Frustration with CMCW - Russian side

[S-Tank]

Against high-end US vehicles the Soviets suffer from a noticeable quality gap, but the earlier American stuff is another story. I certainly didn’t feel like I had any kind of technological disadvantages as the Soviets playing Mittelaschenbach for example, rather the opposite actually.

[Butschi]

4 hours ago, Sarjen said:

I think about the scenarios for Single Players as a game, where the player should have fun.

Sure, we are spending our free time on a game and so it should be fun, nothing wrong with that. But the definition of fun is very subjective. For me, the fun in playing this game is to explore what difficulties a commander would have faced in such a conflict (and try to overcome them), not necessarily just winning. So, if you are after a more balanced game, where you can just as easily win with both side, maybe games like WARNO are more your thing? (And that wasn't meant in any negative way, I do enjoy WARNO and games like these, too, they just scratch a different itch.)

[Artkin]

31 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Sure, we are spending our free time on a game and so it should be fun, nothing wrong with that. But the definition of fun is very subjective. For me, the fun in playing this game is to explore what difficulties a commander would have faced in such a conflict (and try to overcome them), not necessarily just winning. So, if you are after a more balanced game, where you can just as easily win with both side, maybe games like WARNO are more your thing? (And that wasn't meant in any negative way, I do enjoy WARNO and games like these, too, they just scratch a different itch.)

Sounds like the type of person that area targets every single icon they see on the map even with vehicles kilometers away facing the wrong direction. 

Unfortunately these types of players are everywhere. 

[Sarjen]

51 minutes ago, Butschi said:

Sure, we are spending our free time on a game and so it should be fun, nothing wrong with that. But the definition of fun is very subjective. For me, the fun in playing this game is to explore what difficulties a commander would have faced in such a conflict (and try to overcome them), not necessarily just winning. So, if you are after a more balanced game, where you can just as easily win with both side, maybe games like WARNO are more your thing? (And that wasn't meant in any negative way, I do enjoy WARNO and games like these, too, they just scratch a different itch.)

Well I am playing the Combat Mission line for more than 20 years and I sure like this game in all its facets. RTS like WARNO or Regiments and the like are not my favorites. 

[Sarjen]

6 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

It's also night-time isn't it? Bradleys have thermal optics, while the T-80s don't, they have IR lamps which only provide visibility out to something like 100m. And I'm not even sure if they're used.

Edit: yeah it's 4.30AM, so visibility would be very low for non-thermal optics.

Just some info regarding the IR capabilities of the T-80s: the early T-80s uses the TPN-3 which is equipped with a much more sensitive infrared image converter assembly than its predecessor. The passive range of the early versions is between 500 and 800m. With the support of the modernized infrared headlight L4A, which had received a more luminous lamp, the visibility in active operation increased to about 1200 m. Still worse than the western technology but still more than 20m as in my video example. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Sarjen

[Grey_Fox]

17 minutes ago, Sarjen said:

Just some info regarding the IR capabilities of the T-80s: the early T-80s uses the TPN-3 which is equipped with a much more sensitive infrared image converter assembly than its predecessor. The passive range of the early versions is between 500 and 800m. With the support of the modernized infrared headlight L4A, which had received a more luminous lamp, the visibility in active operation increased to about 1200 m. Still worse than the western technology but still more than 20m as in my video example. 

I don't believe the IR optics are like thermals in that they don't see heat signatures. The smoke may well be obscuring the ability of the T80 crew to see the US armour.

Edited May 10, 2023 by Grey_Fox

[domfluff]

The TPN-3 is not a thermal optic. It does have passive night vision out to a decent range, which a lot of the earlier models lacked, but it's not comparable to a thermal optic.

Direct comparisons of those are always a bit deceptive - in the below case, this is looking at something a tiny number of metres away, which isn't really indicative of any kind of real situation, but it gives you an idea of how much of an advantage a modern optic gives you:

https://packaged-media.redd.it/lqjq2oe3zzu81/pb/m2-res_720p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1683761911&s=fce3986b5d013acede59eb3727f2b360cced2c80#t=0

(Ukranian T-64 with thermal sight, compared to the regular one).

The thermals in CMCW aren't going to be of the same resolution to pick out details, but they'll certainly be similar in terms of contrast, and finding hot tanks against a cold background.

 

Of course, none of this minutia is actually the point of this post. The Soviet tanks do indeed have worst situational awareness than the US ones in CMCW. They also have significantly better fire control systems, a much scarier armament, and superior protection. They are in most respects superior to the US tanks, until the generational change that happens with Abrams and Bradley (and to a lesser extent, the M60A3 TTS). This naturally leaps ahead of the Soviet designs, and this was late enough such that it wasn't something the Soviet Union ever really caught up with.

I've mentioned before that I think the best way to approach CMCW is about 1980 or so, and with Strict rarity, if you're playing a QB. The more thermals you add, the more the game looks like Shock Force.

Edited May 10, 2023 by domfluff

[Artkin]

On 4/10/2023 at 9:04 AM, Andrew Kulin said:

Not sure what you mean by this, I presume adding 20 year newer spotting tech to a 1940s era tank improved its ability to spot.  Which would come back to something I brought up in an earlier reply of mine.  1944 buttoned T34 tanks spotting King Tigers out in the open daylight in a couple of minutes at 1500 m ranges.  1982 buttoned/unbuttoned T72s unable to spot similar sized tanks out in the open at ranges <= 1500 m.  That seems broken to me. 

Both examples from CM2 series games, with same game engine.

Yep once I picked up CMCW I noted how t-34/85s spot better than the cold war tanks. 

I even went bezerk complaining about the ridiculous spotting. 

[Simcoe]

4 hours ago, domfluff said:

The TPN-3 is not a thermal optic. It does have passive night vision out to a decent range, which a lot of the earlier models lacked, but it's not comparable to a thermal optic.

Direct comparisons of those are always a bit deceptive - in the below case, this is looking at something a tiny number of metres away, which isn't really indicative of any kind of real situation, but it gives you an idea of how much of an advantage a modern optic gives you:

https://packaged-media.redd.it/lqjq2oe3zzu81/pb/m2-res_720p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1683761911&s=fce3986b5d013acede59eb3727f2b360cced2c80#t=0

(Ukranian T-64 with thermal sight, compared to the regular one).

The thermals in CMCW aren't going to be of the same resolution to pick out details, but they'll certainly be similar in terms of contrast, and finding hot tanks against a cold background.

 

Of course, none of this minutia is actually the point of this post. The Soviet tanks do indeed have worst situational awareness than the US ones in CMCW. They also have significantly better fire control systems, a much scarier armament, and superior protection. They are in most respects superior to the US tanks, until the generational change that happens with Abrams and Bradley (and to a lesser extent, the M60A3 TTS). This naturally leaps ahead of the Soviet designs, and this was late enough such that it wasn't something the Soviet Union ever really caught up with.

I've mentioned before that I think the best way to approach CMCW is about 1980 or so, and with Strict rarity, if you're playing a QB. The more thermals you add, the more the game looks like Shock Force.

Totally agree. M60 A1's/M-150's/M-1113's vs T-62's/BMP1's/BTR-60's is one of the most even match ups in the series while playing radically differently.

[Sarjen]

9 hours ago, domfluff said:

Of course, none of this minutia is actually the point of this post. The Soviet tanks do indeed have worst situational awareness than the US ones in CMCW. They also have significantly better fire control systems, a much scarier armament, and superior protection. They are in most respects superior to the US tanks, until the generational change that happens with Abrams and Bradley (and to a lesser extent, the M60A3 TTS). This naturally leaps ahead of the Soviet designs, and this was late enough such that it wasn't something the Soviet Union ever really caught up with.

Exactly this. Thanks domfluff for getting the point through.

[Grey_Fox]

10 hours ago, Artkin said:

Yep once I picked up CMCW I noted how t-34/85s spot better than the cold war tanks. 

I even went bezerk complaining about the ridiculous spotting. 

T34/85 has a crew of 5, T-72 has a crew of 3, and the technology difference in optics probably wouldn't have been that different. 

CMCW for many cases is modern weapons (ATGMs, etcs) with WW2-era optics (mk.1 eyeball and binoculars).

Edited May 11, 2023 by Grey_Fox

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

T34/85 has a crew of 5, T-72 has a crew of 3, and the technology difference in optics probably wouldn't have been that different. 

CMCW for many cases is modern weapons (ATGMs, etcs) with WW2-era optics (mk.1 eyeball and binoculars).

Wartime production T-34s having similar optics to a T-72 made in peacetime 39 years later? 

Nah. 

Also think hard - who are the additional two crew members? Lmfao they dont have optics do they?

Edited May 11, 2023 by Artkin

[chuckdyke]

T34/76 had a more reliable method. Open the breach look down the barrel and fire at an enemy tank you see through the barrel. You can't use this commonsense method with an autoloader. It makes perfect sense.

[Grey_Fox]

2 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Wartime production T-34s having similar optics to a T-72 made in peacetime 39 years later? 

Nah. 

Also think hard - who are the additional two crew members? Lmfao they dont have optics do they?

T34/85 had a bow gunner and believe it or not the bow gunner has a pair of eyes that they can see out of. So that's 4 people looking out of a tank, versus 3 in a T-72.

Neither the t-34 nor the t-72 had thermal viewers or CITV, so yeah they're still limited to eyeballs and binoculars.

[Andrew Kulin]

Please explain then how an unbuttoned T72 Tank commander can't see anything in front of him in broad daylight.  While buttoned up T34's can.

Sorry folks, but if I can see farm equipment moving about in fields while I am driving on the highway (you guys can do that too, no?), then surely a tank commander, laying in wait, in an unbuttoned tank, should be able to spot large moving vehicles in open fields on a sunny day?  That is part of the issue I originally raised, and perhaps the most frustrating part.

[Artkin]

35 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

T34/85 had a bow gunner and believe it or not the bow gunner has a pair of eyes that they can see out of. So that's 4 people looking out of a tank, versus 3 in a T-72.

Neither the t-34 nor the t-72 had thermal viewers or CITV, so yeah they're still limited to eyeballs and binoculars.

I don't believe it. I always thought the bow gunner blind fired without regard. 

Jokes aside I meant 25-39 years. 39 is too long. 

And that peep hole is so small it's not worth mentioning. Also its so low to the ground that itd be useless spotting long distances even if it had decent optics. 

[Artkin]

12 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Totally agree. M60 A1's/M-150's/M-1113's vs T-62's/BMP1's/BTR-60's is one of the most even match ups in the series while playing radically differently.

Give me M-150s and I'll kill every soviet vehicle on the map. 

[Pelican Pal]

5 hours ago, Andrew Kulin said:

Snip....

Your complaints are valid but you are playing a game that is fundamentally 15 years old or so. The systems work well enough for its age but there are definite holes and frustrations that come with that. What I can tell is that for the current games no spotting improvements are ever going to happen so what you have right now is what we are all stuck with.

[Simcoe]

Double post.

Edited May 12, 2023 by Simcoe

[Simcoe]

9 hours ago, Artkin said:

Give me M-150s and I'll kill every soviet vehicle on the map. 

As long as you have sight lines longer than 2km. Any less and I find T-62’s can kill them before the missiles hit.

[Artkin]

29 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

As long as you have sight lines longer than 2km. Any less and I find T-62’s can kill them before the missiles hit.

I find the M-150s nearly untouchable if you're able to appropriately hull down. They have a smaller hitbox than the M901's (Despite the M901's model being flawed: Soviet ATGM flew right threw the screw mechanism like it wasn't even there)

[IdontknowhowtodoX]

On 5/11/2023 at 9:44 PM, Andrew Kulin said:

Please explain then how an unbuttoned T72 Tank commander can't see anything in front of him in broad daylight.  While buttoned up T34's can.

Sorry folks, but if I can see farm equipment moving about in fields while I am driving on the highway (you guys can do that too, no?), then surely a tank commander, laying in wait, in an unbuttoned tank, should be able to spot large moving vehicles in open fields on a sunny day?  That is part of the issue I originally raised, and perhaps the most frustrating part.

Well this is actually the RNG at work. CM's AI sometimes displays astonishing stupidity and incompetence and High Myopia. You can think of it as the AI is wandering off or not looking in that direction. It's normal. Just get used to it.

Unless you can prove that in 1,000 encounters unbuttoned T72 commander can't see anything but buttoned up T34 can. If it happens something must go wrong.

[IdontknowhowtodoX]

I understand OP, as I used to have this problem too. But since I gave up micromanagement I've solved that problem. Also I found the charisma of Soviet. In my personal experience, Soviet tanks were perfectly fine, if not overwhelmingly superior, in tank battles within 800 metres. NATO spotting magic only beats the Soviet at a distance. Once the Soviet tanks got close(within 1000 metres), the m60's pathetic gun and armour could not save them. 

Focusing on whether a particular tank can see enemy tanks is a form of micromanagement. For the Soviet player, micromanagement means nothing. You just need to get enough tanks moving in the general direction of the enemy position. Mass will solve the problem of blindness for you. 

And don't forget artillery bombard. Soviet can't live without battery.

[The_Capt]

On 5/11/2023 at 10:44 AM, Andrew Kulin said:

Please explain then how an unbuttoned T72 Tank commander can't see anything in front of him in broad daylight.  While buttoned up T34's can.

Sorry folks, but if I can see farm equipment moving about in fields while I am driving on the highway (you guys can do that too, no?), then surely a tank commander, laying in wait, in an unbuttoned tank, should be able to spot large moving vehicles in open fields on a sunny day?  That is part of the issue I originally raised, and perhaps the most frustrating part.

Well try this simple, easy and fun experiment.  Go get an old oil drum and cut some chunks out of it around the top.  Build some of those cardboard periscopes with two mirrors and mount them in the hole.  Make sure it is a very small barrel…pump some  fuel fumes into the barrel, also get it nice and hot in there.  Now stay up for 24 hours straight.  Now get into the barrel hire people with rifles to hide out in the woods to kill you.  Move your barrel around, trying to keep to low ground and not get killed.

Now stop in on place and cover a spot in a field.  You can see how you may be a bit distracted.  I once had a soldier completely check out because he was watching a tree breathe.  Trust is very possible in combat conditions for someone to completely miss something right in front of them.  We have got thousands of examples of Blue on Blue kills that were caused exactly by these same mechanisms.

[Artkin]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well try this simple, easy and fun experiment.  Go get an old oil drum and cut some chunks out of it around the top.  Build some of those cardboard periscopes with two mirrors and mount them in the hole.  Make sure it is a very small barrel…pump some  fuel fumes into the barrel, also get it nice and hot in there.  Now stay up for 24 hours straight.  Now get into the barrel hire people with rifles to hide out in the woods to kill you.  Move your barrel around, trying to keep to low ground and not get killed.

Now stop in on place and cover a spot in a field.  You can see how you may be a bit distracted.  I once had a soldier completely check out because he was watching a tree breathe.  Trust is very possible in combat conditions for someone to completely miss something right in front of them.  We have got thousands of examples of Blue on Blue kills that were caused exactly by these same mechanisms.

But we're making a comparison to other vehicles. So this post is sort of completely redundant.