Jump to content

sburke

Members
  • Content count

    15,321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by sburke

  1. sburke

    Iraq War

    that is correct, but a mod should not prohibit a scenario playing. Mods are user oriented and not part of a save file etc. When you create a campaign or scenario your modes will only alter what you see. I can load that same scenario/campaign without them. It won't alter game play, jus tth evisuals. If someone created a campaign that needs the visual that come from a mod they would have to redo them for the effect, but it wouldn't stop anyone from launching it. In terms of the mods there are a few that will work like Kieme's building mod, but for the most part you should assume any mod for CMSF will not work in CMSF2.
  2. sburke

    Iraq War

    He shouldn't have to port. The goal is CMSF2 will run anything created in CMSF. It won't have any of the additional AI capabilities in 4.0, but it should be playable.
  3. sburke

    CMSF2 - UK-Germany Beta AAR

    Spray and pray is not a winning recipe for achieving fire superiority.
  4. Half the time I play just to look at stuff like this. Nice shots Bil
  5. Now now, that kind of info has to come from the man behind the curtain.
  6. sburke

    Disappointed

    Controversial may be a strong term. I think overall because we are all so invested in the game/tactics and these discussions we tend to get a little wrapped up in them. Yes there have been campaigns that have a recon portion - Kampfgruppe Engle if my fading memory is accurate starts with a recon mission that has implications for the next battle. However it is not a long range spot em type mission - it is short range night time infantry oriented and includes combat. I know you really enjoy campaigns, can you point out one specifically that matches what you are suggesting? It would likely help focus this a little more than hypothetical ideas. Doesn't matter if it is WW2 or more current though obviously for the specific point of modern vehicles it would help if it were in either CMSF or CMBS. I am one of those people who does enjoy uniquely designed scenarios and doesn't have to have constant action however I don't off hand know any that fit what I think you are suggesting.
  7. sburke

    Disappointed

    who is we? This is a long thread and very little of it has anything about the actual subsystems - I assume you are referring to the optics on a recon vehicle. The OP never said a word about recon per se but more the scope of maneuver and scale of combat. You keep very narrowly defining a specific item and then submit that because I can't have a recon vehicle sneaking around the backroads and occasionally peeking over a hill in what would likely be one of the most boring scenarios ever created that CM can 't properly represent recon. I did suggest watching Generation Kill and I don't think there is a single combat situation in that movie that can't be replicated in CM. In fact you can create a map that is 3 x 6 km in CM and do exactly what you are suggesting but I simply don't think you will find anyone willing to create a scenario like that. CM even has a point value system for it (spot). If someone wanted to create a scenario that had a recon section maneuvering to see if it could obtain information on enemy units while not being observed over a very large map they most certainly can. That those scenarios do not exist is not because the engine can't create them.
  8. sburke

    New forum means...

    just a guess, but I expect that by getting the module you effectively converted the game so your answer is yes and your module license key should allow BF to verify your purchase. You would not have gotten that through Paradox.
  9. sburke

    Disappointed

    No not really. Recon vehicles are vehicles because they are intended to cover distance, however they don't have to go 10 feet if the position they are doing recon of is just beyond the hill 10' ahead. So now you have a tactical situation where the recon vehicles has covered the approach to get to the town they were ordered to reconnoiter or the bridge they were ordered to seize and now have a combat situation. You are far too strict in how you define the situations a recon force would find itself in based on the objective it was assigned. For example the article below was based on some research that was initiated for the granddaughter of a sergeant in the 2nd cavalry reconnaissance group. Any portion of the battles below could be done on a far smaller map. There are combat situations described for both this unit and the German Recon Bn 115. For a more modern setting- watch Generation Kill. http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/luneville.aspx The First Battle for Luneville: 15-16 September 1944 At this time, XII Corps’s attention was focused on liberating the city of Nancy, securing its positions across the Moselle River and preparing for a drive to the Rhine. The town of Luneville was not at first a priority for XII Corps. Yet in the coming days, Luneville would come to play a pivotal role in XII Corps operations. Luneville was located to the south-east of Nancy on the confluence of the Muerthe and Vezouze Rivers. To the east were two large forests: the Foret de Parroy and the Foret de Mondom. Also in the vicinity were a number of smaller villages, including Jolivet to the north and Deuxville to the north-west.[10] In its drive to encircle and isolate Nancy, the 4th Armored Division had sent its Combat Command B near Luneville but at first had not made any efforts to liberate the town. Instead it fell upon the 2nd Cavalry Group to secure the town. As part of its efforts to screen XII Corps’s right flank, the 2nd Cavalry Group had its 42nd Squadron attack Luneville. Elements of the 15th PanzerGrenadier Division’s Reconnaissance Battalion 115 were then holding the town.[11] On 15 September, two troops of the 42nd Squadron attacked from the south. T/4 Eugene Fehr was the radio operator in one of the M8 armored cars. During the fighting, his armored car was struck by an 88mm anti-tank shell which knocked off the right front wheel. Fehr and his crewmates dismounted to survey the damage, then immediately sought cover. Seconds later another 88mm shell struck the center of the M8 and destroyed it. Unable to overcome the German resistance, the 2nd Cavalry troopers pulled back and re-grouped.[12] 42nd Squadron was reinforced by elements of Colonel Wendell Blanchard’s Reserve Command (CCR), 4th Armored Division. Blanchard had with him the 696th Armored Field Artillery Battalion, part of the 489th Anti-aircraft Artillery (Automatic Weapons) Battalion, part of the 35th Tank Battalion, part of the 10th Armored Infantry Battalion and Headquarters and B Companies of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion. The next day, the combined force launched a three-prong attack on Luneville. The Squadron’s C Troop attacked from the west while B Troop attacked from the south-east and CCR attacked from the northwest. B Company of the 704th Tank Destroyer Battalion covered CCR’s left flank north-west of the city.[13] In this fight for Luneville, the 35th Tank Battalion was operating without its B and C Companies which had been detached for service elsewhere. The battalion was positioned initially in the village of Deuxville then moved to occupy some high ground northwest of the city. Though the 35th Tank Battalion force did not participate in the liberation of the city, it did repel a German counter-attack. They destroyed two German half-tracks and three anti-tank guns at a cost of one M4 Sherman medium tank, two men killed and fifteen wounded.[14] While most of B Troop, 42nd Squadron was engaged in the Luneville fight, Sgt James Hart’s section of 1st Platoon was sent to the west side of the Muerthe River to set up an outpost on a road leading to Luneville. At one point, a column of German panzers and infantry advanced up the road. Sgt Hart’s men opened fired at close range, killing a number of Germans and a tank commander. The Germans withdrew. But it would be another four days before his section were reunited with their parent troop.[15] The Americans pushed the Germans out of Luneville by late afternoon and Reserve Command assumed responsibility for the city. The Germans had 75 men killed and another 18 taken prisoner. The following day, the 2nd Cavalry Group assembled in the vicinity of the Foret de Mondon, with its A Troop, 42nd Squadron screening in the forest to the south-east and B Troop covering the southern approaches to Luneville.[16] Also on 17 September 1944, the 35th Tank Battalion endeavoured to clear German forces from the vicinity of Jolivet and the Foret de Parroy. One platoon of A Company attacked Jolivet and knocked out two anti-tank guns at a cost of one medium tank. Meanwhile, D Company conducted a sweep which accounted for one anti-tank gun and a half-track. They also captured fifteen prisoners from the Reconnaissance Battalion 115. Altogether, German casualties in this sector were three anti-tank guns and one half-track destroyed, 75 killed and 81 prisoners taken with another half-track probably knocked out. In return, the Americans suffered two killed, fifteen wounded and a M4 tank knocked out.[17] But the Germans were not done with Luneville yet. Over the next day or so, they managed to infiltrate a large number of troops back into the city. By the night of 17 September, there were enough Germans in Luneville to create the mistaken impression amongst the German commanders that they had in fact recaptured the city.[18]
  10. sburke

    Tanks and Roads

    really? you don't look a day older than 350!
  11. absolutely true! Though the drafts they pour here are pretty remarkable... https://slainteoakland.com/
  12. sburke

    New forum means...

    your module key should help at least a bit though.
  13. Funny thing about scenario design is you can't really make assumptions about the design in one play through (unless of course you can open in the editor and find there is only one plan and it doesn't really account for your actions). In testing a scenario recently I did one play through and was discussing my experience with the designer and he'd graciously offered me the opportunity to tweak it and see if I could improve it. It had two additional slots available, but did have 3 AI plans which I casually looked at but not in depth. <- note to self not to repeat that mistake. Now in my first play though I had been very aggressive seizing defensive positions that allowed me to trash the AI as it attempted to attack. It was exciting, but my casualties were very very minor. So I tweak it altering some minor items but nothing substantial initially. Then I launched the scenario and applied my uber effective aggressive plan...…. turns out I got a different AI plan this time. In 60 seconds I lost 13 men including my platoon commander, was unable to get my men into almost any of the positions I'd hoped for and ended up with a leaderless, rattled force that was practically overrun before my reinforcements arrived to stabilize the situation. I promptly told the designer I think I didn't need to touch his design.... then I crawled back into my corner and curled up into a ball cowering like so many of my men.
  14. "alternative" information as we say these days
  15. sburke

    CM:FI AAR SLIM versus Bletchley_Geek

    Really... coincidence? And we are just supposed to accept that?
  16. sburke

    CM:FI AAR SLIM versus Bletchley_Geek

    ahh yes I miss a good regicide. Hasn't been one in a while that shows any real panache
  17. ha ha yeah. I think in one run through my guys were right on the spawn point. Man what a wild party.
  18. sburke

    New forum means...

    It isn't an "upgrade" in the sense it will take your existing game and magically make it 4.0. It is really a new game and a new install. Your license will indicate to them what you own and therefore what pricing option you have. You can open a ticket and see if they can access your account info to validate.
  19. That option only works if you aren’t sitting at the spawn point 😎
  20. sburke

    Disappointed

    This is where it pays to be mostly interested in infantry combat. a 2 km sq map is HUGE. I am testing out on a 500 by 300 meter map. I have a platoon of infantry engaged with another joining up. I am in heavy combat struggling to establish a perimeter that is simply too much ground to cover. (The area I am trying to actually defend is maybe 130 x 130 meters). I am concerned about ammo usage as my transport is too vulnerable to bring forward so I will have to break off teams to fetch more further weakening my line. As Ken would say - GLORIOUS!!!!
  21. sburke

    CMSF2 - UK-Germany Beta AAR

    Been reading Quotations from Chairman Ken as well eh? One thing to beware of is ammo usage. I am messing with @George MC's Circle the wagons and have watched 2 teams burn through about 1000 rounds of ammo in 15 minutes. Granted it is a heavy urban fight, but modern automatic weapons will have you looking for resupply pretty darn fast. correction- that was 2000 rounds.... 8 guys.... maybe 13-14 minutes of actual fighting.
  22. sburke

    Disappointed

    Is there more than 1 version of Radzy Award (CMRT right)? I can open but it is only 2.7 x 2.3 km (says version 1)
  23. sburke

    Disappointed

    Hey I resent that ! 😎 this thread did look like it had calmed down so whatever you might think of previous posts tossing in troll comments now isn’t going to make things any better. (This isn’t specific for you Rinaldi, but I did have to respond to the geriatrics comment, get off my damn lawn hippy)
  24. sburke

    Disappointed

    I don’t seem to be able to do those dimensions. Best I could get was 5.5 x 3.3. I’ll play around a bit. Even if I can though, opening a scenario with a map that size may be a completely different issue.
×