A few questions....

[Bil H]

Okay, have only played a few games so far and learning the system, overall a cracker of a game. However I have a couple questions:

1. Is there a way to separate IFVs and their infantry? I would love to be able to place the IFVs in an overwatch position and move forward on foot with the dismounts. I cannot figure out how to do that simple maneuver.

2. More of a comment than a question... couple issues with the Soviet tank versus M1A1 model... the Soviets seem to spot way better than they could in reality, and they seem to have no problem knocking out M1s.. even M1s in position in higher terrain which should get a hull down modifier and be very hard to spot, and with the Soviet tanks moving... I suspect the Soviet optics need to be downgraded somewhat. Same thing for combat results... the four M1s in that position should annihilate the advancing Soviet tank Company with no loss. In fact I would be surprised if in reality the Soviet Company even gets a shot off. This occurred a couple times in my last game and the engagement was at 3km or so. It is possible it might be because of the size of the Soviet formation... a Company versus a Platoon may be getting an advantage in spotting and combat due to the numbers of tanks involved?

Before you say that my expectations need to be adjusted, I am no rookie and I do understand the equipment comparison involved and the real life expectations from such engagements.

I am sure it's probably just a simple database adjustment, not something inherently wrong with the game engine which seems to be very well designed (I can't find the armor defense values in the data files either (tank gun armor penetration is clear however).. but that's probably just me not understanding something in there).

Looking forward to your replies, Bil

[blond_knight_new]

Ive noticed similar issues with point #2. M1's in an ambush position inside a tree line get slaughtered by approaching T-72's. Admittedly the 72's outnumber the M1's by 4to1, and the terrain didnt give the M1's LOS until the Soviets were right on them.
Im not suggesting the M1 is invulnerable, and that M1 platoons should always escape 4to1 engagements with no losses, but dang they do seem to take a serious beating.

[byzantine1990]

Okay, have only played a few games so far and learning the system, overall a cracker of a game. However I have a couple questions:

1. Is there a way to separate IFVs and their infantry? I would love to be able to place the IFVs in an overwatch position and move forward on foot with the dismounts. I cannot figure out how to do that simple maneuver.

2. More of a comment than a question... couple issues with the Soviet tank versus M1A1 model... the Soviets seem to spot way better than they could in reality, and they seem to have no problem knocking out M1s.. even M1s in position in higher terrain which should get a hull down modifier and be very hard to spot, and with the Soviet tanks moving... I suspect the Soviet optics need to be downgraded somewhat. Same thing for combat results... the four M1s in that position should annihilate the advancing Soviet tank Company with no loss. In fact I would be surprised if in reality the Soviet Company even gets a shot off. This occurred a couple times in my last game and the engagement was at 3km or so. It is possible it might be because of the size of the Soviet formation... a Company versus a Platoon may be getting an advantage in spotting and combat due to the numbers of tanks involved?

Before you say that my expectations need to be adjusted, I am no rookie and I do understand the equipment comparison involved and the real life expectations from such engagements.

I am sure it's probably just a simple database adjustment, not something inherently wrong with the game engine which seems to be very well designed (I can't find the armor defense values in the data files either (tank gun armor penetration is clear however).. but that's probably just me not understanding something in there).

Looking forward to your replies, Bil

Pretty cool to see you in this forum. To the people who don't know, Bil is a legend in the Combat Mission forums and produced the Cold War module for Combat Mission.

#1 No, the IFV's are always treated as a single unit.

#2 I agree, the Soviets are a bit overtuned. I think all we can do is keep harping about it until something changes.

[Bil H]

Pretty cool to see you in this forum. To the people who don't know, Bil is a legend in the Combat Mission forums and produced the Cold War module for Combat Mission.

#1 No, the IFV's are always treated as a single unit.

#2 I agree, the Soviets are a bit overtuned. I think all we can do is keep harping about it until something changes.

Thanks byzantine1990...

Re: #1.. that's really problematic. Especially if this is being targeted to the professional audience. Leaving aside the splitting of the IFVs and Infantry (which really must be represented)... basically if I am a professional user and I have created a force that does not have enough organic transport for mobility and it needs to shuttle units forward in stages, I could not represent that in this engine. Its a serious oversight.

Re #2.. I would need more detail on what's going on under the hood, but this might be able to be fixed with a simple data edit, or related to the large size of the Soviet units, which would also be an easy fix. My fear is that there might be a fundamental engine issue that would obviously not be so easy to fix.

Bil

[CapnDarwin]

Bil, I'll try to answer some of the questions, and the team members can also jump in.

#1 - With a 500m hex, we decided to have the transports and the passengers as a single unit with the option via SOP to have the transports fall back and hide or support the troops. We ensure the unit has enough organic life to move its troops. If the unit falls short of transports due to losses, then the unit drops to leg movement. Splitting units into smaller units or splitting passengers from transports becomes a more difficult exercise and leads to gamey use of transports and troop in many cases. That said, the team is looking at some Ad-Hoc transport models for the Pro side that may find their way into the commercial game down the road if things work out. One major hurdle we need to clear basically with all features is the AI's ability to use them in an intelligent manner. This point gates many good ideas as we do not want the AI to have artificial barriers the player doesn't.

#2 - I'm not sure any side is overturned. That is too subjective of a point. The game engine uses the data as we have it laid out. We are always looking to eliminate odd corner cases and introduce more refined models for all aspects of spotting and combat. Is it perfect? Nope. We will keep taking feedback and testing to get it as good as possible. Definitely.

[Bil H]

Bil, I'll try to answer some of the questions, and the team members can also jump in.

#1 - With a 500m hex, we decided to have the transports and the passengers as a single unit with the option via SOP to have the transports fall back and hide or support the troops. We ensure the unit has enough organic life to move its troops. If the unit falls short of transports due to losses, then the unit drops to leg movement. Splitting units into smaller units or splitting passengers from transports becomes a more difficult exercise and leads to gamey use of transports and troop in many cases. That said, the team is looking at some Ad-Hoc transport models for the Pro side that may find their way into the commercial game down the road if things work out. One major hurdle we need to clear basically with all features is the AI's ability to use them in an intelligent manner. This point gates many good ideas as we do not want the AI to have artificial barriers the player doesn't.

#2 - I'm not sure any side is overturned. That is too subjective of a point. The game engine uses the data as we have it laid out. We are always looking to eliminate odd corner cases and introduce more refined models for all aspects of spotting and combat. Is it perfect? Nope. We will keep taking feedback and testing to get it as good as possible. Definitely.

Jim, thanks for the reply. We will talk off line about some of this stuff, interested in what gamey passenger or transport behavior is from your point of view. Definitely interested in the solutions you are looking at for the pro side. It is definitely an important mechanic though, especially when you start looking at truck borne infantry, or infantry being transported by attached transport. Also there is terrain where you probably would not want your transports, but infantry could operate just fine.

#2 is also something I need to experiment with, but right now there seems to be a mismatch with spotting and specific tank ability. Let me get some hard facts together and again will contact you off-line to discuss in detail.

Bil

[CapnDarwin]

Bil,

Once Rob is back from his vacation, we should see about getting a call with you and maybe some of your team to talk through things, especially the Pro side elements we can't get into in this forum.

[IronMikeGolf]

Bil,

This post is about spotting and direct fire engagements.

It is very helpful to us to have a game save so we can step through and examine intermediate calculations to spot a breakdown somewhere. I'd expect at least what scenario the engagement (it is from one scenario, I assume) is from so I'd have a clue as to what Sov tank is involved and what ammo types are available. At lot more pertinent data is missing that would enable be to even estimate this is a problem vs working as designed. I'll explain below.

There are two broad levels of spotting: Unit to Unit and Subunit to Subunit. An enemy unit painted on the map means only that at least one friendly unit has spotted that enemy unit. It does not a particular friendly unit has spotted the enemy unit in question and the provided situational data provides no clue. Unit level spotting does not mean an enemy unit is engageable either. That was the case in Red Storm, but it is not the case in Southern Storm. However, it is the gateway to initiating a direct fire engagement. Any given unit cannot engage an enemy unit that the friendly itself has not spotted. More on that later.

"What does Screen mean?" Here, I am talking the Order, not the security mission. The relevance in direct fire shoots is the Screen movement state is the baseline for buff/debuff on Subunit spotting. A unit in Screen has no buff/debuff for movement either as a shooter or as a target. Relative rankings for target Subunit spotting are:
1. Shooter movement state (highest buff to lowest debuff): Hold, Screen, Deliberate, Assault, Hasty
2. Target movement state: (highest debuff to lowest debuff): Hold, Screen, Deliberate, Assault, Hasty

Another issue to examine is PSS (periscope sight systems). Unfortunately, there is insufficient dat to explore whether this is applicable.

[Bil H]

Bil,

Once Rob is back from his vacation, we should see about getting a call with you and maybe some of your team to talk through things, especially the Pro side elements we can't get into in this forum.

Of course.. and I'll be out of the country until next week too, so we'll be in touch.

Bil,

This post is about spotting and direct fire engagements.

It is very helpful to us to have a game save so we can step through and examine intermediate calculations to spot a breakdown somewhere. I'd expect at least what scenario the engagement (it is from one scenario, I assume) is from so I'd have a clue as to what Sov tank is involved and what ammo types are available. At lot more pertinent data is missing that would enable be to even estimate this is a problem vs working as designed. I'll explain below.

There are two broad levels of spotting: Unit to Unit and Subunit to Subunit. An enemy unit painted on the map means only that at least one friendly unit has spotted that enemy unit. It does not a particular friendly unit has spotted the enemy unit in question and the provided situational data provides no clue. Unit level spotting does not mean an enemy unit is engageable either. That was the case in Red Storm, but it is not the case in Southern Storm. However, it is the gateway to initiating a direct fire engagement. Any given unit cannot engage an enemy unit that the friendly itself has not spotted. More on that later.

"What does Screen mean?" Here, I am talking the Order, not the security mission. The relevance in direct fire shoots is the Screen movement state is the baseline for buff/debuff on Subunit spotting. A unit in Screen has no buff/debuff for movement either as a shooter or as a target. Relative rankings for target Subunit spotting are:
1. Shooter movement state (highest buff to lowest debuff): Hold, Screen, Deliberate, Assault, Hasty
2. Target movement state: (highest debuff to lowest debuff): Hold, Screen, Deliberate, Assault, Hasty

Another issue to examine is PSS (periscope sight systems). Unfortunately, there is insufficient dat to explore whether this is applicable.

Appreciate the detail.. obviously I am only now getting into this game and attempting to come to grips with how it works, most of what I see makes sense to me, but when I see a result that appears out of the ordinary and is unexpected I start to ask why. As I said I want to do some tests and get some hard facts and examples together, then we can have a deeper discussion about optics, weapon effectiveness, etc. By the way, my original example came from the first tutorial scenario.

Bil

[Tcao]

Regarding # 2. Soviets are on the move but I believe FCSS simulate bounding overwatch and short pause—fire—maneuver. Especially for move deliberate order.
However, I noticed that in two cases, something happened indicate that the Soviet tank gun seems to be too accurate and deadly at long range. That was happened before the latest update.
The thread can be found here

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3#p5062173

unfortunately, the discussion became a little OT.
At first I thought the high accuracy should be contribute to the AT-8/AT-11 GLATGM. But reviewing the log, it shows that the Soviet tanks only used APFSDS in those two engagement.

[Comcikda]

If this discussion could introduce the ability to split units I would certainly welcome it, as I have always found the Soviet company size units to be too large and difficult to use.
But about dismounted infantry, no, I don't want that. I hate the micro in Combat Mission, and I don't want to see that level of micro in FCSS, imagine commanding a brigade and having to direct their infantry to dismount. It is already very impractical to command a battalion in a combat mission, let alone a brigade!(Although FCSS can reach squad level on the micro scale)

[Bil H]

Regarding # 2. Soviets are on the move but I believe FCSS simulate bounding overwatch and short pause—fire—maneuver. Especially for move deliberate order.
However, I noticed that in two cases, something happened indicate that the Soviet tank gun seems to be too accurate and deadly at long range. That was happened before the latest update.
The thread can be found here

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3#p5062173

unfortunately, the discussion became a little OT.
At first I thought the high accuracy should be contribute to the AT-8/AT-11 GLATGM. But reviewing the log, it shows that the Soviet tanks only used APFSDS in those two engagement.

Looking at your thread, thanks for that by the way), that is pretty similar to the situation I was describing in my original post. A moving Soviet tank company (T-64s I think?) versus an M1A1 platoon under cover and with a height advantage.

The spotting in your situation seems very suspect, the Soviet tanks were able, on the move; to spot: an M1A1 tank platoon in a covered position, probably hull down, with a height advantage at 4000 meters and destroy it (and I don't care if it was a destroyed tank or just damaged for this discussion). That result is incredible (in the original meaning of the word) for both spotting and gun performance.

Bil

P.S. I don't mean to sound so pessimistic on this game; from my few play throughs so far there is a lot for me to be impressed with and the amount of detail under the hood is pretty impressive. Not to mention the data bases.. just started understanding those too, but that is some pretty slick work. The game is a work of wargaming art.

[WildCatNL]

2. More of a comment than a question... couple issues with the Soviet tank versus M1A1 model... the Soviets seem to spot way better than they could in reality, and they seem to have no problem knocking out M1s.. even M1s in position in higher terrain which should get a hull down modifier and be very hard to spot, and with the Soviet tanks moving... I suspect the Soviet optics need to be downgraded somewhat. Same thing for combat results... the four M1s in that position should annihilate the advancing Soviet tank Company with no loss. In fact I would be surprised if in reality the Soviet Company even gets a shot off. This occurred a couple times in my last game and the engagement was at 3km or so. It is possible it might be because of the size of the Soviet formation... a Company versus a Platoon may be getting an advantage in spotting and combat due to the numbers of tanks involved?

Welcome!

I'll happily dig into the situation if you have a saved game with that situation. Without it, it's hard to tell whether the Soviet tanks had reports about the M1A1 platoon's position or not, whether the elevation delta at 3000m was sufficient to provide hull down benefits, what the M1A1's posture and SOP was, etc.

[Bil H]

Sorry for the delay, I was in Jamaica.

Okay, finally have a couple saves showing the problem that I see with the Soviet tanks. The saves, I think show a before and after. The M1A1s are one elevation level higher than the T-64BVs, which were moving. Though the T-64s take a beating they also kill two M1s, one from each platoon. Ranges to both M1A1 platoons was about 4500 meters.

Tutorial #1 - Tank v Tank Concerns.zip

(1.01 MiB) Downloaded 31 times

My argument is:
1. HULL-DOWN/DEFILADE: I feel the height advantage and hull-down status may not give the higher elevation tank enough cover and concealment. I will caveat this to say that due to the gun depression issues of Soviet tanks that they would have a significantly reduced hull-down advantage compared to US tanks.
2. SPOTTING: I do not believe that the Soviet tank optics could support spotting, on the move, tanks at this range, regardless of the height advantage. I would need to look into the specs but I think they would suffer dramatically at these ranges and conditions.
3. TARGETING: I do not believe the T-64s could have identified and targeted the M1A1s at anywhere near this range, especially with them in a substantial height advantage and in hull-down positions.
4. AMMO: I doubt the Russian APFSDS round of this period could have penetrated the front of an M1A1 at this range, regardless of the height advantage and HEAT would have had no chance. They are probably looking at about 2000m max versus the M1A1.

Anyway, appreciate you guys looking at these and I hope this discussion helps.

Bil

This image is post events... you can see the two smoking wrecks in the hexes in front of each M1A1 platoon.

[CapnDarwin]

Bil, here is my assessment looking at the numbers from the save based on the picture above and my image below. This engagement was roughly 4500m hill to hill (no real obstructing terrain between the tanks) in clear weather, with both sides having veteran troops with good readiness and initial morale.

1. HULL-DOWN/DEFILADE: The enemy never saw your tanks until both units fired on the Soviets. At that point, the large signature from the shooting allowed the Soviets to "see" the location of the M1s. Without that, the M1s being hull down on Hold were hard to see.

2. SPOTTING: Both sides have decent zoom on all optical sights. Both sides have laser ranging. Both have decent stability and fire control, with the tech edge going to the M1s. The Soviets were spotted as they were a large formation of 13 tanks on the move, and the M1s had thermal sights to aid in spotting. The M1s saw the targets and engaged first.

3. TARGETING: As noted in the other sections, without shooting, the Soviets would not have been able to see them at this distance. The spotting model takes height advantage into play, and the hold status provides additional benefits as well, but they are not invisible. I'll get to the numbers part of that below.

4. AMMO: No HEAT rounds were fired in this short engagement. As you can see from the picture below, The Soviet AP round has a base rating of 45 or roughly 450mm of pen at an effective range of about 1800m or so versus the M1's turret AP value of 46 and Hull of 44 (rounded up). The long range of the shots will degrade the AP value by some small amount, but that is still enough to create a potential fallout in some cases. Flipping the table, we have a 57 pen from the M1A1 versus a 41 turret and 39 hull. Again some degrading of the pen over the long range but enough to knock out the T-64 or get hard kills in some cases.

By the numbers: In the few minutes of this engagement, the M1A1s fired 45 AP rounds and scored 10 "kills" (9 fallouts and 1 brew). This is a 22% hit/kill rate at this range. The Soviets managed to return only 18 rounds for 2 "kills" (both fallout) for an 11% hit/kill rate at this range. Our game engine does not rate the level of fallout (at the moment, we are chatting about it), but the delta in the pen/armor from above would have had those M1 hits be minor (weapon/equipment, mainly non-penetrating damage) and most of the T-64 hits would have been major damage from penetrating hits.

To me, the numbers and outcomes seem realistic from the range and units involved. If you have data on the Soviet era optics/fire control please let us know. We are always happy to update the data.

Bil1.png (611.33 KiB) Viewed 1243 times

[Bil H]

3. TARGETING: As noted in the other sections, without shooting, the Soviets would not have been able to see them at this distance. The spotting model takes height advantage into play, and the hold status provides additional benefits as well, but they are not invisible. I'll get to the numbers part of that below.

Thank you. I really appreciate the detailed response. I have a few questions about the numbers you are using for M1A1 armor values, AP round penetration etc... but I am going to put together a more detailed response to you to lay all of that out.

A quick shot across the bow to get this started: the T-64B I believe used the 125 mm 2A26M2 tank gun, see the below:

The 125 mm 2A26M2 gun has a sighted range out to 4,000m using the day sight and 800m using the night sight. Maximum effective range of the APFSDS-T round is 2,500 m.

Source: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product100.html

Two quick things: the sighted range for this gun only goes out to 4000m, and the maximum effective range for the APFSDS-T round is 2500m. Neither of these specifications would allow the T-64 in this scenario to ID and target an M1A1 4500m away, regardless of whether it was in hull down position or not.

More to follow. Bil

[TheCapt]

If I may jump in here there are things that do not seem to be tracking here with respect to this example:

- 4500m is extreme long range for tanks of this era. In fact it is within a few hundred meters of the longest recorded tank kill in history (https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-h ... tank-kill/) Although there are reports of a UA tank pulling off a 10,000m shot (basically indirect fire) in Ukraine, but this was with a HEAT round (also mentions the Challenger kill: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambl ... 20dc691c10). Considering that, having 12 kills in a simulation at these ranges is a bit suspect that perhaps something is a bit off from a gunnery and TA perspective.

- From the numbers listed in the example it looks like the game is using the M1 armor values? http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php/M1. The actual armor values on the Abrams is still classified and hard to find but the M1A1 was noted as having improved armor from the M1 model (http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a1_abrams.htm) - "The M1A1 has an improved armor protection comparing with its predecessor. Front turret and hull armor of the M1A1 features advanced composite armor reinforced with depleted uranium mesh for better protection." Oddly SB Pro lists the turret as having less armor than the turret in the M1. I guess it raises the question of where the in-game armor values are coming from?

- 125mm gun performance. The 125mm (2A46M-1) on those T64s are likely firing the 3BM42 APFSDS round (it matches the era). Looking at two separate sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_sm ... ammunition AND https://wiki.warthunder.com/2A46M-1_(125_mm) they are showing the 3BM42 APFSDS as having between 406-430 mm at 0 degrees, at 2000m. Given the M1A1 armor values provided (which I assume take into account armor slopes), it is a stretch to see how at 4500 m the same gun is able to penetrate 460 (turret) and 440 (hull) at an additional 2500m out. Looking at the Warthunder chart it appears that penetration bleeds off at about 50mm per 2000m, at 4500m penetration for the 3BM42 should bleed off to about 350mm, at best, which is well below the penetrating power to defeat the M1. Note that the 3BM42 was a tungsten round, so not even DU.

- The T64Bs had the AT8 Songster specifically for long range engagements out to 4000m. Why would they need it if they are scoring kills against M1s out to 4500m from the front as modeled in game.

So beyond the spotting challenges given the optics of the day, but as you note the M1s were firing, I do not think physics is on the side of what is modeled in this engagement. And to be fair to both sides, I am not even sure the M1s would be doing so well: http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index ... tle=M829A1 lists the M829A1 round as having an effective range of "3500m", although we know from the Challenger kill that longer ranges were possible; however, by no means "routine".

[Bil H]

Thanks Warren...

So the 2A46M-1 main gun is listed on wiki as having a max effective range for AP and HEAT out to 3000m. The Songster ATGM: 5000m. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2A46_125_ ... rojectiles

To be fair to the numbers Warren, the M1s were never penetrated, only damaged. My beef isn't with damage being caused but the fact that the Soviet tanks could never have engaged them in this situation to begin with. And as you said, maybe not even the M1A1s.

That being said I do think there are some issues with armor values... my preliminary research (google-fu) comes back with the M1A1 (front) turret value vs AP: 930mm, not 460... hull: 825mm, not 440. Open source specs of course.

Bil

[TheCapt]

Ah, so it is possible to do some damage. A gun kill or mobility kill (although HEAT or HESH have a better chance than AP), but those are pretty small targets at 4500m.

I am also pointing at the M1 results. Those are 10 effective hits out at what was historically a record making ranges. This entire exchange is a little too effective for both sides, especially for AP. I am surprised that these tanks did not fire HEAT (or AT in the case of the T64s). Even at the speeds we are talking about these AP rounds would have about 2 seconds of flight time...two seconds in this sort of combat is an eternity as tanks would be jockeying like nuts. HEAT rounds make more sense as you might score a glancing to do damage. ATGM is definitely on the menu if they can, but to be fair the Soviets were moving.

[TheCapt]

So to follow up on the targeting challenge. Using a simple relative size calculator:

https://sizecalc.com/

At 4500m with the naked eye, a 3.3m tank is like spotting .73mm at a 1m range or a lead pencil tip. Now the guns of these tanks are firing so you will see sparks of light, which is going to help but even when you get the 8x tank scope (https://crib-blog.blogspot.com/p/soviet ... amily.html) we are talking about spotting and hitting at an equivalent to about 5.8mm at 1m - that is a small target.

In this engagement we saw what looks like about 20% hit rates, which at these distances is pretty suspect.