Jump to content

Vanir Ausf B

Members
  • Content Count

    8,394
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to DLaurier in throwing grenades   
    (sigh)...
    can dress them up... but cant take them anywhere
  2. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from DreDay in Javelin won't fire on soft targets   
    The TacAI will occasionally use Javelins against soft targets in extremis, but the player cannot order it. It is deliberate, not a bug. A request has been made to change it to where the player can order it but it hasn't happened so far.
  3. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Apocal in Was the MG boost only for the Germans?   
    It's not that the machine gun boost was only applied to German machine guns, it's that it was applied differently to machine guns mounted on vehicles, which is what you are using. The rate of fire for vehicle mounted machine guns is still at pre-boost levels, which is roughly 60% of boost level. The game engine cannot separate rates of fire for a vehicle's machine gun and main cannon, so buffing the Stuart's machine gun ROF would also buff its 37mm ROF.
     
    To compensate for this the accuracy of vehicle mounted machine guns was significantly boosted. The upshot is that vehicle mounted machine guns are quite deadly with direct fire but kinda suck at area fire.
  4. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Kraft in Russian Optics and Spotting in general   
    I have finally got some time to look into this. Despite being an uncooled device it is not clear to me that the TIM 5000 is necessarily less capable than the Catherine FC. It does have a lower resolution, but it sees further into the infrared spectrum than the Catherine FC and has a more powerful zoom.

    Catherine FC
    Spectral Band: 8-12 μm
    Field of view (FOV):
    Wide FOV : 9° x 6.7° Narrow FOV : 3° x 2.2° Electronic zoom (x2) : 1.5° x 1.1°
    Image resolution: 754 x 576
     
    TIM 1500
    Spectral band: 7.5 - 14 mm
    Format 640 x 480 28 mm pitch
    Field of view (horizontal) Wide 10.1°; Narrow 3.3°
    Electronic zoom 2x, 3x, 4x
  5. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in T-90 tank documentary (2014 in Russian)   
    Tank operations in urban areas for dumbys:
     
    1. Use your infantry to lead. They can better move through hard cover, and are good sensors (or their eyeballs and situational awareness is pretty good)
     
    2. Clear on line, everytime.  When you move your infantry forward, try to keep infantry broadly in a line across the front.  This achieves two things:
      a. IRL, it's clearance of fires.  If I know the next squad over is literally 90 degrees to my right, I'm not trying to guess if the shadowy figures in the windows to my 1 o'clock are friendly or not.
      b. It keeps enemy AT assets from slipping through.  If you're advancing unevenly, or bypassing buildings, there's a chance the last remaining conscript with -2 leadership with an RPG-7 is going to smoke your Abrams with a rear shot.  By clearing on-line you ensure that behind your troops there's nothing but ruins and bodies
     
    3. Hold your armor  back, and identify armor-friendly avenues of approach.  This prevents the enemy from trying to mass AT assets because he knows broadly where your tanks are, but you should know how to get your tanks to the front as fast as possible.  This pairs well with the clearing on-line because it ensures that all these avenues of approach are clear of hostiles, so fast moving your tank is a no-threat exercise.
       a. Alternately, do not hold it back, but keep it just behind your infantry as an overwatch piece.  Infantry clears to the next intersection, then tank moves up to said intersection and holds there until the infantry gets to the next intersection up.  Repeat until in Moscow.
     
    4.  When your infantry identifies something worth tanking to pieces, then bring the tank forward to start using direct fires.  Often the best technique is use the infantry to suppress the target while using a "target" command on the enemy position (assuming it's a building) to bring it down on the OPFOR's head.  Then keep the tank in overwatch while infantry moves in.
     
     
    Some things just to remember:
     
    1. No one likes it when a building falls on them.  Don't be afraid to flatten a few buildings you can see tracer fire from, or even knock a building down to give your tank a new LOS (this is historically pretty common, in Aachen US engineers would blow up buildings, or otherwise knock down walls to open new firing angles for tanks)
    2. There's no infantry carried AT systems in CMBS that reliably can kill most tanks from the front.  Javelin is the only one that could but it is not so hot from close ranges.  As long as you clear, and secure the flanks your tank will be king of murder mountain.
    3. All of these tactics also apply well to IFVs, just be mindful the IFV is still likely to respond poorly to the AT4/RPG type threats from the frontal arc.  Conversely autocannon fire is murderously effective against infantry.  
    4. Tanks are great spotters for artillery given their robust coms, and unlike an infantry type spotter, he's not going to get suppressed by small arms fire from the target.  Suppressing with the tank's MG's, then doing a full battery precision strike on the enemy who's pinned down in the target building is often very effective (I'm not sure I really need all six shells hitting, but I find it tends to ensure building destruction, and rarely leaves survivors).  
     
     
    The American military has remained successfully fairly apolitical.  The only military coup type situation I could see is a civilian government that is either in flagrant violation of the Constitution (King Barack* the 1st kind of flagrant), or if called to do really bad mojo (King Barack* decrees the state of West Virginia will be decimated for its insolence!).  The military has remained rather loyal regardless of who's in charge (with the Bush and Obama years offering a good contrast between super-supportive, and not supportive of the military) and outside of some crazy stuff, will likely remain so. 
     
    *This is no way an attempt at sniping at the current president.  If this was 2002 I'd be writing "King George W the 1st" or 1998, "King Bill." I don't really like the current president, but I recognize he's the legitimate leader of the country, and concede he's at least trying to do what's best for America in a legal and moral manner, I just differ with him on a lot of issues just what the "best" is.  Which gets further into the mindset, if he ordered me to go to Hati in my few remaining weeks on active duty, I would do so without question because it's my job to obey the orders of the commander and chief (within the confines of the Constitution) and he has the authority to do so.  I just don't think there's that feeling in the military of being a part of the government with a say in how the country is run, vs being a tool of the government to carry out policy set by the civilian administration within a legal framework.  
  6. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to IanL in Static defenses   
    Continued.









  7. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to IanL in Static defenses   
    OK I went and did some experimenting.  Here is a scenario with four different prepared tank positions on each side one is T90s vs M1s and one is T90s vs Bradleys.  Lot of fun even if it is not realistic.  The idea was just to show how a tank position might be made using the editor.
     
    Prepaired Tank Positions.zip
     
    Here is a screen shot of one M1 just before it sustained mission kill damage.  As you can see it has survived a few hits already.

     
    Here is the how they are made diagrams.  I created four slightly different positions.  One two AS wide - I think that one is too wide.  One super long which I think looks silly but anyway you be the judge.  The long ones can have a lower section that allows the tank to totally hide.  During the battle when tanks withdraw after a laser warning they will stop when they reach cover.  A few times the tank in the position with the extra low section actually stopped there and therefore stayed in the prepared position most of the time they actually retreated back below the hill.  So, if you do create positions like these think about what tanks will do if they pop smoke and withdraw - do they have a safe place to go?
     
     














     











  8. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Krasnoarmeyets in Glorious NATO cloaking device.   
    Maybe the gunner was daydreaming, or chatting with the driver, or doing something away from the sights. I can't say how many times I have been distracted by something (possible movement further afield or to the sides, checking the map, switching radio channels, adjusting targeting reticle, etc.) and missed the targets that were right there in our Arma battles (not as authentic as RL, of course, but probably close enough for the purposes of this simulation).
  9. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to akd in Javelin won't fire on soft targets   
    AI player doesn't fire on area targets, it either uses mission designer orders (i.e. target armor arc) or TacAI targeting. There is no problem with the TacAI not using AT weapons on soft targets (unless stressed), which was the big problem recognized initially. The problem now is when a player makes a judgement that a threat is Javelin worthy and cannot explicitly order the team to fire on it, because the game has to protect us from ourselves. (Sure that ATGM is probably going to kill one of your Strykers, but no, you aren't allowed to fire a Javelin on it. There might be a tank just around the corner, and you can't be trusted to make that call.)

    The change to TacAI targeting was good. The total prohibition for player-placed targets is bad because it is not necessary. It's a solution looking for a problem.
  10. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Nidan1 in T-90 tank documentary (2014 in Russian)   
    I would wager that most of those comments professing "worship" for a tank of all things are posted by 12 year olds.
  11. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to panzersaurkrautwerfer in XM25 CDTE supposed to be fielded late 2015   
    Weight.  It's the same reason the Rangers did not like the base model, and why MGL type launchers haven't got much traction.  If you've thrown body armor, rifle, 300ish rounds, water, NVGs, optics and batteries on a guy, he's already pretty weighed down.  Adding an entirely different weapon system and ammunition might make the guy simply fall over.  The weight of an M320 and rounds is not insignificant but there's a lot less than an XM25 or a larger system. 
     
    Re: Rangerjection
     
    The Rangers work in a way that could best be described as raid-centric.  Basically they're going to be whatever transport is mission proper (often helicopters, but in Iraq they borrowed Strykers pretty often because of how quiet and fast they could be), get booted out, and then do whatever they're there to  do  (generally seize HVTs, although hostage rescue, or high risk cache/insurgent node seizure pops up sometimes).  
     
    To that end most of the fighting they do is with the initiative, and rapid movement onto and through the objective is of the paramount.  They also tend to have priority on support assets to a rather insane degree*
     
    Elsewhere in Afghanistan, being suddenly under fire from a covered position while on patrol is a reality.  This makes the weight trade off more attractive because while the Rangers use the grenade launcher a fair bit, they're often using it as a launcher for other things (flares, LTL, etc), and often they're attacking the enemy in his hole where he is less likely to be behind hard cover.  Some 10th Mountain platoon however is much more likely to be checking out the local villages to see if they're still living in the 13th century, and as part of that wander into an ambush from the sort of positions the XM25 smites well.
     
    *In what I view as a giant mistake, the course you take prior to being eligible for command or senior staff positions as a Captain is shared between Armor, Infantry, and Special Forces types.  My class tragically was a mix of one former scout (me), one tanker, two international students (one from Ghana, the other from Croatia), one lost aviator (they could take our course too) seven light infantry type guys, and then a whopping seven special forces bound dudes.  One of the SOF dudes had been in the Rangers from 2LT until he showed up to the course.  And I kid you not, every scenario revolved around "well we can just use our air support for that" for him.  It's like his brain just couldn't comprehend that not everyone was followed by a platoon of Apaches, an AC-130, and an element of F-16s just waiting for the word to do something.  I was about ready to kill him when he said "well in a real war, the air force would handle this!" during our heavy mechanized defense scenario which involved holding off a enemy mechanized battalion with our assigned mech infantry team.   
  12. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Wiggum15 in AMD GPU ? Try this !   
    Hi !
     
    we all know that CMx2 + AMD GPU + most drivers gives you long loading times, bad performance or graphic glitches...
    And we all know that updating or downgrading the GPU driver is one of the few things that an help...
    But updating or downgrading your GPU drivers is a pain in the a** and can cause problems with other games.
     
    But there is a way of using a newer or older AMD OpenGL driver without changing your whole GPU driver !
     
    How does it work ?
    Download a older or newer (or Beta) AMD Catalyst Driver Open the the "driver_you_just_downloaded.exe" with a program like 7zip Inside that directory, traverse into ->Packages\Drivers\Display\W86A_INF (depends on the driver)\B151068 (depends on the driver) and look for the file: atioglxx.dl_ and copy (unpack) it to your CMBS folder (the folder where the game .exe is located !) Open a command window (On the start menu, type "cmd.exe" in the search box, you should see "cmd.exe" appear at the top search results. Right click on this and run as administrator) You should now be in a DOS prompt/DOS box command shell. Type CD C:\Program Files (x86)\Battlefront\Combat Mission Black Sea (or whatever, its the directory where you installed CMBS) and hit enter Now type EXPAND ATIOGLXX.DL_ ATIOGLXX.DLL
    * It should say the file has inflated or expanded like 127% or similar factor. You now should see a atioglxx.dl_ and a atioglxx.dll You can delete the atioglxx.dl_ now CMBS will now use the AMD OpenGL driver from the driver you took the atioglxx.dl_ from, it only affects CMBS and by deleting the atioglxx.dll you can undo it in a second !
    This works with all CMx2 games !
  13. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Codename Duchess in Why doesn't the US Air Support roster in CMBS have the A-10 on it?   
    Yeah you can get JDAMs and LGBs out of it, so it's as capable as any other jet we have in CMBS.

    I'm 100% biased for obvious reasons, but the Super Hornet and the Growler are very capable platforms.  Maneuverable, high payload, great sensors, etc.  They only lack in acceleration (which new engines could fix - and be a whole lot cheaper than a new fleet of jets) and their range is average.  They are also the stealthiest non-stealth aircraft in the US arsenal (I'd claim the world but I won't go that far) incorporating a lot of RCS reducing features.  And then you get the Advanced Super Hornet which adds a stealth weapons pod, conformal fuel tanks, and new engines to overcome all those weaknesses.  And you could still buy 2-3 per F-35, on a new and proven airframe.  Plus 2 engines is always better than one when your only alternative is swimming.

    And it has a gun.

    So yeah, the F-35C sucks.
     
  14. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Nerdwing in Russian Optics and Spotting in general   
    I have finally got some time to look into this. Despite being an uncooled device it is not clear to me that the TIM 5000 is necessarily less capable than the Catherine FC. It does have a lower resolution, but it sees further into the infrared spectrum than the Catherine FC and has a more powerful zoom.

    Catherine FC
    Spectral Band: 8-12 μm
    Field of view (FOV):
    Wide FOV : 9° x 6.7° Narrow FOV : 3° x 2.2° Electronic zoom (x2) : 1.5° x 1.1°
    Image resolution: 754 x 576
     
    TIM 1500
    Spectral band: 7.5 - 14 mm
    Format 640 x 480 28 mm pitch
    Field of view (horizontal) Wide 10.1°; Narrow 3.3°
    Electronic zoom 2x, 3x, 4x
  15. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Nerdwing in Russian Optics and Spotting in general   
  16. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to IanL in How much would you pay for an improved AI upgrade   
    Are you <several dozen attempts deleted because could be considered a personal attack> kidding?

    The AI in CM1 was, well a joke.  OK perhaps that is a bit harsh - no, no it is. It always did the same plan and half the time the plan was not particularly good either. In a QB I suppose it could be made to work fairly well.  But if you factor in a QB with more than one scripted plan available the scripted plan method smokes it. In a scenario it just cannot complete with the scripted AI we have right now. A scenario designer can create AI plans that take into account terrain features, objective priorities etc. and match the forces chosen for the AI groups.
     
    It is theoretically possible to create an autonomous AI that can do all these things but that is a crazy amount of work.  If BFC spent a fraction of that work in adding new features to the current AI scripting (additional triggers if/then paths) plus some editor improvements, scenario authors could create an even better experience at a fraction of the cost of your fantasy AI.  You are just dreaming and you are way off base.  Spend your time convincing BFC to augment their existing script based AI.  Since they actually want to go in that direction you will have more success.
  17. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from Douglas Ruddd in Russian Optics and Spotting in general   
    I have finally got some time to look into this. Despite being an uncooled device it is not clear to me that the TIM 5000 is necessarily less capable than the Catherine FC. It does have a lower resolution, but it sees further into the infrared spectrum than the Catherine FC and has a more powerful zoom.

    Catherine FC
    Spectral Band: 8-12 μm
    Field of view (FOV):
    Wide FOV : 9° x 6.7° Narrow FOV : 3° x 2.2° Electronic zoom (x2) : 1.5° x 1.1°
    Image resolution: 754 x 576
     
    TIM 1500
    Spectral band: 7.5 - 14 mm
    Format 640 x 480 28 mm pitch
    Field of view (horizontal) Wide 10.1°; Narrow 3.3°
    Electronic zoom 2x, 3x, 4x
  18. Downvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to Stagler in Is it possible to do a CPU vs CPU battle?   
    Haha. The 90s called, they asked if they could get any tips on game design from the future. I told them not to call here again it was a waste of time.
  19. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to slysniper in How much would you pay for an improved AI upgrade   
    If you all are so willing to pay for smart AI.
     
    I can solve your problem.
     
    You can call me AI, send your checks directly to me and I will quite my job and will be available for your services each and every day.
     
    I promise you to provide a high level of play and you will have complete control over any battle and situation you would like to play.
     
    I even promise to never speak a word  so that you have that true AI feeling of not having to deal with another Human being.
     

  20. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to sfhand in How much would you pay for an improved AI upgrade   
    They are all worthy ideas, IMHO, however, I'd rather pay for a 64bit Windows release with multicore support.
  21. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to pnzrldr in POKING THE BEAR   
    Hi all.  Overwhelmingly happy to see this thread.  Couple points. 
     
    1.  Chris and I had opposite viewpoint (or simple miscommunication) on allocating easy/hard mission.  He wound up giving hard mission to folks who do poorly in preceding one.  I thought they should get an easier ride, and folks fresh from overwhelming victory should have to suck it up.  Either use a utility (one on GaJ's board?) to decompile the campaign, run through and deliberately throw the preceding mission, or perhaps I'll hang the 'hard' version out there on the repos for a challenge game.
    2.  Ravens CAN get shot down, esp. by Tunguskas.  They are harder to engage though.  Not quite sure if SAMS/MANPADs can, but TGs for sure.  As stated, GE is immune if observing only.
    3.  *Spoiler*  hard version features Russian Air, US Stingers, and Russian mobile ADA systems, plus slight decrements to US force mix to up the resource management challenge.
     
    Have had some folks say that the Russian mech elements pile up too much, and they don't enjoy the Kuwait/Falaise Pocket "highway of death" aspect.  However, one of the US' key concepts is to use Joint Fires to provide the lethality that our limited numbers cannot generate.  This is a test of that concept.  It highlights the difficulties inherent in going with only GPS precision guidance on many munitions, of getting observers in obsolete 'scout' vehicles to accomplish their missions, and of the challenges inherent in neutralizing an integrated air defense system.  I challenge folks to imagine what it would be like if some of us betas had prevailed in our attempts to get vehicle/soldier small arms applied into the AAA equation!  But it is fun, trying to take out a MECH BDE (-) with a Stryker PLT and a handful of scouts. 
     
    Heck, this was so much fun I may have to build another like it to apply the experience from making this one!
  22. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to GhostRider3/3 in Looking for huge scenarios   
    I am currently working on a HUGE project that should be finished early next week.  its called "Clash of Titans" which will throw some King Tigers against JSII, and JSI tanks.  I wont tell you a lot... but I have worked on it for about a month and a half.. It is a Hypothetical encounter between the 505 sPz.Abt. and the 31st Guards Heavy Tank Regiment.  (at work know and don't have my notes in front of me)  There are sub forces and goals for each side.. I have designed it to be played as German vs Soviet Forces or hopefully Head to Head.  When I upload it next week on the Repository.. hopefully I can get some play testers.
     
    I spent about a week or two just on the map.. and many flavor objects to add a immersive detail from almost anywhere on the map. 
    I have tried to use as many Real Life names as I could find for the correct Company I was using for the Germans.  Pz.Abt 505 and the Panzer grenadier Company I also used from the 24th Pz. Division.
     
    The Scenario is not historically accurate but I wanted the players to feel immersed and feel as if this battle could have taken place.
     
    x1 town.. German.. Refit & Repair area, a Depot area, and a Rail, telegraph building plus an area of local inhabitants and shops.
    X1 Rail station
    x1 Rail Storage area
    X1 large Farm
    x1 Village Russian side, basically rural within a somewhat forested area.  basic village but detailed. 
    Rail bridge
    Road bridge
    somewhat hidden Ford location.  Located near a previous battle.
    The lay of the land is of low lying land with an occasional bump.??  
  23. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from George MC in First Clash - Impressions *** SPOILERS ***   
    Keep in mind that in the next patch US Excalibur rounds will have their precision slightly downgraded.
  24. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B reacted to TheVulture in Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?   
    I think Obama has a policy, and it is illustrated by the Russian-Georgian war (which was before Obama was elected, just to avoid confusion). Whether the US would have been prepared to fight to help Georgia or not was a moot point (although I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have) - the facts at the time was that the US had too many military commitments ongoing to have the forces available to do anything to counter Russia at that point. With large commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a supply train in Afghanistan that depended on Russian co-operation (Pakistan not being the most secure or reliable way of moving supplies into Afghanistan) Russia was basically in a position where the US couldn't do anything to oppose it.
     
    So for all the supposed commitments to an ally - Georgia - the US basically sat by and did nothing (a fact that I'm sure the Russians were quite happy to point out to Poland, the Baltic states and other neighbours).
     
    Obama's policy was simply to reduce the committed forces so that the US had the spare capacity to respond to threats that actually posed a meaningful threat. Libya and Syria never did. ISIS still doesn't - they have been contained and are being pushed back slowly by the Kurds and Iraqis, neither of which are awe-inspiring military machines. The only things that pose a serious strategic threat to the US are Russia and China. So Obama is simply refusing to get involved in wars that the US can afford to ignore without existential consequences, to be able to contain the threats that matter should the need arise.
     
    Whether the diplomatic efforts to back that up have been up to scratch is probably more debatable.
  25. Upvote
    Vanir Ausf B got a reaction from animalshadow in M1A2sep (aps) vs. 2x T-90am (aps)   
    It will be in the next patch, but not just for the US.
     
    The other option is to just ban US APS. It's presence is speculative anyways.
×
×
  • Create New...