Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/25/2015 in all areas

  1. 3 points

    Amazing WW2 photos

    Maybe some of you already saw these, but they were new to me. Many incredible shots here. http://scalecombat.narod.ru/realwar/ww2photos.html
  2. 2 points
    I'll post a wide angle screenshot on my next update. The tree was simply a happy coincidence, oh I mean I totally planned that out! Yes, absolutely! He's not knocked out yet, not with a single Partial Penetration. I'm just hoping I can land a couple more shots before he inevitably reverses out of view range. If the Panther had hit him instead of the StuG, he might have been knocked out with a single shot... This fog is driving me nuts!
  3. 2 points

    Hard coded SMG range limit.

    Amedeo, just an observation on the data, informed by my experience dealing with that kind of data while working on another game Always take that kind of figures as the "best that weapon can do". Full stop. These figures were collected from field trials, with the weapons being operated by technicians or marksmen on perfect conditions (a firing range with props that allow to measure exactly dispersion). The British Army Ordnance Service conducted a more "realistic" testing using recruits and the differences one can see between the technical specs and the actual outcomes achieved with highly reputed weapons as the Sten or the Enfield, well, let's say that the technical specs of the weapon predict very badly how they will actually perform in the hands of your average recruit, under psychological stress and against targets that try to close the range quickly or are using cover in an intelligent way. From a more "operational" point of view: when you feed this data, taking it as the baseline probability of killing or maiming, on any reasonable model of infantry combat by fire, you'll get massive casualty rates. Massive as in totally ahistorical. The data is "wrong" in the sense that either it needs to be toned down to set the "any given Sunday" to a more reasonable level, which is difficult, since the definition of "any given Sunday" is a moving target, or the combat model (and the AI if it is empowered to manage ammunition) has to provide with the elements to "modulate" these figures, starting from the assumption that it is an absolute upper bound on what that weapon can do. That data integration and curation job is very hard. BFC call seems to be to have the AI to disregard the PPSh as something that can be fired above certain ranges... and I think it makes all the sense in the world. Yet as ASL Veteran and others point out, there seems to be something a bit off with the lethality of these weapons on the latest versions of the engine. I do tend to agree with those observations. But I don't think the data BFC is using is wrong, their models are buggy or the AI is being unreasonable: I think it is more a question of design of effects and interactions with other aspects of the design of the CMx2 engine. Regarding design, I - personally and subjectively - would like to see the volume of fire these things can put out at ranges beyond 60 meters to result in more suppression over a larger area, rather than generating killing or incapacitating hits. As for interactions with other parts of the CMx2 design, the tighter-than-in-real-life packing of our pixel truppen due to action spots constraining their deployment that increases lethality. If you have five guys standing in a 8 square meters area and something like 100 rounds of ordnance shot fly through the volume encompassing the action spot and the men, chances that all of them are hit will be quite high, as they will be physically occupying a significant proportion of that volume. And that assuming that the rounds trajectories are uniformly and randomly distributed, for even loosely aimed fire, those chances can become almost a certainty. Observations about action spots and burst fire extreme lethality have been made in the past, I am not sure what is BFC opinion on that.
  4. 1 point

    Three in one go

    One 100mm shell kills 3 BMP-3M. I realize that the BMP´s were a bit too close, but can the blast of the secondary explosion really be strong enough to kill all of them?
  5. 1 point
    Its The Scenario Depot III but its hosted on the FGM servers. Here ya go. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-battles-for-normandy/crossroads-at-pierrefitte-en-cinglais/
  6. 1 point
    Try zipping it. Or go here. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/ And zip it for upload.
  7. 1 point

    Stuka Siren Sound Mod?

    Starting in 1941, but they lingered on in some units into 1942.
  8. 1 point

    Hard coded SMG range limit.

    I'm no expert but I am finding SMG's in RT so ridiculous that I'm probably going to just stick with BN until they fix it. My observation is they are far too accurate and spoils the fun of any infantry combat. With a semi useful knowledge of terrain its fairly easy to get within 200m at which point the firefight is only ever going to go one way. PS not a German fanboy
  9. 1 point
    Yes, that's a hit on one Firefly. StuG will continue to fire while the Panther and Jpz inch forward to try and get a spot. That's not the biggest news of the turn however: Ithikial has crossed the ford next to the Rail Bridge. My mortars are retargeting this area and will fire until they're empty. Once all of the mortar rounds are gone they will advance to join these guys: This is a Platoon HQ and HMG Section, already advancing towards the Rail Bridge. The second HMG Section is mounting up in my Opel Blitz, and will be driven here as well. The Attack Company is having a slight fatigue problem, and will advance ASAP. I really need to occupy some buildings in the town before Ithikial sends more troops across the river, or I will have quite a job digging them all out.
  10. 1 point

    Command order suggestions?

    Yep, ignore that Stummel at your peril. A couple of HEAT rounds from a Stummel has saved my bacon on more than one occasion in PBEM's And there's more than a couple of deadly AC's too, on both sides.
  11. 1 point

    Command order suggestions?

    Did you forget to log into your other account before complimenting your self?
  12. 1 point

    Crossing Fords

    I had made this guide for fords but maybe should revise it for vehicles...
  13. 1 point
    Thanks Sublime. Yeah I know but if one is not careful one can get chewed out at times. I hesitate quite a bit from asking at times in order not to bring on any negative replies. But then at times I take my chances.
  14. 1 point
    Christian Knudsen

    German attack doctrine in CM

    Since I started reading JasonC's posts, over the last 15 years or so, (I've been lurking here a long time, I guess) he has pretty unwaveringly (and at times, to be fair, somewhat brusquely) advocated an attritionist stance, both operationally and tactically. As an attritionist, he argues that efforts that do not aim to reduce enemy fighting power are at best an inefficient way of winning, and at worst a waste of resources. Therefore he argues that terrain has no value, unless it imparts an edge when it comes to destroying enemy power. A bridge that crosses a major river is just a bridge. A bridge that is the only supply route for an enemy formation, the destruction of which would leave them unsupplied and cut off, is a valuable target. The minute the enemy finds another MSR, that bridge is less important. So his position is that any piece of terrain has only relative value tied to its ability to affect the reduction of enemy fighting power. Great, sounds good. But the current question (and we are far from German tactical doctrine now), has become one of scenario design. As I understand it, JasonC is basically saying that a scenario designer who ties the balance of victory to terrain locations is handcuffing the player by forcing them to go after ground, not go after the enemy. Now I'm not knocking scenario designers - I've tried designing some, and I know it's really really difficult to do, much less well. My hat goes off to anyone who gets one finished, frankly. But I see his point about scenarios that overvalue victory locations. Why do I have to put boots in that village when I can just drive around it because I have killed off everything outside of it, and it is now totally isolated, all the ground around dominated by my fire? The enemy there is powerless, and I can kill him whenever I want, because he can't move without being blown to smithereens. Yet achieving this, I have lost the CM scenario, because I have not physically planted my flag on the enemy strongpoint, as it were. I can, however, see two situations where one would design a scenario with a patch of ground that absolutely must be taken. The first is that you as the scenario designer provide a reason that makes that village an important piece of terrain. Maybe it is the only good option for an MSR for forces advancing past it, or it has an important bridge crossing that you need to use. Maybe the important VP location is the hill that allows your FO to see the the road going through the village! The other reason is to create a scenario in which you have to take that village because your commander thinks that ground has intrinsic value in and of itself, and you are just the poor schlep following orders! But even then, I think that victory should not be solely or largely dependant on holding that ground at the end of the scenario, in terms of victory points. If all the defenders are dead or shattered, they will not hold that village for much longer. As a final point, one of the big reasons I am hopeful that choppinit's operational layer project succeeds is to reduce that sort of terrain VP based mentality. One almost never sees defenders withdraw in a CM scenario. They stand to the point that they break or die, and it is rare that a scenario awards a majority of points for defender force preservation. I realise that it is very hard to do from a design and balance standpoint, so there is that. But in a dynamic campaign, force preservation can become huge, and the idea of living to fight another day can have some real merit, so long as the campaign itself is well designed. Of course, I'm sure we will see the same arguments repeated then, with "campaign" substituted for "scenario". I look forward to it!
  15. 1 point
    METT-T Analysis Part 3 Not sure if there is much interest in this AAR now that the game has been released, but I am continuing until either I am told to stop, I have no troops left, or Abnormal Dude surrenders. TROOPS The next part of the METT-T analysis is analyzing your won troops. Mine have taken a beating as can be seen in this table. But my German forces are untouched and have yet to engage ND's forces. I will explain how I going to maneuver in my next post. TIME This battle is 1.5 hours in length. That is the time I have to complete my tasks. The battle is now 20 minutes old, so I have another hour (plus) to go. I should receive my final reinforcements in about 5 minutes (at the 25 minute mark) My first set of reinforcements came in 4 minutes ago and I have already lost a crucial part of that (the Semovente) so I will need to be careful when I maneuver the remainder of my force. Normal Dude will be getting the remainder of his reinforcements in 5 minutes as well, so I need to be in position before those arrive and upset the apple cart. NEXT: Next Moves
  16. 1 point
    I know this is something I should have started at the beginning of this scenario but I guess I wasn't taking this action as seriously as I should have. I was too interested in playing with and experimenting with the Italian force which was new to me. Now I am appalled at how this has unfolded so far that I wanted to take a step back at this point and really analyze what I am up against, what I have to do it with, etc. A mission analysis consists of the following elements: Mission analysis (what your task is), Enemy Analysis (capability and organization), Terrain Analysis (key terrain, avenues of approach, etc.), Troops (your force capability and organization), and Time (the time constraints you have to work within to accomplish your mission). This is known as METT-T analysis. I have completed the first two of these components, here they are: NEXT: Terrain Analysis
  17. -1 points
    rocketman, Thanks for that! On balance, he seems to get it, though as one comment noted, the CMBS learning curve is very steep and the punishment for mistakes brutal.The reviewer doesn't seem to realize that the CMx2 Engine isn't an upgrade from the CMx1 Engine, and I thought the upgrade, upgrade passage rather amusing. Was heartened to see the reviewer's public plea for the Pacific War to be covered. As I've noted previously on the CMBS Forum, I've found it easier to get going on this game, as opposed to the slog I've had in CMBN, as a consequence of what I believe to be the shift from bocage claustrophobia, with restoration of movement and improved mental well-being, not to mention prettier scenery, to which must be factored in my extensive background in modern warfare and weaponry. Though my knowledge base is somewhat dated, I feel safe in asserting it's really helped my acclimatization process. In fairness, though, I came into this game with a background, however sporadic, in the CMx2 Engine and its workings, rather than straight in from CMx1 as I did with CMBN. That had to help! I believe the review will likely bring BFC a bunch of new players, especially given not just the ever evolving Ukraine upheaval, but with all the ancillary news and oft scary reports, not just in the region, but from a global perspective. sburke, An iconic picture, to be sure, but I think rendering that sort of thing in-game would require BFC to create a mini Cray purchase plan so we could run it! Also, the Vehicle Pack will need tank dozers, skip loaders, dump trucks and other construction equipment, to include that thing I grew up calling a steam shovel, in order to be able to clear that road from a presumably immense amount of rubble. agusto, Only 1000 hours or more? That is 71 complete PTEs (Play-Through Equivalents) for a typical FPS. At a very wallet friendly $50 per FPS game, the equivalent game hours would've cost you $3550.00, making CM the bargain of the century. Psst. Don't tell Steve! Childress, Excellent points, but I still miss it. Well do I recall a CMBO night attack initially well supported by the foul breath of the Crocs--and the explosions and great gouts of flames erupting from them as the confounded Panzerschrecks turned my attack into an abattoir! I notice we don't have the RPO-Z projectile in the game, which, ablaze practically from launch (was true on the original RPO, may not be anymore), would be quite the thing to see en route to the target, especially at night. Nor do we have the WP equipped RPO-D. On a separate note, I see the new single shot MRO-A Rocket Launcher is missing from the Russian special weapon list in the CMBS Manual. The MRO-A is solely in Russian service and has been used by the so-called separatists in fighting in Donetsk. Also missing are the MRO-D (WP) and MRO-Z (incendiary). Regards, John Kettler
  18. -1 points
    sand digger

    German attack doctrine in CM

    Geez, the German fanboism is strong here, everyone else must have been stupid by default too.
  19. -1 points

    German attack doctrine in CM

    Honestly people, it is completely unnecessary to give the idiot scenario designer any control over your command or your force. If his assigned tasks are not achievable he is a fool and there is no reason to listen to him about anything. If his assigned tasks are achievable then destroying the enemy will enable you to achieve them. Read the brifeing for enemy force estimates and intel. Then review your force at set up and make your plan, with the sole end in view of murdering the enemy. If said enemy is obliging enough to be nice and predictable and obey his metaphysical orders, feel free to use that to introduce him to his Maker that much sooner. When the enemy is a blood smear under a pile of smoking slag, read the victory conditions. If you like. If you plan on losing, reading them until judgment day won't help...
  20. -1 points

    Armata soon to be in service.

    Steve. You don't remember the "I doubt we will see a prototype before 2018 posts?" from some posters on the forum. I didn't mention it coming into service or numbers at all, you simply bolted that onto your reply there like some kind of rebuke. Don't be a chopper.
  21. -1 points

    Because Bradley

    "If there's a real problem, blame the customer."
  22. -1 points

    German attack doctrine in CM

  23. -1 points

    Zala Capabilities

    it is in qbs. but quick battles are more to test opponents ability. and its only banned because it cannot be shot down at all. This is different than say nerfing US equipment for balance, or whatever. Its a house rule to make QBs fair. Not balanced because one side still uses Russians and the US still gets all it stuff. But just like you could say not buying all super heavy artillery anr CAS and preplotting strikes on your opponents setup zone is doing balance its really just to ve fair. If zalas could be at least even shot at Id allow them. I also generallly dont allow APS in my QBs. the US doesnt currently have APS and because this is a gamw that cant model a number of factors that in real life would help the Russians I see a great reliance on ATGMs and therefore prefer no side uses APS . Regardles noones forcing you to not use zalas and you can play anyway you want. Just not against me. You opened the thread for thoughts and discussion and I gave you mine. No one is forcing you to do anything. And if in the future the game was edited so the Zala could be shot down like all other drones ( except gray eagle in observe mode iirc) than Id allow it in QBs. Since i play as Russians in 99.9% of all my QBs in BS its not hurting my opponents but me with the Zalas. The no APS hurts them more than me because Javelins go right through Russian APS but I feel Abrams and Javelins more than make up for that issue ( the Russians have no fire ans forget ATGMs let alone top attack ones) This however is how I play the game and in QBs against an other player. I also dont do attacks n assaults. In WW2 titles the defender against a himan is almost certainly doomed from the start and its more glaring in BS. instead i play probes that still do attack defense and give the attacker more points but not such a huge disparity. I want qbs to tests of player skill but not artificial ones - i.e. I dont continue to play people who consistently cherry pick the very best trained and highest order equipment, use gamey tactics, or dont follow agreed upon house rules.
  24. -1 points

    When and how to use attack helicopters?

    There's a big difference in how I use Russian and US air assets. Russian assets air much more vulnerable to being lost by losing your air controller - the only person who can call in air strikes. Meanwhile almost all US HQ units can call in air support. Also US response times are much quicker so when playing US Im much more likely to hold back and use CAS as needed or on call, whilst as the Russians its almost ineviteable that Ill preplot a first turn strike with some if not all air assets, especially because almost all air assets can be called back for a round two on both sides.
  25. -1 points

    Zala Capabilities

    Btw I have to add Antaress that without a set introduction date I wouldnt advocate the Kurganets being included in game at all. In fact the T90AM isnt even in active service but BFC gave the Russians the benefit of the doubt. A fact that seems lost on a lot of people with that piece of Russian kit. Some of the other stuff you mentioned is true, and yes the Russians at least seem (no one would really know unless there was a real war god forbid) to be better at jamming and other stuff than the US. And yes EW settings can affect JDAMs, call in times, and precision artillery strikes. The new ammo whilst would make a difference in that every shot would be an almost definite kill as you stated I dont think would be as much a game changer as you think. A completely revolutionary new tank like the Armata or new set of spotting systems that are realistically somehow going to be in place in Russia in 18 months would help a T90 or tank equipped with the same gun and ammo way more against an Abrams, because as you stated and from my personal experience I get frontal kills (though I almost always try for flank kills because frontal usually means you lost the surprise element and flank shots are guaranteed penetrations and probably kills) on abrams with T90s all the time. Without evidence on the spotting we'll just have to disagree. Of course my green troops dont spot as well. Of course at night the US has an advantage. But in daytime battles my Russian infantry spot just fine, with maybe a minor advantage to US. What also aids the US is better info sharing between units and if there are any AFVs the definitely superior thermals that negate the once powerful ambush advantage of being in heavy woods, which now are basically a death trap for Russian infantry if you're trying to ambush Bradleys or Abrams. In fact trying to ambush Bradleys or Abrams without being seen only seems to have one surefire way to work without being spotted first - buildings. Though in my opinion if you're down to relying on RPG7s or 26s in your infantry squads to fight Abrams and Brads (besides of course chance surprise encounters or opportunity situations) things are already really screwed up on your part. Repent on your sacrilege of the holy Bruins name before its too late my friend! Death could strike at any time! Next you'll tell me you prefer the Yankees over the Sox...