Grey_Fox
-
Posts
472 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Grey_Fox
-
-
18 minutes ago, Sarjen said:
While driving the company into the enemy the soviets killed two Bradleys with dismounted infantry from the scouts. The advancing tanks didn't even once see an enemy but got killed. All from 500m start to death. The US side in the above videos were not turned-out.
It's also night-time isn't it? Bradleys have thermal optics, while the T-80s don't, they have IR lamps which only provide visibility out to something like 100m. And I'm not even sure if they're used.
Edit: yeah it's 4.30AM, so visibility would be very low for non-thermal optics.
-
1 hour ago, Sarjen said:
I do share this frustation in many battles when i play the soviets. Just now i experienced a harrowing view. My T80B1 is driving into the enemy. Many of its company are already dead from invisble enemies. C2 didn't help. Infantry spotted and relayed the contacts to the HQ, but the info didn't trickle down to the tanks. So i just drove my tanks to near (20m) range of the enemy, still seeing nothing. I have recorded this from both views. Playing the soviets is no fun at all.
View from the T80B1:
and the view from the US side:
Yes, tanks have very narrow fields of vision, which means that the closer they are to something the less likely they are to see it. Remember, you're essentially looking at things through letterbox-sized periscopes or viewports, and in the case of the gunner through a straw.
To overcome this, they should be used en-masse where possible.
Western doctrine is to fight with the commander at least partially turned-out. Soviet doctrine was to fight turned-in and en-masse.
-
-
12 minutes ago, Andrew Kulin said:
Wow. I'm an engineer and I did not even understand that.
But all things being equal, who would have higher probability of spotting? Crew in a moving tank spotting a stationary vehicle located just inside a forest, or a crew in a stationary vehicle spotting a moving vehicle out in the open? h and r would be essentially the same (tanks about same size respectively). I would assume the k term for complexity (however that is calculated) would be smaller for a stationary, hidden target compared against a moving unhidden target (and note, our eyes are attracted to motion - so moving things should be modeled with higher potential to be spotted). Presumably the area being searched is the same across all units so however that is accounted for in the equation should be a wash for both sides. And not that I expect it to be modeled such in the game, in the case of the Soviet tanks sitting in ambush positions near edge of woods, eyes should be forward, not needing to do 360 degree scans like probably would be the case for the moving units.
One anecdote isn't proof of anything. There's always going to be a chance that something like this could in fact happen at least a few times, and we also don't know if the tank already had a spotting contact, be it from pre-battle intel or a scout.
-
4 hours ago, Andrew Kulin said:
If BFC is using something like a random number generator in spotting
My understanding is that they are modeling the individual eyeballs of the troops and where exactly they are looking at any given time.
For instance if somebody is using binoculars to observe something from a few kilometers away, that is a pretty narrow cone of vision to look through.
Viewports and the position of troops within the vehicles are modelled - in fact there was a bug where a crewman was positioned facing the inside of the tank rather than their assigned vision ports and so couldn't actually see anything.
If there is an obstruction between the viewer and the target, say a cluster of trees or whatever, then there is a percentage chance that that the viewer will be able to see past each individual tree towards the position of the target.
You also have to remember just how limited the fields of view armoured vehicles have. You're talking about narrow slits in the armour, with often fairly big gaps between them. This is why it's often highly recommended to turn your tank crews out as often as possible, and why it's the practice in western armies.
Soviet doctrine was fight buttoned-up, and rely on mass to overcome the reduced fields of view that would be the result.
-
Firing an MG at a tank can cause subsystem damage, damage optics, perhaps incapacitate any crew may be turned out.
I have seen tanks knocked out by direct hits from artillery if they hit in the right place, I have also seen them immobilized by near-misses. I have also seen turned-out crew killed by nearby artillery and mortar blasts. But it requires concentration and luck, and isn't a guaranteed outcome.
Some argue that there should be more subsystem damage from nearby shells landing or airbursting.
-
And continuing on:
-
I'll be streaming the continuation in a few minutes here:
-
Playing some CM Pro:
-
2 hours ago, Probus said:
What are those 3 plates that stick out on each side of some Soviet tanks? Are they to protect infantry at all?
It was an attempt at space armour to protect the side of the tank from oblique fire. It may have some small merit, but apparently the plates fell off fairly easily and were a maintenance headache.
-
15 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:
Yes to all of these, although I'm not exactly sure how to gauge the sight of a single pixeltruppen, but I do have a blue line on the target tool. I'm playing on the very latest version.
So the troops are set to "hide", correct? If so, that's why they didn't open fire a javelin, assuming the enemy tank was outside the minimum range of the Javelin.
Also, it takes about 10-15 seconds for a gunner to go through the firing cycle of a javelin, from initial identification to targeting to firing.
-
Do they have ammunition? Are you using target arcs?
Does the javelin gunner have visibility on the tanks? Not via the target tool, since that's unit-level, I mean the actual javelin gunner.
Does the second floor have windows in the direction of incoming armour?
Is the team set on "hide"? They will not open fire in this state until they are engaged, unless you use a target arc and the enemy enters it.
What version are you playing on?
-
On 2/25/2023 at 12:49 AM, Erwin said:
Have an FO that had casualties in an earlier mission. Now it's back as an single-man FO but the man is labeled as a "gunner" - so he cannot spot for arty. If an FO returns in a campaign he should have spotting ability. Bug?
Is this a bug because you don't like how reinforcements work?
What game and campaign are you talking about?
-
3 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
Then I will calculate how much more seconds until the impact. Give a pause to the calculated impact time,
My understanding is that you do not need to give a pause while guiding, the vehicle will stay in position until the missile either hits or misses its target.
-
On 2/4/2023 at 7:43 PM, dirtymike said:
Whay CMBS in mot up to date, on Steam we have version 2:16, when now is 2:18 out?!!!
BFC releases the patch for the standalone straight away, and send it to Slitherine at the same time. Since it went out on a Friday that means that Slitherine probably won't be finished with their integration testing for a couple of days yet.
-
4 hours ago, QuiGon said:
It lists all the changes?
Does it? BFC has a habit of not including many changes in the Readme.
-
3 hours ago, QuiGon said:
Check the included Readme.
It's pretty skimpy on details.
-
-
16 minutes ago, Aussiegrit said:
Ok this may seem like a stupid question, but Black Sea is the first and only CM game I have purchased and installed through Steam. Does downloading and installing this patch work on my Steam version install? I note that when I go into the game from Steam in the bottom right it says v.2.16 Steam. Do I need to wait for this patch to come via the Steam platform for a specific Steam version of the patch?
The update will come through steam whenever Slitherine are ready to deploy it. BFC will release as soon as it's ready and send the update to Slitherine. And it's a Friday, so...
-
Is there a full change log?
-
Awesome, love CW.
-
8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
For those who don't know, the replay feature only works for WeGo PBEM. All other modes of play, including single player, can't access Playback.
It does work in single player on CM Pro because it generate saves for every turn. It doesn't work for real-time.
I want it specifically to make videos of the PBEMs, which always generates saves.
-
7 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
There will be no replay feature for CM2. I've explained why and I don't really care if you accept it or not. It just isn't a viable commercial feature. Period, end of story.
You guys have also asked that we ship a pony with every game for a long time, and that's not going to happen either
Steve
That's profoundly disappointing. The reason I know about CM and bought the games is due to AAR videos on youtube created by the likes of @Hapless
I've created my own videos in a similar style, and it is an incredibly time-intensive task to load and reload saves in order to create recordings. The replay feature present in CMPE would make life an awful lot easier for people like me to create videos. I recently made a video which contained 11 minutes of footage, and it took approximately 3 hours to record and edit it, without any attempt at music or voiceover.
Making it easier to review game footage would allow more videos to be made, which would then reach a wider audience and create additional revenues for you at zero cost beyond the implementation of the existing CMPE replay feature into the commercial games.
For PBEMs, the save files already exist in the incoming and outgoing email folders. Why not make use of them?
-
I think it's great, would be perfect if we had an extra 10 minutes at the start to do recon with the CRP.
Frustration with CMCW - Russian side
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted · Edited by Grey_Fox
I don't believe the IR optics are like thermals in that they don't see heat signatures. The smoke may well be obscuring the ability of the T80 crew to see the US armour.