U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980

[Lethaface]

35 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I know in CM you can kill BMPs with mortars >80mm and tanks can die from 122mm(smallest I have seen).

Tanks have been up-armored since A-10 and cluster munitions showed up.

 

 

How much up armored though? I did test this a bit and Oplot survived several direct impact 203mm and 152mm. In the end I was able to kill an Oplot with 152mm precision, but after it had survived 5+ rounds and I just went ham on it with all remaining precision munition from 3 batteries of 152.
Some of the direct hits it survived were on the ERA, but there were also direct hits on parts without ERA coverage and they didn't penetrate (the direct hits did cause heavy subsystem damage).

At the same time, in a recent PBEM a lucky 120mm mortar took out a T-72B3. It hit on the upper front hull right between ERA.

[Megalon Jones]

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

An irony of very long range hull-down shooting is the incoming rounds are at the end of their trajectory parabola and are very nearly doing plunging attacks. I notice an increased number of 'turret top hit' messages when engaging at extended ranges. Especially if you're firing HEAT, HE or squash head.

How do you rate HESH vs HEAT or Sabot in terms of penetrating Red Army tanks?  Ball park estimates are sufficient.

[chuckdyke]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I know in CM you can kill BMPs with mortars

True in UK Edge of Darkness (spoiler) You can pick the BMPs with the 81 mm mortar. The mortars are more effective against an IFV than against buildings. 

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

How much up armored though? I did test this a bit and Oplot survived several direct impact 203mm and 152mm. In the end I was able to kill an Oplot with 152mm precision, but after it had survived 5+ rounds and I just went ham on it with all remaining precision munition from 3 batteries of 152.
Some of the direct hits it survived were on the ERA, but there were also direct hits on parts without ERA coverage and they didn't penetrate (the direct hits did cause heavy subsystem damage).

At the same time, in a recent PBEM a lucky 120mm mortar took out a T-72B3. It hit on the upper front hull right between ERA.

One of my main weapons against Abrams in CMBS with the Russians has been the 155mm precision ammunition. (especially if I get to fly a drone with laser for pointing targets)

With three round salvo you usually get immobilized and significant system damage. With another salvo it is totally out of action Abrams.

But indeed I have no data on the actually survivability of the tanks in real life against artillery.

[THH149]

I'm pretty impressed by this whole AAR, and presume it is part of the playtesting of the scenarios coming with CW.

Nice to see the scenario being tested in H2H format and hopefully it will be developed to at least 60/40 win loss for either side.  I know its super hard to get the scenarios balanced to that level - lots of moving parts and the two sides are very different - but the victory conditions can at least be tweaked.

If Bf has the capacity, it would be super interesting to get the win/loss of all games played (2H, AI, at each level of skill) automatically reported to it by the CM code (a feature of some software) and aggregated results (to hide identities) posted on a public page so players could use that to help them decide whether a scenario will give them a good battle (after all the investment in a game is a few hours at least).  The engagement the CM community would get from that would rocket!

THH

[MikeyD]

Quote

How do you rate HESH vs HEAT or Sabot in terms of penetrating Red Army tanks?  Ball park estimates are sufficient.

Excepting the 'magic bullet' depleted uranium rounds for M60A3 and M1 Abrams which can get penetrations at 2k, sabot sucks. APDS is all but useless. Titanium core M735 APFSDS becomes increasingly useful the shorter the range. None of this stuff you want a hit squarely to a Soviet MBT's turret front because its likely to just scratch the paint. Its (almost) like WWII American guns versus Panthers all over again.

[slysniper]

3 hours ago, THH149 said:

I'm pretty impressed by this whole AAR, and presume it is part of the playtesting of the scenarios coming with CW.

Nice to see the scenario being tested in H2H format and hopefully it will be developed to at least 60/40 win loss for either side. 

Its nice the some clubs keep this type of data, but it will likely stay at such a source.

I am running a Tournament right now, that the players are going H2H with scenarios I have thrown together. 

Now my goal is always to get a balanced scoring system for both sides , but it seldom happens.

Because I have learned that the two players facing each other will affect the score much more than my tweaking of the score  as to what the finial results will be in most battles.

Now after I see the results from 15 battles, yes it is easy to adjust the scoring to make half of those battles show winning scores from those result, and that is really about the best way to do it.

I am afraid that the scenarios in testing do not get that amount of play throughs to do that balancing.

but with what is tested, adjustments are made to try and make them balanced.

 

 

[IICptMillerII]

On 3/11/2021 at 8:04 AM, Bil Hardenberger said:

The way I see it I have two Courses of Action (COAs):

• COA 1 – Deep Attack.  This was what I had hoped to do, but with Warren’s flank security position this one comes with increased danger for my tanks.
• COA 2 – Short Attack.  I actually like this one as well, it will unhinge Warren’s flank security and force him to react to my move, plus it will provide some pressure on the center and Dolbach.

• Follow on Force.  Regardless of which COA I decide on, I do intend to follow the 2nd and 3rd Platoon tanks with 1st Platoon’s tanks as indicated in the planning map below.

These graphics are always a work of art and a personal favorite of mine. 

In my opinion, go for the deep strike. You have enough assets to cover the short ground near the town. A successful drive deep with your tanks would completely throw off the Soviets here, and force them to react to you. You'll also create a larger killing ground as well, which facilitates your primary goal of causing maximum casualties. 

I'm excited to see which way you end up taking this. 

[THH149]

22 minutes ago, slysniper said:

Its nice the some clubs keep this type of data, but it will likely stay at such a source.

I am running a Tournament right now, that the players are going H2H with scenarios I have thrown together. 

Now my goal is always to get a balanced scoring system for both sides , but it seldom happens.

Because I have learned that the two players facing each other will affect the score much more than my tweaking of the score  as to what the finial results will be in most battles.

Now after I see the results from 15 battles, yes it is easy to adjust the scoring to make half of those battles show winning scores from those result, and that is really about the best way to do it.

I am afraid that the scenarios in testing do not get that amount of play throughs to do that balancing.

but with what is tested, adjustments are made to try and make them balanced.

 

 

There seems to be to little of the good stuff your doing. Lack of stats is one part of the problem, time is another, understanding of the techniques how to get a better fight is a third. Inclination/built in bias is another-i've seen some ppl argue that balance doesnt matter, but I assume they always play AI and always Blue, which is fine for many ppl, but they shouldnt impose their approach on others who'd like to play a gripping battle H2H.

[Ryujin]

3 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

In my opinion, go for the deep strike. You have enough assets to cover the short ground near the town. A successful drive deep with your tanks would completely throw off the Soviets here, and force them to react to you. You'll also create a larger killing ground as well, which facilitates your primary goal of causing maximum casualties. 

I agree, probably better to end up to flanking too far than not committing to the flank enough.

It seems like tanks across the valley should be able to cover dead ground in front of your ridge top units and be supported by them. Kinda hard to tell, but seems like the short COA would be difficult to directly support from the ridge without exposing those units? 

It also looks like the short COA could get you bogged down in mopping up all the infantry trickling towards the town when there's armor to fight. 

[slysniper]

8 hours ago, THH149 said:

There seems to be to little of the good stuff your doing. Lack of stats is one part of the problem, time is another, understanding of the techniques how to get a better fight is a third. Inclination/built in bias is another-i've seen some ppl argue that balance doesnt matter, but I assume they always play AI and always Blue, which is fine for many ppl, but they shouldnt impose their approach on others who'd like to play a gripping battle H2H.

I have mentioned for years, I think a better approach would be to just have 3 scenarios. One for blue, one for red and one for H2H, and in truth you could also make one for hard challenge and one that is easier.  Trying to do them all in one makes its hard, you really only make it right for one as to being balanced in the sweet spot and that is verse the AI

[Dr.Fusselpulli]

On 3/10/2021 at 4:50 AM, MikeyD said:

Its hard to do in Germany (they're VERY restrictive with its use) but other places you can drive down any road and look out across any landscape, measure the distances between terrain features. Here's an example, I randomly plopped down an a spot in the Czech republic

The countryside in the Czech Republic is differently used from the countryside in Germany.
I am German and live in Czech Republic and I clearly see a difference. In Czech Republic, LOS is often far greater, larger fields, less treelines between them. Seems to be a leftover of communist agriculture. I also have the feeling trees are smaller. I am missing the beech forests with its massive old trees I know from home, but maybe I just wasn´t in the right forest yet.

[sawomi]

7 hours ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:

The countryside in the Czech Republic is differently used from the countryside in Germany.
I am German and live in Czech Republic and I clearly see a difference. In Czech Republic, LOS is often far greater, larger fields, less treelines between them. Seems to be a leftover of communist agriculture. 

It's the same in East Germany. After WWII the farms where collectivised and the small aggricultural fields of the seperate farmers where jointed to big "LPG" fields.

-> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landwirtschaftliche_Produktionsgenossenschaft

[A Canadian Cat]

On 3/13/2021 at 6:38 PM, THH149 said:

If Bf has the capacity, it would be super interesting to get the win/loss of all games played (2H, AI, at each level of skill) automatically reported to it by the CM code (a feature of some software) and aggregated results (to hide identities) posted on a public page so players could use that to help them decide whether a scenario will give them a good battle (after all the investment in a game is a few hours at least).

That would be cool - for sure.

In the mean time theBlitz.club records are public here is a link to CMBN:

https://www.theblitz.club/scenarios/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/b-15.htm?action=scenarios&game=153

The club picks a couple of scenarios per month and tries to get a handful of play tests for those scenarios.

There is also @Ithikial_AU's CM Record where individuals can record their own battles:

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cmbn-other/cm2-ww2-combat-mission-career-record-system/

[Bil Hardenberger]

On 3/13/2021 at 10:19 PM, IICptMillerII said:

These graphics are always a work of art and a personal favorite of mine. 

In my opinion, go for the deep strike. You have enough assets to cover the short ground near the town. A successful drive deep with your tanks would completely throw off the Soviets here, and force them to react to you. You'll also create a larger killing ground as well, which facilitates your primary goal of causing maximum casualties. 

I'm excited to see which way you end up taking this. 

 

On 3/14/2021 at 3:12 AM, Ryujin said:

I agree, probably better to end up to flanking too far than not committing to the flank enough.

It seems like tanks across the valley should be able to cover dead ground in front of your ridge top units and be supported by them. Kinda hard to tell, but seems like the short COA would be difficult to directly support from the ridge without exposing those units? 

It also looks like the short COA could get you bogged down in mopping up all the infantry trickling towards the town when there's armor to fight. 

Appreciate the feedback!  I would love to do the Deep option.. however those three BMPs and the T-64A would eat me alive without something substantial to suppress/distract them.  It's a long drive from the assemble area to the attack point... and all of it within his line of fire.  

I am thinking of doing the Short Option and then seeing how he reacts.. a strong reaction might just leave the Deep option available for a second phase of this movement... regardless the Short option would get his attention, and I could flank the line those BMPs and T-64A are sitting on... he would have to dislodge them.  

Just got back from a little trip, I will try to get the next turn report up soon, as there have been some developments that could force me to move my tanks out earlier than I had planned.  Coming soon!

Bil

[Holien]

Looking forward to the next installment....

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, Holien said:

Looking forward to the next installment....

Ah but will Bil's peace loving good socialist opponent feel as keen?

[Badger73]

On 2/21/2021 at 1:02 AM, stikkypixie said:

Do tanks of tanks of this era have laser range finders? Just curious about their first hit probability.

The M60A1 & M60A2 had a stereoscopic rangefinder which uses two eyepieces and relies on the tank commander to spin a range wheel until the two images merge into a single picture.  When you had a sharp single image, it gave you the range to the target in meters and mechanically adjusted the gunner's sights to that range.  The TC then gave the fire command (in this case 1,500 meters) as, "Range one five hundred meters.  Fire!".

To save time and insure first round fired, veteran tank commanders and their gunners would pre-set the rangefinder to a "battlesight" range; either 1200 or 1600 meters depending on SOP.  As soon as the gunner "Identified" the target in his sights, the TC fire command would be an immediate, "Battlesight, fire!".  The gunner would check for "Burst on Target", re-aim to the point of impact and fire again until TC declared, "Target destroyed."

[THH149]

On 3/14/2021 at 11:10 PM, slysniper said:

I think a better approach would be to just have 3 scenarios. One for blue, one for red and one for H2H,

That's good thinking. I had the sense that a H2H scenario need to be different from the AI versions, also including the option that a H2H game would allow each side to add extra forces (like an extra vehicle or two) to help make the H2H match-up more competitive.

Say if a player preferred one side or the other they could allow the other player to take the extra forces in return for getting their side of choice  - in ASL this is called the Australian Balancing System.

Such an approach would fit into AI version as a player could choose the extra forces or give them to the computer to make it more difficult.

Also, the AI needs an extra level of difficulty: an Ultra victory if they get total destruction of the AI while losing less than 10% of manpower.

All I'm hoping for right now is that when a scenario says its suitable for H2H play, the two players should have a thrilling competitve match where they both have a reasonable chance of fulfilling victory conditions.

Best

THH

[c3k]

Bil,

Outstanding approach/analysis and ability to share it with us. I am biased towards the Deep Strike Option: I think it gives a better location for any follow-on maneuver or support. Just my .02.

[Ithikial_AU]

19 hours ago, IanL said:

There is also @Ithikial_AU's CM Record where individuals can record their own battles:

https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cmbn-other/cm2-ww2-combat-mission-career-record-system/

I need to upload the update that tool post-FR release. Haven't even put any thought how the Cold War should be covered. Simply not enough time in the day to work on it, plus coming home and doing the same thing I'm paid to do the eight hours before isn't the most appealing thing on the list.

Latest serious update I did was a dedicated CMSF2 tracker (unreleased) with more detail for players running through the Blue force stock campaigns and scenarios for CMSF2. Essentially allowing you do track your progress against Operation Iraqi Freedom etc in terms of comparing casualties etc. Still a jumbled mess though with formulas everywhere.

[SlowMotion]

11 hours ago, THH149 said:

That's good thinking. I had the sense that a H2H scenario need to be different from the AI versions, also including the option that a H2H game would allow each side to add extra forces (like an extra vehicle or two) to help make the H2H match-up more competitive.

Say if a player preferred one side or the other they could allow the other player to take the extra forces in return for getting their side of choice  - in ASL this is called the Australian Balancing System.

Such an approach would fit into AI version as a player could choose the extra forces or give them to the computer to make it more difficult.

I have also suggested this in some feature request threads. I think a quite simple way of doing this could be if in Scenario Editor you could select an option for some unit that it would be included in a battle only when that side is played by the AI.  If this option is not selected, then the unit would be present whether that side is played by the AI or human player.
This way you could have good force balance both in H2H and when playing against the AI.

Edited March 16, 2021 by SlowMotion

[benpark]

5 minutes ago, SlowMotion said:

I think a quite simple way of doing this could be if in Scenario Editor you could select an option for some unit that it would be included in a battle only when that side is played by the AI.

There is an outstanding suggestion I made a year or so ago for the ability to save variable set-ups that would cover things like this (and for not knowing what will be faced against the AI).

Not sure if it will ever get picked up, but it would be another good tool to have.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

50 minutes ago, benpark said:

There is an outstanding suggestion I made a year or so ago for the ability to save variable set-ups that would cover things like this (and for not knowing what will be faced against the AI).

Not sure if it will ever get picked up, but it would be another good tool to have.

+1 to that, would be great.

[Bil Hardenberger]

The Fifteenth through Seventeenth Minutes

“I would rather you made your appraisal after seeing what the enemy does, since it is certain that, angered and outraged, he will soon launch a determined counterattack."

Isoroku Yamamoto

 

The fifteenth minute saw the loss of another M-150.. I swear the track of that ATGM fired from the BMP-1P... it's like magic the way it hugs the ground comes over the top of the hill and hits him in the lower hull.. must be a crack gunner!  Pretty sure I was hull-down to that BMP and T-64B too.  C'est la guerre. 

Pushing on... 

So over the next few turns Warren, who has finally figured out that the central approach is masked from my view, has been pushing his T-62 Company and some BMPs far forward...

...is he planning on defending the town?  Pushing into my rear area?  If the latter.. then I have no defense.  Just don't have the combat power available to fight off a determined push. 

What to do.. what to do... well first of all, I need to confirm one or the other.  If I need to react and push some support units over towards my M-60s for protection then so be it, but I plan to continue my movement with the tanks.  That, hopefully, will force him to redeploy the assets in the center, maybe weaken any attack into my rear area.

In the above image.. note the contact icon (BMP) which Warren has pushed forward... very close to one of my Dragon teams.  Bad news.. the visibility here is very dodgy and it'll be tough to get eyes on that BMP unless it moves forward.  I am pretty sure this is one of his remaining BMP-1P's that I lost sight of a few turns ago.  Probably followed up by the BRM-1.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Bil Hardenberger