Thewood1

Again, it sounds simple until you start putting in all the ifs, ands, or buts. Its not about what is in the game, but what might end up in the game. Assuming everything is high velocity tank cannons is a mistake.

What about lower velocity guns though...100mm low pressure guns.

Zoiks...looks like you have an FPS of about 2 in some parts.

This whole discussion reminds me of the Panther/Tiger discussions in CMBO and CMBB. How do you counter "super" tanks. The answer back then might be the same as now...definitely not head on.

Another thought is laser beam riding ATGM on the Russian side. I believe those require the laser at least through a good portion of the flight.

I hope this is relevant, but look at Russian war loads on tanks. There are usually on 5-7 GLATMs in the load. The rest is HEAT, Sabot, and Frag. If the GLATMs were so effective/cost-effective, wouldn't the Russians have gone all in on them. They seem to be the real world leaders in applying GLATMs in the field so you think they would have made the switch.

The bias comment was aimed at Stagler...if you read through it becomes obvious. The devs have commented on this multiple times. Search this forum and CMSF about the German Fenneck and there should be some comments from BFC.

Not really, and I tend to agree it would be interesting. It has been asked a few times and shot down each time.

I disagree on HEAT and HE. One of the biggest issues in those types of rounds is that they aren't necessarily a flat trajectory because of lower velocity. You can see this in videos and Steel Beasts. Getting estimated ranges for those types of rounds has always been one of the biggest gunnery issues. So now there is a complication to your simple lase/not lase statement. Also keep in mind that low pressure guns like the 100mm on the BMP are at an extreme disadvantage without a laser. As older tanks are added in like T-55 and T-62, range finding at even shorter ranges can be an issue and might require different parameters. So my ultimate point is that it is not as simple as it might seem to get the AI on board as an opponent.

How did you destroy it? I think that is part of the point here.

What if its not a sabot...what if its a round with a parabolic trajectory that needs range info even at short ranges?

I suspect the main problem is getting the AI to know when to lase and not. You as the human player will have a lot of options not available to the AI opponent. That will require the bulk of the resource.

As stated, the main issue is that it is built to be a real stand-off weapon...greater than 2000m. Not many people play on those large maps.

It was in several threads that the game engine can't handle elevated/extended devices and weapons. It is a limitation...a bad one that won't be fixed any time soon as far as I can tell. Same issue on both sides no nationalism involved. US units are also limited.

I agree that the majority of this thread was useless. It looked like some people venting with a little nationalism thrown in. But again, if individual modeling of important units are severely broken, they only way to check them is sometimes individual testing. And sometimes its needed to show that things either aren't broken or aren't as simple as some people think.

While tend to agree about the interaction at a higher level, this is also how bugs are found. It makes no sense to ignore issues you might see in how individual models are represented. If you found M1A2s being killed consistently from the front, I am sure you would upload a save for someone to look at.

DId you zip it...make an actual zip file?

Zip it and use the "more reply options" in the lower right

How about sharing the test or saves?

My test was to see if the 3rd person spotting with a 360 sight makes a difference. Not just testing the gunner's sight. That is why they are facing 90 deg off. The point being made that got lost is if you have an issue, post a save or a test. Instead of just coming in and swing a bat around. It goes back to some of the earlier posters who have suddenly become scarce.

Yeah, but if you are worried about this level of detail, you might be investing time and money in the wrong game for what you are trying to do.

OK, here is two saves in a zip. I'll have to switch to dropbox for the rest because of file size limits. FIle 1 is named BMP 10s. That means the BMP spotted the M2 after 10 seconds. File 2 is the same turn from the US side and the M2 spots the BMP after 21s...hence the name. I can tell you that in the next set I'll post, it is 15s for the BMP and over 60s for the M2. BMP spotting test.zip

From my perspective it makes sense. Spotting is not cut and dried. There has always been and will most likely continue to be big variability in spotting times from unit to unit and scenario to scenario. Go run tests in CMBN and you will the same thing. My real point is that people coming in whipping around complaints and accusations of bias without actually thinking about it are just a distraction.

It has been standard in CM from CM1 to now that it is harder to spot in a moving vehicle than in a stationary vehicle. It also easier for a stationary vehicle to see a moving vehicle. It has been shown time and time again in real life that the human eye picks up movement very quickly. That is reflected in almost any game. What you are suggesting goes against common sense and most people's real life experiences.

How is using the target line any different an exploit than going to ground level and moving all around the map and looking at the terrain. You can't do that in real life as a commander. To me you get the exact same exploit, its just one of them is easier and saves time for people that don't have all night to play.