IICptMillerII
-
Posts
3,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Posts posted by IICptMillerII
-
-
Quote
this reveals the current state of mind of the CM CW team re the M735.
To be clear, we are looking into the effectiveness of these rounds vs the T-64A hull armor.
-
8 minutes ago, THH149 said:
I think we can assume a shooter using the 1200 auto zero isn't waiting for a computing solution if the target is rougly 1200 if it needs to shoot 'now', but I'm assuming the TAC AI will wait for the computed solution for other ranges to save a shell and reload time when the target is likely to be missed.
There is no computer solution. Battle sight zero is designed to allow the gunner to target and engage an enemy as fast as possible, without having to do manual gunnery. If the target is outside of battle sight zero, then you have to "walk" your shots onto the target.
To be more clear: if a target is placed in the crosshairs, it does not matter what range the target as at, as long as it is 1200m or less. If the target is at 200m, the crosshairs will still aim true. Just as if the target is at 1200m. That is the entire point of battle sight zero. It is a simple zero. Put the crosshair on the target and you should hit it.
-
The Mig-23 was a notoriously poor performing aircraft, in any role it was put in. All of my money would be in on the A-7 Corsair. Which, by the way, was only operated by reserve units such as air national guard units by the time CMCW takes place. It also continued to be a workhorse with the Navy into the 80s, alongside the F-14 and the up and coming F-18.
-
Gotta love rivet counting.
The point of stating the 100m for a rifle was to use it as an analogy for how battle sighting works in general. In general, across all different types of rifles and calibers, 100m is a safe battle sight zero based on general ballistics.
-
10 hours ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:
Excuse me, but what should I expect to see in game? So tanks without rangefinders won't attempt stadiametric or coincidence rangefinding, but shoot a round out to 1200m and walk the rounds until they hit the target? Is this going to result in a net increase or decrease in long range accuracy?
It sounds like a choice, but I want some clarification on how this is handled. Thank you.
This graph is really good at illustrating it:
8 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:Essentially, it means that as long as the tank and target are stationary, any target that is within 1200m does not need a corrected shot. The gunner just has to put the target in his crosshairs and fire the gun, and the round should hit the target. This is thanks to ballistics. The same principle applies to small arms. Rifles generally have a battle sight of 100m. Within 100m, no outside factors (wind, range, etc) will change the bullets trajectory, so all the shooter has to do is put the crosshairs on the target and the bullet will hit it.
The T-62 has a battle sight of 1500m thanks to its higher velocity gun.
This is all done automatically by the TacAI. No player input is required.
It results in a net increase of accuracy at longer range.
In my opinion, this is a huge improvement.
-
11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
It passes the time and can be entertaining. Trolls in the wild…we should do a documentary. That, and that WWZ (legally distinct) is growing on me.
Ha fair point. Or even a bracket...
-
1 hour ago, Simcoe said:
This guys is a top tier troll. You have to respect the game.
Imagine spending this much time on a game you don't like lol.
Yup, and yet all these homies out here feeding the troll still.
-
Why anyone is still engaging with the incoherent rambling troll is beyond me. Might be time to take Warren's advice and just say "thank you, come again."
How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real? Erwin Rommel (probably)
On 11/12/2021 at 5:43 PM, domfluff said:
I'm not really sure where this idea comes from.
I'm currently playing a game of the 1956 British Army Tactical Wargame (http://www.wargaming.co/professional/details/britisharmy1956.htm) using https://www.map.army/
That's a professional, declassified ruleset, made for training and planning. It abstracts most of the tactical-level stuff into single rolls, but is very explicit on movement and planning times, engineering times for various tasks, and other, division/corps level concerns (as well as having a lot of data on tactical nukes, because 1956). The data for all of that came directly from WW2 - most of it is as applicable now as it was then, but it will certainly be applicable for WW2 combat.
In that system, an attack where the smaller force is a battalion or combat team (about two companies), the expected time for the battle is 2-4 hours. That matches very well to Combat Mission.
That time is not inclusive of the pre-battle planning times (a basic battalion attack with artillery support might take three hours to set up), nor the reorganisation after a successful battle, which would take up another hour, but the actual-combat part seems to match up well, and covers what you'd see in CM.I agree. I'm also confused by that claim. Its true that sometimes scenario designers put very tight time limits on battles, and I understand that a lot of the time it is the time limit that makes the battle competitive. That, and there is an argument that because the player has a gods eye view of the battlefield, it grants a higher level of situational awareness that allows for faster decision making than what might happen in real life.
That said, there is nothing in CM that actually compresses the time. 1 second is 1 second, 1 minute is 1 minute, etc. I think this is another one of those things that come down to design. There can easily be battalion level actions on a 2-4 hour time scale that play out very realistically.
Beyond that, I think it might be another way for people to handwave away high casualties. It's always easier to blame the game than the player.
-
1 hour ago, FinStabilized said:
Thanks I very much appreciate the confirmation that its going to be looked at!
I appreciate the way you have handled and presented your argument!
I've started an internal discussion about this and will be looking more into it myself as well. I can't promise anything will change, but I can say that this will be looked into. Thanks again!
-
I just want to reiterate that this is a really good thread.
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:Having followed this, I am not sure it is ballistics problem, it looks more like a targeting problem. TACAI is programmed to aim for center of mass and in these sorts of tests, wherever that is tends to be a point where the armor is strong. One way to test this might be to crank up wind speed to see if that has an impact. That and maybe we could ask for smarter targeting based on crew experience (in fact it might already be in there).
I tend to agree with Warren on this one. From everything I have seen, I think that CMCW has the ballistics down pretty well. I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to tank rounds and performance during this era, and to my eye I am not seeing anything happen that is too egregious.
FWIW I have played a lot of Steel Beasts featuring similar matchups and what happens in that sim seems to mirror what happens in this one. I also know that CM is using numbers that are very close to Steel Beasts, both in ammunition data and armor protection.
I'm not discrediting anything said in this thread though. Right now, my working theory is that there is a bit of observation bias due to the fact that the player is not doing the aiming, and because the player always notices when things go wrong (rounds not penetrating) as opposed to when things go right (rounds punching through).
I will say though, that I am a bit curious about the armor protection on the T-64A. It is possible that it might be a bit beefier than it should be when it comes to sabot rounds. I will point out that all other anti tank weapons seem to perform as expected against the T-64 (dragon, TOW, LAW, etc) which also leads me to believe that things are in fact working as designed, but it is still worth looking in to. With that said, the T-64A as is needs an update. There should be a T-64A (1980) version to reflect upgrade packages the Soviets applied (smoke launchers being one of the most obvious), just like there is a T-72A and a T-72A (1980). This is coming with the module. Not sure how much, if at all it will affect the armor protection, but seeing that the T-64 will be getting a bit of a workover for the module, I think it will be worth looking into its armor protection.
-
This is fixed in version 2.16 of Black Sea. Make sure you are running the most recent version of the game.
-
5 hours ago, Simcoe said:
Do battles in real life play out like they do in Combat Mission?
Are there parts that do and some that don't?
Very simple question, very complicated answer. But to keep with the theme and answer simply (at first) the answer is that battles in CM can play out very realistically, but generally speaking they do not.
There are two main reasons why scenarios do not play out realistically:
- Design
- Player (or players)
Lots of scenario's are not designed realistically. Artillery is arbitrarily limited because the designer might think that artillery is too effective in CM, unit formations are cherry picked as opposed to composed realistically. Maps are too small and force oversized battles to occur in a shoebox, or maps are too large with not enough units on one or both sides for the battle. Rare assets (panther tanks, brumbars, etc) are used far more often in game scenarios than they showed up in real life because people want to play with the fun toys. Terrain is not realistically recreated or represented. Just a few examples.
A lot of players play the game in their own way, that is to say not realistically. Many people do not try to emulate real world tactics, procedures, or doctrine. You get examples of this a lot, like players throwing hordes of Soviet soldiers to their deaths in Red Thunder, charging strykers and halftracks directly into the fray in WW2 and modern titles, not using Soviet style ATGMs in batteries, not using artillery appropriately or at all, and my personal favorite is sticking a platoon/company/whatever of tanks, stationary, out in an open field in a slugfest against enemy tanks/AT guns, losing half the unit and then handwaving it away by saying something along the lines of "oh well WW2 was a deadly war!" Again the list of examples is long.
That said, CM can absolutely represent real battles, and do it very well. Realistic battles can be designed in the CM editor. Both the terrain model and the TO&E model allow you to put realistic forces on a realistic map. Once you have a realistic map and forces, you need two people who know how to employ those forces on the terrain in a realistic way. I say two, because (as the CMSF manual points out) the only real way you are going to get the most realistic representation of tactical warfare out of CM is against a human opponent, who knows what they are doing. The scripted AI is acceptable for general gameplay, but if you're looking for a fully realistic experience, you need to play against someone who knows what they are doing.
So, like I said, it can definitely happen in CM, it just isn't a guarantee and is dependent on factors that are outside of the game. That tends to be true for any simulation though. There are plenty of other simulators out there that are intended to simulate real world stuff that are used for very unrealistic things.
5 hours ago, Simcoe said:If yes, what scenarios/campaigns are most plausible/realistic.
I'm biased on this, but in my opinion the Cold War campaigns are very well done. Realism, both in terrain and formation design, were paramount. Even the NTC campaign is designed to a purpose, to represent the difficult situations commanders are put in at the NTC. There are plenty of other good scenarios and campaigns throughout all of the CM games, both official content and user made.
-
7 minutes ago, Bannon said:
I was an application developer for a good part of my career so I can sympathize with your point!
I thought you were leading Charlie company in the desperate defense of Washington state?
Or leading Team Yankee through Southern Germany?
-
On 10/27/2021 at 4:26 PM, jamxo said:
First day of Operation Market Garden; US airborne secure drop zones and eliminate enemy flak units...
(From Mission 2 of the Road to Nijmegen campaign, using plenty of mods and ReShade which really elevates my enjoyment of this timeless classic of a game. So many great little details amongst the chaos.)
Holy hell, those shots are amazing. The texture on the AA halftrack and the dead German lying next to the machine gun is stunning. Is this all done just through a reshade? Looks fantastic!
-
1 hour ago, Bufo said:
No, it is not a new system at all, it is only new to those who never looked outside the CM bubble. It is called PBEM++ (with 2 plusses), but Elvis wrote it with 3, so the question was if this already existing PBEM system going to change and get a third plus sign in its name to reflect that, or if it was only a typo from him.
No. It is called PBEM+++ (with three pluses) because it is a revised version of the Slitherine PBEM system. The reason is because Slitherine has to rework their existing system to accommodate the larger file sizes CM save files are. There is no reason to be such an ass either.
-
Great shots, especially of the panthers!
-
1 minute ago, holoween said:
Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect.
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
5 minutes ago, JoMac said:
+Thrice...The Game doesn't know it's on a Firing Range (different parameters), compared to Combat conditions.
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.
-
Quote
I never said that optics doesn't matter or thermals don't make any difference. I also never accused anybody of being "NATO shill" or whatever. Of course thermals give a huge, huge advantage. Of course, tanks don't provide the best spotting opportunities. Those are pretty self evident ideas, but repeating them over and over again can't negate what I'm trying to say.
You literally said this:
Quote2) In Combat Mission "world" all Soviet\Russian regarded as inferior to Western\American, especially in terms of vision. In many respects it's true to the facts (as far as I know), taking into consideration thermals, optics etc. But what CM games do is taking this technological gap to absurd levels, making "Red team" almost absolutely blind.
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:
QuoteMaybe metaphor would work better? Mercedes CLS500 is faster car than Honda Civic, that's obvious. But if you would play car simulator game where Honda's max speed is 20 miles per hour, and game designers argue that it's all right because Honda Civic is not as good as CLS500, you will call it absurd.
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:
QuoteThe revelation that new Western developments in thermal imaging technology was producing compact thermal imaging sights that were rapidly outstripping the capabilities of light intensifying night vision sights resulted in new research on creating analogous devices to up the ante. Thermal imaging was not an unknown scientific field for the Soviet military industry during the 1980's as prototype imaging systems for tanks had already been developed by the early 80's and installed on a small number of T-80 tanks on a trials basis. Working prototypes were already available for testing purposes by the early 80's, but problems with establishing mass production held up the development of thermal sights in the Soviet Union for a long time. In this sense, Soviet tank technology was behind the West by almost a decade, in both technological achievement as well as industrial know-how.
Only the command variant models of the T-80U, the T-80UK, had the Agava-2 installed due to their prohibitively high cost. The widespread introduction of this technology was not only a manufacturing challenge, but it would have bloated the already incredibly high price of the T-80 tank series. Due to the lack of widespread service compared to the basic T-80U, it was not common to find T-80UK tanks during the 1990's, but still, the Agava-2 had a few interesting quirks that are worth investigating.
Instead of an optical eyepiece or a "fishbowl" lens like the type found on the Abrams, the viewfinder on the Agava-2 was a 384x288p CRT monitor screen similar what the PZB-200 used. The sight itself is only capable of limited optical zoom, from 1.8x to 4.5x. To attain a greater degree of magnification, electronic interpolation (digital enhancement) is used to generate 18x zoom.https://thesovietarmourblog.blogspot.com/2016/02/t-80-gambol.html
-
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.
9 hours ago, domfluff said:a) the displays are wrong. The in-game performance of the T-64A’s armour is significantly better than that of the M60, as it should be
b) the armour ui is, and always has been perhaps the single most useless and deceptive part of the ui - even if they were accurate they are hard to read and harder apply in any meaningful manner.
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.
Quote1) It's the "feature" of game engine that usually calculates armor and personnel vision in a very strange and quite random way, not only in Cold War, but also in other titles as well.
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.
Quote2) In Combat Mission "world" all Soviet\Russian regarded as inferior to Western\American, especially in terms of vision. In many respects it's true to the facts (as far as I know), taking into consideration thermals, optics etc. But what CM games do is taking this technological gap to absurd levels, making "Red team" almost absolutely blind. It feels very unnatural and counterintuitive when several of your tanks can't spot enemy tank directly ahead of you at the distance of 200 meters.
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.
QuoteIn this regard famous Swedish tank tender of 1993 is very instructing. Swedish Ministry of Defense organized the competition between different tanks, including shooting, terrain and visibility trials. Russian T-80 took part in competition alongside with Leopard and Abrams. In the end it was reported that T-80 spotting was equal to the Western tanks on the distances below 2500 meters in the daylight and 1000 meters in the night (although on the distances above Western tanks had an advantage).
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.
-
-
This is top tier schizo posting.
All warfare is based. Sun Tzu
Infamous Mig-23/27
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
1 example of marginal performance does not erase its generally poor combat record across the world in various conflicts.