Jump to content

exsonic01

Members
  • Posts

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by exsonic01

  1. Almost all YT vids of Zapad-81 are contaminated by stupid BGMs, which I really hate. I really cannot understand why people ruin the great original with absurd BGMs. Anyway, finally I found the original propaganda video of Zapad-81. Redfor Pixeltruppens in CMCW 81' or 82' games may participated in this exercise.
  2. Wow, the topic of this article finally comes to the reality in the year of 2021!!
  3. Will there be any new contents or updates to Matrix and third party version of CMBS? Or same with the current version?
  4. Thanks to share, fair enough, it seems Taiwan has good enough amount of palm trees. Maybe some far-south islands of Japan would have too. But I would still argue these cannot be a "Fareast Asia" or "Northeast Asia" which covers Korea, Japan, and Northern China. It would be better to be described as "Southeast Asia".
  5. I'm not claiming "CM must depict all those features shown in videos". But there are some parts, like SIGINT/ELINT/counter battery/ and etc..., which can be depicted inside the current CM time / length scale frame. Plus, I really wish next CMBS series with increased scale and I truly believe CMx2 engine (and upgraded engine in the future) has an ability to depict larger scale battles with more toys and more features. This part is my wish, but I think CMx2 engine has huge potential to become a game of depicting larger scale battle with "modern" technologies, which would includes some or little part of "multi-domain battles". It is not just ECM thing. CMx2 already modeled drones. Info-sharing and datalink is modeled. So, it would be relatively easier to model ELINT / SIGINT description with some assumption and simplifications: something like in form of "in-situ updated information from higher formation signal / intelligence company", you could depict "unknown radiation/signal source" icon on the map with some frequency and RNG-based algorithms. EW setting can play some here, by increasing the time to take share info, or decrease the accuracy of estimated position of "signal" icons. Offmap counter battery is something not easy to model, but it is not something impossible to do. Based on these factors, I think CM engine would be the perfect one to depict such futuristic modern warfare in the future. One core thing I wish is larger scale: this is something I (and some others) truly believe what is really required in CMBS. Description of DPICM and FASCAM is essential in modern combat of combined arms, as it is already shown how they can influence on armored battle during Donbass campaign. Small size of maps can be a problem with those cluster munitions, because cluster munitions might cover too wide area. Not only that, if the infiltration of SF/light infantry and ELINT / SIGINT information are depicted, small map size will make game a bit too easy. On top of those, most of maps of CMBS has no room to maneuver and flank and circumvent. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to increase the scale of combat. If that is related with performance and optimization issue, then OK I understand. But if you have plan to develop any future CM engine, then please consider to make one with bigger scale battle. With the increased scale, all those features will make this really great.
  6. https://www.tradoc.army.mil/Portals/14/Documents/MDB_Evolutionfor21st (1).pdf After years and years of COIN-oriented operations, US armed forces are trying to increase their full-scale war readiness in a way to develop and prepare their forces and structures based on "multi-domain battle" doctrine. These are far future plan concepts, but as far as I know, US army is slowly but steadily trying to change their forces to meet new demands from new doctrine. I hope these contents hopefully convince devs to prepare next modules of CMBS with more features of "modern" battle field with wider map. Frankly, I think CMx2 engine has much more advantage then other games to depict such features, as CMBS and CMSF2 showed good description of info-sharing, battle field data-link, and unique detection/observation mechanism. On top of those, - Better description of artillery fire power including FASCAM/DPICM and counter battery. - ELINT / SIGINT description - Wider maps - Description of SF/light infantry infiltration etc etc... Those will show a glimpse of such futuristic modern warfare in larger scale in CMx2 engine. Well, if game engine limitation prohibits such upgrades then there's nothing we could do about it. However, if something like these are nicely modeled and described in CMx2 engine, then that will looks like easier, ground-war version of CMO / CMANO, and that will make all wargame grognards fully excited!!
  7. This is Vietnam, isn't it? Palm tree, rice field, tree house... As a person who has relatives in Korea and China, I can tell those are not Far East Asia (Northern China, Korea and Japan). Those are typical of South East Asian terrain and structures like Vietnam. Maybe you could claim as Guam or Taiwan, and I think Guam would be fine. But even Taiwan does not have that much amount of palm tree as far as I know.
  8. So is that mod a So is this a Vietnam war mod? Because I don't see any Far-east Asian nation units or terrains. It looks like... Vietnam with Abrams tank? Could you introduce us more?
  9. Do you have any detail about this battle? Kinda curious how combat flowed. And indeed, this is another example of how "small forces can maneuver and fight in huge map with many assets"
  10. Good point, level of micro would be burden, and that is one of the reason why I brought AI issue. But if some controls are automated, then it would still be possible and reasonably enjoyable for turn based game IMO. Well, I just used concept of OMG for easy explanation, nothing more. +1 to this comment. Also what I wish to add is, not only the larger maps, but also other idea should followed. Like advanced / automated AI, ELINT/SIGINT, more artillery munitions and counter battery, light infantry and SF infiltration, etc...
  11. OK, so it is just estimation based on btvt sources, not Thai army official or something, right? Still, thanks to let me know. I don't know about Nizh and Duplet's true capability. Tanknet or sturgeonhouse (there is a sturgeonhouse link about Nizh discussion in earlier replies of this post) still disputes towards this armor. But at least I also kinda agree, based on international armored vehicle conference presentation, looks like current CMBS UA tank's ERA might need some buffs.
  12. I understand. I understand too big maps might bring frame rate and performance issue, and big maps will take huge time to make, and there might be a limit of game engine and computational burden which might be related with performance issue. And indeed, you are right. Phase of game will become slow, on-foot infantry will take forever to cross the map. As a person who do a coding as a part of career, I do understand all those headaches. But still, I think for "modern" battle, we need bigger size. If 10km x 10km is too large, maybe some optimization effort would be needed. Or, how about fix the map size with formation size? Like: 2.5km x 2.5km or very small map for battle of forces of equal less then a company 5km x 5km or small map for battle of forces of equal less then a battalion 7.5km x 7.5km or medium map for battle of forces of equal less then a regiment 10km x 10km or large / huge map for battle of forces more than a regiment. If the computational resources & performance / optimization would be the issue, then OK, there is nothing I can do. But I'm not worrying too much about "slow battle" for modern battle because: 1) Drones and advanced spotting sensors. (And one of the reason why it would be great to see GSR in this game in the future) 2) Proper scenario design, guide players and AI to use more mechanized / motorized maneuver over on-foot marching. But "smaller" games would still be able to cover such close combat of on-foot soldiers. Plus, that is why I think it would be great to depict modern battle if CM engine could introduce: 1) Heliborne air-assauit infantry 2) Infiltrated recons / light infantry / SF operators, hunting or searching for enemy high value targets. Put light infantry and SF more stamina and movement speed. SF? Oh yes they can participate in the "conventional" operation, this just depends on tier of SFs. 3) On top of current simplified EW description, ELINT & SIGINT operations can boost the game phase and would make more interesting "modern" game. And they are realistic of course. 4) Description of FASCAM and ICMs and counter battery. Those will help to bring faster phase of the game for "modern battle" even with bigger maps. But I indeed agree that AI and performance issue would be a trouble. But PBEM players would enjoy regardless of AI. Maneuver is not fighting, of course, but it is one of the way to achieve better position and terrain advantage to repel enemy forces. Small maps of current CMBS with drones and exceptionally good optics / thermals force players to engage in very limited position, not that much option or flanking route to escape and circumvent kill zone. Plus, CM does not brings muti spectrum blocking smokes. I know Russians didn't had them in 2015, but both US and Russian probably have them now. I'm not sure if large urban area would be great environment to show modern battle of combined arms. But I can tell you, some larger field maps will definitely better for "modern" clash of combined arms, anything larger than battalion size. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a216492.pdf This is cold war material, but I'm just introducing for example. Depends on preparation readiness of NATO, the width of front boundary for Russian forces line can vary very widely. Yeah, narrow front is possible for regiment size, but wide front is possible too.
  13. Got it, thanks, I will be careful to separate Russians and pro-Russians. But any source about this info: pro-Russian separatist artillery and mortars?
  14. I found the source myself. https://www.janes.com/images/assets/111/80111/The_Czar_of_battle_Russian_artillery_use_in_Ukraine_portends_advances.pdf Report from Janes mentioned But it also mentioned So it was work of both SoF recon + SIGINT operation.
  15. Well, in real-life Donbass campaign, Russians were mostly based on BTGs rather than brigades or division operations. But this is because of unique political motivation which I don't even need to mention. However, in CMBS, the game hypothetically suggested what if scenario of full-scale attack of Russians to UA. In this case, I think regiments, brigades and divisions are major part of any Russian OMG (Operational Maneuvering Group). But there will be small-formation and small-group skirmishes of course. So, I wish if future CMBS module provide a larger map, like at least 10km x 10km or more, to properly describe at least regiment size combats. I think it is not enough but I also think CMx2 game engine would not be easy to depict anything larger.
  16. Good, we all wish next module of CMBS or any modern CM series would nicely cover modern battle.
  17. Figure 4 of the report I linked also describes about potential weapons capabilities of Russian BTG during Donbass campaign. One or two Rocket arty company, and one or two tube arty company. BM21, BM27, BM30, and 9A52-4 as rocket, and 2S19 (direct and indirect) and 2S1 as tube. It coincides with your comment of "higher level". And yeah I agree "typical BTG" of Russians are not that arty-heavy, but "Russian BTG during donbass conflict" looks like particularly reinforced artillery capability. My guess is probably Russians and pro-Russians increased / reinforced their artillery capability in the middle of Donbass campaign. I guess this is because of terrain? Not much cover, flat terrain makes them rely on artillery. Or, they may wanted to reduce the burden to leave evidence of direct Russian intervention. In the PDF I linked, page 10, "Reconnaissance-Strike Model and the Russian Artillery Mindset" is written. Report mentioned the drone technology + typical Russian doctrine of firepower favor, saying "It must be noted that Russian action during the Donbas campaign parallels the historic Russian approach to the employment of rocket and artillery fire" Do you have a source for this part, where cell phone use of UA soldiers helped SIGINT operation during Donbass which caused artillery casualty?
  18. Well, I never wrote they would be easy, but if CM series wish to depict "modern" battlefield more accurate, then I think those are significant... Both FASCAM and DPICM can use graphic of current cluster artillery. For DPICM, if the CMx2 engine is possible to depict each submunitions then that would be great. But if not, it should be modeled in a way to induce AT damage against top armor within certain range from artillery strike position, with some RNG-based location decision of submunition inside effect radius of each shell. For FASCAM, CM series already has damage model for mines. It would be great if engine can depict each minelets. But if not, we could rely on RNG-based location decision algorithm for specific number of minelets inside effect radius of each shell (random mix of AP/AT), except inside the building tiles. For SIGINT / ELINT, now this is totally outside the touch of field commander, but we can assume the data from information / signal company / battalion under higher formation is shared to player or AI commander on the field. Then it could depict very rough location of HQ unit, radar-sam unit, and GSR unit in a form of "unidentified icon" within AO, for random duration of time, shown in the map for every random or semi-random frequency of time. This can be depicted like fixed seed number with narrow RNG range. I also don't like to rely on random, but there is no other options to depict such things without RNG for current scale of CMx2. I think map size should be increased if possible for "modern battle". Info-sharing and optics / sensors / EW of modern battlefield make it possible to engage at quite far distance. Wider map will provide much more opportunities for maneuvering, infiltration / counter infiltration, and will increase the importance of recon operations (and heliborne if possible). FASCAM can be tactically important asset as it can be used for area denial or delaying. DPICM can be used for counter battery and counter armor. ELINT/SIGINT information can be nicely mixed with infiltrated SF / recon team to guide precision munitions or to assist direct assault of SF / recon / light infantry team on HQ / SAM / artillery assets. What I really wish to see is more field engineering feature but that would be even more difficult I presume...
  19. https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-112-Making-Sense-of-Russian-Hybrid-Warfare-A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-Russo-Ukrainian-War.pdf At the point of 2020 Jan, this report is slightly outdated but still it captured important observations during Dobass war. This is the first reference I cited in post above, check second reference too. From figure 2 and 3, you can check very artillery-heavy Russian (include Pro-Russian) BTG formation during Donbass war. I guess this is only particular example for Donbass campaign, and I think this also supports the first slide of presentation from very first post, International Armored vehicle conference presentation from UA: Most of the damage was done by artillery. But you also mentioned the effect of UA rules of engagement, which sounds interesting. Do you have any references for UA side rules of engagement? But still, regardless of any theater, I think artillery with FASCAM and DPICMs should be included as well as at least simplified feature of SIGINT/ELINT operations and counter battery operation. Those are critical factors for any "modern" battlefield. While examples of Donbass campaign might be biased due to artillery-heavy TO&E, firepower / counter firepwower plus description of various EW operations would be significant.
  20. I kinda agree that huge percentage of artillery is something specific about Donbass war. TO&E of both sides were very artillery heavy. Russian BTG force structure contains 1 armor company + 3 mech. infantry companies + 1 AT company + 1 AA company + 2~3 artillery company. Those are heavily reinforced battalion group, which strengthened heavy artillery (rockets and heavy tubes) to enhance independent operational capability. [A.C.Fox & A.J. Rossow, 2017 & L.W.Grau & C.K.Bartles, 2017] However, I feel any "modern" battle field will be heavily rely on firepower and counter firepower, and related EW / SIGINT / ELINT operations. So I was feeling that current CMBS is not capturing such features of various artillery and counter artillery nicely... Plus, I think typical map size of CMBS is kinda too small to depict such clash of combined arms. I wish if there is any chance to see 10km x 10km + map size for modern battle in the future, though I think chances would not high...
  21. These are different topics from Nizh, but may I ask what is your opinion towards btvt references? Also, as far as I know this game's 105mm is not using M735 but using M800, is this right? Speaking of 'modern war', any plan to consider different theater for hypothetical modern hot war, like East Asia? Like Taiwan or Korea. As you may know, PRC is one of the potential hostility for any possible "total war", even if in a sense of "limited total war". Experts are expecting "fait accompli" style strategy of Russia and China, so it is likely to see something similar in Asia too...
  22. I'm also one of the person who is also curious about the theory behind the performance shown in the presentation. It is totally unrelated opinion but I must tell, these days I don't trust "some" materials from sturgeonshouse, tanknet, or warthunder forum. Problem is, a lot of people there do not share the name of document neither properly cite and use reference. It is very easy to use photoshop to "fix" any screenshots, and too many people just upload mysterious screenshot from "mysterious PDF data they somehow get", citing no reference, and "search yourself". Well, I don't buy any of such claims with mysterious PDF screenshot without clear reference comment. If somehow it is crosschecked by another reference, then I trust. You also need to be careful about that. Well, at least the person of that article put some efforts for referencing, so I respect that. Plus, there are some good arguments are back and forth in that posting about Nizh, it was good to read. Thank you for sharing that thread.
  23. Well, unless you are UA official, my stand is the same. I don't care, no matter how much read about this issue. Whatever materials you and I read is only officially published materials by UA government, and we will never know what is behind them, we can only speculate. And such speculation should be regarded as opinions, so I will consider your idea is just your opinion. Maybe your speculation might be close to real. I don't need to prove anything because I'm just telling my opinion based on that conference presentation, which shows UA made descent ERA and they are using them. But I already expressed regarding my opinion "I don't know about it, and I maybe wrong". And yeah, you maybe right. Is this satisfies you? I'm not sure what is the idea you wish to convey, but is that "Thai army tested and saw Nizh but they can't design new one, so "UA made decent ERA" is wrong"? Is this correct? Then bringing Thai army example to this argument makes no sense. Thai army or any company in Thai has no comparable experience neither any capability of MBT development, design and manufacturing like Morozov. Morozov has their experience and archives from cold war, and what you are doing is comparing Morozov's capability with Thai in the same degree, but I don't think that is correct. Totally different environment. I don't know about design capability of Morozov in full detail. But I, or anyone can easily deduct that Morozov could do something based on their experience and based on old designs. First of all, I never said Nizh is uber alles. I just said it showed "good" performance during Donbass war according to presentation, so this game needs to buff Bulat and Nizh performance to reflect that observation. Are you working for UA DoD or defense industry? How do you so sure about claims like "They write a lot of words yet they don't do the first thing every honest producer would do - they do not do range testing. AFAIK the only limited range testing they did was done 12 years ago and it was done with a couple"? What if they just didn't published for public? I don't know about them as well, but I'm curious, where does your such high confidence regarding your claims coming from. Do you obtains some classified materials somehow? If yes, then OK, I will trust you. But if not, it is just also your opinion. I respect yours, but you also need to respect other's opinions. Plus, at this point, based on your tone of your writing, you just don't trust the presentation and regard it as propaganda, right? Well, if you want to believe that, then you can believe that way and there is nothing I can do about that. But you need to understand that me and some people more trust the publications from international journals and conference presentations more than forum keyboard warriors, and you need to respect and being polite towards other's "opinion"s, rather than undermine and being rude. At this point the argument can be politics and propaganda thing, so if you want to write about that, do that in different post, not in this post. All of those are totally not related with Nizh ERA performance. First link can be a circumventional / situational background at best, but second link is totally out of topic. Those cannot be the direct evidence regarding any claims of Nizh ERA performance, and they tell nothing about Nizh ERA performance. You also know that, right? Well, I don't like your attitude anyway so this will be my last time wasting towards your reply. But I wish you to say, calm down, and next time, better respect other's opinions too.
  24. What I want to say is the final decision of equipping K-5 for T-80U was people in charge in Morozov. They should had adequate knowledge about K-5 and its principle and capability to make that decision. And I think that experience somehow helped them to design their own. After all, ERA is not that seriously difficult mechanism to understand, neither serious degree of metallurgical knowledge is required to design and research one. Not to mention ERA is not related with thermal too. You and I are not in the position to make any call about UA's R&D capability and manufacturing at all, neither in position to correctly comment about reasons behind how they decided to develop Nizh and delay Thaliand order. (Unless you are UA government official. And I'm not related with UA in any forms) In this case, we can only speculate and express our 'opinion', at least we both agree about that, right? Your idea is also your opinion based on what you believe, but you don't need to undermine other's opinion as "fairy tale" before you bring your support evidence for your version of "fairy tale", right? To answer your claim, I don't know and I maybe wrong. But evidences shown in the report (presentation in 20th international armored vehicle conference I linked in original post) is suggesting that UA made a descent ERA and they fielded in Bulat tanks. I also agree, I don't expect they made totally something new. I also wrote in this post and previous post, they get some hint or they take some advantage from what they learned from experiences with K-5 and knowledge related with past doctrine / design principle of T-64 series and T-80 series. My opinion is, based on those, they developed something upgraded when compared old cold war soviet design such as K-5. Again, I am not saying their ERA is revolutionarily upgraded, but they just made something more or less better presumably based on their cold war experience. Report means the presentation in 20th international armored vehicle conference, which supports Nizh showed good operational capability in Donbass war. https://defence-ua.com/index.php/en/publications/defense-express-publications/5144-oleksandr-guchenkov-we-develop-innovative-reactive-armor-protections-while-simultaneously-upgrading-and-improving-legacy-designs http://uamicrotech.com/2018/11/23/oleksandr-guchenkov-we-develop-innovative-reactive-armor-protections/ Well I only have UA sources so... I don't know, all I'm sure is Morozov "participated" in research and they made final decision to put Nizh in Bulat. But who knows? Maybe you are right.
×
×
  • Create New...