Bufo Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 11 minutes ago, Bufo said: They already stated that cover arcs do not change spotting in any way except it makes the unit face in a certain direction. In other words if you give a facing order you achieve the same thing. I think I misunderstood a previous statement and there is a spotting bonus inside the colored zone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holoween Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 2 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said: The problem here is that no answer will be good enough. The fact is, if someone thinks that CM is so fundamentally broken, then fine. Play Steel Beasts. End of discussion. Life is too short to throw temper tantrums, especially pointless ones. Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 I am playing Grieshof Meet and Greet right now, I even posted on a different forum on just how bad the T64 spotting is. They cant see targets within 3-700m of them. But they can recieve fire. its so time consuming to document this so I am probably going to whip out my phone to record some video. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 1 minute ago, holoween said: Its not fundamentally broken but the examples do show that there are certain situations where the CM simulation doesnt match up to what you would expect. I completely agree, and I know that you make your statements in good faith. Always a pleasure talking with you, whether it be CM nuance or other stuff in general. Its just too bad those conversations are increasingly hard to have on the forums. Ah well, you know where to reach me! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 (edited) A trick I discovered for infantry that seems to gain you extra spotting attempts is 'hunting on the spot' (ie: issue a Hunt order to the action spot the unit is already in).....This seemed to help with getting firm directly targetable contacts (as opposed to current tentative) in various jungly squabbles while testing 'H&E'. I have no idea whatsoever whether this provides any actual bonus, but it seemed to.....It may just be the units repositioning slightly within the action spot, allowing them to avoid obstructions. Edited October 16, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said: A trick I discovered for infantry that seems to gain you extra spotting attempts is 'hunting on the spot' (ie: issue a Hunt order to the action spot the unit is alredy in).....This seemed to help with getting firm directly targetable contacts (as opposed to current tentative) in various jungly squabbles while testing 'H&E'. I have no idea whatsoever whether this provides any actual bonus, but it seemed to.....It may just be the units repositioning slightly within the action spot, allowing them to avoid obstructions. Thats probably because they decided to stand up and stretch their legs for once in 500 turns. Infantry hate crouching! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 Did you ever try @puje's 'H&E' campaign 'Year of The Rat - 1972'? IMHO it's one of the finest small unit infantry campaigns ever created for CM (& I'm not just saying that because it's made on one of my maps). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsapp Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 4 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said: those conversations are increasingly hard to have on the forums. As Oscar Wilde said, "Arguments are to be avoided: they are always vulgar and often convincing". 6 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said: The problem here is that no answer will be good enough. Yeah, I also know that it can't be explained in proper way. 8 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said: The fact is, if someone thinks that CM is so fundamentally broken, then fine. Play Steel Beasts. I like CM, I Iike CMCW. I want them to develop and become better. I'm really puzzles why some people treat any suggestions or any bug-catching as an personal insult. I really don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, acting in good faith and hope for constructive discussion that will help to improve the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufo Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 (edited) 31 minutes ago, dbsapp said: Well, @Haplessdid Youtube video recently using Steel Beasts to show how hard is to spot things from AFV. This video was highly acclaimed and received good reviews, it was even used to show me that I don't understand how tank spotting works. But apparently now it is wrong to compare CM and Steel Beasts. I remember reading this but don't know where, can anybody point me to that thread? (where this YT video was linked) Edited October 16, 2021 by Bufo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 12 hours ago, dbsapp said: Steel Beasts is a tank simulator that is used in several countries to train military personnel. Combat Mission Cold War and Steal Beasts have a lot of things in common, so it would be interesting to compare how two games simulate combat. In order to do that and to make as precise experiment as possible I put t72A (m1) tank that is featured in both games against M60 TTS tank that is also present in both of them. To keep experiment clean I used default "flat map" and the same weather and time conditions - clean weather, the time is June the 1st, 12:00. In CMCW I had to use additional "formation" units of observers, but I put them behind tall walls, so they didn't interfere in the process. In CMCW skill level of both of the tanks was put on "regular". Steel Beasts doesn't have skill level feature. Under created conditions t-72A looks directly at M60's side. It is oriented from South to North, M60 - from West to East. The distance between them is 2 km. The conditions are the same in Steel Beasts and Combat Mission Cold War. That how it looks like in Steel Beasts: How it looks like in CMCW: What T72 gunner sees from his position from the very start: As you can easily notice, M60 is immediately and perfectly visible from gunners sight. The same with T72's Commander's sight: The results: In Steel Beasts t72's AI spotted M60 almost immediately, which is not surprising, taking into account that it has perfect view on the target. It took t72 about 2 seconds to spot the opponent and about 18 sec to hit and destroy it. In CMCW something opposite happened. I ran several tests and t72 couldn't spot m60 once. Its optics was not enough to spot the tanks directly ahead of it at the distance of 2 km during clean daylight. In fact, every time M60 spotted t72 first and killed it. It took about 2-3 rounds and from 1,5 min to 5 min to kill t72. t72 didn't see the opponent despite m60 was firing at him. How it ends in Steel Beasts: How it ends in CMCW: The CMCW test scenario is attached. You can make your own conclusions. T72VISION TEST.btt 32.37 kB · 6 downloads How did you do swapping the test around to see how the M-60's AI did in SB? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsapp Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 4 minutes ago, Bufo said: I remember reading this but don't know where, can anybody point me to that thread? (where this YT video was linked) 17 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said: Here is a great video from Hapless that does a great job of demonstrating one of many points when it comes to vehicle optics. Apparently now it's not great at all to compare CM to SB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsapp Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 1 minute ago, Combatintman said: How did you do swapping the test around to see how the M-60's AI did in SB? I didn't, but I'm absolutely positive that M60 will execute T72 in front of it very fast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 1 minute ago, dbsapp said: I'm really puzzles why some people treat any suggestions or any bug-catching as an personal insult. I really don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, acting in good faith and hope for constructive discussion that will help to improve the game. They don't it just seems that way.....A couple of years back I had the same arguments with some of the same people, what I didn't get then and you don't get now, is that this is old ground! Yes the syatem has it's quirks, no it isn't deliberately biased beyond what current technology levels suggest (although they were a bit optimistic about some of the technologies). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artkin Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 (edited) Personally the US feels how it should. But the t64's legit cant see anything in front of them. Ive had M60 (A1?) on grishof spot vehicles deep in forests but my tanks are unable to spot HUGE m60s in the open. I would love to send people my save file. My entire match has been ****ed. Ive had better performance from t34/85. My post on the fgm with a few screenshots.. That was just 1/3 of the very odd spotting. https://thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/potential-issue-with-cmcw.33112/page-2 Edited October 16, 2021 by Artkin 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmoney Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 @dbsapp did you try the CM test with a cover arc on the t-72? I wonder if that would help. I get what Capt is saying, the game isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose. Maybe the cover arc will be different result. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsapp Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 Just now, zmoney said: @dbsapp did you try the CM test with a cover arc on the t-72? I wonder if that would help. I get what Capt is saying, the game isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose. Maybe the cover arc will be different result. No, I didn't. I guess different approaches could be used, including leveling up t72 from Regular to Veteran. But basically it doesn't matter when the system has that serious flaws. Does anybody really enjoy a wargame that " isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holoween Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, dbsapp said: No, I didn't. I guess different approaches could be used, including leveling up t72 from Regular to Veteran. But basically it doesn't matter when the system has that serious flaws. Does anybody really enjoy a wargame that " isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose"? The game does simulate the tank scanning because thats what they would do and animating the turrets rather than abstracting it is simply beyond the scope. Edited October 16, 2021 by holoween 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsapp Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 1 minute ago, holoween said: The game does simulate the tank scanning because thats what they would do and animating the turrets rather than abstracting it is simply beyond the scope. Probably it does. But we don't know how. Apparently it produces very strange results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zmoney Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 Just now, dbsapp said: Does anybody really enjoy a wargame that " isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose"? Well use the cover arc and see. I understand what you are conveying and agree it should see right away. But it’s hard to explain what I’m trying to say. I believe the code is such that the game isn’t expecting to be on the range. It thinks it’s constantly in combat and scanning for close threats first working it’s way out. Just a guess and maybe not expressing myself correctly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufo Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, holoween said: animating the turrets rather than abstracting it is simply beyond the scope. Why would be this outside the scope? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsapp Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 Just now, zmoney said: Well use the cover arc and see. I understand what you are conveying and agree it should see right away. But it’s hard to explain what I’m trying to say. I believe the code is such that the game isn’t expecting to be on the range. It thinks it’s constantly in combat and scanning for close threats first working it’s way out. Just a guess and maybe not expressing myself correctly. I think I understand what you are trying to say. But it doesn't feel right as whole. When I'm playing the game I'm constantly stumble upon the cases when my tanks don't see something that is very apparent. That feeling of discontent made me to make this test. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 (edited) I'm currently testing this (T-72 'Ural' vs M60A1 at 2km).....It is quite possibly the most boring thing I've ever done! They are both utterly bloody myopic! In my current run the M60 spotted the T-72 first, fired a couple of rounds, then lost the target in its own muzzle blast, it hasn't fired again since. The T-72 seems to have noticed the big cloud of dust on the horizon and apparently suspects there is a tank behind it (tentative contact).....Cunning these Russian lads! Edited October 16, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufo Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 19 minutes ago, dbsapp said: Apparently now it's not great at all to compare CM to SB Yeah just as I thought so, the first to bring up SB as evidence would be also the first to dismiss it if it suited him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbsapp Posted October 16, 2021 Author Share Posted October 16, 2021 Just now, Sgt.Squarehead said: I'm currently testing this (T-72 'Ural' vs M60A1 at 2km).....It is quite possibly the most boring thing I've ever done! They are both utterly bloody myopic! In my current run the M60 spotteed the T-72 first, fired a couple of rounds, then lost the target in its own muzzle blast, it hasn't fired again since. The T-72 seems to have noticed the big cloud of dust on the horizon and apparently suspects there is a tank behind it (tentative contact).....Cunning these Russian lads! Watching paint dry! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted October 16, 2021 Share Posted October 16, 2021 19 minutes ago, dbsapp said: I didn't, but I'm absolutely positive that M60 will execute T72 in front of it very fast. So you don't know ... someone 'guaranteed' something on another thread today that proved to be untrue when they tested it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.