Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Apocal last won the day on June 17 2015

Apocal had the most liked content!


About Apocal

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Location
  • Interests
    Military History, Wargames, First Person Shooters, Simulations

Recent Profile Visitors

1,710 profile views
  1. I'm still here. There were a few others, but yeah, they mostly shift to other games about six or nine months after a release, as they play through all the content. Probably not much bigger, because the complicated (and occasionally frustrating) issues with a more complex spotting routine lead to a lot of player frustrations, but especially in WeGo when I can't simply back down a vehicle that hasn't spotted something it should see quite clearly (e.g. a Tiger emerging perpendicular to the tank from a woodline, less than 100m away with TC unbuttoned). The fine map-grid wouldn't be an advantage either, since the TacAI is pretty bad of taking advantage of 8x8 right now, so most players (myself included) break down squads into teams to prevent the game from doing silly things with the troops and limit the damage from units "wiggling" out of cover/concealment for no apparent reason.
  2. That has been happening occasionally for years. It is rare that I notice it because I don't often look at my own troops close up, but sometimes in the post-battle review I notice guys with two long arms. I don't know if it is a bug or unintended behavior from the bazooka/PF code or what and I can't figure out how to reliably cause it, but it does happen. Not really a big deal either way.
  3. CMBN has been out for over half a decade. I don't know how you got a full count of CMBN, but running a ctrl+f search for "btt" on the CMFB scenario page shows a total count of 38. And even that is inflated by a pair of dealership scenarios and some that came stock with CMFB itself. The same for CMRT reveals 118. I think it is fair to say that the rate of user made scenario production is pretty well outstripped by the active playerbase's ability to run through them all. I'm not knocking anyone for it, just saying: if veterans were playing scenarios rather than QBs, I'm pretty sure we'd see more activity on scenario-making sites. Not just uploads/downloads either, but also comments, suggestions, etc.
  4. If that was the case, you'd expect to see more user-made single-player scenarios and activity around scenario hosting sites, particularly for the newer releases. But as it stands, CMFB has very relatively few user made scenarios, considering how long it has been released and the popularity of its subject matter.
  5. Anyway, one serious problem with that setup is that you really, really cannot stay there once the enemy knows you are there. It is useful for ambush or light screening if they are just blithely driving through like they own the joint, but if they know what is up, they'll just stop their IFVs/tanks and slow roll into LoS. Even BMP-2s have sensors good enough to pick out troops in trenches and their weapons will annihilate them in short order if there isn't some counter to put into play. In this case, the counter can be the mountain rifle platoon's own BMPs, but they aren't fully reliable in that roll. Nothing they have will seriously threaten a full AFV in a shootout (AT-5s are slower on the draw than 125mm cannons) and even dueling other BMPs is a coin-toss at times. Sitting back a few action spots in the woods gives you (AFAICT, your mileage may vary) a modest advantage in spotting but it isn't clockwork reliable. Realistically, you want each platoon position like this overwatched/linebacked by some capital system capable of knocking out a full AFV or trio of IFVs in short order; think heavy ATGM or tank of your own. If you can't always get them, fine, whatever, make do with the AT-5s on your BMPs. But as far as support goes, that flat out sucks.
  6. I mean, it isn't anything especially interesting to look at: Three squad-sized trench positions, each separated (ideally) by 100-150m, with an outpost positioned approximately 150-200m out in front and BMPs a short (but LoS-blocked) distance to the rear. Spacing set so that nothing can approach through a gap in the weapons' effective range and the OP in front means you have some time to shift forward the BMPs or fall back the squads in case of an approaching force the platoon itself cannot handle. Two of the three squads broken into triple teams, one squad separated in half with the second half occupying the OP to ensure it has a radio. Obviously you modify it based on terrain, LoS, etc. but the basics are mostly applicable wherever you might want to put eyes and weapons. 1) What about the OP? How do you get them back in case of a quick advance? Answer: You don't. They die. If that bothers you for whatever reason, don't use an OP. 2) What about flank security? Answer: This isn't the sort of position you just leave hanging out by itself; it should be tied into other similar positions or heavy weapons capable of covering routes from keyholed positions. 3) What is this good for? Answer: Denying a broad (roughly 500 meter) frontage to enemy dismounted or APC/IFV fast advance in support of keyholed heavy hitters like tanks, heavy ATGMs, Forcing them to deploy and run a "by the numbers" attack to eat up time and ammunition while offering you a good chance of escaping with most of your men from anything too big or mean to fight head-on. Taking away the possibility of having a complete platoon under the footprint of a fire mission without losing much, if anything, in terms of direct firepower. It is still expensive in terms of trenches though (200 points is a complete mountain rifle platoon, plus attachments or up-vetting) so it is up to you if you want to use them, but they do allow more flexibility in where you put your defenses because you can take advantage (to an extent) of open terrain. Otherwise, with ample terrain available for cover (as in the screenshot, with plenty of forest to hide in) you do without.
  7. Yeah, I believe you on that, I'm just thinking it has to be the result of the hotkeys file not playing nice with some weird combination of things, since you said it isn't consistent.
  8. Have you changed mice? And do you play full-screen or in some kind of windowed mode?
  9. I have never noticed a difference in performance between designated marksmen-type troops and regular riflemen. Actual snipers, sure, but buried within a rifle squad, it is going to be quite difficult to tease out who is killing and who is just making noise and smoke.
  10. Yo, Oleksandr, I appreciate the way you're laying this out and everything, but you're spending a lot of points on fortifications (assuming QBs) to protect some pretty cheap units. The dismounted portion of the mountain rifle platoon costs about as much as the 10x trenches (200 points) necessary to fortify them and it still doesn't protect against 122/152 artillery. Modest amounts of 152 in particular (roughly 40 shells or in other words a heavy+medium fire mission) will basically eviscerate them in spite of the trench network you laid out. 200 points won't quite get your (Russian) opponent a full 82mm mortar battery, but it will cover the cost of ammo fired as long as it tears up the platoons-in-trenches you have, which is doable. A big part of it is because as you showed, you have those forces way too close together. Instead of trying to build a single continuous network, you probably should be making little squad sub-forts that are spread wider apart from one another. Because putting the platoon in a clump means a single 60-90m linear or 75m area fire mission will hit everyone and players aren't like AI, so they have no problem with hitting a wooded area at slightest suspicion of it being occupied.
  11. Our supply lines were hit by other methods though, most notably suicide bombers and stay-behinds in cities. That maybe stalled the 3rd ID for a few days, while the 1st MarDiv went right on ahead with even more AFVs, including their Abrams. But more to the point: it isn't as if our potential opponents' logistics have been hit by aircraft either. There have been exactly zero high intensity conflicts between top-line armies in the last few decades. Obviously since they all have nukes, something that the Russians have been pretty open in their belief will stave off any sort of serious military defeat if facing NATO, rather than their conventional forces. It's a weird double standard, that somehow not facing a peer opponent makes American "a little damaged," whereas the Russians fighting a much weaker Ukraine (and not even at a particularly full tilt either) to a frozen conflict stalemate means they are right up there with the best...
  12. This one? It was struck by a SPG-73 in the rear hull, which led to a fuel fire that they couldn't extinguish.
  13. g2mil.com is Sparky's site. He's literally insane, for starters. Secondly, he isn't the most honest person out there. Thirdly, his actual military experience consists of never deploying to a warzone and being so nutty the Army Reserves or National Guard refused to promote him to Captain. Fourthly, he's also the guy who claims that Shermans and King Tigers are superior to the Abrams. Point No. 1 is generally true, but he flat out lies in the specifics to strengthen his case. There was a study conducted by Marines of their own fuel use in OIF I (the initial invasion, lots of AFVs involved, including 130 Abrams) and found the share attributable to AFVs was modest, with the overwhelming number due to trucks everywhere and for every purpose imaginable. The MEF involved was more or less proportional (edging towards somewhat heavier, in terms of combat vehicle numbers) to the heavy divisions that Sparky describes (130 tanks, ~100 LAVs, 500 AAVs, etc.). Reasonable extrapolation would tell you that a switch to diesels wouldn't reduce by a full two-thirds the number of tankers required unless tanks were some ridiculous percentage of fuel use, like ninety percent, followed by doubling the fuel efficiency. No. 2 is irrelevant since a tank's tracks show up just as readily on IR as the engine and even if they aren't visible for whatever reason (but the rear exhaust is?) modern IR sensors are quite capable of detecting any running engine out to their maximum range. Even the limited capability sets, as anyone who has ever worked with one can tell you. Which should point to just how limited Sparky's real life bonafides are... No. 3 is just a straight lies, from top to bottom. You don't want to stand literally behind the exhaust of an Abrams, but there isn't a death ray coming out of the back and it definitely doesn't prevent people from riding on top. It is worth noting this specific pic is from a patrol. Additionally, there have been exhaust deflectors fielded since at least the nineties (here, go to page 103, but it is just a really simple design, locally made). There aren't many pictures of them for whatever reason, but I know units use them because I've seen them firsthand. Same goes for the tank/infantry phone, which has been fielded for well over a decade at this point. At any rate, there isn't anything magical about being on top of the tank that imparts heightened sensory perception. Troops arrayed around the tank work just as well at identifying and suppressing threats. Of all the AARs to come out of Fallujah that discuss tank-infantry coordination -- here are a few -- none of them describe the Abrams as being uniquely disadvantaged by not being able to have troops mounted up top. In fact, none of them say troops should be up there at all. I can't speak to No. 4, but I strongly suspect is BS too, given his proclivities. In short, it is a really, really bad source for information.
  • Create New...