Jump to content

dbsapp

Members
  • Posts

    376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by dbsapp

  1. This was the only time I saw them doing the job. When reinforcements arrive they shoot at M60s at the top of the hill. In the same mission I tried to use them again. They stubbornly didn't want to spot the target that was seen by everybody among the rest of Soviet troops nearby, so I dismounted them. The crews finally spotted the targets and I pulled them back to the vehicles. I was surprised they immediately lost contact despte BRDMs had line of sight to the targets (I used "target" to check) and I gave them attack sector.
  2. 1. Please, don't distract the discussion by referring to some vague artificial constructs like GNS. "- I have some bad news for you. - What happened, doc? - I'm sorry to tell you, but you diagnosed with GNS. - Oh, no!" 2. It's great that you try to downplay my arguments by portraying me as some kind of "ideological warrior" spreading "conspiracy theories" against "pro-US agenda". In fact what I'm saying is that CMCW simulation could be improved in certain areas. To fix some flaws of new product is not shameful, and it's sad that you percieve all critical feedback as act of ideological agression. It's Battlefront game and of course Battlefront may make it in a way it wants. You mentioned many times how you see the general concept - Soviets use doctrine of mass and they are worse at spotting. Ok, fine. Let it be this way, this concept. Why not? But what Battlefront actually did was overkill. Soviet BRDMs with ATGM are blind, tanks are partially blind, Soviet ATGM have very poor hit probability that makes infamous Dragon look like the benchmark of reliability, despite that US sources give them up to 90% hit probability. You clearly overdid it to the point that Soviets are absurdly weak and clueless. Is it a bias? Or is it a model that could be fixed to make a better and more realistic representation? It seems to me that you chose "gamism" instead of "simulationism". Anyway it doesn't matter because it extremly unlikely that you can ever doubt your "perfect" and "flawless" model.
  3. Yeah, you literally said: "Spotting is also a percentage game. Doctrinally and in practice in CM, the Soviet method was to get as much mass on target as possible. The first tank to spot their opponent will usually win the engagement, but if you can get enough tanks on target at the same time, it doesn't matter which one spots first, as long as one of them does. To model that with arbitrary values - we could give the US tank a 50% chance of getting the first spot in a given engagement. We'll arbitrarily make the Soviet tanks half as good as that - a 25% chance of getting the first spot. One vs One, clearly the US tank will have a major advantage, but if there were three Soviet tanks, then the chances of *one* of them getting the first spot is 58%. Understanding this is absolutely fundamental to understanding how to play Soviet and Soviet-derived forces, and it's something the Tutorial scenarios do a really good job of teaching" But in fact it meant something absolutely different. Ok!
  4. You are welcome. Just a portion from many examples: I really don't know how people still miss those statements, because it's the most often thing they said.
  5. It's up to to decide of course, but I enjoy it, it's a good game. Not without drawbacks, but who hasn't got them? True dat. They told it numerous times on this forum.
  6. The skill and condition play important role for sure. CM works in a way that tries to simulate the natural spotting. Not everything that is in a field of view automatically becomes spotted. This is a right and clever approach. The thing is this system is not perfect and produces the strange outcomes more often than many players would like to. For example unit declines to see target that is directly ahead of it. Units with decreased vision ability are especially affected. As I understand, to simulate "Soviet doctrine" of concentration of mass Battlefront decided to make Soviet units more blind. This way players would be forced to use this "mass doctrine" because they require 3 tanks to spot something instead of 1. In this regard it is useful to think of CM as tabletop game with its own set of rules, and not as entirely 3D.
  7. Sounds interesting. It would be nice to see the data on modern tanks in CMBS and CMCW.
  8. It's written in such a rigid and bureaucratic style that I wonder if soldiers understood it better than Chinese language.
  9. They selected a proper name for the mission - it should be played in a way similar to chess puzzle. The map is bottlenecked, so the key is to transport the troops to the other side of the river, kick off enemy infantry at the heights and eliminate tanks and AFV. Only then it is possible to send in the tanks and cross the river (and even then casualties at the bridge were quite high). I was happy I killed 2 Bradleys with artillery fire and 1 with ATGM. If Soviet 2500m range ATGMs were little more effective it would be much easier. I fired all ATGMs I had (I guess more than 10) and only 1 hit the target.
  10. I'm surprised that I managed to complete "Czechmate" scenario from the second attempt.
  11. If it is agreed that we are lacking any RL data on actual performance than it immediately raises the question... what data is CMCW based upon?
  12. It's pg.10, not pg.12. And T-72 for sure had laser rangefinder. All t-72 family tanks have it, except for the very first t-72 of relatively limited production. All t-72 starting from t-72A were equipped with laser rangefinder. By the time the doc was written the production of newer types were in full.
  13. Sure, every assessment could be criticized. But at least it's something to rely on. I guess if CIA document of such kind stated the inferiority of Soviet tanks quality, it would be universally accepted on this forum as a final and ultimate proof I would like to see the credible document that proves that t-72 or any late Cold war Soviet tanks had problems with daylight optics. Still, I've seen none.
  14. Below is CIA assessment of comparative performance of Soviet and US tanks capabilities. As you see, CIA concluded that Soviet tanks have quality advantage and made a model that showed that in tank duels they will win. It took into consideration data on fire rates and accuracy. I never saw in any real life documents any mention of Soviet tanks having daylight optics problem. The doc is declassified and can be downloaded from CIA website. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/0000624298
  15. I understand Battlefront decision, because if they open game engine, each game\add-on could be converted to another, like CMRT to CMBS. That would ruine their business model. Having one game would be tantamount to having them all. I don't know if it necessary means that changing units qualities (visibility, fire eanges etc.) must be forbidden as well.
  16. This thread is not about Steel Beasts, it's about Combat Mission. Comparing what any person likes better, be it CM or SB, is indeed comparing apples to oranges, because we are speaking about personal taste. Personally, I prefer CM lately. CM has a better representation of tactical element, better modelled infantry and more diverse units to choose from. I'm found of SB, it's a decent game, but as everything else it has its own flaws. To name only a few, apart from ATGMs, infantry in SB is almost absent and doesn't play any significant role, so the gameplay feels a little artificial and hollow. The route planning is a headache and tank platoon could be stuck between 3 buildings easily. Map making is very hard. There is no convinient quick battles option as in CM. And yes, AI has its spotting issues. What I was trying to convey is that CM can learn something from SB (and visa versa) to continue development and improvement. I guess, everybody would agree that there is no shame in learning something from others. The strong point of SB is that it's basically tank gunnery simultator used in militaries in several countries. It's not like reference to War Thunder or World of Tanks. All of their AFVs that have interiors and direct control option are modelled based on real life measurements of abilities of the actual tanks. For example they were asked to model real life performance, including gunner's and tank commander sight, of T-72A. So basically you won't get any better RL data than represented in SB in regard of T-72 gunnery and spotting performance. They also have T-80 and T-90 in game, but they decline to model it up to simulation and gunsights level, because - unlike with T-72 - they didn't have access to real machine. Based on my experience in SB and impression I got from reading corresponding literature on modern tanks there is no question that T-72 can spot another tank at 2 km distance (in fact, even much further). I'm not speaking about infantry hidden in the building or enemy tank disguised in the bushes. I'm talking about tank that sits in the open field. It's an easy target and even average trained crew must spot it very fast. I really hope that we can have productive discussion, based on arguments, that can make CM better and benefit the community.
  17. I like that we have a fair conversation. I'll think over what tests could be made to deepen our understanding and improve CM experience for everybody.
  18. @The_Capt Can you please continue the phrase "t72 in the above-mentioned .btt scenario can't spot enemy tank in the open field during daylight at the distance of 2 km that is straight ahead of it because..." Without going into generalisation about "spotting is hard", "thermals", "Soviet doctrine" etc. Just concrete explanation of this particular case. Thank you.
  19. Yes, I found that M60's behavior in CMCW is much more consistent with Steel Beast test, which is in stark contrast to T-72 behavior. I ran several M60 test in CMCW swapping M60, who now became a hunter, and t72, who became a prey (well, has always been in fact). On average it took about 1 minute for M60 to spot t72 and destroy it (the fastest result was 30 seconds which is very close to Steel Beast, the longest about 2 minutes). In all tests M60 killed t72. The start: The end: The conclusion: where as there are some differences in M60 behavior between CMCW and Steel Beasts it's in more or less acceptable range. At least in both games the tank acts as expected when it has clear sight on the target and advantageous position. It is T-72 behavior in CMCW that produces heavy divergence from Steel Beast. The Scenario mission link.
  20. Upon your request I made a quick test in Steel Beasts. Now the tables have turned. M60 became a hunter. The interior, just for curiosity: The famous and much discussed thermal sight is to the right. Optics sight is at the front. That's what M60 gunners sees: The result was quite predictable. M60 was fast to spot the enemy and destroy (4 seconds faster then t72 in the first test).
  21. Hmm.... I've done several tests and they all ended with t72 being destroyed. The longest wait time was 5 min
  22. And you know what? This scenario is one of the best for Soviets in CMCW! You should try Soviet campaign to understand how blind they actually are. It's really ridiculous.
×
×
  • Create New...