Jump to content

cmfan

Members
  • Content Count

    148
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. To me it seems like since 2.0 the behavior described by the OP has been the norm. If I remember correctly, pre 2.0 tanks didn't shoot at other tanks with their heavy machine guns unless enemy crew were bailing out. Now it seems they do so until the enemy tank brews up or is listed as knocked out. I recall my first few games with the new British module where I noticed this and thought, "is this British tank doctrine?" I then played a game with American tanks and saw the same behavior.
  2. This poor Brit took a HEAT round to the chest from a T-90
  3. I've had this bug happen to me as well. I keep meaning to report it, but I always forget. I'm not sure if it only happens in the firing range, or if it also appears elsewhere.
  4. I'd be interested seeing in a heavy ACR troop added to the available U.S. TOE! I've modeled it myself by cherry picking units but of course the resulting troop has C&C issues. motioned seconded.
  5. Good point. In general because of computer hardware limitations I think we fight in maps that are smaller than they should optimally be for the type of weapons in our arsenal. This becomes most apparent with Armor, ATGMS and U.S. optics/surveillance systems.
  6. Can you repeat this without the alphabet soup? I'm ex-army and even I couldn't follow most of what you said. However, if I get the general idea of your argument, my conclusion is that dedicated FS vehicles are pretty much useless and even a detriment in the game when it comes to dealing with scenarios that involve calling indirect fire on almost any kind of armor; or even RPG armed infantry if your close enough. Either your going to get your vehicle killed, or you'll never get a chance to for fire because of the vehicle AI's protective behavior. It's a realistic reflection of what happens in the real world, but also an inadvertent counter point to a "feature" touted by the game designers. If that's the case our FS vehicles, at least in these situations, revert back to being personnel carriers with sophisticated optics that are useful in a) getting our forward observers to good observations points, and giving us a slight edge in being the first to spot advancing armor under the right conditions. Their built in behind the scenes bonuses to FS spotters are not really applicable because of practical employment considerations.
  7. I once had an RPG fly through the middle of a squad of Marines and detonate on wall immediately behind them. I saw the explosion, dust and debris and the entire squad go down. I thought it was going to be a massacre but when everything settled down only one Marine has suffered a minor injury. They weren't even pinned or rattled.
  8. The problem with observers in vehicles (with FS3) right now is that as soon those vehicles spot any type of armor they pop smoke and retreat out of LOS making them completely ineffective if you are trying to call for artillery in an area with enemy armor in it. I understand this is the AI protecting the vehicle, but it really robs FS3 equipped vehicles of a great deal of their potential.
  9. Hehe, your absolutely right. Thank you for catching that.
  10. I wish our "brewed up" vehicle graphics looked like that.
  11. I'm probably going to screw this joke up, but: How do the Marine's take a hotel in the middle of a city? Fight house to house and conduct a frontal assault at the break of dawn. How does the Army take a hotel in the middle of a city? Lease the property at twice the going market rate.
  12. You guys joke about those female Iranian conscripts but a pixilated RPG ain't nothing to laugh at regardless of who fires it. Seriously though, I've always wondered why Syria was chosen instead of Iran. The U.S. isn't exactly on friendly terms with Syria but Iran seems like the logical choice if your going to set a simulation in the region. I do see the developers reasoning from a unit standpoint though. In choosing Syria BF did manage to make me feel guilty when I play CMSF as one of my good friend's husband is Syrian and served in their military as a conscript. We trade "war" stories once in a while.
  13. There's are no keyed ignition systems in Army military vehicles. That I remember. The only time your vehicle is "locked" is when it's in the motor pool or some such place. In those instances you usually lock a hatch with a pad lock or secure the steering wheel with a cable. Valuable or sensitive items that could be easily taken out are either removed or locked in brackets inside the vehicle. If you have to abandon a vehicle and there's a chance it might be captured the TC will at the very least "Z" out the radios/electronic equipment (wipes frequencies and crypto). If feasible they'll thermite it along with the vehicle's engine/weapon system. That was the proscribed procedure a few years ago. I'm not sure what it is now. I've seen a video of a Bradley being hit by an Apache after the crew bailed in order to keep it from being capture so there's always that option.
×
×
  • Create New...