holoween
-
Posts
289 -
Joined
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by holoween
-
-
2 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:
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.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
The thing of it is, the game doesn't know the target is on a range.
Are you a tanker in real life? If so and you think all tanks should routinely spot each other within a few seconds of moving into LOS in combat even at several km ranges I could ask BFC to reduce the spotting variance for tanks to near zero. That's such a radical change I kinda doubt they would do it after all these years but you never know.
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.
-
15 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Is this German gunner qualification on a thermal sight with the target glowing like a volcano? Because if you're talking about regular day sights I would be skeptical of that. For one thing, even with thermal sights you are looking through a soda straw. It's just not possible to see everywhere at once.
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.
-
5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Also, something to keep in mind. In your Steel Beasts pics one reason the M60 is so easy to see is because it is skylined. I have no idea what factors Steel Beast's spotting model takes into account but CM does not factor skylining. It does not specifically factor shade from overhead cover nor background "clutter" from nearby trees/buildings/objects. Rather, it's spotting model assumes the possibility of those factors. So if your point is that T-72s should routinely spot enemy tanks in "about 2 seconds" because that happened once in another game that uses a different spotting model I don't think there is any chance of CM being changed to match that.
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.
-
12 hours ago, MikeyD said:
That reminds me, the reason the Bundeswehr switched from their traditional tanker beret to a Soviet-style helmet was the Leopard 2 proved to be a horrifically noisy vehicle to fight in. On par with the old Churchill tank which was notoriously loud.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:
Isn't the 1 x 1 meter resolution already in the game...I seem to recall that this has been stated before...that the grids are 8 x 8 meters but the actual resolution already is 1 x 1 meter...
Am i wrong here ?
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.
-
28 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
You mean they lose combat ability by getting their optics and gun barrels shot?
Makes sense.
Barrel, optics and firecontroll.
A mobility kill also means a stug is usualy useless while a tank can still somewhqt work.
-
18 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Agreed on the Panthers, but not on the PzIV. Against basic Shermans, I would much rather have 5 StuGs than 6 Panzer IV.
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.
-
16 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
You better start reading some books. Or watch some useful movies. I try to copy their tactics and surprise they work. 500 yards is what they are using in the movie.
Employment of Heavy Machine Guns in the Attack - 1944 - YouTube
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"
-
8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Funny you don't address the issues of the HMG in the indirect fire mode just behind the crest of a ridge. They have special sights for this. That is what I like to see, and their HQ could call for a linear plunging fire.
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.
8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:I solve this problem by for example the 60 mm mortar for US forces and the 50 mm for British commonwealth. I think that is why those units were so generously supplied in the game.
The game depicts historical oob. The mortars are there because they historically were.
8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:I agree with @mjkerner that MGs shift their fire anyway.
8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:Combined arms are always the answer to solve tactical problems and innovation.
While true its irrelevant to the discussion on the capabilities a specific weapons system should have.
8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:Shooting an HMG from a defilade position for suppression is usual a waste of ammo. A German MG 42 in HMG mode is supplied with four thousand rounds in theory he can go through them in 4 minutes. Go to camera position 1 and observe in which manner the game let him fire.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, sburke said:
what were the ratings for the defending unit? That could impact how they suffer suppression.
I always test on regular experience, normal motivation, Fit Fitness and 0 leadership for both sides with hotseat on Iron skill level.
-
44 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
Did you also test it at longer ranges?
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:
I think what actually happens is:
Small arms are extremely inaccurate in this game, and there's a large angular spread left and right. As it's based on an angle, not targeting specific squares, the farther from the gun, the larger the spread.
If you target a square close to the gun, it will look like the gun basically targets the centre of the square.
Farther away, it will look like the gun targets centre, left and right parts of the square.
Even farther, it will look lik the gun targets the selected square and the one on the left and the right.
At very long distances, it looks like it targets the actual square, plus two squares left and right.
I thested the us hmg at 130m and it clearly fired bursts at each edge and the center.
-
36 minutes ago, mjkerner said:
While I agree that HMG fire doesn't seem to suppress like we'd expect, FWIW area fire does shift fire to the AS on either side of the targeted AS.
This doesnt happen what happens is this:
21 minutes ago, womble said:And there is *some* suppression in AS adjacent to AS where bullets strike, I believe. I think the determination (several years ago, so it may have changed) was that it was about half that of the targeted AS.
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.
-
3 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
An HMG is the wrong tactic. The HMG HQ can call in mortar fire and he doesn't need a radio. You always need a combination of units. We need 25 years more before the AI can copy every human behaviour. You just discovered you need a human opponent.
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.
-
44 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
That could be a human behaviour. Redirect at the next turn. You need to be in hide mode to make a trench full cover.
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.
QuoteGive it 15 seconds covering fire combined with a 15 sec of the maneuvering element near the end of a turn. You realize the HMG need to be in enfilade to be effective. In enfilade you need only one action square. In defilade you need to spray and pray and waste a lot of ammo. In the case of an MG 42 he will run out of barrels too. 15 seconds is enough to suppress once they cover you lose a full contact.
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.
QuoteWorks both ways. Put somewhere an empty bunker and watch how many tanks give their position away. Empty trench or foxholes with your TRP on it. I like Hotseat that is the sort of Catch22 we play. Take it from me first spot gets your intel and plan.
Yes you can use bad things in a smart way. Doesnt mean most defenses arent underperforming in CM.
-
Just now, chuckdyke said:
Makes no difference against the AI. Human players can deal with it to make a few house rules.
Houserules shouldnt be required for something so simple
Just now, chuckdyke said:Buddy aid do them when you have secured the area.
As long as your unit is in an action square with a casualty it will try to buddy aid no player choice involved
Just now, chuckdyke said:Tactics! 'Spray & Pray is a bad tactic. Use cover arcs.
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.
-
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:
If they're behind a hill and out of your sight Bulletpoint they might as well be on Venus. They're out of play.
Except if you have to take the area
Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission t-72 visibility test
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted · Edited by 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.