.png.91b60a5bafb4dcb6f45c202eabcb3ba8.png){kind=avatar}
exsonic01
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by exsonic01
-
-
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
How would you feel if the Abrams turns out to be Regular? I'm intrigued to know how good it is now.
If it is regular I would be surprised, but still my stand will be the same. It is not entirely impossible but I admit that would be scare chance. This is just some graphical and mathematical modeling of physics, which tries to be perfect under some constraints, hence this should be in the same region of TRPG dice toss. It would be great if my tank killed that Abrams, but it wasn't and that's it, and I think the system is not entirely biased, just some bugs and mistakes here and there. This is not a perfect game, but they will going to do something to improve. Plus, we would never know the true real events of what happens unless there would be major war, which would be terrible. So, we are just enjoying this simulation, and if you don't like it, you can always stop playing.
My question is not about their detecting ability neither the fighting ability. It is about LWR and the override ability. If BF decided to put the LWR to the SEP v2 with the same reason of introducing Trophy, I can take it, though I feel it is a bit of bummer. I understand BF, but I still strongly believe that the game should have approached in more conservative way when depicting weapons, try to realistic as much as possible. In that sense, watching Trophy and LWR in SEP v2 is acceptable but not happy, at least to me. Same goes for T-90AM and Oplot, which is not may numbers are ready at real life 2017, which should have more rarity point in my opinion. But that will ruin the game balance entirely, so in general, I accept their "hypothetical approximation". But in the next module, I wish to see more realistic version of SEP v2 and v3.
But my curiosity regarding TC override is still unsolved. Maybe someday by some chance we would figure it out.
-
11 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Still hard to explain the casual swatting of the T-72 IMHO.
If it had survived, backed off and then come back and killed the T-72s, fair enough.....But that thing acted far too much like an AI controlled mobile death-ray and not very much like a tank (especially one that had just taken a penetrating hit).
Like I said, it is not entirely impossible. I'm just regarding myself unlucky, and I'm having my own lucky moment in this game so it was good compensation. But the game is in my opponent's favor.
-
20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I believe the Russians developed the capability for the tank commander to lay the gun with T-54.
https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/t-72-soviet-progeny.html
This is a prime example of the problem with this game, that Abrams was a dead duck, but it casually zaps the T-72 while pretty much simultaneously surviving a penetrating round that should have concussed everyone inside regardless of whether it damaged anything else. It also looked to me like that Abrams was reloading after taking a shot, so the ammo storage doors would have been open and that tank should have been a fireball (having just taken a point-blank turret penetration).
BTW - The T-72 & T-90 have better all round vision than the Abrams as the gunner has a periscope too, at closer ranges these tanks should have a spotting advantage.
That Abrams was not shooting nor reloading before that shot, it was just overwatching the general direction of my forces. And I guess my opponent brought elite or crack Abrams, which make that situation not entirely impossible... But still, it would be tough even for elite or crack crews. I will check after the end of the game. Thanks for the info about gunner periscope, but I still think that Abrams will have first sight advantage because of HD thermal vision regardless of range.
-
22 minutes ago, Erwin said:
"commander saw, but gunner couldn't"
You are aware that the CO has a higher view than the gunner, and that the main gun may have been unable to shoot the target regardless of what the CO orders.
Yes I know that, but I think TC should be able to override, and aim/shoot the target instead of gunner. Is this because TC at the moment was out of the hatch (so that unable to conduct the override)? Or override is not modeled in CMBS? I'm not sure which one is the case here.
-
It seems that the field test is very optimistic for Marines. Their plan needs to pass the congress and budget huddle, and there's not enough production lines for such many M27s now in H&K, but if it passes, than we may able to see the mix of M27 + M4 US marine squad in next CMBS module, if BF considers Marines in next module.
-
This is from one of the ongoing PBEM match. I'm playing redfor, and opponent is blufor. I think this is related with ongoing balance discussion.
I expected the advance of enemy armor at that position around the treeline, so I set up a tank trap plan. Basic idea is hunt that Abrams with two T-72B3s, deploy one tank in ambush position while the other flanks the side. This turn took some time for me, to think and consider LoS, speed, approaching angle and routes, and all other possibilities. After long command phase, I pushed the big red button and wait for my opponent's response until next day. And the day after, I got the next file, and that video was what really happened.
My plan worked....almost. It worked as planned and flanking T-72B3 hit the target, but only achieved partial penetration. It was within 200m, but that is fine. What makes me surprise was the next events after the shot. Abrams fields the smoke, turn the turret, and shot the ambushing T-72B3 and nailed it. Abrams not only evade my trap, but also destroyed. I guess the crews may be shaken, but anyway they killed my tank. Maybe my opponent brought crack or elite Abrams.... I feel so disappointing, all of my plans and considerations for long time are just gone in an instant.
I have no objection against the current defensive (DU armor) / offensive (M829A4) / detection (up to x50 high resolution thermal sight) ability of CMBS Abrams. However, in this case, LWR saved his life, which is not equipped in SEP v2, and probably will be introduced from SEP v4 to my best knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong). Without LWR, that Abrams would be dead from side armor penetration. I wish the more realistic modeling of SEP v2 and SEP v3 in the next module.
2nd thing I noticed is that, I frequently experiences the "commander saw, but gunner couldn't" situation. Actually, the commander (opened the hatch) of the ambushing tank, was watching the Abrams for about 5 or more seconds, but the gunner had no LoS, failed to shoot, so eventually destroyed. But isn't there any override ability in FCS of modern tanks, for commander to designate the target and aim regardless of gunner's sight? From my Steel Beasts experience I remember that Russians also have the override ability... but I'm not sure about this. Maybe because my commander was out of the hatch so couldn't conduct the override action? Does CMBS tanks are equipped with override ability?
Anyway, I'm in trouble in this game. I should've killed that tank, but that OOTB LWR ruined my plan
Wind is heavy so I can't rely on Khriz, and this map is not a good terrain for Khriz play. I'm just trying to flank and push him all the way, but my opponent is really good. Don't know what to do now...
-
First 1 min = from .50 cal gunner's view
Second 1 min = same street and crossroads stomped by .50cal and Javelin, from different view.
Last 1 min = Abrams, dealing with 3 BTRs. 30mm could be very nasty even against the Abrams. Look at that subsystem damages.
My opponent brought tons of BTRs to this game, and I didn't expect that. My engineers and HMG teams are doing their best, but the 2A72 30mm from BTR-82A is too powerful to deal with. They have no problem to wreck the walls and buildings and boys inside, and they are cheap and expandable. I'm just barely stopping the waves or waves, but the game is slowly becoming his favor. I should have bought Bradleys.
And I agree to @Reiter that war is cruel. If CMBS has gore mod, that crossroad and street would be full of hands, legs and body parts.... War is cruel, especially modern battlefield has no mercy at all, with ultimate firepower and advanced fire control.
-
12 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:
That relationship would be interesting to know about. I suspect the detection ability may be based on the ground controller and if the observe mission is an area or point mission, page 11 of the CMBS game manual (not engine manual). Please post anything you find out.
On the subject of JTAC they are very good at working with all aircraft but not so much with the UAV / artillery combination. One of the things UAVs do well is to call in artillery on spotted OpFor. However the JTAC FFE times are much longer than a FO with the same soft factors. A different FO with a PDA or vehicle link to the JTAC controlled UAV would have to do the arty part. Also JTACs are another expense. I often just use FOs.
I tested with elite Raven vs conscript Raven, and elite Gray Eagle vs conscript Gray Eagle. All other conditions were same: fine weather, daytime, no EW, iron difficulty. Tested with 2 elite JTAC team. I gave areal recon command to UAVs, and managed 10 redfor vehicles to move into the UAV observation area, 9 T-90AM + 1 SA13.
It shows that there is a significant difference in detection ability.
1) Elite Raven vs conscript Raven begin with 5:1 observation at 1min, and 7:5 at 10min.
2) Elite GE vs conscript GE (both recon area 375m diameter) begin with 3:1 observation at 1min, 9:6 at 10 min. Note that the elite GE observed 6 vehicle at 2min.
So, experience of UAV influences the detection ability. That might compensate the great price difference over UAV experience level.
Plus, 375m diameter GE see better than 400m range Raven, I should have compared with same diameter, that was my mistake. But IMO 25m difference might be negligible, and GE see better than Raven.
It is also confirmed that elite JTAC detect better than JTAC with lower experience level, so I think it is safe to say, that elite JTAC + elite UAV could maximize the detection ability.
I also agree that JTAC bring shorter delay for airstrike when compared to artillery. On the other hand, FO and FSVs work faster for arty than airstrike. This is same for the Russian army. I felt like vehicle FBCB2 or Constellation2 works faster than PDAs, but this needs test to confirm.
-
3 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:
Found one more small difference. The time to fire a Hellfire missile is about 35 seconds faster for elite over conscript. Still have not noticed a difference in the Hellfire accuracy but did not look at that very much. There is a pretty big difference in QB purchase and rarity points between conscript and Elite
.
Thank you for all those tests MOS. I'm trying to find the relation between UAV experience and detection ability - how fast / how many enemies are detected. There is definitely relationship between experience of JTAC or fire support team and detection ability. But not sure about UAV experience.
-
15 hours ago, sbobovyc said:
What icon mod is exsonic01 using?
It is "Bil's CMBS floating icons BETA 3.brz" I downloaded in other website, not battlefront mod forum.
14 hours ago, John Kettler said:akd,
An inert one completely clobbered an M-48 or 60 (forget which). This was IIR guided, I believe, and it smashed into the engine compartment with such overwhelming that the engine and pretty much everything else in there was destroyed (driven into the ground, too, and the tank's engine compartment caught fire. 100% M-Kill minimum. The late Jacques Littlefield somehow got his hands HEAT version warhead alone was 125 lbs. The penetrating blast/frag warhead was 300 lbs. The video will help you gain some appreciation for the size of this thing, different versions, and terminal approach profiles. The original films were crisp and clear (though the from the missile view had real limits imposed by the seeker), and it's a shame they're not earlier and show what it does to the tank hit.
Regards,
John Kettler
Thanks for the explanation and impressive vid. The missile is really huge~!
-
2 hours ago, Redken said:
Here is a good overview article on hardkill APS and the capability to defeat APFSDS:
http://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.de/2017/01/hardkill-aps-overview.html
Thanks for the info, this article really sums up nicely. But I'm still skeptical about any claims that modern APS could reliably defend the kinetic rounds at all circumstances. Like the some APS in article, it would just degrade the speed or interfere the path to reduce the power of APFSDS round. But who knows, maybe some of the APS system with positive test results in the article may have a chance to get the contraction in some future, and we could see how effective they are.
-
Maverick is not sluggish... almost all A2G missiles easily reach to mach 1 or more speed. I'm pretty sure Maverick will do the same. And their approaching angle is usually high.
And I don't buy that any fielded APS at the current stage could able to intercept sabot rounds, yet. Well, it would be possible someday, only in someday..... but still long way to go.
Current APS would be unable to reliably defend against the projectiles with mach 1 or more speed.
-
So... the UAV experience is the experience of operator in control stations? Then what is the effect of elite UAV? Elite UAV + elite JTAC or support team or support vehicle would see everything on the battle field? Or it increases the chance to survive of UAVs?
-
6 hours ago, cool breeze said:
My intuition tells me that the main problem isnt that the APS can hit the A2G missiles, but that the missiles don't still manage to shred the tank anyway.
At least the maverick and russian at25 or whatever its called. those are both freaken huge.
Usually A2G missiles so fast, more than or equals to mach 1 speed, that the APS shouldn't have enough time to react.
Plus, your mention makes sense, considering the Maverick weighs at least 450lb and could weighs more.
Whatever the reason, this should be fixed in next module.
-
I was testing something with F-16CJ, and this happened.
Red dot (Maverick) approaches to the target and ...
It was stopped by APS. (Plus, that explosion was quite higher than the last observed position of the missile. Is this graphical bug?)
IRC this issue was discussed before, and it concluded that the airborne ATGMs should not be intercepted by APS, and following patch adjusted airborne ATGM's approaching angle, not to be intercepted by APS. Is this right? Is this issue still survives? or it is possible to happen? or is this a different bug?
ps) Does ingame US airplanes use JDAM kit for their free fall bombs?
-
The most brutal death of T72B3 I've ever experienced. I think the leader spotted the Bradley, but the gunner couldn't for some reason, maybe because of trees or wrecks. I think the leader would really get mad during that incident...
Leader: "Enemy IFV, 12 o'clock, 700m front"
Gunner: "I can't see anything, sir"
Leader: "Look, there is a Bradley, just right in front of us, besides the trees and the wreck~!"
Gunner: "Hmmmm.... there's nothing comrade, where is that Bradley more precisely?"
Leader: "You stupid idiot, are you xxxxing blind? It is xxxxing right the.... Oh **** they shoot the missile, do you see it?"
Gunner: "Nothing comrade, nothing"
Leader: "Shiiiiiiit~ You **** us all~~~"
And the penetrator from the missile launched into the opened hatch, toasted everyone inside....
-
I found out that the purchase point for the UAVs differs when I modified their experience. While I can understand what "experience" means for fire support teams, artillery, and airplanes, I can't understand the meaning of "higher experience" for UAVs... What is difference between green Raven and elite Raven? Where this price difference comes from? I think the experience of operator (air control team or fire support team) should effect on the performance of UAV, but it seems that the elite UAV works better regardless of operator's experience.
-
1 hour ago, John Kettler said:
Remember when someone's Tunguska hosed down his own troops? Something similar occurred here, except it was real. Comments indicate this is a known issue with the Tunguska. No idea what happened to those unfortunate recipients. Offhand, I see no good outcome in the face of that kind of firepower.
https://www.funker530.com/aa-gun-sprays-friendlies-during-catastrophic-failure/
Regards,
John Kettler
That was my video XD My case was coming from not a malfunction, but from a poor coordination of forced-attack and charge by noob commander X(
But that video is more awful, just wow...
BTW, your post was 1000th reply to this thread. X)
-
4 hours ago, Erwin said:
Yes, same thing happens with some MG's (IIRC Red forces in CMSF etc) if the crew insists on lying on the ground.
I checked with MG team as well. Same thing happens.
26 minutes ago, akd said:Their posture relative to the windows does not affect LOS. Something else is causing the block.
I also feel that the symptom occurs occasionally. Sometimes it happens but sometimes not. Is this means that any window/door location on the wall opens the LOS for any units inside the building? Are they supposed to see outside regardless of their position? But clearly I checked the MG team or GL team does not see anything when they get down for deployment.
-
Do you deploy grenade launchers and ATGM launchers inside the building? Does they have clear sight?
It seems that the operators of some of the ATGM launchers and grenade launchers get down on the ground when I deploy them in the building. This leads no clear sight for everywhere for them, since they are down on the ground and their view is blocked by the wall. They are heading the window, but because their observation point is low, that they can't see anything.
Is this normal? How do you manage to get the clear LOS for some ATGMs and grenade launchers? Should I need to deploy them outdoors anytime?
Here, those guys stay down on the ground while deploying, greatly restricts their LoS. Grenade launcher in the figure faces the closed window, but I checked with the open windows too their view is quite limited in the building during deployment.
-
Turn ends right at the moment of crossing of 120mm from Abrams and missile from Khrizantema. Need to wait until tomorrow until my dutch opponent responds XD I crossed my fingerps) He responded, and both hit the tree~! Tree OP~!
-
Believe it guys, believe it~! Tree OP~! I feel like I used up all CMBS lucks for this moment.... maybe XD
Game is on my opponent's favor and I'm getting hit here and there, but this lucky kill gave me a little comfort. Oh well, my opponent also took his lucky shots, so I will take this
-
I think 30mm / Javelin Stryker is OK to be introduced in new module.
http://defense-update.com/20101207_javelin_crows.html
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-to-upgun-all-strykers-30-mm-javelin/
Javelin+crows2 was already tested from back in 2010, and the Dragoon and Stryker + Javelin will be introduced in European US army and Calvary regiment Strykers from this year. Correct me if I'm wrong, this is not a confirmed info. But anyway, Javelin / 30mm capability of Stryker will be great~!
Also AMPV is very close to be fielded, so they maybe could be a new taxi in next CMBS module.
-
@IICptMillerII Thanks to let me know, wish to see the modification of TACAI in next patch.
Wind is heavy so I can't rely on Khriz, and this map is not a good terrain for Khriz play. I'm just trying to flank and push him all the way, but my opponent is really good. Don't know what to do now...
.
Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
I regard that as TC in open hatch would not be able to conduct the override action, so unable to shoot.