So you just got your hands on CMCW...now what? Designers Q&A thread.

[Redwolf]

28 minutes ago, Armorgunner said:

Whats the differance between T-72A, and T-72A (1980)?

Self-defense smoke launchers.

[Armorgunner]

13 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Self-defense smoke launchers.

Thanks mait

[Vanir Ausf B]

8 hours ago, Armorgunner said:

Whats the differance between T-72A, and T-72A (1980)?

 

8 hours ago, Redwolf said:

Self-defense smoke launchers.

It also has different HEAT ammunition (APFSDS is the same).

T-72A: 3BK14M

T-72A (1980): 3BK18

[Armorgunner]

On 12/10/2021 at 11:09 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

 

It also has different HEAT ammunition (APFSDS is the same).

T-72A: 3BK14M

T-72A (1980): 3BK18

Ok thx

[IICptMillerII]

On 12/10/2021 at 5:09 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

 

It also has different HEAT ammunition (APFSDS is the same).

T-72A: 3BK14M

T-72A (1980): 3BK18

@Armorgunner It is also equipped with BM22 APFSDS rounds, which punch significantly harder than the BM15 APFSDS rounds the T-72A is equipped with. It is a significant upgrade that makes it competitive against Abrams. 

[AlexUK]

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

@Armorgunner It is also equipped with BM22 APFSDS rounds, which punch significantly harder than the BM15 APFSDS rounds the T-72A is equipped with. It is a significant upgrade that makes it competitive against Abrams. 

There are lots of refererences to improved ammo making a diferference in this game. Would someone bve able to give an example of why changes in ammo make such a big difference if shell and powder (if those are the terms) are presumably same volume. 

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, AlexUK said:

There are lots of refererences to improved ammo making a diferference in this game. Would someone bve able to give an example of why changes in ammo make such a big difference if shell and powder (if those are the terms) are presumably same volume. 

Density of the round (tungsten vs DU) and not all propellant or HE is created equal.

[The_Capt]

Also circumference of the penetrator.  APDS are basically big bullets, APFSDS are big darts.  Same gun volume, very different effect

[IICptMillerII]

Warren nailed it on the head. 
 

We should put in bold in the manual something to the effect of “Ammo > gun size”

[Vanir Ausf B]

3 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

@Armorgunner It is also equipped with BM22 APFSDS rounds, which punch significantly harder than the BM15 APFSDS rounds the T-72A is equipped with. It is a significant upgrade that makes it competitive against Abrams. 

You're right, thanks for the correction. I forgot the T-72A was changed to BM15 in the first patch.

[Redwolf]

25 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

You're right, thanks for the correction. I forgot the T-72A was changed to BM15 in the first patch.

Any chance that us mortals (not beta testers) could learn about which ammo which vehicle fires?

Maybe a tooltip hovering over the ammo screen?

[domfluff]

18 minutes ago, Redwolf said:

Any chance that us mortals (not beta testers) could learn about which ammo which vehicle fires?

Maybe a tooltip hovering over the ammo screen?

Yeah. A lot of them are in the manual (and some are in the patch notes), but it would be great if this was more explicit than it is.

[Redwolf]

7 minutes ago, domfluff said:

Yeah. A lot of them are in the manual (and some are in the patch notes), but it would be great if this was more explicit than it is.

Yeah. In general I think BFC might be overdoing it with the unit value secrecy right now. For armor thickness we get a very terse summary, for weapon penetration and blast we get nothing at all.

Any display that looks just a bit different between two similar units that had ammo upgraded would help a lot already.

[Vanir Ausf B]

7 hours ago, Redwolf said:

Any chance that us mortals (not beta testers) could learn about which ammo which vehicle fires?

Maybe a tooltip hovering over the ammo screen?

Very well, mortal. But no tooltips, sadly.

To the best of my knowledge:

US

• M48A5: M392 APDS, M456A1 HEAT
• M60A1: M728 APDS, M456A1 HEAT through 1980, then M456A2 starting in 1981
• M60A1 (RISE): same as M60A1
• M60A1 (RISE+): M735 APFSDS, M456A1 HEAT through 1980, then M456A2 starting in 1981
• M60A1 (RISE Passive): same as M60A1 (RISE+)
• M60A3: M774 APFSDS, M456A1 HEAT through 1980, then M456A2 starting in 1981
• M60A3 (TTS): same as M60A3
• M1 Abrams: M774 APFSDS, M456A2 HEAT
• M2 and M3 Bradley: 25mm M791 APDS

USSR

• PT-76: BR354N APCR, BK354M HEAT
• T-55: BM8 APDS, BK17M HEAT
• T-55A: BM25 APFSDS, BK17M HEAT
• T-62 (1972): BM21 APFSDS, BK4M HEAT
• T-62 (1975): BM21 APFSDS, BK15M HEAT
• T-64A: BM12 APFSDS, BK14M HEAT
• T-64B: BM22 APFSDS, BK18M HEAT*
• T-64B1: same as T-64B
• T-72: BM12 APFSDS, BK14 HEAT
• T-72A: BM15 APFSDS, BK14M HEAT
• T-72A (1980): BM22 APFSDS, BK18 HEAT
• T-80 (all types): BM22 APFSDS, BK18M HEAT

*Possibly BM15 in 1979 only.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Vanir Ausf B

[Redwolf]

Thanks!

[IICptMillerII]

22 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

• T-64B: BM15 APFSDS, BK18M HEAT
• T-64B1: same as T-64B

This is actually a typo in the manual. The T-64B and B1 are firing BM22, just like T-72A (1980) and T-80B.

[Vanir Ausf B]

18 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

This is actually a typo in the manual. The T-64B and B1 are firing BM22, just like T-72A (1980) and T-80B.

Good catch. I'll edit. Although I did not take any of the data from the manual. It all came from the big ammo thread in the beta forum. I simply missed that post from Chris.

Something odd though... the QB price for T-64B and T-64B1 goes up by 6 points in 1980 compared to 1979. I don't know what would explain that other than an ammo change. I suspect they may have BM15 in 1979.

[Amedeo]

On 12/13/2021 at 2:41 AM, IICptMillerII said:

This is actually a typo in the manual. The T-64B and B1 are firing BM22, just like T-72A (1980) and T-80B.

Speaking of typos in the manual: did you (or some other of the beta testers/devs) say that also the T-64A in CMCW uses the BM15 (and not the BM12)? Or am I remembering it wrong? Thanks.

[Rinaldi]

While we cannot know if it lines up directly with CMCW you can find info on the ammo performance gathered in one place here: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/Ammunition_Data

[IICptMillerII]

5 hours ago, Amedeo said:

Speaking of typos in the manual: did you (or some other of the beta testers/devs) say that also the T-64A in CMCW uses the BM15 (and not the BM12)? Or am I remembering it wrong? Thanks.

Yup. Actually that highlights a typo I made in trying to correct a typo. 
 

T-64A is equipped with BM15

T-64B is equipped with BM22

(same with the B1 variants)

Edited December 16, 2021 by IICptMillerII

[Amedeo]

55 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

T-64B (1980) is equipped with BM22

Since there's no T-64B variant in game expressly labelled "1980", I presume you mean all T-64B tanks from 1980 onwards.

Thanks for the clarification.

[IICptMillerII]

16 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

Since there's no T-64B variant in game expressly labelled "1980", I presume you mean all T-64B tanks from 1980 onwards.

Thanks for the clarification.

Ack, you're right! man, what a typo on my part. My bad on that. You can see why the manual has a typo in it now!

I was thinking about the T-72A and T-72A (1980), which both carry different ammo. I corrected my previous post to reflect that.

[Stimo]

Hi, I'm back to CM after a long hiatus.

Is someone working on a public document listing the tables of organization and equipment, for example the number of rounds per artillery unit?

If someone has an idea of how to do it efficiently, I stand ready to help.

[Ridaz]

Started the NTC Campaign and chose the Spoiling Attack.

Received nonstop barrages at my preparation point and further copter attacks at the only reasonable hill to take on Objective 1 and 4.

Can the scenario creators answer why a tutorial scenario is so ruthless with the arty?

If someone has an AAR or video on playing the mission optimally that would help me a lot. So far I only found Hapness Hasty Attack scenario which does not have opening barrages.

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, Ridaz said:

Started the NTC Campaign and chose the Spoiling Attack.

Received nonstop barrages at my preparation point and further copter attacks at the only reasonable hill to take on Objective 1 and 4.

Can the scenario creators answer why a tutorial scenario is so ruthless with the arty?

If someone has an AAR or video on playing the mission optimally that would help me a lot. So far I only found Hapness Hasty Attack scenario which does not have opening barrages.

@Bil Hardenberger did up the NTC Campaign with the help of @George MC.  For CMCW we made a deliberate decision to stick closely to the doctrine of the period for both sides.  We did do tweaking for play balance but on the whole the aim was to give each side the forces they would have had back in 79-82.  

The short answer to your question is most likely: because that is what the Soviets would have had the capability, doctrine/training and intent to do within that scenario.  Bil H was at NTC back in those days so I will let him fill in the details.