CMSF Russian armor model

[thewood]

I have done quite a bit of research on the various models of the T-72, including the T-90. I used concord, jane's, osprey, hcof's excel spreadsheet on AFVs in CMSF, and Damien90's excellent posts on various armor packages.

It makes me wonder what CMSF has going on under the hood. There should be a pretty significant difference between a T-72, T-72M, T72M1, and a T-90. Instead, there is little difference between the T72M1 and T-72, as well as little diference between the T72M1V and the T-90. I used as a guide the little protection display on the units in game. I'll see if I can quantify what CMSF shows for protection ratings.

Has anyone else ever looked at that?

 

[Mad Russian]

Once I got to the Dolly Parton I quit looking at the rest of the T-72 variants.

I believe the reason is obvious.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[Gary Owen]

In this game it is very difficult to figure out what your vehicles can actually see. It's been rather frustrating for me at times, for example, when one of my BMPs has an obvious keyhole flank shot on another vehicle moving along a perpendicular road at an intersection. Go to check the BMP by clicking on its icon and low-and-behold no wonder it's not engaging, it doesn't even see the other vehicle. Of course by this time the other moving vehicle has seen the stationary BMP set in what appeared to be a good ambush position, and fired it up. The target acquisition/fire control modelling in this game is, for me at least, almost entirely opaque.

My pet peeve is the Bradley launcher. It should be articulated. The time to erect and stow the launcher is significant and makes a big difference as to how the vehicle is deployed. According to Steve though, the erect/stow algorithm would be a waste of programming time. So ignoring the problem with the Bradley and Stryker AT, they just forge ahead and introduce a Marine LAV-AT with the same problem. But hey, it's cool, the LAV has a pretty skin. Early screen shots of the NATO module revealed scaling problems with the CV90's. Not that the height of an armor vehicle and consequently the size of its target signature is anything important that has any effect on tactics, we like big vehicles because they are prettier and show more visual detail. Apparently rather than address that problem, we're now thrown a 'bone' demonstrating the same problem with the Marder 1A3.

I'd bet that there is no 'under-the-hood'. There are probably only two tank models in this game: one eastern bloc and the other western. And they're both paper dolls, flat two dimensional representations that swap cut-out dresses.

Spend several hundred hours doing a stochastic analysis of penetrations from set ranges and set angles against each of the modelled tanks, I'd be surprised if you find that there is any difference amongst the various tanks of each respective bloc.

 

[thewood]

The set up time for the Bradly is modelled. It is not shown graphically though. I have no issue with that. Steve said the graphical representation was a waste of time, but the actual set up time has been in I think from the beginning. There was a pretty lengthy thread about the M2 not firing and it turned out you had to wait almost 10 minutes after moving to fire the TOW. Not sure on the LAV-AT.

The problem with doing any testing is that as soon as the M1 is involved in the game, you might as well have paper as your armor. Its simulated as so far overmatching any red armor that there is almost no point. I think during initial design they had mostly western advisors on armor and had the DoD in thier sights so they got a little optimistic with the M1's capabilities. They show the Chally 2 and the T-90SA as being quite a bit less armored than the M1. I am not sure that is true.

 

[mOBIUS]

I have done quite a bit of research on the various models of the T-72, including the T-90. I used concord, jane's, osprey, hcof's excel spreadsheet on AFVs in CMSF, and Damien90's excellent posts on various armor packages.

It makes me wonder what CMSF has going on under the hood. There should be a pretty significant difference between a T-72, T-72M, T72M1, and a T-90. Instead, there is little difference between the T72M1 and T-72, as well as little diference between the T72M1V and the T-90. I used as a guide the little protection display on the units in game. I'll see if I can quantify what CMSF shows for protection ratings.

Has anyone else ever looked at that?

What KE round can you fire at them to get an idea of the ranges that penetration is made and not made?

 

[thewood]

US APFSDS is M829A3

Russian is 3BM-32 for most of the T-72s . The later T72s and T-90 may be the 3BM-42M, but a guess at the tested penetration in game would be the T90 being the 3BM-44M.

That was never officially confirmed, but hinted at.

I may be overly optimistic with these rounds as the 42 is only hinted at with export T-90 and the 44 is only rumoured to be fielded. Even the the 32 may have only recently been exported in limited numbers.

Worst case would be all using the 3BM-22.

 

[Gary Owen]

The set up time for the Bradly is modelled. It is not shown graphically though. I have no issue with that. Steve said the graphical representation was a waste of time, but the actual set up time has been in I think from the beginning. There was a pretty lengthy thread about the M2 not firing and it turned out you had to wait almost 10 minutes after moving to fire the TOW. Not sure on the LAV-AT.

Well these are the posts I recall regarding modelling the reload time:

Simply put, yup. The worst sort of TacAI to write is that which must anticipate something that is not explicitly evident and really simple to qualify. The real bear of it is that to get imperfect TacAI we have to do a ton of programming and testing to get something that will definitely get people's knickers in a twist, which then gets us into a cycle of diminishing returns on coding investment. I don't mean that from a Dollars and Cents standpoint, rather from a "if we are spending a week trying to get a 5% improvement out of this one narrow behavior, we aren't spending a week doing something else" standpoint.

Having it be user designated isn't really an option. People will scream bloody murder when they go to use the TOW after forgetting to prep it. Either it just sits there (which prompts bug reports!) or it reverses out of LOS/LOF while deploying the hammerhead. This in turn will lead to demands that we not require micromanagement and instead add the costly and flawed TacAI be coded and we're right back in the same boat as I just described.

The problem is that the unrealistic use depends greatly on the circumstances. I made a scenario for the Campaign, for example, that uses LAV-ATs in a static overwatch position. They would obviously have their TOWs at the ready, therefore in that situation there's nothing unrealistic about our portrayal. Likewise, someone that moves a Stryker ATGM at top speed to a location and it sits there for a few minutes before engaging could also be presumed to be realistic. Obviously there are other situations where it can be said to be unrealistically responsive.

On balance, at least the way I play, I think they turn out mostly realistic. I tend to use my TOW vehicles for overwatch and therefore they spend most of their time stationary or doing bounding overwatch.

Hopefully someone here with experience with the modern systems in Strykers, LAVs, and Bradleys can comment about the problems associated with moving. My understanding is many of the bore sighting issues that used to exist are no longer relevant due to upgraded systems. But I could be mistaken!

Steve

Oh, if it were as easy as having some animations in there we would have done it already Remember, looks are generally the easy part of any feature that has actual gameplay ramifications. Animating a TOW missile in flight, for example, took almost no time at all to do. Getting the TOW to have a realistic flightpath and error tolerance... THAT was the hard part. Animating a tracer is nothing but a streak of color, but the physics of small arms trajectories based on a large handful of variables took a lot of time to get right. Having a soldier swivel his head didn't take much time, but getting spotting to work was huge. So on and so forth.

Same thing in this case. Animating the hammerhead or Bradley TOW arm is a piece of cake because it is straight forward and largely controlled by the model itself (done by KwazyDog). It's the TacAI requirements that killed it.

No need to apologize 2ndMDRebel... your point was very well made and quite right. No offense taken.

And yeah, nitpicking is definitely a sign that we've got the important stuff taken care of

Steve

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83941

If there was a claim elsewhere that the reload time is modelled (especially if the claim is that it has been modelled all along), but that adding in the animation is too difficult, well, that just flat out contradicts these posts.

Furthermore, if the game engine is doing all of this ultra-secret, super-dooper realistic stuff on its own without somehow clueing the player into what's going on, then that bolsters my characterization about the system being opaque.

If there is a modelled waiting time of ten minutes to erect the launcher after coming to a halt, then that is just flat-out wrong. And that just confirms in my paranoid little mind that the opacity is a contrivance to hide everything else that they've guessed incorrectly about as well.

 

[mOBIUS]

US APFSDS is M829A3

Russian is 3BM-32 for most of the T-72s . The later T72s and T-90 may be the 3BM-42M, but a guess at the tested penetration in game would be the T90 being the 3BM-44M.
.

I was thinking something less powerful than the M829 so you could find a range were it would not penetrate. I didn't follow the T-72s much past the T-72B.

I did a stint during the '80s working for the company that made the TOW and the TOW then had what seemed a pretty eratic flight path the first half the flight. But that may have been because the Israeli gun camera footage we were shown were of TOWs fired downward from helicopters.

 

[British Tommy]

Once I got to the Dolly Parton I quit looking at the rest of the T-72 variants.

I believe the reason is obvious.

Good Hunting.

MR

Thanks Steve, I just spat a mouthful of tea over the keyboard because I was laughing so much at your comment :laugh:

 

[thewood]

There is a waiting time to fire the TOW after moving. There is also a waiting time and a crew animation of reloading the M2/M3 rounds. I am not sure if they were in from the beginning. But there was a specific thread about M2s not firing and it turned out to be the waiting time. And of course CMSF doesn't clue you in with that info.

 

[Gary Owen]

I just made a little test scenario with 1 M3 and 4 T-72s a fair distance away. The Bradley moves to position and fires as soon as it acquires the targets. Once it fires two missiles, it automatically backs into cover to reload. There is no indication, animation or otherwise, that it is actually reloading or when the reload is complete. On movement orders back to a position with LOS it fires missiles at the remaining targets.

I'm using CM:SF (vanilla) ver 1.20

 

[Elvis]

I just made a little test scenario with 1 M3 and 4 T-72s a fair distance away. The Bradley moves to position and fires as soon as it acquires the targets. Once it fires two missiles, it automatically backs into cover to reload. There is no indication, animation or otherwise, that it is actually reloading or when the reload is complete. On movement orders back to a position with LOS it fires missiles at the remaining targets.

I'm using CM:SF (vanilla) ver 1.20

Gary, can you email me the test scenario you built for this so I can play with it? elviscos at gmail dot com. If the vehicle is reloading it should display in the bottom left of the main screen where it shows what each member of the crew is doing that the loader is reloading. Thanks.


Also, the current publicly available version of the game is v1.21.

 

[thewood]

That is very strange because I remember the discussion specifically about the delay after movement. I am going to go back to the scenario I built a few years ago and try it.

 

[thewood]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=73374&highlight=Bradley

This was the only thread I could find on TOW and Bradleys. Not definitive by any stretch of the imagination. But it does reflect my experience in the early days. I just redid the same test with 1.20 and there was no delay firing the TOW after stopping. I know there was at one time a 1 minute delay after stopping. The scenario I have was built specifically to test it back in 2007. So something has changed sinece then.

I must be mistaken about the guys head popping up during reload of the TOW launchers. My test does show the gunner going to reload status.

 

[Gary Owen]

@Elvis,

Now that you've pointed it out, I see that the gunner is listed as "loading" while that activity is happening.

WRT ver. 1.21: I had to purchase the Paradox version. At the time of initial release my only payment option, as BTS quit taking cheques, was Paypal which wasn't accepted by BTS either. Gamersgate, however, was willing to take my money via Paypal. I'm not paying for the latest patch, not even $1 US. BTS didn't want my money when the thing was first released, the release history of the Paradox patches has been insulting, BTS is not getting that dollar now.

File is On the Way.

 

[Gary Owen]

The armor modelling is opaque.

I just redid the same test with 1.20 and there was no delay firing the TOW after stopping. I know there was at one time a 1 minute delay after stopping. The scenario I have was built specifically to test it back in 2007. So something has changed sinece then.

I must be mistaken about the guys head popping up during reload of the TOW launchers. My test does show the gunner going to reload status.

Quod erat Demonstrandum

 

[Mad Russian]

Thanks Steve, I just spat a mouthful of tea over the keyboard because I was laughing so much at your comment :laugh:

And now for the rest of the story...

T-72A (1979)
Added laser rangefinder and electronic fire control, turret front and top being heavily reinforced with composite armour (nicknamed Dolly Parton by US intelligence), provisions for mounting reactive armor, smoke grenade launchers, flipper armour mount on front mudguards, internal changes.

What more could a tank lover want????

Oh yeah!

MR

 

[thewood]

How about the "Super Dolly Parton"?

 

[Elvis]

@Elvis,

Now that you've pointed it out, I see that the gunner is listed as "loading" while that activity is happening.

WRT ver. 1.21: I had to purchase the Paradox version. At the time of initial release my only payment option, as BTS quit taking cheques, was Paypal which wasn't accepted by BTS either. Gamersgate, however, was willing to take my money via Paypal. I'm not paying for the latest patch, not even $1 US. BTS didn't want my money when the thing was first released, the release history of the Paradox patches has been insulting, BTS is not getting that dollar now.

File is On the Way.

Understood about the patch and cool that you saw the indication of the reloading.

I didn't get the file yet. I was planning on subing out some "lesser" units to take pot shots at the T72 and see what I saw. I did a TON of this kind of stuff with the Challenger and Challenger with ERA. It can be a fun thing to test. I've just got 12 thumbs when it comes to making a scenario....

 

[Gary Owen]

I didn't get the file yet.

We'll try it this way.