ice cream production. Did the U.S. win the war in the Pacific because it cared more about its troops or because it had so much excess economic power that it could just dedicated an entire ship/crew to ice cream production?

Presumably you don't want your platoon leader to get pegged by a riflemen. Unless you have a tactical limitation (covering a flank, lack of physical space, reserve for some other action, etc...) I have a hard time finding a good reason to not have your PL's tank in the fight. N+1 tanks will spot better, be able to engage targets faster and more successfully, spread out ammo expenditure and so on. I'd be sure to put them in the most safe combat location, but having them out of the fight just for C2 means a fair amount of fire power and spotting power is being missed out on. This is especially true in QB where a tank going to set you back 400-500 points regardless of whose in it.

Yep. Spotting icons that you see belong to one of your units and represents a spotting bonus against a specific enemy unit. That icon can be shared between your units via the C2 system. So an infantry squad who sees an enemy can give a friendly tank a spotting bonus against that enemy.