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

[MikeyD]

I think 'someone in charge' said no Youtube battles using Beta builds because things-not-done tend to stick out like a sore thumb. But release date is approaching so rapidly that that's almost a moot point. Don't want to use the Beta build? Close our eyes, count to three, then use the release build!

[Megalon Jones]

22 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

I think 'someone in charge' said no Youtube battles using Beta builds because things-not-done tend to stick out like a sore thumb. But release date is approaching so rapidly that that's almost a moot point. Don't want to use the Beta build? Close our eyes, count to three, then use the release build!

As soon as this thing drops, I'll be doing an AAR.  Of course, it takes me a solid 2-3 weeks to get it played, recorded, edited et al.

My money is on Hapless being first out of the gate with a YouTube vid.

[Bil Hardenberger]

The Twenty-Fifth - Thirtieth Minutes - The Wheels Come Off

“Be the hunter not the hunted: never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down.”

James Mattis

 

My AH-1 has been flying overhead for several turns now, and as far as I know this BMP is its only kill.  But in its defense it was being chased by AA missiles for most of the time it hung around and did lose it's mate so I'm lucky it made even this kill.

 

After that the wheels started to come off....

...one of my M-150s exchanged ATGMs with one of Warren's BMPs...

...both missiles passed each other on flight... the M-150's hitting a tree... sigh...

...of course Warren's didn't miss.  Damn!

One of Warren's T-64Bs... (in fact one that had been beaten up, in what seems like another life now, by my 1st Platoon tanks) fired and destroyed one of my M-60s still sitting on the Short Route... damn.  That means 2nd Platoon has now lost three of four tanks. Triple damn.

 

Now with Tank Section 2 joining in on the fun I order all four 1st Platoon tanks back into the breach!

Tank 1/9 had it's career cut short when it exchanged rounds with a T-62... 1/9 fired first, however... it missed.. the T-62 did not.

Uh-oh... have I pushed too far?

 

Third Platoon's tanks have also started moving down the highway... 

[Erwin]

The vehicle sitting behind an indestructible tree is a great CM2 defense position.   

And am still concerned that the ATGM vehicles in CM2 may still not be able to get "hull-down" with only their optics and launchers exposed.  If the top of the vehicle is showing when hull-down, it's almost suicidal to use em.  (Am still hoping that CMCW has finally resolved that so that only the launcher and optics are visible when "hull-down".)

[The_Capt]

2 minutes ago, Erwin said:

The vehicle sitting behind an indestructible tree is a great CM2 defense position.   

And am still concerned that the ATGM vehicles in CM2 may still not be able to get "hull-down" with only their optics and launchers exposed.  If the top of the vehicle is showing when hull-down, it's almost suicidal to use em.  (Am still hoping that CMCW has finally resolved that so that only the launcher and optics are visible when "hull-down".)

Sorry, had to show this one (MikeyDs pic by the way),  ATGMs working just fine behind cover.

Oh, ya, game has concluded so now I can finally see Bil’s side and comment.  We will probably do the full debrief/post game here.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Yep, I have a couple more turns to post and then Warren and I will start the debrief.  I'll get to those tomorrow...in the meantime I'm going to go read Warren's thread and the peanut gallery.

Bil

[Rice]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

ATGMs working just fine behind cover.

How are the M901s dealt with? Does the TAC A.I. shoot the launcher itself?

[ratdeath]

This have been one of the best BETA AAR.

Thank you Bil Hardenberger & TheCapt.

 

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, Rice said:

How are the M901s dealt with? Does the TAC A.I. shoot the launcher itself?

Pretty much the same way as every other system in the CM franchise is the answer.  The player can manually target as per the UI but the TAC AI operates the system, same as tanks or anything for that matter.  Or did I misunderstand the question?

[The_MonkeyKing]

Maybe he means that the "target" command LoS calculation is made incorrectly not from the optics of the launcher but from somewhere closer to the eyes of the gunner. This causes the hull-down command to position the vehicles too "high" in the hulldown position. Also hard to judge manual hulldown if the "target" command gives "eye level" LoS and not the weapon system LoS.

I am not sure about this but I have read comments about "feature" in the past and getting these basterds to a good enough hulldown is in deed bloody hard.

[The_Capt]

19 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Maybe he means that the "target" command LoS calculation is made incorrectly not from the optics of the launcher but from somewhere closer to the eyes of the gunner. This causes the hull-down command to position the vehicles too "high" in the hulldown position. Also hard to judge manual hulldown if the "target" command gives "eye level" LoS and not the weapon system LoS.

I am not sure about this but I have read comments about "feature" in the past and getting these basterds to a good enough hulldown is in deed bloody hard.

Ah, the I would have to say LOS is from the launcher/weapon system.  Just tested it and the M901 can see and engage armor from behind a tall wall (just watched one take out an entire tank platoon with receiving a single shot in return).

[The_MonkeyKing]

8 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ah, the I would have to say LOS is from the launcher/weapon system.  Just tested it and the M901 can see and engage armor from behind a tall wall (just watched one take out an entire tank platoon with receiving a single shot in return).

Yes, I am sure in practice the LoS is calculated from the launcher/weapon system. This has always been like this as far as I can tell.

But is this the case when player uses the "target" command with its redline to judge the viability of the hulldown position at the end of a "move" command.

Edited March 29, 2021 by The_MonkeyKing

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Yes, I am sure in practice the LoS is calculated from the launcher/weapon system. This has always been like this as far as I can tell.

But is this the case when player uses the "target" command with its redline to judge the viability of the hulldown position at the end of a "move" command.

Ok, very specific but based on what I am seeing, yes.  I added a slope to my test and it would appear that LOS-forward is at the launcher...at least I think that is what you guys are talking about.  Of course I leave it up to you to test further once we get it out the door.

[Rinaldi]

12 hours ago, Erwin said:

And am still concerned that the ATGM vehicles in CM2 may still not be able to get "hull-down" with only their optics and launchers exposed.

Bro...do you actually play CM or? I'm asking this in good faith because you have me conflicted. 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Rinaldi

[purpheart23]

12 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

 I'll get to those tomorrow...in the meantime I'm going to go read Warren's thread and the peanut gallery.

 

Pack your waders and be careful in there. Lot of feces flying around.

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, very specific but based on what I am seeing, yes.  I added a slope to my test and it would appear that LOS-forward is at the launcher...at least I think that is what you guys are talking about.  Of course I leave it up to you to test further once we get it out the door.

Thanks, this cleared it up. There were old conversations about this way back when.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Rinaldi said:

Bro...do you actually play CM or? I'm asking this in good faith because you have me conflicted. 

 

Have probably played about 15,000 hours with all the playtesting I used to do.  Up to now, it was clear that ATGM vehicles with telescopic launchers or optics on top of the vehicle were very vulnerable as hulldown for them meant that the top of the vehicle was exposed and easy to hit.

If CMCW has addressed that issue, that is wonderful.  

[IICptMillerII]

11 hours ago, Rice said:

How are the M901s dealt with? Does the TAC A.I. shoot the launcher itself?

If only the launcher is exposed, and is spotted, then it will be shot at. And, if a sabot/HEAT/HESH/whatever round flies through the exposed launcher and hits it, it will be knocked out, without destroying the vehicle. 

19 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Have probably played about 15,000 hours with all the playtesting I used to do.

The screenshot you quoted is from Black Sea, not CMCW. So clearly this issue has been addressed in other titles to some extent. 

19 minutes ago, Erwin said:

vehicles with telescopic launchers or optics on top of the vehicle were very vulnerable as hulldown for them meant that the top of the vehicle was exposed and easy to hit.

So, the vehicle designed to only expose the unmanned launcher is the only part of the vehicle that is vulnerable, when exposed. Sounds like it is working as designed to me. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by IICptMillerII

[Erwin]

Well, I know that the problem has not been addressed in CMSF2 as was playing a mission with ATGM vehicle launchers recently.  

I have CMSF2 v2.04, Engine 4.  Has there been an update that may have addressed the ATGM vehicies issue?

Edited March 29, 2021 by Erwin

[Sakai007]

I think this will be the first BF title I have pre-ordered. You fine folks sold me, this will be my go to CM for a good long while I think, finally give CMBS a bit of a rest.

[akd]

Drawing on memory here, but IIRC units have a limited number of spotting heights that can be assigned to them, possibly only 3 or 4.  So the actual height that LOS is checked from does not necessarily correspond exactly to the sensor height.  This illustration is purely conceptual and does not necessarily correspond exactly to the available spotting heights in game:

The M901 is a pretty simple case where the change from height to 2 to height 3 for spotting works out perfectly.  Something like the 9P149 Shturm is obviously much more difficult, and if err is necessary, it is better to err on the side of too low than too high, as the opposite problem (vehicles able to spot with zero exposure) is much worse.

Edited March 29, 2021 by akd

[Erwin]

If that is the way it now works, that is wonderful.  My experience with using TOW Humvees and other ATGM vehicles (eg ATGM Strykers) in CMSF2 is that the top of the vehicle itself has to be exposed to fire, and that means it can get KIA easily.  The tactic that works in that case, is to only expose the ATGM vehicle for maybe 10-15 seconds before reversing it behind a slope. 

With some ATGM vehicles they may actually reverse into cover as soon as they see an enemy that can kill them.

Also, firing at 2Km+ range helps a lot.

[MikeyD]

The concept of hull-down has gained mythic status but at the end of the day you're still exposed. I recall playing with a hull-down M150 TOW vehicle. A sabot round sailed over the vehicle and launcher but, judging by the tracer trajectory and the '+' casualty icon, it took the gunner's head clean off. See attached. this is a common sight playing with M60A2.

[akd]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

If that is the way it now works, that is wonderful.  My experience with using TOW Humvees and other ATGM vehicles (eg ATGM Strykers) in CMSF2 is that the top of the vehicle itself has to be exposed to fire, and that means it can get KIA easily.  The tactic that works in that case, is to only expose the ATGM vehicle for maybe 10-15 seconds before reversing it behind a slope. 

With some ATGM vehicles they may actually reverse into cover as soon as they see an enemy that can kill them.

Also, firing at 2Km+ range helps a lot.

 

1 hour ago, akd said:

if err is necessary, it is better to err on the side of too low than too high, as the opposite problem (vehicles able to spot with zero exposure) is much worse.

 

[domfluff]

The LOS tool (as in, the Target line, as well as the Hull Down command) uses a pre-calculated grid of different heights, which is generated when the map is created.

This is one of the reasons why this is so fast - even in early versions of CMSF, where the game was not as well optimised as it now is, and hardware was generally weaker to boot, the Target tool never lagged out the game, because all it is doing is referred to a lookup table.

This is firmly distinct from the actual unit line of sight, which is traced from the eyeballs and is calculated when they need to actually fire. This is why you can have a situation where the target line is solid blue, but the tank still can't fire, because the gunner's view is blocked by terrain or whatever.

As to their vulnerability - clearly there's survivorship bias here. If they're exposing only part of themselves, that's the part that's going to get hit (because nothing else can). So... yes, they'll be vulnerable, especially in the modern titles, where being Hull Down in general means a lot less.

One thing that's going to be very interesting about Cold War is where it falls on that spectrum - how much it feels like late-war WW2, versus how much it feels like CMSF.