Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/10/2018 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Raptorx7

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    You're right it is expensive to drop sophisticated weapons on uncons. However if the balloon goes up you won't be degrading Chinas IADS in the pacific with "armored tractors", so yes the F-35 is incredibly expensive but worth it for what it needs to do. This argument is incredibly silly, if you can't tell whats wrong with making an "armored tractor" that shoots a demo charge "a few dozen meters away" over a freaking main battle tank I don't think we are going to go anywhere. Have you played CM? Would you like trying to fight against the Germans with a 105 sherman that has its range limited to 30 meters? Come on man.
  2. 1 point
    kinophile

    Russian forces in 2008

    Interesting retrospective on the 2008 Russo-Georgian War by WOTR. https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/russian-performance-in-the-russo-georgian-war-revisited/ Posting here and in Black Sea forum because it's a dual-use article. For SF2 it gives a greatsense of comparable RUS forces (I know they're not in the game), even just as background context. For BS it helps show just how far modern, 2018 RUS forces have come. It refs the CAST study, tge Tanks of August, so it's decent for civilian analysis (I guess?).
  3. 1 point
    Raptorx7

    Turkish Leopard 2A4 mod preview

    Are you serious? We need to produce well armored slow moving "bulldozers" to deliver explosives on defensive positions instead of tanks that can move quickly and shoot? Somehow this armored "bull dozer" will also remove the need for GPS guided air dropped munitions? I honestly have no idea what the heck you are talking about. If you can't see the tactical value of being able to drop a bomb that can land within 1-2 meters of a target from 36,000 feet at 520mph then i'm afraid you need to read up on modern warfare.
  4. 1 point
    Erwin

    Could there be a CM Korea?

    Let us start chanting for CM3. CM1 was 7-8 years old when it was made obsolete by CM2 in 2007. CM2 is now 11 years old(!). 'Nuff said...
  5. 1 point
    I see the following in 4.0 P-47D 32 points 96 rarity P-51B 30 points 150 rarity P-51D 35 points 175 rarity All three require an FO to access them while in battle.
  6. 1 point
    General Liederkranz

    Range info

    1) For small arms, it's in the manual. For lighter vehicular ordnance and guns (up to maybe 40mm), and for heavy weapons, it'll be listed in the UI, just under the silhouette of the vehicle/weapon. Anything heavier than that, I think they don't tell you because the assumption is it can reach anywhere on an ordinary map. But there is a little bit of flex in these values; bazookas and Panzerschrecks, for example, can fire beyond their listed ranges in some cases, especially if they're uphill from the target. 2) those are quick commands for (respectively): Pause, Stop, and Evade. The manual discusses them briefly but not in a lot of detail. A useful thread on the Evade command:
  7. 1 point
    Grumpy

    CMFB slow download

    My apologies, the issue was indeed my end. It turned out to be a wi-fi issue that was the cause of my slow D/L speed not Battlefront or ShareFile. Thank you to Help Desk for their help & support as well as their quick response.
  8. 1 point
    Heresy.....Call the inquisition!
  9. 1 point
    Erwin

    Russian army under equipped?

    Maybe best article ever written on subject. Eg: "After initial testing of T-64 Army started to understand the scale of failure, how utterly unworkable this abomination was in majority of Soviet Fatherland. The engine had to be warmed before ignition like Italian supercar for rich Italian mafia members that oppress simple Italian workers and parasitize the working class!. ...if tank lost tracks in combat and Soviet army engineers tried to pull damaged T-64 out of the battle, those punny rollers just buried themselfs because how thin they were, working as a self-entranching knifes and by this completely jamming suspension and not allowing to pull tank from the battlefield, just to ensure that Westerners will win! Those Kharkovites know no shame for their traitor rollers!"
  10. 1 point
    Got over my TOC burn out after testing a few too many Betas and am really enjoying playing the final version (this time for fun!). MOS has made significant changes/improvements since the final Beta so, some of the intel events and "incidents" are new even for me.
  11. 1 point
    But all of those factors are controlled by the settings in the editor. If you want your stragglers to be low on ammo or exhausted then tweak the settings.
  12. 1 point
    Long War Journal may prove useful too: https://www.longwarjournal.org/tags/libya
  13. 1 point
    Just some random thoughts from the testing thread.
  14. 1 point
    Try searching archives here: www.understandingwar.org
  15. 1 point
    Oliver_88

    Tank tactics: why the regression?

    Indeed sburke in essence your impressions correct but excluding the "hop in hop out" as Erwin states. Here's the example (using units I am more familiar with though) about the manner in which I envision acquiring from vehicles could work compared to the current system. Do not take the distances/terrain/times shown in the screenshots as gospel of course. Also to note that acquire could continue to work in the exact same manner as current system with regards to units that are inside the vehicles already. This is instead concerning acquiring from vehicles when the units are not inside them already. So in this example I have an five man pioneer section that I have rotated out from the front and need to obtain them more ammo from an carrier before sending them to the front again. The carriers are from an carrier section and have their crews mounted in them, so there are just four passenger seats remaining. Pictures might paint a thousand words about how I envision a alternate system, maybe a million words in the case of my unintelligent writings. Using the current system, to restock the same section from the carriers at any point after the scenario begins the user would need over separate order phases to; Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So in another example I have on the frontlines an rifle section and light mortar team from an platoon. I cannot rotate either out into the rear at the moment but need to obtain some more PIAT projectiles and small arms ammo for the section from one carrier. I also need to obtain some bombs for the mortar from another carrier, but am content for these to be shared with the mortar team rather than obtained by them. As I cannot rotate everyone out at the moment I decide to obtain the ammo using an detachment from the section. Using the current system, to restock them from the two carriers in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to; Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the first carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the section detachment from the first carrier. Order to embark the section detachment to the second carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the second carrier. Another example being having multiple units (pioneer section and some rifle section again) and needing to resupply them from the same carrier at the same time. They have both already been rotated out from the front so moving the entire sections to the resupply should be alright. Using the current system, to restock both from the carrier in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to; Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So yeah the main difference would be that there would not be any need for units to actually have to embark the vehicles in order to acquire some ammo from them. So no having to disembark any other already mounted units/crew just to enable the resupply. So no having to create/recombine any detachments units just to enable the resupply (you could continue to use detachments but that would be an tactical choice rather than an requirement). Units no matter their size should be able to supply from any vehicle no matter the number of passenger seats that vehicle has. Also as your not embarking the resupplying can be chained with various other commands even another resupply at another vehicle etc. Another difference would be in the time it takes to supply your units. Rather than being based upon how many full turns are required to embark and disembark and etc into various vehicles. The time taken would instead be being based upon what items you are actually trying to obtain from them. For example obtaining 2000 x 0.303 MKVII, 500 x 0.45 ACP, 9 x PIAT HEAT would no longer take the same time as obtaining just 5 x PIAT HEAT. Has anyone else also had the situation where the embarking unit are mid-embark at the end of the turn and are therefore required to wait another turn for them to be fully embarked before acquiring? Hopefully that describes to you what I mean. Something like this would instead mean that it's just the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" that we would need to micro manage over upon during an single orders phase (as it should be). The rest we entrust to the units to carry out over the next various turns until the tasks complete. But within current system as well as micro managing the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" we also are required to micro manage and baby the units each separate turn through embarking, acquiring, disembarking etc. And it's that last past that I reckon no-one feels the need to want to micro manage over.
  16. 1 point
    Ryujin

    Evade command is actually super useful

    This came up in another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread as it seems to not be widely known (at least I had no clue it was different from a normal fast move). The point being after some quick tests it seems it's the "Don't Stop!" move I had been missing for a long time. Unlike a normal fast move the troops will try much harder to complete an evade move under fire. So if your units get pinned in the open, an evade may get them on their feet and running to cover rather than laying there to be picked off. But the really interesting thing is it can be used preemptively. You can use it to say run across a street with much less risk of them stopping in the middle and all being killed. You can even use it to charge an enemy if you're feeling a bit desperate/suicidal. Obviously because they won't hit the deck, they'll be very exposed standing and running. So use it wisely. They also seem to stop to fire while carrying it out. I need to test it more, but it might work in some cases for an assault or room clearing move when you want them to keep going. Ironically, evade may be the closest thing to a proper 'assault' order... The evade button is the 4 arrows '+' looking button next the to the 'M' button. When you press it it'll create a waypoint you can drag around. Try putting it on an enemy and watch your guys keep running under fire to see it in action. Should save a ton of pixeltroopers, especially in urban combat. EDIT: Also seems like you can change the waypoint type and it'll keep the effect. Not so sure about following waypoints after the first.
×