Pelican Pal

I ran some tests of airburst artillery against armored vehicles. In particular T-72 AVs and BMP-1s.
 

O:10 for artillery call in

2:25 artillery strikes

3:00 review of damaged/destroyed BMPs

8:10 review of vehicles

What I found using a massive amount of artillery is that while it was possible for artillery to destroy the BMP-1s it was unable to do any damage to any subsystem except tracks furthermore no amount of artillery would detonate or disable an ERA block. This seems incorrect to me and likely to be a bug of some variety. Even BMPs that took penetrating hits and crew/passenger losses would not have any subsystem damage. Please watch the linked video and you will see enough artillery to destroy every BMP and level every building on the block. Yet this massive weight of fire does not damage or disable any external system. Not a single DSHK, smoke launcher, AT-4, vision system, ERA block, etc... takes any ounce of damage while multi-story buildings are leveled.











PS: I recently made another post but wanted to create a new one that more accurately identified the issue.

I ran some tests of airburst artillery against armored vehicles. In particular T-72 AVs and BMP-1s.
 

O:10 for artillery call in

2:25 artillery strikes

3:00 review of damaged/destroyed BMPs

8:10 review of vehicles

What I found using a massive amount of artillery is that while it was possible for artillery to destroy the BMP-1s it was unable to do any damage to any subsystem except tracks furthermore no amount of artillery would detonate or disable an ERA block. This seems incorrect to me and likely to be a bug of some variety. Even BMPs that took penetrating hits and crew/passenger losses would not have any subsystem damage. Please watch the linked video and you will see enough artillery to destroy every BMP and level every building on the block. Yet this massive weight of fire does not damage or disable any external system. Not a single DSHK, smoke launcher, AT-4, vision system, ERA block, etc... takes any ounce of damage while multi-story buildings are leveled.











PS: I recently made another post but wanted to create a new one that more accurately identified the issue.

This actually also happens as it is. If you look at Churchill tanks for example, they all nearly cost the same, but they are very different beasts. You only pay 18 points more for a much tougher powerful Churchill VII than a weaker Churchill IV - and you actually even save a lot rarity points while doing it. This effectively means you will never see other all the other kinds of Churchills in a quick battle. It's a no-brainer.
I think the unit price list should present the player with interesting choices. Do I go with the cheaper, weaker Churchill to save points for something else, or do I invest in a more powerful tank? The difference is not trivial. A Churchill VII can take on a German PAK defence head on - the IV can't.
 

StuGs are 287 points when bought as part of a formation. That's also a bit of an awkward price point, because it's again so close to Panther/Tiger price.
3 StuGs or 2 Panthers plus a platoon of supporting infantry? I don't blame people for going for the Panthers.

I think one extra spill-over problem from leaving the German players without viable options for medium armour means they get even more incentives to buy more Panthers and Tigers (which are more expensive, but also massively better tanks). And I think many players would rather face a balanced and historically accurate force.
In my view, it would be better to reduce to cost of the Panzer IV to make it more common than heavy tanks in quick battles. A price level of about 175 points - the same as the Sherman - seems right to me. Maybe add a bit of rarity to keep German tank numbers down. This goes for the Panther as well, which currently has 0 rarity cost.

Can't say I noticed any change. Just finished a large QB and found cover from hedgerows and buildings to be normal. The only difference is that my troops didn't run away from it like headless chickens. At least not before they panicked.

Almost anyone can make a mess in a QB.....It takes practice to do it in a scenario. 

Not in QBs unfortunately no. Not sure about Canada/UK, but Dutch did employ employ Stingers in 2007/8. IIRC the UK and perhaps Canada too had them in a previous patch of CMSF2.

Refresh rate IIRC, so 60 for a 60hz monitor.

So I am currently playing a QB match and have found out that none of these 3 forces have any AAA that they can purchase during a QB match. Leaving them defenseless against Syrian air.

Given that Syrian air itself is sorta aspirational within the setting shouldn't these 3 forces be given Stinger teams in the standalone purchase section?

Next time please read the thread before joining the conversation.

In the original OP Kaunitz specifically identified player driven borg spotting.
 
Not all entrenchments, but the overall lack of good fortification representation severely degrades infantry survivabillity. Allowing armor heavy formations to push entrenched infantry around. This reduces the complexity for the attacker and reduces the defenders capability to take advantage of the complexity.
 
Overcoming tactical challenges with the tools at hand is the bread and butter of the CM series. 

Play and counter-play. 

- I place infantry in entrenchments

* You suppress with armor

* You advance with infantry to root them out

- I engage your infantry from a supporting position

etc...

Your "moot point" argument is antithetical to the existence of CM.

CM generally makes it worse than it should be just due to the limits of the animation system. Because the model represents the hit box the limited positions a model can take also creates a higher change of being hit.

While in a HT troops heads are sticking out above the top of the track. Allowing fire to rack up free kills when it would be possible for the soldiers to keep their entire bodies within the track. Additionally when firing the shooter fully stands up rather than hugging the top of the track. Fully exposing a large portion of their body to return fire when they shouldn't have to.

This exposure can be decisive in close run engagements. Especially against low morale/experience troops where getting a few early kills can quickly stack the firepower advantage in your favor (or disfavor).
 

CM generally makes it worse than it should be just due to the limits of the animation system. Because the model represents the hit box the limited positions a model can take also creates a higher change of being hit.

While in a HT troops heads are sticking out above the top of the track. Allowing fire to rack up free kills when it would be possible for the soldiers to keep their entire bodies within the track. Additionally when firing the shooter fully stands up rather than hugging the top of the track. Fully exposing a large portion of their body to return fire when they shouldn't have to.

This exposure can be decisive in close run engagements. Especially against low morale/experience troops where getting a few early kills can quickly stack the firepower advantage in your favor (or disfavor).
 

In the original OP Kaunitz specifically identified player driven borg spotting.
 
Not all entrenchments, but the overall lack of good fortification representation severely degrades infantry survivabillity. Allowing armor heavy formations to push entrenched infantry around. This reduces the complexity for the attacker and reduces the defenders capability to take advantage of the complexity.
 
Overcoming tactical challenges with the tools at hand is the bread and butter of the CM series. 

Play and counter-play. 

- I place infantry in entrenchments

* You suppress with armor

* You advance with infantry to root them out

- I engage your infantry from a supporting position

etc...

Your "moot point" argument is antithetical to the existence of CM.

CM generally makes it worse than it should be just due to the limits of the animation system. Because the model represents the hit box the limited positions a model can take also creates a higher change of being hit.

While in a HT troops heads are sticking out above the top of the track. Allowing fire to rack up free kills when it would be possible for the soldiers to keep their entire bodies within the track. Additionally when firing the shooter fully stands up rather than hugging the top of the track. Fully exposing a large portion of their body to return fire when they shouldn't have to.

This exposure can be decisive in close run engagements. Especially against low morale/experience troops where getting a few early kills can quickly stack the firepower advantage in your favor (or disfavor).
 

CM's fortification weakness is tied in quite closely to the effectiveness of any sort of high firepower asset. Be that artillery, machinegunes, or tanks. The inherent weakness of fortifications remove some of the key counters infantry have.
There has been a lengthy discussion on player borg spotting and borg control earlier in the thread.
 

With relatively high-velocity guns and relatively large targets (e.g. the tracks of an armored vehicle) it would be reasonably possible to land hits on exposed parts of a vehicle. It would be infinitely smarter than firing center mass with a underpowered weapon.

Panzerfausts, Schrecks, Piats, all are relatively low velocity weapons firing at an arc. These will obviously be much worse at hitting targets.

CM's fortification weakness is tied in quite closely to the effectiveness of any sort of high firepower asset. Be that artillery, machinegunes, or tanks. The inherent weakness of fortifications remove some of the key counters infantry have.
There has been a lengthy discussion on player borg spotting and borg control earlier in the thread.
 

With relatively high-velocity guns and relatively large targets (e.g. the tracks of an armored vehicle) it would be reasonably possible to land hits on exposed parts of a vehicle. It would be infinitely smarter than firing center mass with a underpowered weapon.

Panzerfausts, Schrecks, Piats, all are relatively low velocity weapons firing at an arc. These will obviously be much worse at hitting targets.

To be clear, I doubt that many players would be interested in my particular campaign software, because it was built for my preferences.  But that's OK, because if they have access to the data, they (or somebody) can create whatever it is that they are looking for.  Without the data, none of this is really feasible, because detailed manual data entry before/after every game is just not interesting to 99.9% of players.

Given CM's niche nature I'm always a bit surprised that development of some features needs to be a closed loop. Sure an import/export feature isn't going to get you super far, but it gives people access to the information. From that they can develop their own methods of interacting with it.

Much like the PBEM Helper programs that made playing MP much more pleasant. Users can do a lot when a hook is available. With the added advantage that what the user comes up with doesn't need to be commercial quality but can still give significant value-add. 

Given CM's niche nature I'm always a bit surprised that development of some features needs to be a closed loop. Sure an import/export feature isn't going to get you super far, but it gives people access to the information. From that they can develop their own methods of interacting with it.

Much like the PBEM Helper programs that made playing MP much more pleasant. Users can do a lot when a hook is available. With the added advantage that what the user comes up with doesn't need to be commercial quality but can still give significant value-add. 

To stay current I get. But, to use Red Thunder as an example, I've no need to stay current. I haven't played a PBEM in yonks and exhausted my interest in the scenario list quite some time ago. I'm essentially a lapsed customer - the last new purchase I made was in 2015. Lapsed customers seem like the people you would want to entice back. Yet lapsed customers would end up paying the most. Someone who purchased CM:FI over half a decade ago and just hears about Rome To Victory is going to get some sticker shock at the $50 price tag.

To organize my thoughts better the most active BF customers would seem likely to keep their games updated. They want to engage in MP and with newly created scenario content. While the least active (lapsed as it were) are less likely to do so. Requiring the least active (and by inference) the least committed to jump through additional hoops seems counter-intuitive. Since these folks are probably the most likely to walk away from the game.
 
You are certainly free to send them money in the mail.

Personally the engine upgrade requirements are not going to make/break my decision to make new purchases. Much like 76mm, I'm very much an Eastern Front player. But I can't shake the feeling that requiring them is a unusual move when your least committed customers are likely the ones without them.
 

Since I began playing the CM series, I have always believed that the delay time, especially in cases where the Artillery / Mortar asset are stated as being directly in Support of a particular unit, are too long.  If your playing a scenario which lasts 40 mins and the delay is 10 - 12 mins, its one quarter of the total time.  I was part of a FOO/MFC (forward Observation/Mortar Fire Controller) team myself and if you have Artillery or Mortars in direct Support, they are there, waiting for the your fire Order.   If a delay of 10 - 12 mins and in certain circumstances within the game, even longer, that support would not be considered in Direct Support to you.  This sounds really negative, it is not intended to be so, its something that's frustrated me through the playing process. 

To stay current I get. But, to use Red Thunder as an example, I've no need to stay current. I haven't played a PBEM in yonks and exhausted my interest in the scenario list quite some time ago. I'm essentially a lapsed customer - the last new purchase I made was in 2015. Lapsed customers seem like the people you would want to entice back. Yet lapsed customers would end up paying the most. Someone who purchased CM:FI over half a decade ago and just hears about Rome To Victory is going to get some sticker shock at the $50 price tag.

To organize my thoughts better the most active BF customers would seem likely to keep their games updated. They want to engage in MP and with newly created scenario content. While the least active (lapsed as it were) are less likely to do so. Requiring the least active (and by inference) the least committed to jump through additional hoops seems counter-intuitive. Since these folks are probably the most likely to walk away from the game.
 
You are certainly free to send them money in the mail.

Personally the engine upgrade requirements are not going to make/break my decision to make new purchases. Much like 76mm, I'm very much an Eastern Front player. But I can't shake the feeling that requiring them is a unusual move when your least committed customers are likely the ones without them.
 

I don't have any articles off hand but from my experience:

Graviteam tactics series:

- Tactical battles require less micro from the player

Troops are more spread out and you have less control over them. Preventing you from microing units a ton. You tend towards giving sweeping orders and then watching the platoons carry it out. There isn't a ton for you to do during an assault - most of your focus is on getting people in the right place. Once your infantry are moving across the map its largely too late to do much.

For example, in Graviteam its on you to get the assault platoons in position, setup the artillery, postion reserves, and support by fire positions. but once you hit the "go" button you aren't going to be telling squad 1 to break off an anti-tank team to move ~50 meters through a field to engage an enemy tank.
- Battles feel more authentic

If you read any number of AAR or personal accounts from veteran you'll read a lot of stuff that Graviteam seems to get right. The biggest one for me is that you will repeatedly read about armor advancing even after their infantry support has been pinned down. This rarely happens in CM (to the player) but in Graviteam you'll see stuff like this all the time.

In CM the player has a ton of control, this can be good, but can also create instances where battles feel too put together. Graviteam does a better job of making battles messy.

- Good campaign system

The campaign system is a strategic map of the battle area where tactical fights are generated by the movements of units on the strategic map. Its fantastic and adds a lot of replaybility to the series. This is the one area where it beats Combat Mission hands down. You are dealing with postioning of units over a period of hours, resupply, recovery of damaged vehicles, etc... I recently had a very interesting Graviteam Tactics game where I managed to win by sacrificing a tank platoon to draw the German Heavy tank unit (Tigers) into a strategic trap.
- You can get more breadth at a lower price

Graviteam mostly focuses on the Eastern front, but you can find Afghan War, Iran-Iraq, Chinese/Soviet Border War, and various African conflicts. These are all relatively inexpensive. This is something I like a lot as they are conflicts that you rarely (essentially never) see simmed and Graviteam does them.

CM:

- More Micro

In CM you can find yourself microing a platoon of infantry and 3 Bradleys to surround a compound that holds 7 Insurgents. And that will be interesting. This makes CM a much better small unit and urban combat game.

I just played a battle in CM where I knocked down a section of wall to give a T-72 a keyhole position to kill an Abrams. That isn't something you could do in Graviteam at all.

- User designed scenarios

While the campaign system in Graviteam is better, the standalone scenarios and the few "story" campaigns in CM are excellent and Graviteam doesn't have anything like it. There are a ton of them and there are quite a few fantastic ones that really let peoples imagination shine.

- More WW2 and modern content

if you want to spend the money CM covers more ground both in WW2 and in Modern.


-----

Generally I play them both.

I play Combat Mission when I;'m interested in heavy micro or a good standalone battle. While I play Graviteam when I'm looking for a week long campaign or some weird mid-century conflict. They both play very differently and its hard to compare them directly.

josey Wales has a decent video: