Jump to content

Hype Thread - 2022


Recommended Posts

I am satisfied with the new version .. sure that the artificial intelligence still has problems .. they get stuck between the houses, on the walls between the trees ... quite frustrating

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DK-DDAM said:

As @12alfa mentioned it is correct that in my videos you could see concrete bunkers.. They are a custom model made for my Oksbøl map, just as some other stuff that is on that map aswell. And Oksbøl will eventually include more custom objects when i get the time to it.. All towns will receive their own town sign, cause of realism from my sake..

 

Thanks for the clarification, and, the great work on this area.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jena73 said:

I am satisfied with the new version .. sure that the artificial intelligence still has problems .. they get stuck between the houses, on the walls between the trees ... quite frustrating

 

Try Navmesh routes?

 

 

Edited by Gibsonm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it may be tempting the first time a user gets exposure to the advanced FCS for the t-72b3 and believe that the whole vehicle is upgraded at the level of an M1A2 SEP or better based on that initial impression; the ability to gun fire an ATGM may also further lend to the deception. then you start to realize you are still strapped in a t-72 being overpowered by the better western ammunition against you, which are coming at you in higher volume because they reload and fire faster in between your autoloading carousel ammo selection and reload cycles; i would say the slower t-72 response times and generally the way the vehicle works makes it feel as though it is moving in slow motion comparatively

Edited by Captain_Colossus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Mirzayev said:

"When you don't get the results you expect, call the AI stupid and say the modeling is unrealistic. "

 

Even more childish, calling esim biased because it is a western company.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The biggest disadvantage of the T-72 is, if you don't kill your opponent on the first try you're probably not going to get a second chance because of that giant firecracker box right under your ass. The attrition rate will always be high.

I will admit slight surprise at that the crew loss rate in Ukraine seems lower than the number of flying turrets suggests. But that's a very relative merit.

 

The T-72B3 is the best upgrade that Russia can field in quantity. As such, I'm seeing it as admittance that they can't get the Armata field-ready in the planned timeframe and within an acceptable budget. Maybe it's going to turn out to be a fine tank one day. Until then the T-72 will have to soldier on despite the incurable and by now inexcusable weakness that is the carousel loader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

In the interest of SCIENCE, one experiment you could also try is the same situation but removing all STOWED maingun ammo from the T-72B3, which is something that they do IRL to try to make it a little less vulnerable. This is supported by most tanks now in SB (example Leo 2's hull stored ammo), and when stowed ammo is depleted or not present then it makes those stowed ammo areas inert. These stowed ammo areas on the T-72 are actually quote numerous above the carousel area. If you did this as a starting loadout, you would of course be sacrificing a lot of ammo for a % of extra post-penetration survivability, so its certainly a big tradeoff that may or may not be worth it, depending on the particular opposition. In some cases you probably wouldn't expect to survive long enough to use stored ammo, so why not.

 

Would it make much of a difference? Maybe, maybe not (place your bets), but it probably wouldn't be any worse. 😑

 

But of course the subtext here over the years is that some might think that there is a level of bias going on and that couldn't be further from the truth. It's really as simple as creating vehicles (as best as we have information about), and then putting them together and seeing what happens. You could say it's all one big (real) science experiment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Volcano said:

In the interest of SCIENCE, one experiment you could also try is the same situation but removing all STOWED maingun ammo from the T-72B3, which is something that they do IRL to try to make it a little less vulnerable. This is supported by most tanks now in SB (example Leo 2's hull stored ammo), and when stowed ammo is depleted or not present then it makes those stowed ammo areas inert. These stowed ammo areas on the T-72 are actually quote numerous above the carousel area. If you did this as a starting loadout, you would of course be sacrificing a lot of ammo for a % of extra post-penetration survivability, so its certainly a big tradeoff that may or may not be worth it, depending on the particular opposition. In some cases you probably wouldn't expect to survive long enough to use stored ammo, so why not.

 

Would it make much of a difference? Maybe, maybe not (place your bets), but it probably wouldn't be any worse. 😑

 

 

I actually did this with one platoon, but forgot to set it for the same value for all (whoops!) I didn't notice a difference in how they die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Maybe it was the one that died last.

Anyway, in a scenario like the NTC where there's a lot of emptiness one would expect that the tactically smart deployment for the T-72s would be to maximize the engagement distance, and use AT-11 to their advantage.

Riding into the fire all guns blazing is not a winning strategy for any T-72. But the point stands, even if you pile a lot of cool gizmos on the T-72's fire control system, it does not address the issue of ammunition and crew colocation, with the resulting overall system vulnerability once that you do get hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Maybe it was the one that died last.

Anyway, in a scenario like the NTC where there's a lot of emptiness one would expect that the tactically smart deployment for the T-72s would be to maximize the engagement distance, and use AT-11 to their advantage.

Riding into the fire all guns blazing is not a winning strategy for any T-72.

 

Interestingly, the OPFOR operate very similar to what was depicted. They want to rapidly close the distance on USF and mass at the last possible moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
47 minutes ago, Volcano said:

But of course the subtext here over the years is that some might think that there is a level of bias going on and that couldn't be further from the truth. It's really as simple as creating vehicles (as best as we have information about), and then putting them together and seeing what happens.

The idea of bias is easily dispelled by simply looking at the Leopard 2 with the giant ammo hull bunker. These turrets fly just as well, in Steel Beasts and in the Turkey-Syria borderlands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 minutes ago, Mirzayev said:

Interestingly, the OPFOR operate very similar to what was depicted. They want to rapidly close the distance on USF and mass at the last possible moment. 

Yeah, but it seems pretty obvious to me that they should no longer, if it was a good idea ever (I would posit, it wasn't). You'd expect that at some point someone learns, and in all fairness, despite the myriad of failures seen in Ukraine, there don't seem to have been massed tank attacks in the image of classic Opfor/Soviet armor doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, BLUEFOR still dies, so I guess it works. 😥

 

Anyway, OPFOR actually synchronizes, so that plays a huge factor on why it works. It is really hard to mass fires when a BTG is 2,000 meters away, closing fast, and is massing fires on you. 

 

Of note: doing the same basic plan with a breach of a mine obstacle involved, fighting an M1A2 armor platoon in two-tier fighting positions, with a T-90 company, produced success for the OPFOR 100% of the time. 

 

Sometimes you just need better gear.

Edited by Mirzayev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually played on T-72b3 with my friend a quite long session trying to learn it out.  And i wanted to enchange our survivability so i took stoved ammo away. As i figured we wouldn't need that anyways as we wouldn't last long enough. xD or so the thinking was. 

 

How it turned out... Is that we were noobs and got ambushed a lot. We got a lots of hits from opfor tanks and lost lots of modules crew members, systems and fuel...  (I had automatic repair behind trigger to repair us after every encounter to continue training) but the bizarre thing was.. despite taking like.. almost 20 direct hits from where almost 10 penetrated... No catastrophic explosion occurred.  And T72b3 in my books... Receives top marks on survivability (among T-series that is)  

Being alive... but looking like a swiss cheese and being barely operational.. isn't very good thing but it is better than being a big crater or a spectacular bonfire 🔥

 

We trained against default T-80s T64B and T-72B1 85s.   We were tempted to give it a go against western equipment but some other time. 

 

Ps... Our first spectacular fail was that we drove to a battle position and started to take fire from much closer than expected... And at that point we figured and remembered. This thing didn't really reverse fast enough... Beeb beeb beeb...   😅

Edited by Lumituisku
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If anything, the work of the last 25 years taught me how granular outcomes can be at the tactical level.

 

Eventually all the different experiences smear into a bigger picture of aggregates, and that's from were most general statements stem.

Still, individual episodes can be quite different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

I will admit slight surprise at that the crew loss rate in Ukraine seems lower than the number of flying turrets suggests. But that's a very relative merit.

 

I imagine it is because they bailout and peg it at the first sign of serious organised trouble.

Like an ATGM ambush

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

17 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Yeah, but it seems pretty obvious to me that they should no longer, if it was a good idea ever (I would posit, it wasn't). You'd expect that at some point someone learns, and in all fairness, despite the myriad of failures seen in Ukraine, there don't seem to have been massed tank attacks in the image of classic Opfor/Soviet armor doctrine.

Wait for it, 

Z forces now the end of the defensive lines of trenches and bunkers, where mobile maneuver formations can come into play. I read that the Dombas area is similar to the Rein area in Germany, small towns and lots of industry.

 

The ground past their defense lines is our vision of Kurst, open and perfect for mass formations moving together with helos. The next few weeks will show us our classic Opfor/Soviet armor doctrine possibly.

 

The fat lady has not sang yet, but, she has just stepped on stage...:)

 

 

 

The dogs of war (1st Guards) will be released, and hopefully will stop at the border this time. :)

Edited by 12Alfa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, outside the main gate of a 'Donovian' military base...

 

*Slaps AVEPS*

 

"This little baby will change outcome of entire engagement! Yours now, Comrade Conscript, no money down, only 37% interest! Good deal, yes?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

 

Wait for it, 

Z forces now the end of the defensive lines of trenches and bunkers, where mobile maneuver formations can come into play. I read that the Dombas area is similar to the Rein area in Germany, small towns and lots of industry.

 

The ground past their defense lines is our vision of Kurst, open and perfect for mass formations moving together with helos. The next few weeks will show us our classic Opfor/Soviet armor doctrine possibly.

 

The fat lady has not sang yet, but, she has just stepped on stage...:)

 

 

 

The dogs of war (1st Guards) will be released, and hopefully will stop at the border this time. :)

 

LoL

You're assuming they have the supplies, capability and simple 2+2=4  intelligence* to move them.

As has been shown since Feb 2022, they do not possess any of these qualities.

 

As one Ukrainian soldier put it: "We are lucky that they are so fucking stupid."

 

*SB AI route finding is vastly superior as has been demonstrated.


This actually happened, for real.

Quote

 

A Land Mine!

Russian: Through the Land Mine!

*Earth shattering Ka-Boom!*

*Dead*

(Yes, Marvin there actually was one this time.)

 

Youtube:

"Russian Kamaz supply truck drives over Ukrainian TM-62 AT mine"

 

 

SB AI Cmdr: Through the Land Mine!

SB AI Driver: No, no, no.....get this.......Around the Land Mine!

SB AI Cmdr: "Wow!" (Like Owen Wilson)

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hedgehog said:

 

LoL

You're assuming they have the supplies, capability and simple 2+2=4  intelligence* to move them.

As has been shown since Feb 2022, they do not possess any of these qualities.

 

As one Ukrainian soldier put it: "We are lucky that they are so fucking stupid."

 

*SB AI route finding is vastly superior as has been demonstrated.


This actually happened, for real.

Youtube:

"Russian Kamaz supply truck drives over Ukrainian TM-62 AT mine"

 

 

SB AI Cmdr: Through the Land Mine!

SB AI Driver: No, no, no.....get this.......Around the Land Mine!

SB AI Cmdr: "Wow!" (Like Owen Wilson)

 

:)

 

Any chance of posting this political stuff in just one thread instead of across multiple ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Volcano said:

In the interest of SCIENCE, one experiment you could also try is the same situation but removing all STOWED maingun ammo from the T-72B3, which is something that they do IRL to try to make it a little less vulnerable. This is supported by most tanks now in SB (example Leo 2's hull stored ammo), and when stowed ammo is depleted or not present then it makes those stowed ammo areas inert. These stowed ammo areas on the T-72 are actually quote numerous above the carousel area. If you did this as a starting loadout, you would of course be sacrificing a lot of ammo for a % of extra post-penetration survivability, so its certainly a big tradeoff that may or may not be worth it, depending on the particular opposition. In some cases you probably wouldn't expect to survive long enough to use stored ammo, so why not.

 

Would it make much of a difference? Maybe, maybe not (place your bets), but it probably wouldn't be any worse. 😑

 

But of course the subtext here over the years is that some might think that there is a level of bias going on and that couldn't be further from the truth. It's really as simple as creating vehicles (as best as we have information about), and then putting them together and seeing what happens. You could say it's all one big (real) science experiment.

You mean "Trust the SCIENCE"

 

OK :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...