Jump to content

MikeyD

Members
  • Content Count

    21,234
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

MikeyD last won the day on February 9

MikeyD had the most liked content!

About MikeyD

  • Rank
    CMSF Beta Tester

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. There's more going on under the hood than you imagine. I recall BFC needed a patch fix for a Tiger tank awhile back because the virtual tank commander was sitting sideways in his virtual seat and looking out the wrong vision block! Nobody knew before that the level of detail packed into the game. In the game the earliest generation vehicles have the worst situational awareness by far. Capabilities climb the more modern the equipment. This doesn't just apply to Syrian vehicles. Leopard 2A4 is worse than Leopard 2A6. M1A1 Abrams is worse than M1A2 Abrams. T90 can go toe-to-toe with M1A1 Abrams and win. Modern vehicles in CMBS are almost godlike in their omniscience.
  2. "...Less Hollywood, more real". The problem with tailoring sounds is it place-specific. You watch Youtube clips. A rifle being fired at one test range sounds like a blunt "Whump!", At another test range its "Crack!" The same gun at a third test range sounds like "BOOM!" with the sound echoing off the surrounding hills.
  3. It was reported during the Mosul battles that almost all of the ISIS forces encountered were of Russian origin. That implies a lot of experience gleaned from the Chechnya conflict. Which would include a lot of experience facing Russian armor with various sorts of additional protection added.
  4. Oftentimes tests are performed that appear somewhat skewed by the fact the nobody was particularly likely to survive the conditions the troops got placed in, anyway. You're measuring the difference between 80% chance of dying vs 75% chance of dying. Stuff like tank fire into upper floors of buildings, artillery strikes directly on top of your units, even infantry close-assaulting some dude holding an automatic pistol! To (mis)quote an old Henny Youngman joke "Doc, it hurts when I do this" (raises his arm). Doc: "Then don't Do that!!!"
  5. The photo of the hit on the T64 may be misleading. An artillery hit may, perhaps, have simply started an engine fire that eventually spread to the autoloader magazine. Then BOOM! I recall the first Stryker destroyed in Iraq was hit by a roadside IED which caused a small engine fire, which unfortunately spread to some stored demolition charges... then BOOM.
  6. That would be a (real-world) issue with the parallax difference between the gun tube and the gunner's sight. In tight circumstances like in a stand of trees the commander (or whomever) may be compelled to open the breech and peer down the gun tube to confirm there's daylight at the other end. Stugs and Jpz IVs in particular had this problem. The roof-mounted gunners sight might see a clear view of the target while the low-mounted gun is pointing into intervening terrain. I read that Germans considered StuG and Jpz IV combat ineffective in Normandy terrain because of that. If you look at titles like CMBS the tree complaints usually go in the opposite direction, that foliage is too effective at blocking LOF. Those darned deciduous trees!
  7. Give it a try and if it doesn't work its just 5 minutes to erase the terrain objective and try something else. That the nice think about making scenarios, you can't actually break anything. Usually, though, players become frustrated with big 'occupy' terrain objectives because there's always one broken straggler hiding in a building in the corner of the occupy zone denying you your 'occupy' victory.
  8. My own scenarios lean heavily on 'unit destroy' point objectives even if there are terrain objectives involved. When I refreshed a batch of CMSF1 legacy scenarios for CMSF2 I added unit destroy points so the player would at least get some credit for defeating the enemy in the field. I do get a bit frustrated with big points terrain objectives at the far end of a huge map with barely enough time to properly recon the route of advance (not to mention stage an assault on a city center!) Often the scenario designer knows something I don't, that there's only one or two snipers between me and the objectives so he allots the time accordingly. But I don't know that. Every copse of trees and bend in the road needs to be reconnoitered for fear of being ambushed. That terrain objective looks VERY far off to me.
  9. Its been awhile since I looked at it, but I recall having men in 'fighting posture' in trenches increase their risk compared 'hiding' on their bellies in trenches. Pixeltruppen exposing themselves to use their weapons skews the results. I just now did a mini-test in CMS2., 'Trenches vs Ditches' with a platoon in each. Once with men in 'fighting' pose, once 'hiding'. The results - Trenches and in-ground ditches had similar results. Nothing's going to save you when BM-21 artillery rockets are saturation firing your position and a rocket lands directly on top of you! But, aside from that, if you're 'hiding' at the bottom of a trench your risk of light shrapnel wounds appear to be reduced. Now that I think of it, I used US troops wearing body armor, which might've skewed the test. I should play Red v Red and see how Syrians weather the storm.
  10. There's only few vehicles in the titles that the AI allows to be driven by a different unit Humvee, Taxi, some NATO vehicles I think. A rule of thumb is if you have to 'bail' the driver instead of 'dismount' then you probably won't be able to swap out drivers.
  11. In a scenario I just completed for (redacted) I gave attacking allies fairly detailed orders in an attempt to get the player to fight in a way that's typical of the theater (you'll understand when you see it). I included a touch objective for points to incentivize him to move how I want him to move. That's not to say that's the only tactical solution. Writing-up Allied AI plans I did an alt AI orders that's an entirely different attack plan from the one in the orders text. Bear in mind, scenario designers have to concoct AI orders based on certain assumptions. The orders set tells you to proceed down the road. Opposing AI orders are based on the assumption that you're going to proceed down the road. If you don't proceed down the road the opposing AI orders are shadow-boxing against nothing. There's a difference between genuinely superior tactics and merely gaming the AI to your advantage.
  12. In CMSF2 recently I lost 8 men in a building to a single RPG round. An old joke of mine is the best type of building protection is staying behind the building.
  13. Ugh. This is what it looks like with the texture applied. Its a laser rangefinder box that's doing double duty as an IR searchlight. The basic BMP-3 model got unexpectedly updated for the patch and the finished texture didn't get included. The necessary people know about it now.
×
×
  • Create New...