Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/10/2018 in all areas

  1. Well, there is a completed "2018 Turkish Army" mod pack that I've still got to upload one of these days. That'll get you a little bit closer to 'modern war' timeframe. It'll take some imagination to concoct modern Syria battle scenarios out of what's in the game but that's half the fun! It wouldn't be fun if it was easy.
    3 points
  2. Also, CMSF has literal taxis. You're probably better off using them as taxis.
    2 points
  3. Ooooo, anothew hewetic, Biggus Dickus!
    2 points
  4. John I'd suggest letting this go. First off accusing the moderator of deliberately trying to find an excuse to ban you is a really strong allegation. Especially if you take no ownership of just why they might feel that way if in fact they did. As someone who has posted in the past in frustration and sarcasm in response to some of your posts I had to ask myself as to why I was letting your stuff get to me so much. Yeah they were over the top and ridiculous, but I had no rational reason for feeling I HAD to reply. So for a while I just set your stuff to ignore. I don't like doing that, it smacks too much of censorship but frankly for my own piece of mind I needed some distance from the sheer amount of stuff you spew out there. Once in a while there is a decent nugget, but most of it feels like you are just spamming the forum. If you would try and put yourself in our position - Ask yourself this honestly - does anyone else at all post to the degree you do of extraneous information that we somehow find interesting on the internet that is not specifically related to Combat Mission? Not just occasional stuff but sometimes multiple threads per day. If you had someone coming up all day to bug you with odd stuff they found all day on the internet, do you think after a while you might ask them to stop?
    2 points
  5. My advice would be to do some analysis before you hit the start button. Off the top of my head, a dismounted infantry element will cover about 100m in two minutes at 'Move' and probably in a minute at 'Quick'. So, if you measure the map at the start and then compare it with the time available, it will at least give you an idea of whether you need to move mounted or not and, if so for how long. Once you know that, and in the case where you have to move mounted, then you can start identifying where best to move mounted … etc. I plug this a lot but no harm in plugging it further as you say that you are new to the game, here is my planning tutorial which explains some of the concepts and factors you can consider. I'm not saying you should plan every mission to this level of detail but even if you use only a couple of the techniques, I'm sure they will be of help.
    2 points
  6. I originally created this mission for CMSF 1. This version is a minor update to that mission to fix some anomalies identified in the porting process from CMSF 1 to CMSF 2; however, the AI is unchanged and no new plans have been added. Changes are as follows: (1). Ditches are reinstated after it had been identified that CMSF2 had converted the originals into wire fences. (2). Jungle areas now have light and heavy foliage tiles. (3). The Rokel Creek is now a water feature, rather than mocked up with marsh tiles. (4). LS1 is now an exit objective. Victory Points originally allocated to this objective in the original have now been reallocated to other terrain objectives in order to retain the point balance. (5). Minor changes have been made to the original briefing to correct an Americanism that had slipped into the original and to reflect the change to the objectives noted above. (6). Designer’s notes previously included in the main briefing are now in this dedicated document. Thanks to @Bootiefor unsnarling my issues on posting it at the Scenario Depot. Grab it here: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-scenarios/op-barras-cmsf-2/ The original CMSF-1 thread discussing this mission WHICH CONTAINS SPOILERS is here:
    1 point
  7. The German edition, according to your link, was published in 2014 which is probably enough time to have garnered a review or two. The author: http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-nb2003070679/ The original publisher of his books: http://www.hek-creativ-verlag.de/ The author and publisher being one and the same. How many reviews of his works over the years …? Not many … The absence of a substantial review base is not necessarily the be all and end all but he is also not a historian by trade. Whether the book is controversial or not is another matter, that label is applied by the person writing the linked article. If you delve into the narrative in the article, it seems that the 'controversy' boils down to: The Germans didn't fight much. True - they lost. Lieutenant Brotheridge was killed by his own side. Could have been, it was dark and there were a fair few rounds going down range. Lieutenant Brotheridges's circumstances of death have been covered up. Depends really on whether he was killed by his own side, whether anyone knew that his own side had killed him and what defines a cover up. Just for sh1ts and giggles, let's say that Lieutenant Brotheridge was killed by friendly fire. His death I am sure would have been recorded in official records as killed in action. I doubt anybody really had the time or inclination to investigate the cause of every death in action with there being a war on and all that. In conspiracy theorist world, because the accurate statement 'killed in action' does not say 'killed by own side' and that there was no further investigation, such omissions amount to a cover up. This reasoning is generally flawed. Back to the end of the article at your link: 'Although the author cannot provide further evidence to support his hypotheses than the many testimonies of veterans, he nevertheless contributes to shaking up the historic lines of D-Day.' This seems to me to indicate that the author lacks evidence beyond a few old people that he spoke to. Oral testimony has its place but as you ought to know from your intelligence background, you have to question the validity of such testimony years after the event, particularly when it is uncorroborated by other sources. So, that is a pretty long way of saying - don't get 'excited and curious' every time you see something labelled controversial.
    1 point
  8. Same here. I was gonna buy marl=ket garden / British modules but refuse to til patch comes out. Matter of principal.
    1 point
  9. In general, I've been dismounting Red IFV's later than Blue ones. BTRs, Strykers, WW2 US Halftracks and the like are taxis. You keep them out of line of sight, and you debus earlier rather than later. You don't want to fire that MG unless you have to, and then only from hull-down or otherwise advantageous positions. Bradleys, Warrriors, WW2 German Halftracks and BMPs are inherent parts of the squad - not using them to fight with means neutering a lot of your firepower. Bradley-like mech infantry and Panzergrenadiers don't gain much from fighting mounted, so you should disembark them where it's safe, but the vehicle itself should be involved in the fighting after the infantry make contact. Preferably from both distance and cover. (In terms of SOP, I've been refusing to unbutton my WW2 German Halftracks, and keeping them at distance. They've been a lot more survivable - they'll pop up when needed to fire, but keep themselves safe when not. The MG platform provides some protection, and distance reduces the effective resolution angle of the incoming fire, so the gun shield does a lot more work). BMPs are different. The crew members are part of the squad, so there are roles which are shared. My general feeling has been that, unlike the others, I want to make contact with the squad mounted, and then dismount, rather than dismount before contact and advance. The tremendous firepower of the BMP is a large part of their protection, so you need both the spotting eyes and the guns on target before the too-small squads make their assault (in general). Area fire into suspected targets and generally making a mess of the advance. There's an obvious problem with this, which is that BMPs explode a lot. I think this is the correct way to employ them, but they are trumped heavily by Blue forces. This is a far more reliable tactic in isolated cases, Red vs Red or Russia vs Ukraine, rather than anything with Bradleys and Javelins.
    1 point
  10. Duh, and thanks for redoing this one, Combatintman!
    1 point
  11. Vet 0369

    Javelins

    Thank you for the vote of confidence Sir, but we didn't have Javalins when I was in. We were just getting the TOW, and showing the Manufacturer and the Army that we could do everything they were telling us that we couldn't. For example, they said we couldn't fire a TOW from a moving vehicle, so we mounted a TOW launcher on a jeep and hit the target while the jeep was moving. They said we couldn't change targets in flight, or cross two TOWs in flight, so we did. Moral of the story; never tell the Marines they can't do something, they'll do it just to spite you. Funny story about TOWs. One drill weekend in 1976 or 77, we went up to Ft. Riley, KS to live fire our 60mm mortars. We had to check fire and stand down on the range when an Army APC pulled up on the line, and the bleachers filled up with Army Officers, including a General Officer, for a demonstration. We watched great interest (none of us had ever seen a TOW) as a crew attempted to fire a TOW. WOOSH, BANG, the TOW slammed into the ground about 50 yds out. It must not have traveled far enough to arm the warhead, or it had a dummy, cause there was no explosion. The crew reloaded the launcher, and went back inside the APC. WOOSH, BANG! Same thing, same result. We were starting to chuckle at that point cause we saw the General climb down from the bleachers and enter the APC; we all know that nothing is funnier than another's discomfort, and those poor soldiers were about to get a real butt whooping from the General.After a little while, the General exits the APC, walks into the bleachers, and says "F$&king thing will work now!" Yes we were close enough to hear him. A few minutes later, WOOSH, BANG ; same spot. Our Weapons Platoon Commander, a Captain, says "F$&King thing will work now!" We were roaring, andthe General heard him, but was so embarrassed that he just left. Afterwards, our Skipper called over the Lt. commanding the crew, cause we felt sorry for him and the whooping we knew he was going to get later from his C.O. He had never seen an M2 mortar, so we let him fire a Final Protective Fire (30 rounds down the tube in 60 seconds). From the look on his face, he had just had an orgasm, and we had a friend for life, which is a good thing when you have to use someone else's facilities to train. I have to assume that Javs are in the company or Battalion Weapons platoons because they are heavy weapons. For example, the Ma Duce .50'cal. and 81mm mortars are at Battalion level as were the Dragons that the Jav replaces. The Marines have the 5.56mm squad machine gun now, but the heavier 7.62mm gun that replaces the M-60 might be part of the Company weapons platoon as are the 60mm mortars. I haven't kept up with those changes for decades. Company or Battalion can better employ mortars, Javalins, and medium and heavy machine guns tactically than a rifle platoon can, but a platoon is still reinforced with them as the situation dictates.
    1 point
  12. out of range or at least out of LOF. Terrain Analysis.... Bil has been beating it into our stubborn heads.
    1 point
  13. Creating scenarios is a challenge and most of the ones I start to make are played be me once or twice and then another idea comes up I would like to try so the original one ends up being left for another day. I like the special forces type of scenarios @slysniper @Sgt.Squarehead and @Combatintman were talking about and took the time to make one I felt was good enough to be released to the community. Here it is: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons/vega-force/ Give it a whirl and provide some feedback. I have read through this whole thread and this comment really gets me. I am curious @SimpleSimon, which scenarios have you made and released to the community? I am interested in trying out one you have made to see how it compares to other community or Battlefront made scenarios.
    1 point
  14. You can split up different types of movement with waypoints too. (Pardon if you already know this. I played a while without knowing). For example, you can have them “move” until they’re within enemy weapons’ range, then “hunt,” then even sprint the last leg if you have to. Alternatively, if it’s a vast distance you could also roll them up a ways still mounted and then dismount out of range of AT weapons. That’s the key though, out of AT range. +1 to what Mikey D said about moving them in safely.
    1 point
  15. Thanks for replies. I am not trying to start a huge conversation on the subject really just writing down my own observations. For me the essence of any wargame is conducting battle procedure from receiving orders all the way to plan development. I spend some time on map recce and weighing the various courses open to me after considering many factors. I enjoy this part very much; then stepping off the start line and seeing how my initial planning stays intact. Of course it rarely does; but, then the art of adjusting plans and expectations begins. Adaption to the ever changing battlefield is the biggest challenge a leader faces at all levels. It is this challenge that all of the Battlefront titles present and I am grateful for it. Deas Gu Cath
    1 point
  16. 1 point
  17. @MOS:96B2P @Splinty @sburke here's the 82nd:
    1 point
  18. Thewood1, I started the Omnibus Post so that I wouldn't have to deal with all the complaints about my starting lots and lots of new threads. That, of course, didn't stop the complaints and instead brought another one! Regarding sanity retention and the Forums, had the Forum Rules been enforced instead of blatantly ignored when it came to violations typically aimed at me and sometimes others, there would NEVER have been a crisis to begin with. The situation got so bad that some of the old hands here publicly concluded that attacking me was de facto BFC policy. Wouldn't go that far, but I will say that the Mod involved for years messaged me that and more privately, making it quite clear his first objective was to find an excuse to suspend me, with the goal of banning me. In his own words, he deemed me a threat to both the Forums and to BFC. Who knew I wielded such power? THAT is why the haters time and again knowingly, willfully, grossly and flagrantly violated practically every single one of the Forum Rules, yet NEVER were dinged or suspended, still less banned. And I wasn't the only person who noticed this and sounded off, either. But that same Mod gave me an official ding for the nonexistent offense of inviting someone look up certain specifics (after challenging me on something I said) on my internet abode--without posting the verboten URL. That is why the Forums became so super stressful that they were damaging to me, for this showed the haters that I was fair game. But the damage was really worse, for the Forums were a great place for me to connect with generally nice people from all over the world and helped destress me. While I take sburke's point about internet conversations, the simple truth is that the board bullies were allowed to operate unchecked, and I was told by others they'd either left the Forums or ceased posting because of what was done to them by those same bullies. Long ago I decided I was NOT going to be treated thus, both on principle and for personal reasons. Should NEVER have had to fight this battle (okay, long campaign) to begin with. Wrapping up, there seems to be this strange belief among the haters that I am required to do their bidding or else be (justifiably) assailed, when that assailment is yet another prohibited behavior that contravenes the Forum Rules. Those Rules need to be fairly and consistently applied, which they manifestly have not been in the past. Regards, John Kettler
    1 point
  19. I have found that, depending on the situation smoke can be quite helpful. This is particularly the case if the enemy is degraded and/or suppressed. You can roll your APC's as close as you dare with the last vehicle command being to emit smoke.
    1 point
  20. The subject of mission length has been done to death on this forum; however, that in no way invalidates your observation. To save you hunting down those threads and reading pages and pages of discussion, these threads generally revolve around the following arguments: (1). Time pressures in missions are a design device to put pressure on the player. (2). This is generally to mitigate the technical overmatch of Red forces by Blue. (3). A realism discussion with one side of the argument being, 'in real life commanders have to achieve their missions in accordance with their mission statement'. The other side of the argument being, 'in RL, if a unit got delayed and would take massive casualties to achieve their objective on time, the commander would request more resources or more time'. (4). Some people like it. (5). Some people don't mind it. (6). Some people don't like it one bit. (7). Some people will have a go at scenario designers and scenario designers will defend themselves. (8) Somebody will request the addition of a simple to click button that will add time to a mission. The response will generally be: (a). You can do this in the scenario editor. (b). Adding extra time causes havoc with the scenario's AI plans. (c) Unlikely to be high on Battlefront's priorities. I do remember this mission from CMSF-1 and yes I thought the time available to complete the objectives was bloody optimistic. I think I managed to scrape a victory of sorts but had to take a couple of chances along the way and even then I don't think I grabbed all of the objectives. Anyway - great that you're enjoying the game and I'm sure you'll fight many interesting battles.
    1 point
  21. Very useful when deciding when to dismount. +1 to both. Edit: What? I ran out of up votes? I'll get you both tomorrow.
    1 point
  22. sburke

    Update on Engine 4 patches

    blasphemy!!!! Centurion Stwike him!!!!
    1 point
  23. Admittedly, I've been a good a good customer over the years - I think I've bought all the CM games, modules and packs except Afghanistan - but this price is insane. First I bought the Shock Force 1 big bundle on special for the price of a restaurant meal for two, and now you've basically sold me the Big Bundle upgrade for the price of a takeaway curry and Naan! I don't know how you expect to make a living - but thank you though
    1 point
  24. 1 point
  25. As a very good friend of mine who I went on my first tour to Afghanistan with said in reply to the question posed by a group of ladies we met in a pub in London while doing some of our pre-deployment briefings 'Afghanistan - wow! What will you be doing there?': 'Mostly sitting' As it turned out he was right so I'm not sure all of the RL stuff is that interesting. Although going back to the mine strike episode, that was about an hour after we crossed the border. Prior to crossing the lane, we got issued a set of verbal orders regarding going through the lane and after that, mounted up and prepared to move. The vehicle two behind mine popped off its smoke dischargers as we were mounting up and the net came alive with 'who did that'. Needless to say it was operator error and nobody had reloads for them. Luckily it wasn't a fatal mistake for any of us. Again, it goes back to player expectation - as veterans, we both know that soldiers do dumb sh1t.
    1 point
  26. Thanks. One of the chief merits of this game - and it’s a big one - is that you don’t have to learn how to “beat the game” to do pretty well. I’ve been dorking our on military history for a long time on top of serving, so that knowledge has served me well. For the most part you can apply real-life tactical and organizational doctrine with good results. I’m a huge fan of the historical accuracy of the TO&E. I create something along the lines of a task force, albeit on a smaller scale. I could probably get away with allowing the company commander to have control of the unit as a whole and will try it soon
    1 point
  27. +1 AIRBORNE!!!
    1 point
  28. JK the last major kooky thread instigated by you culminated over 5 years ago! - you weren't 'savagely attacked' but lampooned for your ludicrous claims you posted on a public forum. There are no cries from you in that thread for anyone to stop - instead when no one believed you or took you seriously, you posted yet more silly claims with various woo links before it seems you withdrew in a huff/out of sheer embarrassment/moderators orders. Some time after that forum moderators suggested by your own admission, that you best limit your posts to less controversial and more verifiable type posts so you wouldn't get upset at the rejection of your bizarre ideas. As you've generally abided by this it shows you're well on the road to recovery and can self-differentiate what's real and what's not before posting - well done! no doubt because you are now getting professional medical treatment for whatever ails you, but occasionally you still need a nudge to keep things on track - as it was when your posting exhibited incontinence in the CM forums and become annoying and you were simply directed to the correct place.
    1 point
  29. Vet 0369

    Semper Fi Campaign glitch

    Me too a friend of mine was a cannon cocker in Vietnam. He told me they’d get a fire mission to fire a star burst at a specific location. He’d turn to his gun crew and say, “We’ll, looks like Recon’s lost again!” We in the military are like a family; we might fight among ourselves, but if someone from outside the family jumps one of our brothers, the rest of us will “Read them from the book!”
    1 point
  30. I think maybe a little self reflection on the compulsion to post stuff that anyone could find on the internet. While I am glad you found the inner strength to keep it to the general forum, I frequent this part of the BFC forums even less now that half the content seems to be random posts from Mr. Kettler.
    1 point
  31. Are you now saying that CM should model Canadian pixeltroopen avec plimsoll super stealth equipment option. As even in your original misplaced post you stated it wasn't applicable to CM ..." I do not believe CM can accommodate the weapon load this man took into battle or the Stealth mode changing footwear afforded him." Come on JK you've had to be literally potty trained on this forum as you had to learn the hard way to self-moderate yourself with making Woo posts by following simple rules governing your behaviour - quite sucessfully if I may say so - though you still rage and harbour bitterness with the site's owners for making you do so. (despite free access to other outlets for that content i.e your own website, etc.) Then to make up for it you embarked compulsively posting anything and everything military related turning this forum into a directory of random links that pass by your eye with all the subtlety and thought of a search engine algorithm gone amok.
    1 point
  32. borg

    Semper Fi Campaign glitch

    THIS SIR, is nothing short of amazing. Really. Happy weekend folks ! When can we get Zero Dark Thirty in SF2 ? @Combatintman
    1 point
  33. The release of CMSF2 has allowed me to shift from complaining about the wait for CMSF2 to playing CMSF2 while complaining about the wait for the v4 patches! No, I have been waiting patiently for the patch all along. Have no interest in CMSF2.
    1 point
  34. AAAAH! I recreated your problem! The German Leopard crews in the full TO&E carry the G36 rifle. The 'single vehicle' select Leopard crews come with the C8A1. What a bizarre bug! Am running off to report it now.
    1 point
  35. He's British. Which doesn't preclude him from being a bit Bolshy, you know. Michael
    1 point
  36. I agree with you totally as to your view of these types of request and as to how well they would work as to creating new scenarios and content. I like to play around with the editor myself and am always looking for different types of tactical situations to set up. So I have found it possible to set up pretty much any of these types of missions to some extent. Now did I find these interesting - yes. Did I find it hard to get the game set up to mimic realistic results from real life events. (very hard at times, but generally it was possible) Would many of these battles make a good scenario. No - seldom and getting victory conditions that make it a challenge and possible victory for both sides is really a hard task to achieve. Personally, I think the magic to scenario design and battle building is looking for ways to create and reflect different battles and somehow show or reflect a direct challenge in that situation. There really is no one type of design that is better than others, so when people ask for scenarios be designed a certain way, I see that as their preference, likely because it matches their style of game play. But I don't think designers should think they need to restrict themselves to such request. I do think designers should stretch themselves and try to create unusual battles, just for the sake of providing distinct tactical situations. As for having the game model the units for those limited situations, its not a good usage of the companies time. But the game can do it, I wish I had the time where I could provide some quality scenarios in some of these type of situations. But I find I don't have the time or desire to do it. But anyone who own the game can learn to create their own wishes with some effort. and when you are doing it for yourself, it takes much less time. because there is so much more that does not need to be done to meet expectations of a scenarios to release to others. I find I can create a map and get troop types to reflect what I want pretty easily. I don't care if the troops don't look correct or wear the right clothing, I care about their setting so they act appropriate for the abilities that I think they have. I don't need to worry about AI limits or programming it. I either play both sides or I find someone to play one side and off we go. The game is a excellent tool for reflecting combat - learn to use the tool and you don't need to hope others provide you the battles you want to play, its within reach of your own finger tips
    1 point
  37. Same here. But everything in due time my good fellow...
    1 point
  38. patch would be nice to get out , dont mind that mutch when SF2 go out .
    1 point
  39. umlaut

    CM:BN Screenshot Thread #2

    Cheers. Here´s one more:
    1 point
  40. Mixing CM with historical photos
    1 point
  41. Just seen this: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-shock-force-2/
    1 point
  42. I´m already excited, there are so many conflicts and possibilites to cover with custom campaigns in CMSF2.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...