Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MikeyD last won the day on February 2

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. It could be argued their 'mission' is to eyeball the enemy. Going to ground once rounds start whistling overhead is something conscripts, green or broken troops would do. QB players tend to select 'veteran' troops or higher and fanatics in order to keep them from breaking. A downside of that is... they don't break.
  2. As an example of how complicated a title like this can get, here's a pict of a cast hull M4A1 76mm with HVSS suspension. First shipped to Europe in April 45 but never saw combat. There's also the HVSS M4A3 105mm howitzer version that also never saw combat. Then there's the really obscure American Hybrid hull Sherman mounting the British 17 pounder! (GASP!) Also sent into the theater too late to see combat. On the Russian side there's the IS-3 of course but also the T-44 which was being produced but didn't seen combat. If this title were to start May 1945 then things get very complicated very quickly.
  3. We've had experience before of Steve 'simply' doing projects. CMSF2 was originally 'simply' going to upgrade the CMSF1 game engine... except he completely redid the TO&E, reworked all the graphics, introduced new soldier models and animations, updated all the scenarios, and threw in an additional 200 QB maps, besides. He was 'simply' going to extend CMFI to war's end and wound up juggling eleven different nations and several subgroups, besides. In this case I'd imaging Steve would 'simply' port over The Russian to fight the allies... then he'd start thinking about the geopolitical ramifications, start researching weapons systems that were in the pipeline and war's end, and the whole project would snowball.
  4. If it were to happen it wouldn't be a module, it would have to be an entirely new 'counterfactual' title. It would need a whole new backstory with strategic objectives for both sides spelled out. If they're going to go that far they might as well go full-on Cold War, push the date forward a few years and introduce M47s and T54s into the mix. What was an early US 'battle taxi'? The M75, I think. first entering service in 1952. I would imagine, though, that factions for each side would get upset about how 'their' side was being portrayed. "Side A is too weak! Side B is too strong!"
  5. Awhile ago I noted the economy seemed to be transitioning from a 'goods and services' model to what I derisively call a 'parasite' model. The ideal business type these days is one that interposes itself between the product and the consumer and siphons off the profit. The producer is obliged to participate or risk being left out of the market, the consumer is obliged to participate or risk losing access to the goods. An example of the 'parasite' model at its most benign would be credit card transactions, I suppose (they siphon off a small % of every transaction for themselves). The 'parasite' model at its most pernicious would be... what? The US health insurance industry? If you're going to place yourself into a position where a parasite entity is between you and your customers you had better damn well make sure the result going to be a net benefit instead of a net liability.
  6. Out of curiosity I just threw together a quick-and-dirty test. 'Hunt' moving infantry in a straight line across a flat map. First test: CMFI US infantry squad on a cool day across default (mostly grassy) terrain. They hunted past the 1/2 kilometer mark before 'Tiring' showed up. They were a full 870 meters across the map before 'tired' was displayed. Second test: CMFI US infantry on a hot day across rocky terrain. They didn't show 'tiring' until they passed 430 meters. The got 'Tired' past the 700m mark. Now for the killer course. CMSF2 US infantry squad (full body armor) on a very hot day 'hunt' moving across sand. Bam! 250 meter before tiring. Half the distance of no-body-armor inf on a cool day. The 'tired' label pop up after another 200 meters. Again, half the distance of light inf with ideal weather and terrain. It may be we've got our bad impression of 'hunt' command largely from playing CMSF2, which is the most punishing for infantry. Well, maybe not the worst. I just now tried extreme cold and deep snow ground conditions. 'Tiring' at just 200m. 'Tired' at 300m
  7. I had never thought to rank them before but the module that immediately popped into my head was 'Marines'. Solely on the basis of the raw firepower of the 13 man squad with their long rifles.
  8. There are 2007 Kurds and there are 2017 Kurds and they're quite different beasts. Around 2007 I think they'd still qualify as 'neighborhood guys with guns', or maybe a step above. 2017 timeframe they're a fully equipped proxy army. So would your scenario be 2007 Kurds vs al Qaeda or 2017 Kurds vs ISIS? For ammo there's always army supply trucks full of acquireables. I was going to suggest you include supply trucks then select 'dismounted' to disburse the acquireables but I forgot CMSF2 doesn't have the 'dismounted' feature. For uncon with heavy weapons, I just down did a test. Swapped out Syrian Reserves uniform textures for combatants. The fit isn't perfect but its close enough for rock and roll. Or you can simply include the green fatigued reserves as better equipped Kurds.
  9. There's no real shortcut to doing (or redoing) textures. You do it by doing it, sometimes from the ground-up. Nose-to-the-grindstone. If you're lucky the original texture gives some indication of where the pieces fit on the art. Here's an example of how the pieces of the model is laid out on the CMSF2 Syrian uniform texture. Legs, arms, torso, collar and shirt cuffs. Other uniform types in other title are laid out different-but-similar.
  10. Let's not forget the Vietnam war too. I recall one anecdote (off an old war documentary) of a Huey helicopter that was hit by an RPG while in flight. Imbedded itself in the plexiglass windscreen without detonating.
  11. I'm reminded of that maxim 'Amateurs talk tactics while professionals talk logistics'. Germany undertook its conquests under the mistaken assumption that after winning the invasion battles their wars would be over and they could get back to business-as-usual. Germany didn't even bother to place its economy on a war footing until the tide had already turned. The North Africa war is interesting because it catches Germany just as the nature of the war transitions from tactics-dominant to logistics-dominant. Germany enters NA, has some early successes, then they invade Russia and NA becomes a side-show. Germany lost the war in North Africa because it was never going to 'win' it. Rommel was never in a position to enter Cairo and take possession of the Suez canal. When Germany's dwindling resources got diverted to the Russian front it was basically game-over. Word-to-the-wise. Never go to war with other 'great powers' because their ability to sustain the effort will undo all of the gains you hoped to achieve in starting a war in the first place.
  12. I've been working on a scenario for *another title* (ahem) and find there's a BIG difference between facing SMGs (or carbines) and full rifles. WWII era big bullet rifles have a long reach which makes positioning and using a cannon during an assault difficult. If you magically find yourself in a good position 600m away from the action you're probably good-to-go. but that doesn't happen much on these maps.
  13. Its usually more than a year between a CM basegame release and the following module. Which means initial purchasers had been happily playing the unaltered basegame for months and months before upgrading. If you're interested in CMSF2 but are daunted by the full package price there's always the option of just getting the basegame. Play the basegame into the ground before contemplating expanding it with Brits or Marines or NATO forces. That's how initial purchasers played it. CMBS and CMSF2 play VERY different from each other. On the American side its the difference of a decade of technological advancement (2007 vs 2017+), on the other side its the difference between Cold War and post-Cold War materials. Also, the scenarios are designed differently. CMSF2 is much more about asymmetric warfare. CMBS is more peer-on-peer action. Let me give a brief shout-out to Google Earth. CM titles are theater-specific. If you're fighting in Ildib province or the outskirts of Kharkiv you have the opportunity to go visit those actual locations (with some restrictions) to get the lay of the land. A CM battle map may be 1kmx2km of generic looking real estate but you have the resources to put the battle into a larger context, which tends to enhance gameplay. When people ask for CM to include an encyclopedia section I joke they do - it's called Google
  14. The early turret T34-76s were getting applique bow armor. One got type even thick enough bow plates to make it 88-proof! Then the new bigger 76mm turret showed up and the suspension began showing the strain of the extra weight. When the 85mm gun turret showed up extra bow armor was entirely out of the question.
  15. The US had all sorts of design concepts for improving Sherman's armor protection, including a much lower silhouette. But they couldn't afford to interrupt tank production. Russia had the same issue, having designed a replacement for T34 with thicker armor and torsion bar suspension, but they were simply unwilling to interrupt the T34 production line to get it into service. Both Sherman and T34 did get new turrets out of those programs. Eventually the US design concepts evolved into Pershing while the Russian 'universal tank' project became the (much modified) base for the Stalin series. We tend to forget that US active involvement in WWII occurred over a relatively short period of time. From the Operation Torch landing in NA to VE day was about 31 months.
  • Create New...