Unofficial Screenshots & Videos Thread

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

People on the internet say crazy things sure enough. Somehow I don't think that is unique to the French though

 

 

It isn't.  And I enjoy tweaking the noses of the sort of people who say crazy stuff because I'm a terrible person who kicks puppies because I just like a good argument sometimes, and part of me gets annoyed at really counter-factual stuff (the "France only lost because of politics" guy was especially irritating).  It just happens on the wargames forums if I'd crapped all over the Dutch, Deutch, Americans and Russians (and I can give you quotes were I did indeed, mock all of those nationalities) I wouldn't have gotten banned, BUT GOD FORBID I MOCK THE FRENCH.  

 

 

 

God I can't get over how awful it looks either. 1999 is putting it optimistically I think, the developers were talking about "going back to the roots of RTS games" in an interview somewhere. Translated into english that basically means they're making the game as anachronistic as they possibly can.  

 

You have to wonder how much of old RTS gameplay was not "gameplay" and more a reflection of the capabilities of the platforms back then.  I gave one of my older RTSes a whirl a few weeks back, chocked full of nostalgia over how great it was back in 2005 or so, only to discover myself wondering how I ever enjoyed something with 4 foot tank main gun ranges, and where sufficiently large blobs of riflemen were threats to tanks.  

[antaress73]

Exsonic: seems like casualties are heavy on both sides... Not one sided at all. Bloody

[Melchior]

It isn't.  And I enjoy tweaking the noses of the sort of people who say crazy stuff because I'm a terrible person who kicks puppies because I just like a good argument sometimes, and part of me gets annoyed at really counter-factual stuff (the "France only lost because of politics" guy was especially irritating).  It just happens on the wargames forums if I'd crapped all over the Dutch, Deutch, Americans and Russians (and I can give you quotes were I did indeed, mock all of those nationalities) I wouldn't have gotten banned, BUT GOD FORBID I MOCK THE FRENCH.

Point is that people often believe silly or foolish things because they feel threatened. They see threats from a lot of places too. Our culture just doesn't emphasize the values of mutual trust and understanding well at all. Lots of people just seem to feel like they're under attack all the time, and operate in this perpetually paranoid environment where nothing can be interpreted as a joke or a misunderstanding. It *must* be an attack because hey that's what i'd do in his position! Right?

You have to wonder how much of old RTS gameplay was not "gameplay" and more a reflection of the capabilities of the platforms back then.  I gave one of my older RTSes a whirl a few weeks back, chocked full of nostalgia over how great it was back in 2005 or so, only to discover myself wondering how I ever enjoyed something with 4 foot tank main gun ranges, and where sufficiently large blobs of riflemen were threats to tanks.

Good RTS games are not a recent invention. The good games have just always been about actual decision and consequence and not fantasy fulfillment via tech tree abuse and armor v pen spreadsheets. Lots of people love Starcraft literally because each side only has 1-2 play strategies of any kind and simply rehearsing this formula every time is really satisfying.

This is a big reason why CM is just about the only strategy/milsim game I play anymore aside from tabletop games, which are often brilliant. Because the rule sets for many of those games have to be practical, robust, and unencumbered. Less style, more substance.

[LukeFF]

Less talking, more screenshots. 

[exsonic01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKIF--VPo84&feature=youtu.be

 

From recent ongoing PBEM match. 

 

Until this moment, I never had a chance that this game is particularly trolling me, but I think now is the moment. How 5 of crack, high motivation, +1 leadership AA units missed 12 SAM missiles? Plus, Tungus missed 2~3 AAA shots. I can record additional videos as evidences if anyone wants. My opponent was also very surprised about survival of his fixed wings. 

 

Am I particularly very unlucky? Or is this game trolling me? Or do the Redfor AAs have bug or trouble? Please anyone, give me reasonable explanation behind this. How this can happen? Should I need to officially report to BFC? 

 

If I were real Russian commander and if I have proper authority and power, I already sent those AA units to Gulag, specially to the deep, deep side of Siberia. 

Edited July 18, 2015 by exsonic01

[Kieme(ITA)]

Indeed, that shouldn't happen. Call it bad luck or anything like that is not helpful. That simply shouldn't happen, because even if an elite top gun pilot dodges, uses chaffs, flares etc. can't escape 12 missiles from so many different trackers...

 

We know they were tunguskas and strelas (what kind of strela?). What about the air asset? Do you know what was being targeted?

[Lethaface]

Indeed, that shouldn't happen. Call it bad luck or anything like that is not helpful. That simply shouldn't happen, because even if an elite top gun pilot dodges, uses chaffs, flares etc. can't escape 12 missiles from so many different trackers...

 

We know they were tunguskas and strelas (what kind of strela?). What about the air asset? Do you know what was being targeted?

 

By the looks of it a F-22 Stealth fighter ;-P

 

Probably a fluke, I have had plenty of my BLUE CAS shot down.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Lethaface

[Sublime]

fluke. my redfor anti aircraft had been very deadly in my pbem matches. even humble iglas

plus where you had crack anti air he had elite air

Edited July 18, 2015 by Sublime

[exsonic01]

Indeed, that shouldn't happen. Call it bad luck or anything like that is not helpful. That simply shouldn't happen, because even if an elite top gun pilot dodges, uses chaffs, flares etc. can't escape 12 missiles from so many different trackers...

 

We know they were tunguskas and strelas (what kind of strela?). What about the air asset? Do you know what was being targeted?

2 Tungus + 3 Igla-S. My opponent is US player, he told me that there were 2 airplanes at that time, both survived and canceled mission without damage. I guess those might be combination of F16 or F15, or both. It should have claimed at least one plane. I still can't believe this. 

 

By the looks of it a F-22 Stealth fighter ;-P

 

Probably a fluke, I have had plenty of my BLUE CAS shot down.

fluke. my redfor anti aircraft had been very deadly in my pbem matches. even humble iglas

plus where you had crack anti air he had elite air

I'm not sure his pilots were elite or not. I will ask. (Is this true that elite airplanes have higher chance to dodge SAM and AAA?) 

 

But still. 12 missile should have downed at least 1 plane IMO. This is too harsh to just regard it as "very unlucky event". How can I rely on AA cover with this level of accuracy?

[womble]

They aborted mission. Rationalise it by saying your first-to-fire AAA engaged at the edge of their envelope and the Amis had time to respond, and the others were shots at already-departing  aircraft. The sensible pilots were being lit up by 6 trackers each; of course they aborted.

 

How can I rely on AA cover with this level of accuracy?

What are you wanting? To be able to shoot the American air force down with 100% certainty? Not going to happen. But your AAA did achieve its primary mission of driving the flyboys off. 100% success. Seems pretty reliable to me.

 

Note that the modelling of the planes' position is hardly realtime. Looks like each of the targets is assigned one, static, position in the sky; later-launched shots were fired at the exact same spot as the first, for two different loci.

[exsonic01]

They aborted mission. Rationalise it by saying your first-to-fire AAA engaged at the edge of their envelope and the Amis had time to respond, and the others were shots at already-departing aircraft. The sensible pilots were being lit up by 6 trackers each; of course they aborted.

What are you wanting? To be able to shoot the American air force down with 100% certainty? Not going to happen. But your AAA did achieve its primary mission of driving the flyboys off. 100% success. Seems pretty reliable to me.

Note that the modelling of the planes' position is hardly realtime. Looks like each of the targets is assigned one, static, position in the sky; later-launched shots were fired at the exact same spot as the first, for two different loci.

I don't know how the airplanes and their flight trjectory are modeled here, so not sure that moment was realistic or not. In terms of game mechanics, frankly I feel it is strange. During Poking the bear mission, I also lost 1 f16 by a single SAM from Tungu. But here, 12 missiles missed all. Naturally I was very surprised. Still, my personal opinion is, one of the 12 should have claimed one plane.

Im curious about what really happened there. If it is a bug, then BFC will fix it. If it is not, and one of the "once in a million" event, than I need to accept.

Edited July 18, 2015 by exsonic01

[Sublime]

i think its a fluke but you cant knock thw above argument that they were at least driven off. ive seen plenty driven off and shot down on both sides by now. so i highly doubt its a bug. i honestly dont know if a/c experience has an effect i was more joking however i do strongly suspect from anecdotal experience that a/c expetience affects accuracy amd friendly fire incidents along with the FOs experience.

i also dont know for sure but i do not think planes positions are static. ive seen others comments on apaches flying basically figure 8 patterns that would ve appropriate for COIN but not high intensity conventional combat. and i do know again anecdotally that when ive had hinds attack targets the runs seem to come in one way then from the opposite way next run as if they made a pass turned around and flew back... fwiw

[BTR]

Did you have CnC vehicle between your AA units? They should "in theory" help avoiding this (at least this is one of their functions in real life). 

[womble]

I don't know how the airplanes and their flight trjectory are modeled here, so not sure that moment was realistic or not. In terms of game mechanics, frankly I feel it is strange. During Poking the bear mission, I also lost 1 f16 by a single SAM from Tungu. But here, 12 missiles missed all. Naturally I was very surprised. Still, my personal opinion is, one of the 12 should have claimed one plane.

Im curious about what really happened there. If it is a bug, then BFC will fix it. If it is not, and one of the "once in a million" event, than I need to accept.

Look at it this way: your F-16 pilot recognised his threat detector warning, but decided it was worth the risk, for the level of threat (a single SAM launcher, assuming he was out of range of the Tunguska's cannon), to continue his mission. Then he found out he wasn't the hotshot pilot he thought he was, and that Russian AAA is actually pretty hard to dodge, or he got target fixated and pushed it that second or two too far before breaking off. If six fire control systems light you up all at once, you know you're going down if you carry on your bombing run, so you save yourself and your air frame. It's an example of where overkill really is overkill. Maybe if you'd only had three systems lighting him up, the fighter would have pressed the attack, but you'd have got him. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a saturation level of air defense where any more is wasted, because the deterrent value of what you're already fielding is "enough" to turn away what's inbound.

 

Look at it from a mechanical point of view, too. It makes sense for the "abort" decision to be evaluated at lockon time, as well as when the missiles are launched and their actual effect is determined.

[womble]

i also dont know for sure but i do not think planes positions are static. 

I'm only going on the video there above. There are clearly two loci in the sky that get shot at, and they're both shot at over a period of at least several seconds. Fixed wing assets do not stay in one place like that IRL, so I can only guess what the engine is doing. I'd expect the aim points that the missile tracks point at to make a line across the sky. Or maybe it's that way because the planes aborted, so the AAA only gets to shoot at the putative "entry point" of the plane, and it never actually overflies the battlefield.

 

Or something else.

[Sublime]

that last point is a very interesting idea and concept. your guess honestly is as good as mine womble and i didnt even watch the video regardless. lol

[A Canadian Cat]

This is one of the leaders of the US infantry that is systematically picking apart my mech infantry formation with Javelins.  Nice spot.

 

[exsonic01]

Look at it this way: your F-16 pilot recognised his threat detector warning, but decided it was worth the risk, for the level of threat (a single SAM launcher, assuming he was out of range of the Tunguska's cannon), to continue his mission. Then he found out he wasn't the hotshot pilot he thought he was, and that Russian AAA is actually pretty hard to dodge, or he got target fixated and pushed it that second or two too far before breaking off. If six fire control systems light you up all at once, you know you're going down if you carry on your bombing run, so you save yourself and your air frame. It's an example of where overkill really is overkill. Maybe if you'd only had three systems lighting him up, the fighter would have pressed the attack, but you'd have got him. It wouldn't surprise me if there was a saturation level of air defense where any more is wasted, because the deterrent value of what you're already fielding is "enough" to turn away what's inbound.

 

Look at it from a mechanical point of view, too. It makes sense for the "abort" decision to be evaluated at lockon time, as well as when the missiles are launched and their actual effect is determined.

I understand but I can clearly say your "overkill" theory is wrong. If you talking about "poking the bear" mission, there were 3 Tungus and 1~2 igla teams as well, and more tungus come to the battlefield later. That situation was also "overkill" just like you mentioned. There, my F16 shot down by a single shot, didn't even had a chance to evade. I remember, at that time, I saw 4~5 smoke trails. In addition, I usually bring 4+ stinger teams when I play US, and those "overkill" never happened to them as well. 1~2 shots of stinger (among 4~5 trails) always doomed enemy airs without any problem. 

 

Here, 2 Tungu + 3 Igla-S launched 12 missiles and all missed. There were two F15s. One of his F-15 evaded soon after the SAMs launched, but another didn't even evade, and successfully bombed one of the most important vehicle during that turn, (you can see big explosion in the middle of video) while those 12 missiles coming to them. Then, at the next turn, my opponent cancelled the fire missions of his two F15s. He mentioned that they were elite or crack. Someone claims, because the opponent canceled the mission, this might be the successful air defense. I would think the same, only if the second airplane didn't bombed correctly on my vehicle. But one of the F15 finished his mission, and didn't even scratched or interfered by 12 SAMs. That is not the good air defense, at least in my book.

 

Maybe there is a some factor that leads the unusual declination of accuracy of SAMs..... I don't know, Honestly, I'm also more in pessimistic point of view that this game may have a bug in AA system. Maybe I was "ultra unlucky" that time, But anyway, for me, this situation is very difficult to accept and understand. I know **** happens a lot on the battlefield, (and I myself was on the duty from 2002 to 2004), but that was really out of my boundary of understanding. I will stop conversation regarding this issue here, but this will gonna remains in my head as one of the great mystery ever had in this game. If similar thing happens again, then I will get the ticket to ask. 

 

Did you have CnC vehicle between your AA units? They should "in theory" help avoiding this (at least this is one of their functions in real life). 

Yes there was a Anti air platoon leader with his fancy vehicle, but it seems he also need to follow the road to the Gulag. 

Edited July 18, 2015 by exsonic01

[rocketman]

The perils of missing the one shot you had:

 

[womble]

I understand but I can clearly say your "overkill" theory is wrong. If you talking about "poking the bear" mission, there were 3 Tungus and 1~2 igla teams as well, and more tungus come to the battlefield later. That situation was also "overkill" just like you mentioned. There, my F16 shot down by a single shot, didn't even had a chance to evade. I remember, at that time, I saw 4~5 smoke trails. In addition, I usually bring 4+ stinger teams when I play US, and those "overkill" never happened to them as well. 1~2 shots of stinger (among 4~5 trails) always doomed enemy airs without any problem. 

 

Here, 2 Tungu + 3 Igla-S launched 12 missiles and all missed. There were two F15s. One of his F-15 evaded soon after the SAMs launched, but another didn't even evade, and successfully bombed one of the most important vehicle during that turn, (you can see big explosion in the middle of video) while those 12 missiles coming to them. Then, at the next turn, my opponent cancelled the fire missions of his two F15s. He mentioned that they were elite or crack. Someone claims, because the opponent canceled the mission, this might be the successful air defense. I would think the same, only if the second airplane didn't bombed correctly on my vehicle. But one of the F15 finished his mission, and didn't even scratched or interfered by 12 SAMs. That is not the good air defense, at least in my book.

 

Maybe there is a some factor that leads the unusual declination of accuracy of SAMs..... I don't know, Honestly, I'm also more in pessimistic point of view that this game may have a bug in AA system. Maybe I was "ultra unlucky" that time, But anyway, for me, this situation is very difficult to accept and understand. I know **** happens a lot on the battlefield, (and I myself was on the duty from 2002 to 2004), but that was really out of my boundary of understanding. I will stop conversation regarding this issue here, but this will gonna remains in my head as one of the great mystery ever had in this game. If similar thing happens again, then I will get the ticket to ask. 

 

Yes there was a Anti air platoon leader with his fancy vehicle, but it seems he also need to follow the road to the Gulag. 

None of what you said preculdes the possibility that in this case the AA made the air turn back. Maybe it's not certain, you just happened to get that result twice, when before you've not seen it apply. Your sample size is too small to draw any conclusions. 

 

There were two targets. Maybe the AA all focused on the one that didn't press its attack home, and couldn't reload in time to deter the second one. That was unfortunate. Or good tactics from your opponent, dividing your assets' attention between two targets. Maybe if only half had, both would have gotten through. You can't know what other possibilities might occur any more.

 

Before you cry "Bug", run some tests. The number of times you see things happen while playing won't be large enough for some time yet to provide any statistically relevant sample, and even then, it won't be controlled enough to be valid. Anecdotes are not strong evidence.

 

Do some tests; the onus is on you to prove something's wrong.

[sburke]

I played poking the bear more time than you can imagine while testing it.  AA is really hard to judge in that and my results were all over the map.  Both blue and Red.  Just when I thought stingers were absolutely useless I would hit a run where they totally cowed the Hinds.  When I'd get comfortable about my ability to take out TGs with Apaches I suddenly would start losing them right and left.  When I got comfortable that taking out the TGs gave me free run the Strelas would start scoring hits.  I was also testing while AA was still being tweaked so if I was to fire it up now I still wouldn't be sure what to expect.

[Lethaface]

I played poking the bear more time than you can imagine while testing it.  AA is really hard to judge in that and my results were all over the map.  Both blue and Red.  Just when I thought stingers were absolutely useless I would hit a run where they totally cowed the Hinds.  When I'd get comfortable about my ability to take out TGs with Apaches I suddenly would start losing them right and left.  When I got comfortable that taking out the TGs gave me free run the Strelas would start scoring hits.  I was also testing while AA was still being tweaked so if I was to fire it up now I still wouldn't be sure what to expect.

 

Hehe those early versions of poking the bear were a bit harder ;-)

 

My experience is similar though, AA is unpredictable and imo that's about right. 

[exsonic01]

 

None of what you said preculdes the possibility that in this case the AA made the air turn back. Maybe it's not certain, you just happened to get that result twice, when before you've not seen it apply. Your sample size is too small to draw any conclusions. 

 

There were two targets. Maybe the AA all focused on the one that didn't press its attack home, and couldn't reload in time to deter the second one. That was unfortunate. Or good tactics from your opponent, dividing your assets' attention between two targets. Maybe if only half had, both would have gotten through. You can't know what other possibilities might occur any more.

 

Before you cry "Bug", run some tests. The number of times you see things happen while playing won't be large enough for some time yet to provide any statistically relevant sample, and even then, it won't be controlled enough to be valid. Anecdotes are not strong evidence.

 

Do some tests; the onus is on you to prove something's wrong.

I still believe that was borderline broken, and strange enough to break my expectations, but I also admit that my judge was too fast. Like I mentioned in prior post, if the same thing happens, I will get the ticket and report directly. The reason behind that video was to report and share, and to check is there any other ppl who had same issue. Whole discussion was meaningful to understand what is happening in the air of CMBS, at least to me. 

 

 

I played poking the bear more time than you can imagine while testing it.  AA is really hard to judge in that and my results were all over the map.  Both blue and Red.  Just when I thought stingers were absolutely useless I would hit a run where they totally cowed the Hinds.  When I'd get comfortable about my ability to take out TGs with Apaches I suddenly would start losing them right and left.  When I got comfortable that taking out the TGs gave me free run the Strelas would start scoring hits.  I was also testing while AA was still being tweaked so if I was to fire it up now I still wouldn't be sure what to expect.

Hehe those early versions of poking the bear were a bit harder ;-)

 

My experience is similar though, AA is unpredictable and imo that's about right. 

Thanks to let me know and share your experiences. So, now it seems that I was in "very unlucky" region of the "unpredictable AA behavior map". That makes me a bit comfortable, it was not bug, or I'm not the only one who had multiple misses. It seems the god of AA in CMBS loves to roll the dice. Thank you. 

[Lethaface]

Thanks to let me know and share your experiences. So, now it seems that I was in "very unlucky" region of the "unpredictable AA behavior map". That makes me a bit comfortable, it was not bug, or I'm not the only one who had multiple misses. It seems the god of AA in CMBS loves to roll the dice. Thank you. 

 

My pleasure. By the way, of course it could be a bug but it's always best to assume otherwise until it can be reproduced ;-)

[MOS:96B2P]

TOW 2B in action.