Jump to content

BRM-3K combat reconnaissance vehicle

Recommended Posts



BFC itself has pronounced on this, and map size isn't the issue. It's where LOS is computed from, and the game's  not set up to deal with eyes, if you will, which aren't attached to the vehicle proper. Restated, you can draw LOS from the unbuttoned TC's eye to the target,  yet have the gunner still unable to see the target because the DF gunsight in the gun mantlet is still masked, meaning the cannon is also masked. This drives players crazy. "Why can I spot, but the gunner doesn't have LOS, so I can't shoot?" Back comes the explanation I've given you. Unlike WW II, in which very few vehicles ran their primary weapons from the roof, this is now fairly common, as seen in the Abrams, where all the sights, day and FLIR, except for the gunner's backup DF sight in the mantlet, also used for checking gun clearance over terrain, are on the roof. This is all well and good, except that the cannon is well below the roof sights! Here's what the 1.06 patch for CMSF said.


--- Citer ---CMSF v1.06 FEATURES


• Enhanced LOS system takes into account the dynamically changing
heights of soldiers in different stances, and vehicles of varying

heights and the height of their crew positions and attached weapons.

This means things like MGs and ATGM launchers attached directly to the tank, when appropriately crewed, do generate LOS if other conditions so allow. The engine, which is, for this game's purposes, operating like CMSF's on steroids, 
 still has this fundamental limitation. Since I haven't played it myself, I don't know how Bradley ATGM launchers are treated, but I'm pretty sure the elevated TOW launcher and a big chunk of the Bradley have to be out of defilade, for we know this to be true of Krizantema in CMBS.


Thus, since LOS is generated as I described, the code apparently doesn't exist yet to permit sensors being used and weapons being launched from elevations which exceed those of the highest eyeball attached to the tank. Am no programmer, but I think it's reasonable to assert BFC needs to find a way to put various eyeballs and weapons in positions the current code simply was never designed, I believe, to deal with. When I found out that a well identified problem with such issues in even the latest form of CMSF still had not been addressed in CMBS, I was most unhappy and sounded off. Carefully and appropriately, as did many others. Frankly, my reaction was essentially, "I can't believe they didn't specifically address this in CMBS's design! After all, it's a known issue from CMSF, one people have been pretty vocal about." Weapons that pop up to fire and have the sights on the part which elevates, go at least as far back as the Buffington-Crozier disappearing gun mount, (invented in 1880) seen below circa 1900. The gun is completely defiladed until it clears the rampart, the target is directly sighted once the gun is fully up, the gun fires, and the recoil forces drive the gun back completely down below the parapet and close to the ground for reloading. Additional checking reveals the earliest disappearing gun design dates to 1860.

The US did tests in the 1970s of something like the disappearing gun, using a popup high velocity 75 mm ARES cannon mounted on a M551 Sheridan hull. You will note in this US Army official pic the sensors which operate at the same elevation as the gun. Though I wasn't able to link to another Army pic of the ELKE (ELevated Kinetic Energy), it's on the second link's page and neatly shows the tactical advantage the popup weapon mount confers. The gun, with its attendant remote from the testbed vehicle sights (apparently now on other side) is not in defilade, while the vehicle proper is, evidently on a reversed slope at that. 


I fervently hope BFC will find a way to fix the issue I've detailed and soon. CMBS proves quite convincingly that exposure = detection = kaboom. But we're not in WW II, where at 1500 meter range, on average it takes 17 rounds to get a hit. Now, it's one round. The partial exposure of the vehicle for basic LOS calculation from the shooting at it end is driven, I believe, by looking at the center of mass of the sought AFV or vehicle, not the center of mass of the exposed portion only. Or I could have this all wrong, but from what I can remember that's how it works. Certainly that's true when shooting, for the aimpoint on the target is known to be Center of Mass and has been so stated by BFC.


It all comes down to the current grim reality that a bunch of AFVs and softskins, which should be able to take advantage of their observe and/or fight from full platform defilade, can't. This has the effect of inflating overall losses at the end and causing wholly unnecessary rapid degradation during the game of a unit''s military potential because shots which could've otherwise been taken at the enemy and inflicted losses, can't be taken because the friendly firing unit died earlier because it was unnecessarily exposed to fire. 




John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK, crewmen are invisible/not rendered when buttoned inside vehicles. But when unbuttoned they become visible and slightly switch position.

Maybe move the "invisible/not rendered" crewman where his eyes would be looking where they should be, but return him to the right position when the hatch is opened?

Or for the BRM series with its battlefield radar. Make one of the unrendered passenger positions where the radar is.


Now I can almost hear the cries of anguish over what this will do to the damage model against crewmen getting killed inside vehicles and such when his non rendered position is outside above the vehicle, well they mostly all die anyway in the resulting explosion from these two vehicles, and what hits them most often kills them outright so there is no leeway for accidental crew/passenger survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would emplore BFC to consider the addition of mast mounted sensors and radar capabilities in a patch.


And dont even start on "you dont know how hard it is to implement things ingame".

You don't know... Oh wait you said not to do that. OK how's this: I hope they get around to doing it too it would be really nice actually. There are so many things people want them to do (see my sig :) ) the list of stuff to do is huge. They have to decide what order to do things in. All we can do is emplore away :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...