IICptMillerII
-
Posts
3,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Posts posted by IICptMillerII
-
-
Just now, Lethaface said:
Maybe I'm blind, but I couldn't find any 'cluster' options for the USA artillery in QBs.
It is a known bug that will be addressed in the first patch.
-
4 hours ago, Hetzi said:
Test for pictures-Link
V2:
V1:
These look great! If I had to choose just one, I would go with version 2. But I do like them both!
-
@FinStabilized this is a hell of a first post. Really well done! I appreciate the attention to detail, sources, and level headedness. That does not always happen on forums, as we are all too well aware.
I am personally of the opinion that the performance of M774 in game is about right.
There are essentially two camps of people when it comes to this specific issue. On one side, you have people (if you poke around on this forum a bit you will see some pretty out there claims from an infamous source around these parts) who claim that US antiarmor technology was essentially useless against Soviet armor such as the T-64/80.
On the other side, you have people who will argue that as long as you are pitting best vs best, both sides are relatively on par with each other. For example, an Abrams can kill a T-80B from the front, but it is not the easy one hit kill that it is in CMSF2 or CMBS. I personally fall into the second group. I would hazard that you fall into the second group as well.A big thing when it comes to testing in Combat Mission is repetition. CM is extremely good at simulating chaos, those times where you do everything right and it still turns out badly, or the other way around. Warfare is not a binary equation, and CM gets that right more than most other systems even attempt. I think what you might be seeing is basically a case of tough luck. I say that because I have had a lot of success with Abrams vs all of the best Soviet armor in game (T-64B, T-80B, and T-72A). My experience tends to mirror @Amedeo in his post above.
There is always going to be a bit of variation in what each individual player sees in CM, which can make it extremely difficult to test certain things. That said, the best way to present evidence of a possible issue is by uploading a save of the replay. The real head honchos at BFC have software tools that can pull that save apart and dig into the code to see what is going on, or at the very least get a much better idea of what is happening in the underlying systems than we can.
I would recommend running the test multiple times to develop an average, and posting the results along with save files of the replays.
If you don't know, the way to save a replay is to play the game in turn based (WeGo) mode and simply save the game as you normally would during the replay phase. This will save the entire 1 minute replay and allow others to load it up into their game and watch what is happening. If you are playing head to head and there is a password, that will be needed to view the replay as well.
Again, great first post, and welcome aboard!
-
49 minutes ago, mrzafka said:
What about Su-25? I always thought they were primarily CAS aircraft.
Ninja'd by @HerrTom, who did a great job of explaining things.
The Su-25 is usually referred to as the Soviet A-10, but that isn't really the case. They are designed to operate closest to friendly ground forces, but it is still mostly an attack or strike aircraft. Here is a definition that might prove somewhat useful for conceptualizing its role:
QuoteThe Su-25 is designed to defeat small mobile and stationary ground targets and to engage low-speed air targets at the forward edge and in the nearest tactical and operational depth.
-
I did request a while ago for aircraft to be able to drop multiple (all) of their unguided bombs in a single pass, but as I mentioned in the other thread Tom linked to, there just was not time to implement it.
It is still on the list of things to hopefully get to. Beyond that, I can't promise anything. Hopefully we see it eventually, but there is no guarantee.
Also, a quick word on Soviet fixed wing aircraft; they should essentially never be used if we are being strictly realistic. Soviet fixed wing aircraft were never meant to provide a CAS role. They were meant to strike different types of targets than combat units engaged with friendly units.
-
1 hour ago, Andrew Kulin said:
Just completed Between the Two Farbahns.
One of my Dragon teams was 3 for 3 on Soviet Tanks. At end of battle, when looking over map, they were not credited with any kills. Another team was 1/3 and they too received no credit for their kill. Did not notice anything out of place with the kill totals for the other units on the map, admittedly I did not look them over as critically.
I have heard this a few times now, and I think it has something to do with the squad, not the split team, being credited with the kill.
51 minutes ago, rocketman said:[Minor spoiler] Not sure if it is a bug or just weird AI behaviour: in "Between two Fahrbahns" the AI fired very strange and inaccurate area fire. Once fired way off map, often just haphazardly not hitting anything in particular, firing at buildings with MGs only and not HE and doing area fire while being fired upon by tanks. Does AI area fire override reacting to incoming fire?
That is the area fire programmed into the Soviet AI plan. Not sure if it always takes precedence over reacting to incoming fire though.
-
Friendly reminder that if you want to see a module at all, get your friends to buy Cold War. The better it sells, the more likely the chance of a module!
-
-
14 minutes ago, Badger73 said:
Consider posting such maps at The Scenario Depot which is hosted by The Few Good Men. The will be well appreciated there.
Is it possible for individuals to upload their own content there?
-
2 hours ago, Hetzi said:
Still needs som work, but a first impression. The Bradley and the M1 is "retextured" from @dpabrams. If you don't want that I use your Skins, please tell me and i will remove them.
V1: Screenshot
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ycVsQ6ODmBHI3iA862FfajjeNAH6CjB0/view?usp=sharing
V2 (was V3): Screenshot
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AShc7wFJ-lzUEckkKKCcQuPiRc78_K9K/view?usp=sharing
If I find the time, i will do V4 and V6 too.
Put in the Z-Folder: V1 & V2 BETA
Btw... is there a option to increase the file size for pictures here? And why can't i edit my posts?
I use imgur to upload images. They automatically embed here.
Congrats on the first release! I'll take a look when I have some time to. When you feel more confident about the textures, you can post them in the Mod subforum. That is usually where people look for skins and such like this, and will likely make it easier for people to find your stuff.
2 hours ago, General Jack Ripper said:Game hasn't even been released yet and we've already got texture mods.
I love you guys.
It is in fact released. See ya in a few months!
-
1 hour ago, Kevin2k said:
BTR-60PB / BTR-60PBK: Hatch disappears when opened up. (Need sufficient crew to open up)
It actually opens down, which is quite silly. Either way, its tracked and being worked on.
-
1 hour ago, The_Capt said:
While you are doing that, I will go back to central and try to get a T64A (1980) version that had the BM22 loaded on it.
Emphasis added
-
1 hour ago, danfrodo said:
So any thoughts from smart folks here about US 50 cal vs BMPs? Is there a range where I start to have a chance of penetration? Just started my first fight (They Own the Night) and realized the 1980s 50 cal ammo seems less destructive than in Black Sea (or is that my imagination?).
So it is important to know that the BMP-1 has much thinner armor (especially on the sides) than the BMP-2 does. The .50 cal can easily slice through the side armor of a BMP-1, even at combat ranges of 300m+. The BMP-2 will be a bit harder to kill at ranges beyond 300m, but it can still be done.
Another quick note on the .50 cal. In the other two modern titles (CMBS and CMSF2) the .50 cal is firing modern SLAP rounds, which are very effective against light armor, including BMPs. Those SLAP rounds did not come out until 1990, so are outside the timeline here.
6 minutes ago, HerrTom said:I'm curious, what is that one thing that you so very much wanted to get into the title but didn't make the cut?
For me the biggest thing that comes readily to mind was a minor change to the way aircraft work. I wanted to implement a change for aircraft that would allow them to release multiple munitions per pass. So for example, an F-16 could fly in and drop all its cluster bombs at once on a single targeted area. Same goes for any unguided munition, like dumb bombs.
Unfortunately there just was not enough time in development for that change to be implemented, tested, approved and shipped. Maybe at some point in the future though.
-
2 minutes ago, danfrodo said:
thanks to all for posting here, the pics are fabulous. Today is my first CMCW battle day -- I hope it rains here enough today so I don't have to waste time going out to cut the grass and do yard work, so far so good.
Hope it rains for you so you get a chance to play a lot. Have fun!
-
5 hours ago, Amedeo said:
Well, I'm not that sure that more than half the tanks in the GSVG were T-62s in the early '80s. Yes, there were delays in the process of reequipping all Soviet units in Germany with the T-64, but these can be considered significant delays only if compared to the original goal of having the whole GSVG equipped with the new tanks by the end of the '70!
According to the below referenced article - by colonel Murakhovskii - the process of reequipping Soviet division stationed in Germany with T-64s started in 1976 with the 16th Guards Tank Division and the 35th Motorized Rifle Division. It initially progressed at a speedy pace, because the concurrent production of the T-72 allowed shipping to Germany not only the newly produced T-64s but also the ones in service in the Western Military District of the USSR (that were replaced by T-72s). After this, the Soviet leadership realized that the Khar'kov plant (the only one producing T-64s) was not able to sustain the expected replacement rate and delays accumulated.
Long story short, this replacement took ten years, instead of the planned 3-4 years, but this doesn't mean that the T-62 remained prevalent in GSVG units in the early '80s. On the contrary, it was likely a minority by the end of the '70s; if we sum up the information provided by the aforementioned article and if we consider that the Soviets had twenty division - give or take, there were a few changes in the OoB during this timeframe - we end up with the following progression:
1976 - 2 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1977 - 8 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1978 - 10 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1979 - 12 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1980 - 14 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
1981 - 15 T-64 equipped divisions out of 20
It was then decided to equip GSVG units with T-64s and T-80s, and they finally managed to complete the transition by mid '80s, T-62 tanks remained only in some independent tank regiments thereafter and, by 1990-1991 all the divisions in the (former) GSVG - then renamed Western Group of Forces, ZGV - were equipped with T-80 variants only (they managed to replace also the T-64s).
So, it seems that in the early '80s it was the T-64A that accounted for the 50-75% of the total Soviet tank force in Germany, not the T-62.
And this is exactly why I advanced the issue: giving the T-64A the 3BM12 means that, in the game, this "premium" tank is armed with an APFSDS that performs worse than the APFSDS that arms the T-62! (I don't know the actual game specs for these rounds since in game ammo performance data are not available in CMx2, but I presume the figures are in the same ballpark of those one can find elsewhere: just compare the data for the 125mm 3BM12 and the 115mm 3BM21 in SBwiki, for example). Moreover, this won't affect the player that chooses the more exotic (rarity wise) mixes - e.g. T-80s - they have the "correct" ammo, but will affect the players that want to use the sandbox trying to replicate a plausible 1979-1982 timeframe scenario. The present game design choices work well with the tanks that entered service near or in the 1979-1982 timeframe - as I said it is near perfect with the late M60 variants, the M1, the T-80, and this is why I agree with you with what you said in the first part of your post - but show problems with some of the tanks that (nominally) entered service well before 1979, as the M48, T-55, T-64.
The fact is that the Soviet embraced a large and comprehensive tank upgrade and rearmament program in the mid '70s. The BM22 was chosen for a massive program of mass production (pun intended), to the extent that - during the recent war in the Ukraine - after exhausting the stocks of the more modern (mid '80s) 3BM32 and 3BM42 APFSDS, the contendents started to pull loads of 3BM22 rounds out of stocks. Why the 3BM22 and not the more recent 3BM26 or 3BM29? Exactly because it was the 3BM22 that was produced and stockpiled in large quantities, and not the other rounds.
A quick fix, that would also preserve the present overall game design choices, could be giving the T-64A the 3BM15, the T-64B the 3BM22, and the T-55A the BM-20 or BM-25. This would both maintain the "tiered" approach to ammo distribution (i.e. "newer" variants of the same tank model get "newer" ammo) and allow for more realistic loadouts in the core (1979-1982) timeframe. But, in my humble opinion, also the option of introducing different (game) tank variants with different loadouts, reflecting ammo upgrade, could be viable. After all, in some respects, it's already in the game: what is a T-72A (1980) if not a vanilla T-72A with more modern ammo? Yes, yes, there are also the smoke dischargers to "justify" the variant, but you get the gist.
This is a great post! Tons of good information here, and it is in line with a lot of what I know.
I think the reality is somewhere in between regarding the T-64 to T-62 ratio. It comes down to the unit in a lot of cases. Tank battalions in motor rifle divisions tended to still be T-62s, but the tank regiments and tank divisions got higher upgrade priority.
1 hour ago, Amedeo said:Maybe no one really knows. But this is true for almost anything, so the only sensible thing to do is to make educated guesses based on some form or evidence.
And, speaking of evidence, if you have seen estimates as late as 1985 stating that half of the Soviet tanks in Germany were T-62, would you mind share them?
To give a good example, I post here an excerpt from a 1984 CIA declassified report:
Please notice that the report is talking about Soviet forces in the whole Central Europe, thus, considering only the GSVG (that is excluding Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland) the ratio should be even higher in favor of the new generation tanks.
And how do we know this for sure, now? I posted above evidence that says that 1979 more than half of the Soviet divisions in the GSVG already had the T-64A, and that the schedule was stretched out untile the mid (not the late) '80s and that the original Soviet goal was replace all (not the majority) of the older tanks by 1980 (not the early '80s).
I confess that, for me, is actually hard to figure that in 1982 most of the GSVG tanks were T-62 since I arrived at the exact opposite conclusion. And, since I bothered to post some of my sources and the reasoning behind, I presume that it's clear why I do think so. Anyway, I might have been too verbose, so I'll try to sum up my conclusion in a more concise way: given that in 1981 15/20 (that is 75%) of the Soviet divisions in Germany were already reequipped with the T-64A, how it is possible that the majority of Soviet tanks were T-62s? Yes, there were also other non-divisional tank units, but we are talking about an Independent Regiment per Army, not enough to redress the balance.So, the only way to doubt my conclusion is to doubt the accuracy of the premise, i.e. the accuracy of the evidence I presented. Your choice, of course, but before you dismiss the article as inconsequential, I'd like to point out a few considerations:
- the author V. I. Murakhovskii is not simply a teenager tank enthusiast but is a former Soviet officer, a tanker that served in units and positions that gave him unique insights on the question at hand;
- he's also not a stereotypical "Russia stronk" chauvinist, in his article he's very critical of the Soviet leadership ability to cope with the whole tank industry management issue, thus, even if we assume he had an axe to grind, he had interest in reporting a slower replacement rate, not a faster one;
- last, but not least, incomplete or circumstantial evidence is better than no evidence.
Interesting. Can you confirm this?
Since you are referring to that thread, did you notice this post, just under the one you quoted?
There's the rub. The sequence of round names and DOIs only shows a part of the story. If one looks at a list of US 105mm APFSDS one might stumble upon the M735A1. Why is it not in the game? As you surely, know, since you are knowledgeable about US ammo, it's simply because it was never fielded! They found more efficient to directly mass produce the M774 and skip this one.
So, you're right in saying that ammo lags behind, exactly because, even if one churns out a new APFSDS every year, one cannot easily replace the whole inventory with the same speed. The fact I'm positive that the 3BM22 was available in very large quantities already in the late '70s is because it was, practically, the only one stockpiled in large quantities (see my previous remarks on the war in Ukraine) during the early-mid- '80s when newer generation APFSDS entered frontline service in Soviet units.
Again, good post. And again I am mostly in agreement with you. GSFG was prioritized for all the new equipment for obvious reasons.
Ammo is a bit harder as Warren talked about. That said I can confirm that the T-64B is using BM22, as is the T-80B. I'll check to see what the T-64A is using but I also agree that it should be at least BM15 given the timeline and the role the T-64A was to play.
-
1 hour ago, RescueToaster said:
Apologies for the watermark - I might have to look for alternate free software if I want to make more of these in the future
If you have an Nvidia card, shadow play comes free with it and is great for CM.
-
3 hours ago, Hetzi said:
That's a good point. I think I'll have to skin different vehicles to see what it looks like overall. (Bradley, M113) Abrams is difficult... Maybe change it back to plain green M1.The Plan is to change them all, so that they look uniformly. But then there are the special cases M1, M2 & M3... Battlefront, why?
@all, thanks for the feedback.
Those look great! I actually like the variety on display here. People can always pick and choose which ones they want to see the most too!
-
1 minute ago, sburke said:
Try Red Army by Ralph Peters. Lt Plinnikov is commanding a BRDM platoon. He doesn't last long in the story, but it is a good description of how the asset is used in the larger picture.
Great book!
-
6 minutes ago, Amedeo said:
There's also this book, by David Glantz, that gives a good and detailed introduction to the tactics of the Soviet forward detachments.
Good one too! Bit on the heavier side though. Then again, manuals are not the easiest to read through either.
-
2 minutes ago, HerrTom said:
Thank you! All in-game, though it's admittedly not very playable with them all added (especially the border!). I mostly toggle them for screenshots.
Ahh ok, that makes sense. Most of the screenshots I take that I want to stylize I after the fact in photoshop. Like here:
Being able to toggle a setting on and off for screenshots is a really good idea though!
4 minutes ago, HerrTom said:One thing that bothers me that (surprisingly) only CM:SF "fixed" was that all of the depth effects show right through the tree foliage since the leaves aren't in the depth buffer. You can see it in the first picture pretty well where the leaves are in focus with whatever geometry is behind them.
Now that you mention it, I do notice it, but to my eye (admittedly not very artistic at all) I don't find it too off putting.
Btw, I really like the second shot with the BTRs. Very immersive, has a great weight of events feel to it, like the calm before a huge storm.
-
@Amedeo I'll look into this more closely when I have time (swamped all weekend and trying to keep up) but I do think you bring up a few good points, especially regarding some of the Soviet ammo. I've added this to my own list of things to look into to be considered for the first patch. Try to get more detailed later when I have more time for it.
-
-
1 minute ago, Amedeo said:
I had only a superficial look at these scenarios for now, but they look impressive, indeed! And I think they could constitute a fun and instructive learning tool.
May I ask you what sources, if any, did you use to made them?
These are what I list in the designer notes in the scenarios. Good starting point, at least for the Soviets:
FM 100-2-1 The Soviet Army - Operations and Tactics (1990 version)
TRADOC Pamphlet 350-16 Heavy Opposing Force (OPFOR) Tactical Handbook
FM 100-2-3 The Soviet Army - Troops, Organization, and Equipment (1991 version)
AFM Volume 2 Part 3 - Soviet Tactics
I'm also planning on doing a more detailed write up for the training scenarios and including them as a PDF, but I did not have enough time to complete it before the game was released. I figured it was better to get the game out the door than hold it up for a pamphlet no one is going to read!
-
Well, the US stuff is tough and a different question, but the Soviet Training scenarios I threw together that are included in the game are meant to give players a good idea on how to employ the Soviets. Plus, there is a suggested reading list in the designer notes, and everything listed is all open source.
CAS being underpowered
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
I definitely agree that in general aircraft do need a bit of love in CM. This is purely anecdotal so take the following with a grain of salt, but in CMSF1 aircraft (especially helicopters) tended to loiter on station more and engage area targets more frequently. However in the current engine it appears that they are much more likely to wave off if they cannot find a target right away. I've noticed this in all the CM games where aircraft are involved.
I also agree that the area is too small when it comes to aircraft. I wish I could tell my A-10s or gunships to target a much larger area. That would make it a lot easier to engage moving enemy formations, and it would be a better way to abstract real aircraft CAS procedures, where a section of the battlefield is essentially declared a free fire area.