Suggestion for smoke and thermal sight.

[exsonic01]

fb.asp?m=4651214
This has been discussed before, but I repeat again because I think this issue is related with historical accuracy.

Before I begin, I wish to make sure about this: Some smoke has no ability to block thermal, even though it burns.
https://youtu.be/QlJ6-huJwb8
Especially for cold war era, there were no thermal-blocking smoke. I'm talking about artillery / mortar smoke ammunition and vehicle / infantry smoke grenade. Not engine room smoke generator.

White phosphorus smoke has some influence on the transmissivity of IR and near-IR spectrum. However, white phosphorus very rapidly reacts in the air + moisture, it really burns fast, and the effect of IR-blocking quickly diminishes. That is why WP is not a good material to block thermal sight. Instead, using its rapid reaction speed, WP can generate good amount of smoke quickly, this is why WP smoke can be used as a way to signal. But again, WP is not a good TI blocking material.

Instead, RP is really good material to influence on IR spectrum for longer duration because it burns slow. Thermal-blocking smokes mix RP with chaff-like material, small aluminum and magnesium chips, aerosol, other metal particles, and etc. However, those thermal blocking smoke grenade was only possible after the end of the cold war.

As I wrote in my original smoke post in the link above, most of 'conventional' smoke munition from artillery is HC which has no ability to block thermal or whatsoever, no matter how thick the HC smoke field is deployed. However, for some reason, in current version of AB, all smokes has some ability to block smoke, which does not physically make sense and not historically accurate. Vetikka says all smoke has some degree of TI blocking if it burns, but I guess that should be corrected.

In previous post, I suggested to describe the various types of smokes and their effect. However, it seems that suggestion is not adopted.

Then, I guess current AB game's smoke should not influence on thermal sight, as they are HC smokes. Its effect on thermal sight should be very minimal. In reality, there were no things like TI smoke during cold war. The closest 'real' smoke to mimic TI smoke would be WP smoke, but WP smoke should induce some damage to infantry. But current smoke munition of artillery and smoke grenade does not damage any infantry, yet they are able to influence on thermal sight. I think this is unfair and not accurate at all.

If it is WP smoke, then it can slightly influence the thermal sight, and it should have a chance to damage infantry and burn trees and structure.

If it is HC smoke, then it should not have a chance to influence thermal sight no matter how thick it is, yet it is safe to infantry, houses and trees.

You cannot mix two of them and cherry pick properties to create something unrealistic and call TI smoke. I can imagine such "TI smoke" came from simplification but I wish AB depicts the smoke - thermal sight relation more accurately and clearly. Because IMO thermal sight can be regarded as technological advantage to change the tide of game, and in AB it is more or less not that efficient when compared to real.

Plus, effect of WP can be used as suppress or clear infantry in AB. As effect of WP quickly diminishes in the air, the time window for WP to damage infantry, buildings and trees should be short. This can be modeled as some chance to burn infantry, buildings and trees inside smoke.

If AB introduce chemical weapons in the future, mix of WP and chemical will be a perfect tool to 'clear out' the entire block. But MOPP should be modeled too.

[nikolas93TS]

TI-blocking smoke was introduced because one of the players realized US player can cheat by popping-up the smoke and engage opponents with impunity. Which is wrong, because smoke would still block the laser range finder and since we haven't found any reference to this tactic in actual operations, it was assumed that smoke, dust, rain etc. would still degrade TI to a certain degree.

You are correct, and we have taken this and previous suggestion into consideration, but smoke rework is not high in priorities at the moment.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
TI-blocking smoke was introduced because one of the players realized US player can cheat by popping-up the smoke and engage opponents with impunity. Which is wrong, because smoke would still block the laser range finder and since we haven't found any reference to this tactic in actual operations, it was assumed that smoke, dust, rain etc. would still degrade TI to a certain degree.

Well, sorry to say this but I'm disappointed.

No. I don't think it is wrong, and I don't think it is cheating. I used this tactic quite a lot from other realistic wargames like CMBS, FPC-RS, and SBpro. This better be called as "relying on technological advantage" and this was true on the real cold war era battlefield for NATO side. You need to admit this. And current system is too much penalizing thermal sight of NATO.

If this game wants to claim "historical accuracy" then somethings should be considered in a correct way. If you did this for "game balance issue" then admit that you did this for "game balance", but don't call it "cheat" or don call it "historically inaccurate" because such claims on thermal sight are not true. I'm afraid such attitude or such excuse can be a cherry picking reason for all other possible issues for AB.




I'm not sure about any reference about such tactic. But I guess any reasonable commander or tank commander would try this tactics during hypothetical hot cold war. I feel current TI blocking smoke is historically inaccurate and unfair towards NATO. If you have no intention to correct this then at least decrease thermal sight price, as they are not working as intended and designed in this game.

Yeah, LRF can be influenced but LRF is not a only way to check distance, and gunners can shoot. While it might induce some inaccurate shots, degree of training can cover this. Then, you could reduce the accuracy of any tank guns to engage inside the smoke. I guess this might not that difficult.

Well said about rain, I once commented in this forum somewhere, rain cannot block thermal that much, but MMW can be blocked by rain. Fog can block thermal sight, but MMW can penetrate fog in some degree. But oh well, this game already simplified weather effect too much, so I'm not sure if such feature is possible in AB.

Soot particles in black smoke from burning wrecks can influence on IR spectrum. But blocking of thermal sight? That is questionable, because density of such soot particle is not that great inside black smoke. But it still can influence on laser target designator or LRF since they used very narrow near-IR spectrum and cold war lasers were not that strong. Thermal sight is different as it can see wide range of IR spectrum.

You are correct, and we have taken this and previous suggestion into consideration, but smoke rework is not high in priorities at the moment.

Well, then I wish to see that feature soon as this issue can be a critical disadvantage to NATO when compared to reality. Depicting of proper effect of smoke would bring additional merits.

[exsonic01]

Suggestion 1: Make 2 buttons for smoke artillery/mortar support, as WP smoke and HC smoke. Accurately describe WP and HC's TI value and their damage properly. WP should have some chance to damage infantry, buildings, and trees. Let players choose what smoke to use depending on their purpose and depending on situation.

Suggestion 2: Keep 1 button for smoke artillery/mortar support, but make WP smoke and HC smoke randomly appear from smoke field, 50% to 50% chance. Depict WP and HC smoke properly, their TI values and their chance to damage infantry, buildings, and tress.

I believe accurate smoke description will make game more interesting and realistic.

I'm OK with simplification. But that never means some important technologies can be nullified or can be countered by simplification. If it is because of game balance then my recommendation is price discount for TI units, as TI is not realistically described and nerfed when compared to real in this game.

[Policefreak55]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

TI-blocking smoke was introduced because one of the players realized US player can cheat by popping-up the smoke and engage opponents with impunity. Which is wrong, because smoke would still block the laser range finder and since we haven't found any reference to this tactic in actual operations, it was assumed that smoke, dust, rain etc. would still degrade TI to a certain degree.

You are correct, and we have taken this and previous suggestion into consideration, but smoke rework is not high in priorities at the moment.

When you say you haven't found reference to the tactic in actual operations, do you refer to only real world scenarios where it would have been able to be implemented?

The reason I ask is that I was recently inspired by AB to pick up a cheap copy of FC 71-1J, The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Company Team (1985), to learn more about Cold War tactics since I'm a bit of a scrub when it comes to learning all the small details and intricacies about these things. At least doctrinally, it advocates several times throughout for being able to use thermal sights to engage targets through smoke in both offensive operations such as blinding enemy observers, and defensive operations when screening from an attacking forces. It does mention that as exsonic said, WP degrades imaging more, but very matter of factly says that, "thermal sights will be able to see and shoot through the smoke" (US Army (1985), FC 71-1J, APP. E Smoke Operations, E-7).

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: Policefreak55

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

TI-blocking smoke was introduced because one of the players realized US player can cheat by popping-up the smoke and engage opponents with impunity. Which is wrong, because smoke would still block the laser range finder and since we haven't found any reference to this tactic in actual operations, it was assumed that smoke, dust, rain etc. would still degrade TI to a certain degree.

You are correct, and we have taken this and previous suggestion into consideration, but smoke rework is not high in priorities at the moment.

When you say you haven't found reference to the tactic in actual operations, do you refer to only real world scenarios where it would have been able to be implemented?

The reason I ask is that I was recently inspired by AB to pick up a cheap copy of FC 71-1J, The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Company Team (1985), to learn more about Cold War tactics since I'm a bit of a scrub when it comes to learning all the small details and intricacies about these things. At least doctrinally, it advocates several times throughout for being able to use thermal sights to engage targets through smoke in both offensive operations such as blinding enemy observers, and defensive operations when screening from an attacking forces. It does mention that as exsonic said, WP degrades imaging more, but very matter of factly says that, "thermal sights will be able to see and shoot through the smoke" (US Army (1985), FC 71-1J, APP. E Smoke Operations, E-7).

OK, so, smoke + TI was recommended and promoted as combat doctrine of US army which can be actively used on the battlefield, right? Thanks to share this info.

It is OK to nerf some features for 'game balance'. I understand that. AB is a good game. And as a game, sometimes it should consider the balance among factions more than actual history for better experience of players. However, one cannot call such realistic asymmetric technological advantage as "cheat" or "no reference", and I think that really feels like biased opinion towards specific faction, and just cherry picking reason to nerf NATO. That is why I commented as "disappointing"

Anyway, I think this game still can get a two squirrels (balance and historical accuracy) with one bullet: Introduction of WP and HC smoke, as I wrote in several posts in this forum. Current "TI smoke" should be removed, of course.

One thing to point is that, even WP smoke cannot fully block thermal. It can degrade of course, but cannot fully block. This is because TI can see wide range of IR spectrum & temperature. On the other hand, beam from LRF and laser target designator might be influenced because they are using narrow band of near-IR spectrum, and cold war lasers were not that powerful.

As a TI degradation effect:
1) Reduce TI range inside WP smoke, like to 70% when compared to normal sight range outside of WP smoke.
2) Give 30% penalty to accuracy to engage target inside WP smoke.
70% and 30% might be adjusted, but this is what I'm thinking.


As for WP, in reality, the effect of damage to units, buildings, and trees and degree of TI degradation should be drastically reduced as time passes, because WP really burns quickly. However, if such features are too difficult, maybe some features could be considered:
1) For damage to infantry & open top vehicles, and chance to burn building and trees: Make it chance-based. Induce a dice roll every 30 sec for any infantry & open top vehicles + buildings and trees, for the chance to take damage or burn.

2) For the TI degradation effect, I think this effect should be diminished by time following the real physics. But for the ease-of-coding and for the balance, maybe it would be possible to leave TI degrading continuous effect as long as smoke effect survives.

With the introduction of chemical weapon and MOPP in the future, WP smoke will bring additional merit to AI and players for the area-denial and anti-infantry.

[exsonic01]

Regarding TI effect for black smoke from wreck and battlefield dust: As far as I know this will depends on temperature.

1) Black smoke from fire or flame
In this case degradation of thermal might be plausible because smoke temperature is high. Soot particles are good thermal obscurant, but their density is usually not enough to interfere thermal. But, because gas itself from fame or fire is hot, this might influence on thermal. But again, as the TI can see wide range of IR spectrum, full block might not feasible. Rather, smoke from flame or fire would degrade some degree. I think it would be OK to induce smoke from fire or flame to have some degree of degradation of TI with WP smoke.

2) Battlefield dust effect on TI
This depends on grain size and temperature of airborne dust. If it is fine dust and if it is cold, then TI should be able to detect heat signature through dust and engage target. In game, I guess it would be OK to induce lesser degree of degradation of TI when compared to WP smoke or fire/flame smoke. It would be great if this game consider dust temperature based on weather and thus ability of TI degradation but I guess that would be too much.

As far as I know, even cold war thermal sights were able to detect heat signature of target vehicle or infantry in the middle of hot desert such as Fort Irwin. It is true that cold war era thermal sights were suffering from low resolution. Yet, well trained gunner easily can distinguish the target and engage among those white signals.

[DoubleDeuce]

ORIGINAL: Policefreak55

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

TI-blocking smoke was introduced because one of the players realized US player can cheat by popping-up the smoke and engage opponents with impunity. Which is wrong, because smoke would still block the laser range finder and since we haven't found any reference to this tactic in actual operations, it was assumed that smoke, dust, rain etc. would still degrade TI to a certain degree.

You are correct, and we have taken this and previous suggestion into consideration, but smoke rework is not high in priorities at the moment.

When you say you haven't found reference to the tactic in actual operations, do you refer to only real world scenarios where it would have been able to be implemented?

The reason I ask is that I was recently inspired by AB to pick up a cheap copy of FC 71-1J, The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Company Team (1985), to learn more about Cold War tactics since I'm a bit of a scrub when it comes to learning all the small details and intricacies about these things. At least doctrinally, it advocates several times throughout for being able to use thermal sights to engage targets through smoke in both offensive operations such as blinding enemy observers, and defensive operations when screening from an attacking forces. It does mention that as exsonic said, WP degrades imaging more, but very matter of factly says that, "thermal sights will be able to see and shoot through the smoke" (US Army (1985), FC 71-1J, APP. E Smoke Operations, E-7).

We always trained that way with tanks, both with M60A3 TTS and the M1. The TTS had almost no degradation in smoke or rain. It's true it did interfere with the LRF but that's why we trained to use battlesight and estimating range based on the target/reticle image size.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: DoubleDeuce

ORIGINAL: Policefreak55

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

TI-blocking smoke was introduced because one of the players realized US player can cheat by popping-up the smoke and engage opponents with impunity. Which is wrong, because smoke would still block the laser range finder and since we haven't found any reference to this tactic in actual operations, it was assumed that smoke, dust, rain etc. would still degrade TI to a certain degree.

You are correct, and we have taken this and previous suggestion into consideration, but smoke rework is not high in priorities at the moment.

When you say you haven't found reference to the tactic in actual operations, do you refer to only real world scenarios where it would have been able to be implemented?

The reason I ask is that I was recently inspired by AB to pick up a cheap copy of FC 71-1J, The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Company Team (1985), to learn more about Cold War tactics since I'm a bit of a scrub when it comes to learning all the small details and intricacies about these things. At least doctrinally, it advocates several times throughout for being able to use thermal sights to engage targets through smoke in both offensive operations such as blinding enemy observers, and defensive operations when screening from an attacking forces. It does mention that as exsonic said, WP degrades imaging more, but very matter of factly says that, "thermal sights will be able to see and shoot through the smoke" (US Army (1985), FC 71-1J, APP. E Smoke Operations, E-7).

We always trained that way with tanks, both with M60A3 TTS and the M1. The TTS had almost no degradation in smoke or rain. It's true it did interfere with the LRF but that's why we trained to use battlesight and estimating range based on the target/reticle image size.

Thanks for your confirmation from experience. I was not in armored unit so I was also curious about real cold war armor veteran's opinion towards this issue. I was not in armor when I was active, but I learned those during my studies...

Anyway, my 30% penalty to accuracy under WP smoke idea might be a bit harsh when compared to real, right? I also believe enough training can bring good enough accuracy with without LRF.

I really think the current TTS-smoke mechanics with "TI-smoke" in this game greatly limits true strength and potential of M60A3 TTS, M1 and other NATO vehicles with TI when compared to real. And this is influencing all games from late 1970s. Yet, TI units have higher price tag due to thermal.

I think if this game wish to be "realistic" then TTS-smoke mechanics should be corrected in a way to consider the reality. But I guess there should be some penalty for game balance... As a armor unit veteran, how do you think about this issue?

[nikolas93TS]

In that case, it won't be hard to disable TI smoke as temporary measure and leave the rest of smoke changes to a later date.

[nikolas93TS]

And another thing, please quote documentation and sources like Policefreak55 did, particularly on important issues and if you want things changed.

Opinions, even if valid, are not accepted as proof of evidence.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS

And another thing, please quote documentation and sources like Policefreak55 did, particularly on important issues and if you want things changed.

Opinions, even if valid, are not accepted as proof of evidence.

I did quoted journal published papers about WP and RP in the original post about this issue.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... ey=�
That is why I linked the original post in the forum.

HC and WP smoke
https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/smoke.htm

Capability of WP smoke
https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/fullte ... 1&id=25949

Capability of RP smoke
http://oldcrows.org.au/files/2008%20Con ... 20Smit.pdf

Only thing I miss is FM, and "any commander..." part in my post is indeed my opinion, but anyone can easily figure out such tactics under given TI capability. And in the end, it turns out that such opinion was close to accurate. But anyway I will put more references.

Next time, I will cite every time when I write. But I also wish you to do the same. Some comments really can be viewed as biased comment, which can cause misunderstanding among each other.

[nikolas93TS]

I was a generic warning actually, not specifically directed at you.

When correction is asked for, providing sources (and even better, directions to relevant parts), makes things way easier for me and hence faster to correct. Which I guess is in common interest

[DoubleDeuce]

The M60A3 and M1 use different thermal sights, the TTS (M60A3) and TIS (M1 series) and had different capabilities. That and the TIS has gone through some upgrades since the early 80's. I left the armor school in 89' and have since lost a considerable amount of documents in many moves since then but I try some of my contacts and see what supporting documentation I can locate.

[exsonic01]

ORIGINAL: nikolas93TS
I was a generic warning actually, not specifically directed at you.

When correction is asked for, providing sources (and even better, directions to relevant parts), makes things way easier for me and hence faster to correct. Which I guess is in common interest

OK but I can also ask you about source of your opinion, something like "cheat" or "wrong" towards TI. Right? Like you said it is better for all of us. At least I will always cite as many literature as I can, and I guess others will do the same.