question about weapon optics

[emccabe]

I had been wondering this for a while but do optics actually improve the soldiers aim or is it just a cosmetic feature, since pretty much american  infantry has some optic on their weapon does that mean that its easier for them to hit a target

Edited August 20, 2015 by emccabe

[MikeyD]

I've got no hard data but I do recall discussion during development about what sort of an accuracy boost different types of optics get. So it was part of the discussion. Plus there's been talk on this board of Russian rifle fire at night being more precise than the day because one is over iron sights and the other through optics.

[IronCat60]

Oh yes optics do help immensely. The ACOG sight, a standard issue item, with a more complicated reticle is great. This sight helps by providing aim points for "bullet drop" while engaging distant targets and lead stadia lines for moving targets. At least the ones I tested when teaching MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain).

 

What I liked about the optical sights was the situational awareness. The optical area covered by the scope was large enough so you could see what was going on around your aim point. Unlike iron sights which are the metal sights affixed to the weapon.

 

With iron sights (the traditional U.S. aperture and post) you look through the rear aperture and concentrate your focus on the front sight post as your eye can only focus on one thing at a time. You switch your focus between the target and the front sight post to align on target. Once the post is centered, your focus remains on the front post. The target is a blur behind it. Your eye naturally centers the rear sight and this helps align the weapon to the target. I explained how the sights work to help illustrate how narrow your focus and optical awareness is while using standard sights.

 

So optical sights help engage your target and makes you more aware of the possible next engagement. After that it is all about soldier training. Reaction time to target, good firing skills and the ability to quickly follow through and engage the next target. These skills must become as natural to the soldier as breathing does..     

Edited August 20, 2015 by mech.gato

[Red Rage]

There is literally a thread right below this one on the subject, Yes, they do make a difference. Currently, a US section all Gucci-ed out with optics can easily suppress a Rus platoon of equal experience level. Rus infantry do seem to perform much better at night when they have their optics on. 

 

It's all abstracted though, same as FLIR and other vehicle modules. How exactly it's abstracted only the devs know. I wish we still  had the detailed unit cards from CMx1 which displayed the nominal firepower  value assigned to each unit (as well as range/pen values for vehicles), but those were scrapped for some reason. Now it's all about rumors, innuendos and individual tests to eyeball the effectiveness of any particular kit. 

[sburke]

There is literally a thread right below this one on the subject, Yes, they do make a difference. Currently, a US section all Gucci-ed out with optics can easily suppress a Rus platoon of equal experience level. Rus infantry do seem to perform much better at night when they have their optics on. 

 

It's all abstracted though, same as FLIR and other vehicle modules. How exactly it's abstracted only the devs know. I wish we still  had the detailed unit cards from CMx1 which displayed the nominal firepower  value assigned to each unit (as well as range/pen values for vehicles), but those were scrapped for some reason. Now it's all about rumors, innuendos and individual tests to eyeball the effectiveness of any particular kit. 

well that is partly because in CMx1 a squad fired at one target with a set nominal firepower.  In CMx2 each soldier fires individually at whatever target.  The nominal fire power is simply not as relevant.  CMx1 engine worked one way and in that case, that data was readily available and useful.  CMx2 works completely differently and that data is largely just a ballpark figure subject to a ton of variables.

 

I also wouldn't entirely count out that Russian unit.  Those RPGs can be hell.  Granted they will go through them pretty quick, but you don't want to just run up against a prepared fully equipped Russian platoon.

[stikkypixie]

From what I understand, cmx2 does not use firepower tables. Rather the bullet trajectories are tracked and hits determined using the polygons of the model + a fudge factor. Of course how often optimal trajectories are produced is in some sort of table, but this is less clear cut than a firepower rating.

[antaress73]

well that is partly because in CMx1 a squad fired at one target with a set nominal firepower.  In CMx2 each soldier fires individually at whatever target.  The nominal fire power is simply not as relevant.  CMx1 engine worked one way and in that case, that data was readily available and useful.  CMx2 works completely differently and that data is largely just a ballpark figure subject to a ton of variables.

 

I also wouldn't entirely count out that Russian unit.  Those RPGs can be hell.  Granted they will go through them pretty quick, but you don't want to just run up against a prepared fully equipped Russian platoon.

 

 

Yeah and also if you fight as Russian, you must fight like a Russian. You must make liberal and well planned use of  automatic grenade launchers (AGS), RPO units and massive amounts of Mortar and artillery fire. Russians believe in heavy firepower, not aimed rifle fire. WHen you do that, they are very difficult if not downright impossible to fight against in infantry-centric battles. Dont use the russians as you would with US infantry. That's fighting on US terms and you will lose. Fight on YOUR terms.

Edited August 20, 2015 by antaress73

[Stagler]

Yeah and also if you fight as Russian, you must fight like a Russian. You must make liberal and well planned use of  automatic grenade launchers (AGS), RPO units and massive amounts of Mortar and artillery fire. Russians believe in heavy firepower, not aimed rifle fire. WHen you do that, they are very difficult if not downright impossible to fight against in infantry-centric battles. Dont use the russians as you would with US infantry. That's fighting on US terms and you will lose. Fight on YOUR terms.

 

Get attaching those RPO and AGS sections to your platoons. Make contact with the 2 man scout section, and smash the point of contact to bits.

[Red Rage]

well that is partly because in CMx1 a squad fired at one target with a set nominal firepower.  In CMx2 each soldier fires individually at whatever target.  The nominal fire power is simply not as relevant.  CMx1 engine worked one way and in that case, that data was readily available and useful.  CMx2 works completely differently and that data is largely just a ballpark figure subject to a ton of variables.

 

I also wouldn't entirely count out that Russian unit.  Those RPGs can be hell.  Granted they will go through them pretty quick, but you don't want to just run up against a prepared fully equipped Russian platoon.

 

 

But isn't it still essentially one target that they engage, just with a way more detailed visual representation? I always thought of firepower values in CMx1 as a rough representation of how much "punch" an individual squad potentially possessed rather than an actual damage-per-second type of number. I believe CMx1 still had some sort of small-arms ballistics factored in, and the 3 ugly stickfigures still represented a full section under game's hood. Or am I completely wrong here? 

 

 

 

 

Yeah and also if you fight as Russian, you must fight like a Russian. You must make liberal and well planned use of  automatic grenade launchers (AGS), RPO units and massive amounts of Mortar and artillery fire.

 

 

From my experiences, by the time AGS and RPO teams crawl to position, the fight is usually over. Due to US spotting edge and a long setup time, AGS units are extremely difficult to set up in direct LOS of a defender. RPO teams are pretty much bullet magnets as well (gunner usually gets smoked after the first shot). I wish AGS teams had the ability to be used like they are used 90% of the time irl - i.e., setup behind terrain elevations and fire in "overhang" pattern like artillery with no need for LOS. Atm, I stopped taking AGS platoons altogether for offensive battles. For preset scenarios I just use them to occupy ground worth points. Support assets wise, when facing US I found only 152mm and up to be effective with mortars being next to useless. 

[Baneman]

But isn't it still essentially one target that they engage, just with a way more detailed visual representation?

 

Nope, a squad of 9 men could theoretically engage 9 discrete targets if the circumstances allowed.

 

Just as spotting is calculated from each set of eyeballs, so targeting is done per man. Each guy may not even be able to see the same target as his mate etc.

[antaress73]

But isn't it still essentially one target that they engage, just with a way more detailed visual representation? I always thought of firepower values in CMx1 as a rough representation of how much "punch" an individual squad potentially possessed rather than an actual damage-per-second type of number. I believe CMx1 still had some sort of small-arms ballistics factored in, and the 3 ugly stickfigures still represented a full section under game's hood. Or am I completely wrong here?

From my experiences, by the time AGS and RPO teams crawl to position, the fight is usually over. Due to US spotting edge and a long setup time, AGS units are extremely difficult to set up in direct LOS of a defender. RPO teams are pretty much bullet magnets as well (gunner usually gets smoked after the first shot). I wish AGS teams had the ability to be used like they are used 90% of the time irl - i.e., setup behind terrain elevations and fire in "overhang" pattern like artillery with no need for LOS. Atm, I stopped taking AGS platoons altogether for offensive battles. For preset scenarios I just use them to occupy ground worth points. Support assets wise, when facing US I found only 152mm and up to be effective with mortars being next to useless.

Isolate and bunch up. Use keylocking and obtain localized superiority. Easier said than done I admit. Easier to do in urban environment than in rural ones. Dont use them piecemeal but en masse (massed firepower) against a small part of the defense at a time. They will suppress defenders quickly . Lots of work. Edited August 20, 2015 by antaress73

[Red Rage]

Way too much work with uncertain results. Especially when an extra  BMP-3 w/APS can be had for the same amount of points, comes with two boomsticks, has smoke and can be deployed anywhere on the map within a minute  

 

And bunching up vs US (even in AI form)? I learned some hard lessons with that on at least 10 separate occasions. That arty comes fast and then keeps on dogging you. Literally everything and everyone can call in arty on you faster than your dedicated FOs and ATCs.

[MOS:96B2P]

<Snip>  fight like a Russian. You must make liberal and well planned use of  automatic grenade launchers (AGS), RPO units and massive amounts of Mortar and artillery fire. Russians believe in heavy firepower, not aimed rifle fire. WHen you do that, they are very difficult if not downright impossible to fight against in infantry-centric battles. Dont use the russians as you would with US infantry. That's fighting on US terms and you will lose. Fight on YOUR terms.

 

This.

[MOS:96B2P]

<Snip> a squad of 9 men could theoretically engage 9 discrete targets if the circumstances allowed.

 

Just as spotting is calculated from each set of eyeballs, so targeting is done per man. Each guy may not even be able to see the same target as his mate etc.

 

Thank Baneman.  This kind of stuff is good info. 

[sburke]

Try obscuring the position you want them to fire from, smoke the area in front to allow them time to get into position and setup. Smoke clears and suddenly the enemy is facing a significantly different firepower ratio.

[Stagler]

Try obscuring the position you want them to fire from, smoke the area in front to allow them time to get into position and setup. Smoke clears and suddenly the enemy is facing a significantly different firepower ratio.

 

Doesnt often work against the yankees.

[sburke]

Doesnt often work against the yankees.

Well nothing works all the time, just another option in the toolkit though.

[antaress73]

Way too much work with uncertain results. Especially when an extra  BMP-3 w/APS can be had for the same amount of points, comes with two boomsticks, has smoke and can be deployed anywhere on the map within a minute

 

And bunching up vs US (even in AI form)? I learned some hard lessons with that on at least 10 separate occasions. That arty comes fast and then keeps on dogging you. Literally everything and everyone can call in arty on you faster than your dedicated FOs and ATCs.

 

You must be careful  And you'll lose some for sure. But fighting as Russians (or anyone else) against the US is challenging. Especially in an infantry only fight. But so much satisfying when you succeed But yes, the Russians love their BMPs and BTRs and their infantry is not supposed to fight without them in support (thus the squad commander being the vehicule commander as well.. and trained to remain in it and operate it). 

Edited August 20, 2015 by antaress73

[Vanir Ausf B]

Doesnt often work against the yankees.

Multi-spectral smoke is very effective, wind conditions permitting. If there is a gale blowing then, yeah, don't even bother.

[Stagler]

Multi-spectral smoke is very effective, wind conditions permitting. If there is a gale blowing then, yeah, don't even bother.

 

Im not sure Russian artillery deployed smoke is multi-spectral.

[MikeyD]

I recall in CM:Afghanistan the Russian squads were severely truncated by the end of the war due to lack of manpower. A Russian squad's job, besides providing cover for the tanks against RPG threat, was basically to move forward over the charred bodies of their enemies after artillery and tank fire had done the 'heavy lifting'. If people are still firing back you haven't used enough ordnance on 'em 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Im not sure Russian artillery deployed smoke is multi-spectral.

 

It's not. Nor is American. I use vehicle grenade smoke almost exclusively.

[VladimirTarasov]

From memory I can't remember but do they have multi-spectral smoke on the AFVs in combat mission? Or was it just regular smoke thermals see through.

[akd]

Depends on the vehicle.  Generally US vehicles and modernized Russian vehicles have IR obscurant smoke.  BM Oplot also.

Edited August 21, 2015 by akd

[VladimirTarasov]

Depends on the vehicle.  Generally US vehicles and modernized Russian vehicles have IR obscurant smoke.  BM Oplot also.

Ok thanks for the info, I will run a QB today and use some flank tactics onto the Blufor side.