Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/13/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points

    Black Sea II

    No NATO force will ever attack / invade Russia. It was never designed for that, there was never an appetite for that. It will never happen. The Russian government can go on and on about the NATO threat but NATO forces are only a threat to Russians who are in someone else's country - specifically only other NATO members.
  2. 2 points
    No he doesn't and if you open such a thread somebody will open the same one in about a year's time - rinse and repeat for every year that CM3 is not released. Seriously ... it is far too early to be thinking that CM3 is coming on the horizon given the workload that Steve has already outlined. This workload I doubt will prevent them from paying much attention to what is said about CM3 out here.
  3. 2 points
    In my case it got me through about 300 yards of open ground potentially covered by IS-2s & ISU-152s (at 1km+ ranges), so infantry was the last thing on my mind!
  4. 2 points
    The US has a distinct advantage in fires integration, targeting and precision. The greater question for artillery in the next few years is being able to achieve effects in the face of frankly terrifying counter-battery capabilities. The idea a M777 battery is going to be able to fire off more than 1-2 rounds before having to displace or face total destruction is certainly sinking in. The traditional massed and persistent Russian fires are basically inviting ruin on the firing batteries. From that fires and effects are going to have to be able to answer the question of how to achieve the same effects, with less time/rounds to do so. Precision will certainly play a role although the current laser/GPS guidance trend will be challenged by EW (while the laser itself is not subject to jamming, the spotting element's communications, let alone if it's a drone are), as will advances in non-kinetic ADA (or whatever we care to call lasers or similar hard kill non-bullet options) observation. One thing that will be interesting is the historic fires integration piece taken to a more refined output, in that it may be still possible to put dozens of rounds on a target while still only doing so from a small number of guns by coordinating and allocating fires across a wider collection of units, or as far as several batteries firing very small missions, but sequenced and coordinating digitally (Battery A shoots 1 round per gun, displaces while Battery B fires 1 salvo then displaces, then BN mortars drop 3 rounds before displacing then Battery A opens up again). Or to visualize, artillery will spend more time in motion than firing, and each firing opportunity will need to mean more, and each target will need to be more relevant (or the historical US/and to an even larger degree RU ability to simply dump fires on anything that's being troublesome will be deeply challenged). Basically it's going to matter a lot less about the gun, or how the gun is loaded, and more about how the round gets where it needs to go, and how we accomplish effects while someone tries to kill the gun. The Russians especially historically have counted on massed non-precision fires, which may be lethal but again it won't take too many "missed" displacements to start to reach parity in numbers and greater effects disparity in terms of fires. As far as "Alas Babylon" It would be a mistake to attribute too much of the damage to US fires, or to at the least, indicate somehow they were responsible for causing more damage that would have occurred anyway. Both Mosul and Raqqa were subject to lots of dumb artillery and direct fire weapons from the non-US elements rolling in (some of whom conduct "recon by fire" and little else), and ISIS rather relies on booby traps or other scorched earth type techniques. Basically several bulls went through the China shop. The US precision (either in guided or digitally aided) fires certainly did some damage, but it's a bit obtuse to pretend they made it especially bad after looking at the other actors and factors at play.
  5. 2 points
    I have CMBN installed on 3 machines right now, my main desktop, my laptop and my daughter's laptop. She is enjoying LAN battles with me almost as much as I am. I have CMFI installed on those three as well as my desktop at work. My understanding is the game comes with 4 activations initially and a new one is made available every year you own the product. As for Steam, Battlefront have stated repeatedly they will not be using the Steam platform. As stated before, my daughter and I have been playing LAN battles with each other without issue. I own a copy of Civiliation V and while it is installed on both our laptops, I need to buy a second copy to battle her thanks to Steam's DRM rules. So a big thanks to @Battlefront.com for not using Steam so I can introduce the joys of CM to the next generation.
  6. 1 point
    In reading Zaloga's generally excellent Armored Thunderbolt, which really gets into all sorts of matters Sherman not covered well in the past, I have noticed, not only that Shermans with forward mounted .50 cal MGs are rarer than hen's teeth, but for there even to be a Ma Deuce installed on most of the tanks shown in all sorts of different ETO combat locations, dates and in an array of different units. This is true regardless of basic type (cast or welded), powerplant, main gun, etc. If you ignore the dust jacket photo of an Easy Eight with a Ma Deuce in front of the TC as being highly atypical of the images in the book, there's hardly a photo to be found in the book proper of that configuration or any .50 cal. HMG at all. Speaking from the perspective of someone who got hosed down wholesale with .50 cal. fire in "Barkmann's Corner" in a scenario in which, as best I could tell, all the tanks had forward mounted .50s (sure looked that way based on where the tracer lines were coming from), I find myself more than a bit perplexed by my CM experience vs. dozens and dozens of photos in Zaloga's book showing Shermans, in combat zones all over the place both spatially and temporally, in some cases, in active combat, with nary a Ma Deuce to be seen, still less one forward mounted. Offhand, if we may consider Zaloga's pics to be remotely representative of battlefield reality, it seems to me there's a lot of HMG firepower loose on the CM battlefields which wasn't present on the real ones. I well remember the bitter arguments over HMG placement, but am now wodering whether the arguement shouldn't have instead been over simple presence, never mind positioning! Shall be most interested to see what sorts of replies I get. Regards, John Kettler
  7. 1 point

    Black Sea II

    How's the weather in St. Petersburg today?
  8. 1 point

    Happy New Year's Day! 2018 look ahead

    That was my guess. That is why I will not open such a thread. Let's be happy with what we have already !!!
  9. 1 point
    I vote English Civil War, but I would, wouldn't I? Cuz I won.
  10. 1 point

    CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2

    Bonjour A la tienne 3j2m7 camouflaged !!
  11. 1 point

    Black Sea II

  12. 1 point

    Happy New Year's Day! 2018 look ahead

    Actually am not bothered about pics. Having heavily modified CM2 titles gives me all the graphics highs I need. Am more concerned about the quality of gameplay. Which is one reason that I hope CM3 is in the works as that is the only way we'll see a major advance/improvement of gameplay experience. +1 re Bulletpoint's point re fighting "the basically same situation in three different games." Yes. It's a growing concern that have played so much CM2 that all the WW2 titles are starting to "feel" very similar in terms of gameplay experience. "...for variety, I think it would be more interesting to branch out in different years of the war, where the relative strengths were different." Agreed. However, we've been playing essentially the same CM2 experience for over ten years (from CMSF onwards). It's looks likely it will take at least another 5 years to get to early war (and perhaps longer). Am having a hard time imagining playing essentially the same game for 15-20 years without the major improvements that CM3 would provide.
  13. 1 point
    What a great shoot out. Thanks for sharing it with us.
  14. 1 point
  15. 1 point
    The zig zag discussion is based upon the training movie George MC posted some time ago. In that movie the SPW was zig zagging while a Russian ATR tried to kill it. Hence the question whether it could be simulated in the game. I fully agree that in the game it wouldn't work and only make the SPW more vulnerable, but that's also not really the point. It was just for argument's sake. In the game only distance, cover and in lesser measure speed can save your SPW. To be honest I also doubt zig zagging in real life would have been recommendable. It most certainly isn't mentioned in the training manuel I've quoted.
  16. 1 point
    It's not about AI, because there is no AI. At least there is no AI that moves troops around. It's about scenario design. To me, it looks like the scenario designer gave a move order to a group of vehicles, but only gave them ONE square to move to. That means all the vehicles will try to move into that one 8x8m square, but there's not enough room for all of them. So they bunch up. In the end, the designer needs to understand the tools he has to work with.
  17. 1 point
    By the way, didn't they say they would start in the late war and then work their way backwards, getting to the early war eventually? Or was it that the game families would go back in time, but modules would progress forward in time? It seems both the new games (CMFB) and new the new modules for exsiting games are now converging towards the end of the war. This seems a bit strange to me, because we will then fight the basically same situation in three different games: Nearly beaten Germany vs the USA (CMFB) Nearly beaten Germany vs the USA - but in Italy! (CMFI Rome to Victory) Nearly beaten Germany vs the Soviets (CMRT end of war module) I guess you could say it makes business sense to use the already developed content in as many products as possible, and a lot of the customers probably want to fight in the late war, with the most powerful tanks etc. I'm not saying those three settings won't be interesting to play. But for variety, I think it would be more interesting to branch out in different years of the war, where the relative strengths were different.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point

    Barbed Wire

    true but their view of what uncons meant is not what we interpret based on the Iraq/Syria experience. (and I absolutely agree that 4.0 will renew the game experience) Should probably start a separate thread as I find this actually a very interesting subject. In reading Angels in Sadr City I learned a lot about the nature of the Shiite insurgency and the limitations Sadr faced, conflicting priorities of insurgent elements, fragmented nature of it's organization etc. It is worth a read and I would think an interesting discussion. For the purpose of this thread though CMSF is about the invasion of Syria, not the occupation of Syria. If you look at the initial period up to the tearing down of Saddam's statue , the uncons in Iraq were Saddam's Fedayeen and some military out of uniform. An Nasiryah is a good example. It was HQ of Iraq's 3rd Corp and home of the 11th ID a unit the US fully expected to just surrender or dissolve. It didn't. It actually stood and fought along with Fedayeen units. Many of it's soldiers fought in whatever they wore. They were not an organized insurgency yet. The US would face similar groupings here and there on the march to Baghdad, but the insurgent units we envision would not really show their face in the same way until later in 2003 and 2004 in Iraq- during the occupation. Even on the issue of IEDs, from what I can find they didn't really start showing up until July (there were earlier examples, just not in significant numbers yet) - several months after Baghdad fell. The Shiites generally welcomed the US, though their experience from the last Iraq war left them wary of US commitment and Saddam's ability to stay in power. They suffered from Sunni depredations as they retreated north and then mostly sat on the sidelines until 2004 after several mis steps by the coalition authority and the rise of Sadr. I think this is the disconnect between what BF created and what we are doing based on actual events. CMSF is a fictional narrative similar to CMBS except it is no longer a fictional narrative. Instead it is a sort of past alternate history (which is what CMBS is likely to become as well). Gamers like Sgt Squarehead and myself and many others utilize CMSF to try and recreate more historical events rather than the event as portrayed in the CMSF background story. Heck I am even thinking of a Mogadishu type scenario or Operation Anaconda. So going back to Sgt Squareheads comments and hopes to see uncons with AA assets etc , well that isn't the CMSF back story and it doesn't reflect what the uncons represented in 2003 Iraq either. What happened with the insurgency in Iraq and the collapse of Syrian central authority is different and is not represented by the uncons in CMSF. BF has not only not expressed interest in that, they have been explicitly opposed. Personally I wish they had a different view too. The US combat experience for the past 15 years is what it is. It is now historical fact. CMSF comes far closer than CMBS to portraying modern combat experience. However CMSF is 10 years old. That BF is bringing it up to 4.0 standards is amazing (and only Steve gets to define here what that means as it isn't like just upgrading software. There are decisions they have to make about adapting to capabilities they have now they didn't have then). They are not looking to make this project bigger than it already is by trying to add even more items because frankly there is no guarantee that this will pay for itself as it is. They are doing this as an act of faith and of recognition of a very loyal fan base. Yes it will be what it will be - and it will be really good. It will not be everything that you want. Nothing ever is. It is called growing up, getting used to disappointment, finding comfort in what you have and dying. such a positive note to end on.