Jump to content

IICptMillerII

Members
  • Posts

    2,732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

IICptMillerII last won the day on October 15

IICptMillerII had the most liked content!

7 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

4,066 profile views

IICptMillerII's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)

1.7k

Reputation

  1. I completely agree, and I know that you make your statements in good faith. Always a pleasure talking with you, whether it be CM nuance or other stuff in general. Its just too bad those conversations are increasingly hard to have on the forums. Ah well, you know where to reach me!
  2. The problem here is that no answer will be good enough. The fact is, if someone thinks that CM is so fundamentally broken, then fine. Play Steel Beasts. End of discussion. Life is too short to throw temper tantrums, especially pointless ones.
  3. As far as the Cold War is concerned, it was only the T-80UK, which existed in extremely small numbers. Per the source I listed.
  4. Quadrupled. I haven't commented on this thread yet because I am trying to track down a post by Steve (at least I think it was Steve) where he explains why putting two tanks on a flat map is a bad test of both the capabilities of vehicles optics and the spotting system in CM. As others have stated, CM is not simulating tanks on a gunnery range, where the gunners know they are scanning for a specific type of target that can only appear in a general area of land (the range). It takes into account a multitude of factors. Part of the system is that the TacAi will know that an object exists, but has not identified that object as a tank, and not a hostile one. That takes time. However, better optics allow for objects to be identified faster. All of this is taken into account by the spotting system in CM. Putting a T-72 on a field in front of an M60, and comparing 1 result to 1 result in Steel Beasts is not a conclusive test. The testing itself is flawed, and is not making a point about anything.
  5. You literally said this: Implying that, because in real life Western optics are better than Russian/Soviet optics, the game somehow arbitrarily decreases Red optics and increases Blue optics. Which is completely false. You further imply it with your car analogy: Soviet tanks do not have some weird blindness modifier put on them, or a speed governor to use your car analogy. And because we love anecdotes here is two more. I had a platoon of T-80Bs in hull down spot a platoon of M60A3 TTS Patton tanks before the Pattons saw me. The T-80s engaged and destroyed all of the Pattons before they ever got a shot off. In another scenario, I had a buttoned up T-55 spot and shoot an unbuttoned M48 at point blank range (~150m), because the T-55 saw the M48 first. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Just because crazy things happen, does not mean the whole game is broken or weird or wonky. Anyways, concerning the T-80U thermals: https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html
  6. Ok. Not sure posting here is worth it/appropriate. Feeding trolls and all that. But for the sake of those who do not know and genuinely would like to know, and future readers, here goes. Completely agree. No idea why the armor UI thing is still a thing, or how it is generated. In my opinion it should either be removed or fixed. Leaving it in its current state is just confusing. This is not how spotting works in CM. Spotting is not randomized. At this point an entire book could be written about how spotting functions in CM, and multiple tomes could be written of all the anecdotal evidence of it "not working right." But, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. Ah yes, the "Steve is a NATO shill!" argument. What I will say is that this discussion has been had many times, and what people fundamentally fail to understand is that good optics makes an exponentially positive difference in spotting and situational awareness. Here is a great video from Hapless that does a great job of demonstrating one of many points when it comes to vehicle optics. Again, please note that those infantry, who are not even attempting to hide, are less than 50m away and are quite hard to spot. Tank optics are even more extreme. Thermal imagers are way, way better than conventional day night sights, especially the Soviet day night sights, which did not have much zoom and were a narrow field of view. So, a lot of the results from these Swedish armor tests are pretty suspect. That is a whole other discussion, but what I will point out is that the idea that a tank with conventional day sights can spot just as good as a tank with thermals is hysterically inaccurate. Tanks with decent thermal imagers outperform conventional day sights by a ton. This is well known. for a real world example, check out the Gulf War, where US and NATO tanks equipped with thermal imagers consistently outspot their Iraqi counterparts, regardless of daylight conditions and weather. For those who love the "monkey model" and "bad training" arguments, I will simply point out that the rest of the world, including Russia, learned the correct lessons from the Gulf War. Pretty much every main battle tank today that is worth any credibility has some version of thermal, or at least enhanced optics. The real world settled this argument decades ago. I find it hilarious that it continues to rear its ugly, dead head here. Then again, this isn't exactly a War College either. Tracers are not simulated. As in, units do not "see" tracers, or bullets in CM. Not really sure how else to say it. Imagine tracers don't exist in CM? Its a trivial point anyways. Also, anecdotal evidence is not evidence. I saw a Vulcan fire at a BMP-1, fail to penetrate it, and the BMP-1 (that was just shot) promptly returned fire and killed the Vulcan with its 73mm gun from 600m away. So, there. Anecdote.
  7. This is top tier schizo posting. All warfare is based. Sun Tzu
  8. Great shots! Looking forward to seeing the assault go in.
  9. Great stuff Beeron! Always love seeing new people creating high quality AARs. Plus, you've got some great OPFOR to fight against there I'll be following along with interest.
  10. Its ok, its more for the benefit of the passers by and new forum members who do not understand the full context. Wouldn't want them led astray!
  11. Yeah so just for the record, again, he was not in the British army during the Cold War, and was not in the BAOR. And, at no point in the video does he claim to have been in the BAOR, or staring down the Soviets in Germany personally.
  12. Theoretically yes, in an emergency. But tracked vehicles are not supposed to drive over barbed wire. It gets caught and tangled in the treads and wheels real bad, and worst case scenario can even tangle the tracks so badly that the vehicle is immobilized. CM actually simulates this too. If you drive over barbed wire you’ll notice the condition of your tracks will be degraded, and if you do it too much your vehicle will become immobilized.
×
×
  • Create New...