Muzzleflash1990

Are the Panthers' engines on - are they hiding? If they are buttoned up with engines on, should they get sound contacts from non-firing infantry?

I think that's the Buratino: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1 . It's not a concept vehicle, they are ready for, and being used in, combat, but they didn't (haven't) built many either.

I am not sure you can do anything to prevent it. Others has had similar problems, I'm just gonna leave this link here: .

But the figure is the sum of all 12 shell right? So it's 10^0.55 =3.55 total right?

Looking at the icons ingame, it does not have a laser warning receiver.

Welcome to internet comparisons: some people like neither. Some people like both. Some people like only either of the things. Of the latter group, most either ignore the other, or values it for what it is, even if they don't prefer it - which seems the be mostly the case here. But typically, for either party, there is a last small subset that is very vocal about the perceived flaws of the other thing. Even if I don't play GT, I can certainly see the appeal of less micromanagement, but alas, current solutions are not good enough: offsetting a unit by a single action tile can have great ramifications for a unit in CM (just look at the problems with AI fleeing), but in my experience an 8m displacement matters little in GT, so to reduce the micromanagement in CM would require a much more intelligent AI that understands these ramifications.

True, @Chudacabra , the beetle factor was not been accounted for. But to be fair, the US always put 'boots on the ground' - which of course is literally the best hard counter against the beetles. I also found this leaked combat video showing US infantry supremacy against the beetles, so I am sure the Abrams are not really threatened.

I think some of the effects you see in the game would not be noticed in the same manner in real life, but they are added for part immersion, and part overview for the player. For example, grenade fired by a grenade launcher also has a "tracer-like" effect, but that is most likely to give overview. Weapon fire from unspotted enemy units that are shooting at yours make a shooting sound to tell you your units are under fire. Which in itself is fine, however, if you just move the camera around and listen, you can easily locate that darn MG42 to within a tile, and area fire the bleep out of it - I assume people in MP have gentleman rules not to do this. Of course they could remove the audio which would kill immersion, or make not make the sound originate from its shooters position, but rather from "generic" non-3d location, which would also significantly lower immersion - especially when the unit is spotted, since audio does not originates from their position. EDIT: slysniper beat me to it.

Sort of. As I understand it, most fragments are are dispersed to the sides of the direction of travel. So if 0 degrees is front/direction of travel, 180 is backwards, between are to the sides. See the following images: image 1, image 2, image 3 . I believe shells that come down very vertical can also be more dangerous to infantry that way, since more is dispersed parallel to the horizon.

While, he could have used nicer phrasing, it is not like he was wrong or lying. It took 20s to find the post where a battle pack was 'confirmed'.

I certainly would not qualify anything as broken. I am just trying to understand if what I am experiencing is the an accurate (as can be) representation. Ian, your results are interesting. What do you to to cause system damage? I tried both airbusting and not-airbusting and it does not matter. I have run the setup shown in this image http://imgur.com/a/pf3S1 about a dozen times now. Most with ordinary point detonation, some runs with airburst, all with 3 batteries of 155mm. My results are very binary: In 100% of the cases, either a vehicle was destroyed, or ended up with only track/wheels damage as the only subsystem damage. Let me repeat that, for all my runs, of the surviving vehicles, none had any subsystem damage that was not wheel/tracks - at all ! For tanks the damage to tracks varied across the scale. For non-tank AFV, all track/wheels damage was at most 'light'/still a variant of green, and no other damage, or crew/squad was hurt. Is possible that some of the vehicles that were severely "hurt" then got destroyed? Not as far as I can tell, and it would have to be all of them then, otherwise I would have noticed. So my main wondering is: shouldn't there be a larger gray area where vehicles get damaged, perhaps fragment hitting crew/occupants of non-tank AFV, and should more subsystems get destroyed?

I mirror what Armorgunner says for all vehicles. My anecdotal experience, for all vehicles, is that either the round lands close enough to completely destroy the vehicle, or it lands far enough not to do any damage at all. I find it exceedingly rare (like unicorn rare), that a vehicle suffers partial damage, and when it does it is almost only tracks/wheels that go from very green to tiny bit less green - same as occasionally happens when you drive through a wooden fence in the game. When I recently did some test roughly 10 times against the Tunguska in the 3rd tutorial mission using 155mm arty, any round either, hit or landed close enough to immediately destroy the vehicle, or landed far enough away to do any damage at all. This, with the tiny track damage mentioned earlier, is an outlier. http://imgur.com/a/mCOaZ . None, of the tubes, or the radar itself, has any inkling of damage. Tunguska is 8m long, that will put the rounds at roughly 8-15m distance.

Sounds like the use of pause command is an exploit to avoid panicking when there is no follow-up order, like a movement order, and actually a bug that artificially grants morale boost when there one.

4 action spots is 32m, but since they end up somewhere inside it can be anything from 24m to 40m.

Could it be that when they use more charges to blast there is a larger concussive effect on any potential occupants (e.g. you blast into a building)?

I certainly felt it was lucky. I did not use precision, only ordinary 155mm HE fire since I wanted to see whether it would be effective. And yes the hex pattern was quite unusual. I just fired BS up again to try again. However, this time just two close shots - landing exactly same place, roughly 6-8m from the rear of the vehicle disabled - or rather the crew certainly felt safer outside the vehicle and dismounted. Because of that I could not see the damage. The second Tunguska got roughly 4 direct hits from 8 shots using ordinary point fire and was also not available for inspection.

I have an anecdote for when CMBS was released. In the tutorial I ordered an ordinary HE strike against the 2K22 Tunguska. 6 rounds landed around, in an almost perfect hexagonal pattern with the vehicle being in the center, and all rounds roughly 8~12m away from the vehicle. For a vehicle so lightly armored, I hoped it would be neutralized, but at least thought it should be damaged, like the missile tubes. After action review showed it remained fully operational with zero damage to all components. By STANAG 4569 it must have had level 5/6 protection.

Can't find it in the manual, but from the words I would expect it to be: Standard, Common, Uncommon, Limited, Rare.

Reading ye' olde lexicon: "Trees are an essential part of both the micro and macro eco system of fauna. In addition to sustaining life, trees are also in general consided beatiful and is an essential part of planning and development. They have noise cancelling effects and ...... .... Also, in mechanized warfare, trees function as excellent cover against armor piercing penetrators. In fact Oak Tree #412 was awarded the Hero of the Federation: without regard for personal safety, the tree decided to stand still in the midst of heavy fighting, thus protecting the more vulnerable tanks." Sigh...

Ran the same test as HerrTom, until I got bored. Got roughly the same results for the Abrams. During the first batch with 10 runs for the Russians I noticed that the truck was attempting to evade (not that it had anywhere to go). So for the next batch (with 30 runs) I had it immobilised. The huge variance also shows why poor 20 is not good enough and why poor c3k has to do 200. Not enough data to go on, but it seems the tail is too heavy to form a one sided normal distribution.

I just ran the test several times. My anecdotal comments on the tests were that they spotted each other almost simultaneously. But the Abrams hit a bit more accurate and a lot more powerful, often one-shot kills, whereas the Russian tanks made many hits, but no real damage. I then reduced the distance to just above 2km. Surprisingly, in these tests the US spotted much faster, rather than simultanous. Same as before, they russian tanks made many, and more (they were more numerous) hits, but no real damage, despite spall effects, partial penetrations. A telling symptom was the use of smokes that obscured both sides. However, as the smoke faded the a single russian tank would be spotted first, and this would repeat until the end. For the final set of tests, I used FAST to move ~100m+ forward through their own smoke on both sides, to avoid obscuration. Many hits, and again russian tanks almost always hit, but not real damage.

It is not a marine artillery battalion, only a single battery, which is the usual attachment to an MEU. But yeah, wiser heads can tell us what is going on.

Maybe planning was too strong a word (unless it happens to end up true), but they are certainly considering it. But they 82nd are transporting to Kuwait. Rather recent: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/03/15/u-s-military-probably-sending-as-many-as-1000-more-ground-troops-into-syria-ahead-of-raqqa-offensive-officials-say/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.983fc5b50469 "The new U.S. troops, if approved, would probably come from parts of both the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit — a flotilla of ships loaded with 2,200 Marines that is now steaming toward the region — and the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, from which 2,500 troops are headed to Kuwait." Some other links: http://www.businessinsider.my/pentagon-more-troops-inside-syria-2017-3/#5kB9iPPhjp8EW27A.97 https://www.armytimes.com/articles/82nd-airborne-syria-iraq-kuwait-islamic-state https://www.rt.com/usa/380111-us-troops-deployment-kuwait/ http://www.businessinsider.my/pentagon-more-troops-inside-syria-2017-3/#5kB9iPPhjp8EW27A.97 Also I am not convinced that the Rangers are only there to keep things friendly, that is not really the domain they train for?

Is it correct understood US is planning to send conventional forces, a BCT from the 82nd Airborne, and maybe MEU (24th MEU?), into Syria? Looks like Shock Force is becoming even more real.

Edit: Nvm, I don't know the current year...