engagement ranges modeled well?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

engagement ranges modeled well?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Modern Tactics >> engagement ranges modeled well?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

engagement ranges modeled well? - 3/24/2018 6:13:44 PM

wilsonch

Posts: 3
Joined: 3/24/2018
Status: offline

I've poked around here in the forums and looked at TIK's first impression. I haven't seen any mention of what to me seems an important point, so I'm asking.

It seems to me that as time went on tank engagement ranges increased greatly. In 1973 on the Syrian front I think the well trained Israelis firing down on the Syrian tanks were successfully engaging at 2,000 yards. I have it in my head that in Tom Clancy times :-) US tanks could effectively engage at 4,000 yards in the right circumstances. This seems to me a huge difference from WW2, yet I have not seen anyone mention it regarding CCMT.

Yes, some of the scenarios are urban fighting, but at least one of them is desert.

I realize that engaging at extreme ranges is valid only in certain kinds of scenarios. But actions I'm interested in (e.g., Israeli Syrian offensive in the Yom Kippur War) occurred in lightly populated desert and would potentially involved long distances (depending on terrain, time of day, weather, etc.).

I've played Panthers in the Fog and Caen.

So: Is extended engagement range the reason for the really big map that folks mention? Is extended engagement range modeled well in the game?

< Message edited by wilsonch -- 3/24/2018 6:21:10 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: engagement ranges modeled well? - 3/24/2018 10:22:57 PM

SchnelleMeyer

Posts: 221
Joined: 3/26/2014
Status: offline

I don't know if the extended engagement ranges of some modern combat scenarios is the main reason for bigger maps. The game has a couple of desert maps with long range firing posibilities, but in the majority of stock maps there are terrain that limits viewrange and thus engagement ranges. - Long combat distances is not really practical as most of the time your units will shoot at things outside your screen, so you have to scroll or move the map a lot to see whats going on. - Well, if thats your playstyle that is..

The maximum maps size are 1km x 4km, and there are 5 of those available so you can add them to the stock game. Being that size does not mean that engagement happens at 2000m most of the time, for same reasons as above. - For specific map needs you might want to do some map modding yourself. IE create the map you need.

The modelling of long range engagements depend on the armor, gun and penetration data. - Those are all text files and can be easily modified with a spreadsheet program like Excel.
As an exampe : The US M256 120mm tank gun: has a Point blank range of 600m; Close: 1200 Medium range: 1400; Long: 1600. - This translates to a high chance of hitting up to 1200m and low chance from 1400-1600m - 1600m is the max range for this gun in. - In real life its more like 4000m - So its dialed back to provide for better "Close Combat".
Penetration wise it can penetrate everything except T-72 turret front and T-80 Hull and turret front at all distances.

(in reply to wilsonch)

Post #: 2

RE: engagement ranges modeled well? - 3/25/2018 4:13:13 AM

mickxe5

Posts: 458
Joined: 4/9/2016
Status: offline

CCMT was derived from CCMarines. The 1x1km and 1x4km maps were specifically requested by the USMC to have a 1km map grid square for training, however the so-called 1x1km maps were actually 960m x 960m. 3x3km maps were successfully tested for CC_RAF but never supported in the release code.

I share an interest in the battles on the Golan Hgts in '73, particularly the stand made by Lt Col Kahalani's 7th Btn/77th Bde against the initial Syrian armored onslaught. When the battlefield was littered with destroyed T55s, and 7th Btn was out of ammo, Col Kahalani and his tankers drove forward of their prepared positions, opened their turret hatches and stood tall. A daring bluff the Syrians didnt call with a renewed assault.

(in reply to SchnelleMeyer)

Post #: 3

RE: engagement ranges modeled well? - 3/25/2018 2:31:20 PM

wilsonch

Posts: 3
Joined: 3/24/2018
Status: offline

Yes, the stand of Oz at the beginning was one scenario I was thinking of. I have read Kahalani's book in English and the first few pages in Hebrew. And I watched an hour-long video Kahalani and his comrades did about that stand. But it doesn't seem to me that the stand would game well -- I picture it as a Space Invaders thing: keep killing the endless stream of enemies as long as you can. No room for maneuver. Or, from the Syrian side, be the Space Invaders. FWIW, the Israelis wouldn't have air support and the Syrians would.

There were also amazing stands in the southern part of the Syrian front. And the Syrians fought well and did break through several times.

But for gaming I was thinking more of the Israeli counter attack a couple of days later, and the action against the Iraqis, Saudis, and Jordanians later on. Both of those would have the possibility for long-range engagement, by both sides.

(in reply to mickxe5)

Post #: 4

RE: engagement ranges modeled well? - 3/25/2018 2:33:19 PM

wilsonch

Posts: 3
Joined: 3/24/2018
Status: offline

Thank you very much for the detailed info, which tells me what I wanted to know. I've bought the game now.

< Message edited by wilsonch -- 3/25/2018 2:41:17 PM >

(in reply to SchnelleMeyer)

Post #: 5