holoween

The game does simulate the tank scanning because thats what they would do and animating the turrets rather than abstracting it is simply beyond the scope.

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 am a tanker. In general id say tanks are spotted far too easily in hulldown positions and when los is broken up like shooting through trees etc. They are also far too hard to spot in the open or when moving across the field of view.

On a range it doesnt make a difference (and the scenario discussed above is basically a range scenario) but even in open country there is no distincton between thermals and primary sight. The absolute longest you can take is while shooting under emergency conditions using the backup turret drives (which are very slow), the backup sight and manual ranging and then you have a max of 30s. And do note that isnt shooting at full sizd tanks but targets that only represent the internal volume. And the looking through a soda straw effect really doesnt matter at 2000m. For the primary daysight with the highest magnification it stopps being a noticable hindrance at 3-400m and lower magnification backup sights or the thermal low magnification push that way down. Yes youre never able to see everything at once but scanning is a thing.

At 2000m in good conditions it shuld never take more than a few seconds to spot a tank. Background clutter and nearby buildings etc shouldnt matter. To give you a rl reference for how much time it should take: for german gunner qualification you have 15s from targets popping up to hitting them otherwise its counted as a miss.

While CMs spotting system is generally a great approximation there are some weakensses. It fails to visually communicate just how much the los is obstructed It doesnt update every second (IIRC it updates every 15s someone please correct me) Units geneally see way too much Looking at the screenshots im surprised any tank actually got los at all. Such heavy dust is quite capable of fully obscuring tanks even from thermal imagers no less normal day optics. Also the gunners ability to spot targets as close as this is severely diminished by the low fov of the optics. The one point where id have to agree with NATO being possibly overly advanteged is that i think thermal imaging is overrated by CM: Especially older TI where the gunner has to manually adjust the settings should loose quite a bit of its capability in inexperienced crews. TI should be far more significantly impacted by heavy dust and smoke. Weather conditions can have a significant impact on TI spotting ability. In bad conditions you might still get some heat signature but be unable to discern what it actually is.

While i cant compare the Leopard2 to other afvs noise levels are unlikely to be the reason for the modern caps. In practice almost no tanker actually uses them. They all take the ear pieces and convert them to a headset.

Interesting article. I think its better put as ineffective against armies that are capable of dealing with it via equipment and training. Everything else stated is somewhat questionable.

I hope youre wrong but youre probably right.

Basically sounds like shockforce with a 1x1 grid

CMSF2 has the most variety in units and scenario types you could play from symmetric blue vs blue modern warfare over red vs red soviet style warfare to blue vs red insurgency. Its just massively let down by lack of interesting maps.

Barrel, optics and firecontroll. A mobility kill also means a stug is usualy useless while a tank can still somewhqt work.

While the stugs tend to get destroyed less quickly they lose combat ability just as quickly. 6 pz4 gives more tactical flexibility. 6pz4 will also sit at higher veterancy. So overall the stugs are better if fighting oponents up to basic shermans at ranges above 600m. Otherwise more pz4 or fewer panthers are better.

Ive had a battle recently where i bought 5 stug. Against 75 shermans they were tougher than p4 would have been. The problem is i could have had 6 pz4 or 4 panther with vet instead. Both choices would have performed better. The panthers massively so.

Where do i even start Your previous post contained 1 true but unrelated statement and one that is arguable aside from that every single thing you said was wrong yet you feel the need to tell someone elst to read. Especially since i do take the time to actually test what im talking about ingame. they are using 500 yards to give a size for the beaten zone. They have to because the size and shape of the beaten zone changes with range and the ground youre shooting at. That doesnt mean all their shown positions are at 500yards. i assume with indirect fire youre talking about fire from what the video calls Position Defilade. Youre only able to do that at longer ranges. Note how its demonstraded once and never actually used throughout the rest of the video except where they talk about supporting advancing infantry with overhead fire and specifically note the long range required on flat ground makes it "unsatisfactory"

I didnt adress it because 1 it isnt particularly relevant to general troop survivability as it can only be used at fairly long range and at those ranges it doesnt make a big difference and 2 because it isnt particularly relevant to the issue of supressing. The game depicts historical oob. The mortars are there because they historically were. I ight have different standards to you but at best that mg fire covers 10m of that wall barely more than a single action square. Thats not shifting fire for me. While true its irrelevant to the discussion on the capabilities a specific weapons system should have. 1 Depends on the situation and your fire doctrine. 2 2500rounds 3 3:20-2:40min for 4k rounds 4 It shoots at 125rpm exactly the same as the us hmg at 300m. And 190rpm vs 160rpm at 100m.

I always test on regular experience, normal motivation, Fit Fitness and 0 leadership for both sides with hotseat on Iron skill level.

Just tested 800m and there the left and right bursts were hitting the adjacent action squares. Though it also never managed to fill the supression bar even on the target by more than 2/3.

I thested the us hmg at 130m and it clearly fired bursts at each edge and the center.

This doesnt happen what happens is this: Basically it seems the mg targets one burst on the left edge of the square one on the right edge and one in the middle. With supression having some aoe it bleeds into the adjacent squares depending on where the enemy actually sits i the square.

That i cant effectively use a hmg for supression because the game will only let me target one action square per turn even though this is the only role hmgs have on the offense is the core issue here. That i could use other assets doesnt change the fact that the hmg cant perform as it should I almost entirely play against other humans. It does however only make the issue more aparent as against the ai it really doesnt matter.

Buddy aiding is human behaviour. kneeling in the open to get shot yourself isnt. Hiding in a trench doesnt protect you from the shells landing inside. CM trenches simply are far wider than any infantrymen would ever build them. To get supression fire only on the last 15 seconds you need to get a movement command inbetween which makes it practically impossible to do what you suggest with a hmg and simply impractical with lmgs. Unless youre in a perfect flanking position with your hmg targeting one action square wont get fire on the entire treeline so if there is more than one team your supression will fail. Yes you can use bad things in a smart way. Doesnt mean most defenses arent underperforming in CM.

Houserules shouldnt be required for something so simple As long as your unit is in an action square with a casualty it will try to buddy aid no player choice involved Yea if i want to assault a treeline ill put my hmg on a cover arc rather than have it fire supression fire at it great idea.

There are a lot of reasons why the casualty rates are so high Things that arent related directly to the mechanics: Battles usually represent tip of the spear scenarios where high casualties are expected. Players push their forces way too hard. Low time limits lead to overly hasty attacks. Directly related to the mechanics: Infantry maintains too little spacing. Infantry accuracy is too high while under fire (and too low when not). Support weapons can only effectively supress one action square. All belt fed mgs are far less effective at supressing than they should be. Hunt command doesnt work properly. Units shoudl stop when getting shot at rather than just when they see a target. Entrenchments are underpowered. They are far too easy to spot and generally provide too little cover. Tanks are far too good at spotting infantry close up especially on the flanks and rear. Units giving first aid expose themselves unnecessarily.

Except if you have to take the area