Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/30/2015 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    George MC

    Rolling Thunder (demo scenario)

    This is one of the scenarios contained in the recently released demo. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/uncategorized/cmbs-rolling-thunder/ About the scenario This scenario recreates a US company team attack against a Russian Forward Security Element or FSE. A Russian FSE is a usually a reinforced company sent forward of the regimental axis when the threat is weak but more commonly sent ahead of a first echelon battalion or battalion operating away from the main body. Motorized rifle companies are often used in this role, even in tank units. Both sides have a fairly ‘typical’ OOB (organisation, units and vehicles) plus supporting arms (air assets, anti-aircraft assets and artillery) for the missions they have been tasked with. As such this scenario serves as a useful introduction to commanding a modern combined arms unit at the company level. This scenario was originally designed to be played first and foremost from the perspective of the US side against the Russian AI. It is playable head to head (H2H) but has not been playtested for balance in this regard. It is playable as Russian vs US AI, although in the attack the AI can't dismount and remount infantry, so that can hamper it a wee bit. Still the US AI plans should give you a tactical workout. There are three distinct Russian AI plans and two distinct US AI plans – thus allowing some level of re-playability. How difficult is the scenario? As stated this scenario is really designed to be played as US attacking Russian AI (or possible H2H). The designers intent is that a ‘good’ player i.e. a player used to the Combat Mission game engine and practiced in using modern core combined arms tactics would find this fun but not over the top challenging. A new player i.e. unpractised in either modern or Combat Mission should be able to play this (TOP TIP – make liberal use of the ‘save game’ option – so you can rewind if things go horribly wrong) – and most likely at least pull a draw. So bottom line is experienced players will most likely find it fun but straightforward, less experienced might find it challenging initially but soon becoming easier. Once the US side make it over the reverse slope position they have a very good chance of winning as the fire-power of a US mech company team is pretty immense!
  2. 1 point

    Kieme's modding corner

    Kieme CMBS Tunguska Special thanks to BTR for providing the ideal green base textures. Comes in green and 3-tone camo versions, please make sure you choose only one to use. Green version download: https://app.box.com/s/y40xg7xlincl3jjsh0qi2w2ma7u7cums Green version preview: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-tone camo download: https://app.box.com/s/19z7fuib25jo1muct7yzx5fgznl8fx1d 3-tone camo preview:
  3. 1 point
    "Anyone know if it is true about Top U.S. Commander Heather Cole under arrest for choosing not to comply with orders to fire nukes at Russia?" What on earth are you talking about? She was relieved for a bad command climate. That article said nothing about any sort of Nuclear first strike. She probably just ran a ****ty shop. She isn't the first and won't be the last. Also the (branch) Times newspapers have had shoddy reporting in the past, so grain of salt. And is there a translation problem, or are you implying those guys were Chevron Oil Corporation Commandos? Because lol.
  4. 1 point

    Combat training ground near Luhansk?

    You've been spending too much time around Kettler.
  5. 1 point

    Total beginner - first tips?

    Playing the demo now, most of my men have died pointless deaths. Not sure if I've killed a single enemy. I can't figure out how to fire the mortars. This is the game I was looking for. It is magnificent. Is their pvp? Not for today, but once I've got the basics, in 2020 or so.
  6. 1 point

    Total beginner - first tips?

    The game has a very steep learning curve. Once you get past that, it is very intuitive. The best tactical approach to use would be to try to be as realistic as possible. If you wouldn't risk crossing an open field in real life, don't order your pixeltruppen to do so. (Unless they beg you to allow them to prove their bravery. Then a simple nod of assent should suffice.) Find one SMALL battle (demo is fine, or the first "Training" battle in the CMBN game), and play it REPEATEDLY. Focus on fundementals; unit orders, coordination, stacked orders, etc. Good luck!
  7. 1 point
    Yes, to pinpoint unspotted ATGs to the exact action spot. Really great... Chess vs checkers. Trying to attract checkers players to play chess can only result in losing both in the long term. CM is WAAAY to complex to be attractive for the masses EVER. It will always be a niche product. Chess will also NEVER appeal to the masses. NEVER. One could pump up the graphics of chess and make it look like a FPS, but after the initial spike of shallow interest, it will again only be played by chess players who are not interested in explosions and action, but like the challenge of the mind. The same is with CM. I think the core CM-player was interested in realism above all. Now what will have the bigger impact on sales: those that like CM more because of hit decals, and therefore will buy the next game, or those disappointed customers who no longer perceive guns as threat after the first shot because of hit decals? I believe each of a disappointed core customer is a customer who bought all their products - contrary to those who are quickly attracted by shallow visual effects like hit decals and other gimmicks at the cost of degrading realism. Graphical effects attract quickly but the same crowd is also moving on to the next shallow effect in the next game. But beneath everything the core of the problem seems to be something completely different: The main game designer plays the game not in the mode the vast majority of wargamers play his products. That's never good, if you develop something and don't know, what your core customers need. There are no ladders, no campaigns, nothing played realtime. One could say: realtime does not exist among the wrgaming community. The result of this dramatic discrepancy could be observed since CMSF was released. The spotting problems as a result of keeping the calculation affordances as low as possible to make realtime play possible. Spotting works good enough for realtime but often not good enough for turn based. And I think this has dramatic consequences for potential new turnbased customers: they try the demo, recognize a strange spotting behaviour and lose interest. The 1:1 representation makes things even worse, since it leaves much less room for imagination than a symbolic representation. So again: 1:1 is attracting the visual oriented player, but if there are discrepances between presented action and results, itdegrades the experience of the customer who is interested in realism. The majority of realtime customers cannot be attracted, because FPS games offer them the much better quick action and cooler graphics. Additionally the game concept is so extremely different, that 99% will only shake their head. So the core group is lost and the big part of the massese cannot be attracted because it is chess and not checkers. I will never forget the disastrous relative hotkeys-concept when I tried CMSF the first time. What a punch into the face of WEGO-players that was. Or the water-effects since CMRT breaking FOW. Sounds from unspotted units? A problem since CMSF. But in combination with hit-decals since engine v3 this problem has been even increased instead to become solved. How easily foxholes can be spotted. Bunkers and trenches breaking FOW. And much more. I believe all these are results of a design process done from a realtime-player's perspective and therefore many of the problems are only discovered very late in the design process, or even too late after implementation. Instead that Battlefront had followed their former clear path torwards realism and protected and taken care of their brilliant WEGO-child, they lost this focus and now, with an ageing engine, they are sitting between the chairs, trying to keep new shallow action-customers somehow interested while they lose more and more of realism-focused wargamers which one after the other slowly give up, because the problems persist year after year and game after game and sometimes even become worse.
  8. 1 point

    throwing grenades

    While this is true, the range at which they can "close assault" from cover is very short. Frankly, if a tank is that close, it deserves a good kicking from the infantry that its owner couldn't be bothered to screen for. Sure, sometimes there might be an MG42 that would, if every motion of every pTruppe was explicitly modelled, provide overwatch and scratch the fleas off the back of the armour, but 30m is too damn close to cover, and it only takes one bit of covered approach the MG can't reach for the grunts to ruin the tankers' day. As an incentive to keep your arms combined, it works real good.
  9. 1 point

    throwing grenades

    The grenade throwing is an abstraction for the sorts of placebo-effect weapons that infantry had too, like the S.T. bomb, Hawkins mine, Tellermine, etc. These weapons were all of varying effectiveness and never guaranteed a kill but hey were better than nothing. They don't really warrant specific modeling effort because any way you cut it close assaulting tanks was a really crappy job. I remember in CMFI I lost most of a platoon of riflemen to a Tiger who succeeded in immobilizing the vehicle, but failed to knock it out. They *all* expended every grenade they had, this result while frustrating, is what keeps the game exciting to me. Because just the previous scenario one grenade from a team of 4 guys knocked out a Panzer IV. The game is all about hedging bets and working with what you've got. Not demanding and expecting specific results according to what you read in a Jane's guide 20 years ago.
  10. 1 point
    John Kettler

    Russian tank track skirts

    Apocal, The English language must be terribly confusing to people trying to learn it. Are we talking guards made of mud, something like China's famous clay warriors, or are they guarding mud. If the latter, why guard at all, given effectively unlimited supplies? And that's over an above the now not so obvious, if running across the term without knowing tanks or having an image to work from, guarding against mud? Weighty questions, to be sure. Now, if you want to talk mudbugs, I'm there! Shall need beer, though. Dozza, This is turning into quite an education for me. During my Hughes days one of my first assignments was to figure out how the Russians could render WASP, a brilliant swarm antitank missile which used active MMW guidance, useless. One of the things we came up with was using track guards to hide the telltale track reflections, especially when moving. Back then, the Russian tank force, as we saw it, was T-62s and T-55s, neither of which had skirts. The T-64, which did, was never seen in public back then, was never paraded. The US learned of the T-64 in the late 1970s, and there wasn't even a CIA report on the T-64B until October of 1984. In fact, we had no sighting of the T-64B until 1980. In my entire career in military aerospace I never saw a single CIA document. They had lots of control markings which kept them out of defense contractor hands. What I saw came out of DIA or Army Intelligence. This hiding the tracks concept may (note conditional) explain the embedded metal fibers in the T90 series track skirts and, presumably, the mud guards. The Russians were the world leader in MMW systems, and the US was trying desperately to catch up. The T-72 , which started with gill armor, was officially accepted as a State approved weapon in 1973. Interestingly, the Wiki has a link to BFC's T-72: Balkans on Fire. I don't know, having never seen anything on the matter at all in terms of more than cursory info, when the Russians switched from straight rubber (what we thought when we saw them), to the current material. But then, the US didn't have a single T-72 to examine until after the SU collapsed in 1989. Regards, John Kettler
  11. 1 point
    I recommend to play only in the turn-based system - in real time - we will have a slide show on the screen. Besides, very cool campaign
  12. 1 point

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    Though the worst piece of the movie, that part with the Tiger was only one small episode. I think they were trying to depict hitting the tank with smoke then covering open ground quickly and getting behind him. Their plan fizzled when the Tiger didn't cooperate and instead rolled forward through the smoke to meet them. Necessitation keeping all three Shermans in the same frame (and not widely separated dots on the horizon) for movie purposes kind'a screwed up the depiction of the tactic.
  13. 1 point

    Fury Movie Discussion.

    I went last night and enjoyed it. If you think movies should be tactical training tools used in staff colleges around the world: do not go. If you think movies should be documentaries, with every single t crossed and i dotted: do not go. If, on the other hand, think movies are a good way of telling stories and examining the human condition: go. Go see it at a theatre with comfy seats, a big screen, excellent stereo, and enjoy yourself. Even better is that afterwards you get to giggle at all the joyless dicks who'd rather count rivets than immerse themselves in a well told story for over two hours. "nothing I can't see on youtube"? FFS. Miss the point, much?
  14. 1 point


    womble - sure there was overkilling. But there was also plenty of flat out missing. Not everyone in the firing formation is an ace, some have the wrong range estimate, the targets start moving, smoke gets popped or targets brew up and obscure lines of sight, the targets try to take cover, gunners get excited... Combat fire is not firing range fire, basically, and its achieved hit rates reflect it. You can engage still at long ranges and have a quite good effect, if you just have enough shooters and enough target exposure time. But no, they don't need a TRP and they typically aren't boresighted or anything that elaborate. It is enough that one company gets the drop on the other. The operational histories are full of cases of companies or even whole battalions of tanks being engaged by enemy AT shooters and really not having much in the way of reply, certainly of effective reply. They get shot up and they pull out and lick their wounds, without having done much of anything back. As for ranges, sometimes as low as 800 yards, sometimes as long as 2.5 kilometers. At the longer ranges, often the shooters are never even located ; the targeted formation has their attention riveting on what is happening to them, very rapidly, and then on their defensive measures. In CM terms, "panic" for a tank crew does happen, but they typically continue to spot well and even shoot back effectively, when in real life that often breaks down completely. Seeing 3 friendlies brew up and being under effective heavy AT fire is often enough to make any idea of fighting back effectively the farthest thing from the tanker's mind, just like being under sustained MG fire often leads an infantryman to bury his face in the dirt, not scan the horizon for muzzle flashes and try to duel effectively with his own single shot rifle. Men are not all heroes. Combat is terrifying, and men get out of it when it is clearly going against them - if they can.
  15. 1 point
    The Translucent trees mod v2.0 doesn't work in RT. It has 5% far and near and 10% far and near, which was nice. No name in the readme and I don't recall who made this one, but I'm hating not having it. I would go as far as to say I miss this more than any other mod of the many I use, which surprised me when I put some thought into it. Show trunks only at close range is horrible, imho, and I'm not about to play with trees off. Anyway, I hope someone with the necessary skills will see this and make it happen. Much obliged, in advance!
  16. 1 point
    But I do love me some Game of Thrones. Worth taking a few minutes from the current pbems to watch.
  17. 1 point

    Saferight's Mods

    Thanks for testing that.
  18. 1 point
    Not Yes, but Hell Yes. And if Redwolf says it's worth the money, then you really know it is. (He hates everything)
  19. 1 point

    Air Strikes

    Your AA units will fire on anything that comes in range. CAS will find its targets by flying over, deciding what they just saw, attacking it, missing it wildly, and then go home and report complete success. You can hide and it may or may not help, but you can't avoid blue on blue. That is going to happen with air attacks on occasion.
  20. 1 point

    Mod for hedge "holes"

    As a scenario designer I always put a different terrain tile under any gaps in the bocage to make them easier to pick out.
  21. 1 point

    Mod wish #2: sparse bocage

    It'd be great to have a bocage mod that lets you see where the gaps in the bocage are. GaJ
  22. -1 points

    Graphics suck?!!?!?!

    I think that overhauling graphics might increase sales, however the real problem, in my opinion, is that Battlefront sales strategy is a little bit dated already. All the above mentioned games are distributed through many, many different online distributors, Steam, etc. Even Matrix Games is gradually moving to Steam. However, Battlefront doesn't want to share any revenues with anyone, which in turn means that they distribute on their own, they have small sales numbers, they charge high price, etc. It was ok 10 years ago, when most of the games were sold on shelves, however distribution costs have decreased a lot over the last 10 years. Yes, you have to share revenues with distributor, but market size is many times more what you currently have. And more sales means more revenues (yes, with lower margin), which in turn generates money for future projects. Like somebody said, war games are not a niche anymore. CM games stand out from other tactics games, they are really a gem. But for some reason, Battlefront cowers in the woods, does not show up in the big market with a really good product. If i was Battlefront, i would at least try for one year to go to "large waters" and see what happens. By the way, to be honest, i found about CM only by reading some blogs, while Total War series is to some extent crap, but everyone knows about it. And finally, short comment to what Steve said about 2-3 years of new engine development. They don't have to reinvent wheel and create new rendering engine. They could licence Unity 3D or any other already well established, cross-platform, rendering engine and spend time only on developing game logic. Just my 2 cents
  23. -1 points
    John Kettler

    John Kettler's Omnibus Thread

    Everyone, The purpose of this thread is to provide a central location into which I can put information and the like which I deem significant and worth knowing about, as well as my own observations and opinions, subject to the usual BFC rules, as well as certain request and strictures coming from BFC. In this way, there should be no further thread proliferation and "real post" ranking issues. Other members are, of course, welcome to participate in what I post, but I ask that you be respectful. Argue against the ideas I present; don't attack me. As some may have noted, I have formal requests in to the Mods to kill two separate threads. If they choose to do so, that should further alleviate matters on the CMBS Forum as a whole. Regards, John Kettler
  24. -1 points
    LukeFF, I really do wish you'd stop slamming me, both directly and indirectly. It's rude, abusive and cruel. Worse because you keep choosing to attack someone who's not only disabled but also recuperating from a serious injury. Your ongoing pattern of doing this also involves, based on my read, at least, multiple violations of the Forum Rules you agreed to as a condition of being a participant here, the same deal everyone else here made. I think you're grown up enough that you can express an opinion on your own--without having to drag me into it. Please do so. Do Right, PAL is Permissive Action Link, and it's not a program you load into a computer. The link explains what a PAL is and how it works. As for patches, at 1:07 in the vid I see what used to be the patch for KGB Spetsnaz Alpha, now FSB Spetsnaz Alpha. The patch on the man's left shoulder which, even with my nil Russian, reads ANTITERROR, appears to me to be identical to the one in the upper right at the Lost Ivan link. Here's what I don't know. Is he the real deal, or is he wearing it because he's a member of some sort of separatist Spec Ops unit and/or as some sort of martial fashion statement? Having watched footage of Alpha in action, I'd say he's not the real deal. Those guys carry themselves considerably differently and well, send out a different vibe, for want to a better word. Girkin/Strelkov is a known (cough) retired FSB GRU Colonel. Later, in a since redacted interview posted online, he admitted he was an FSB colonel. Alpha in action! Codename Duchess, Is the periodical/site you sort of named some sort of sacred cow that you didn't name it completely? Regarding Captain Heather Cole, the quote I see here refers to "loss of confidence" in her ability to command. Is that the same as a bad command climate, or is that something else? The comments make interesting reading, for some are by people who served under her at other commands. They thought she was a good CO. But directly pertinent to the issue Do Right raised about the purported refusal to launch nuclear weapons is the source of the story is evidently The European Union Times. A bit on that from the Southern Poverty Law Center which, from what I've seen, is extremist in its own way. I strongly suspect the unnamed principal is, in fact, Sorcha Faal aka David Booth. Once in three or four blue moons said "worthy" puts out a story that's actually true. But for all the flak I get here from some, I practically convulse with laughter after encountering one breathless story after another directly sourced to inside the GRU, by implication within the Aquarium. Say what you like about Suvorov/Rezun, but he was in it, and I totally believe what he said about its mania for secrecy. Were there such a source, I'd expect a very short productive period before there was no source, other than smoke from the on-site crematorium! Other commenters talk about the apparent explosion of command removals under Obama. 300 according to one. Nor does the section Relieved of Command make cheery reading. The depth and breadth of commands affected, to me, speaks to organizations under acute stress, with the Navy the hardest hit because it's the Navy as a service which is carrying, and has been carrying, the biggest load for the longest time, and it just keeps getting worse. I have no handle on what Obama's doing and why, other than that he has no respect for the military, can't be bothered to understand it, yet has no compunctions about demanding ever more from it, regardless of the costs. Moving on. General question Can anyone say, one way of the other, whether the CO in the Luhansk training ground video is a Russian officer? Whoever he is, he sure has a ramrod straight spine, feet apart bestriding his domain, total confidence and positively radiates authority. He comes across as being used to command and relishes it. Also, I thought I heard the term "komandir brigada," which I took to mean Brigade Commander. If so, I would think, given the way I understand the separatists are organized, he'd be a very big deal indeed. Regards, John Kettler
  25. -1 points
    Was researching a battle near Debrecen, Hungary when I saw this in the sidebar and just had to see what it was. The encounter was very nearly fatal--because I found myself convulsing. With laughter! Having seen but brief clips from the impressive film covering that iconic battle, I'm sure most of what's here goes over my head, but even so... Regards, John Kettler