Jump to content

Sgt.Squarehead

Members
  • Posts

    8,910
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    85

Everything posted by Sgt.Squarehead

  1. We'd need an S version (no APS, no Shtora) version of the current CM:BS T-90AM to model it well.....The current CM:SF T-90SA is probably a reasonable match, capability wise.
  2. That's pretty much my understanding, although I thought they were supposed to have NERA/ERA modules.....I'm not seeing any on the tank above, or indeed anything to distinguish it from a T-62. I've been looking at similar scenarios using CM:A, TBH my 'Fragmentistan' stuff could as easily be set in Iran in the early nineties.....If you like battles with lots of T-55s & T-62s you would enjoy it.
  3. Armortek. If 1/6 is your thing, these are the guys for you: https://www.armortek.co.uk/ PS - Interesting.....They don't seem to advertise their 'live fire' stuff any more, their first Tiger kit could be fitted with a shotgun as the main weapon.
  4. I very much look forward to blowing your map up. LLF's Ramadi is quite a thing.....My whole Mosul map is about 1/3 of what's visible in that shot (the area I sliced out is fully contained in that image).
  5. Found the alleged T-90S/SA.....Turns out it's actually a T-72B3! Apparently there is just one command variant of the T-90, the T-90K, it's a bit of a hybrid from what I can make out, naturally it comes with extra radios & so on: Modern tanks are just too complicated.....Shermans are much easier to comprehend.
  6. Thought this might be of interest to @dragonwynn & maybe others Vehicles: http://spioenkop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/north-korea-and-her-fighting-vehicles.html Aircraft: http://spioenkop.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/north-korea-and-her-air-force.html
  7. Some interesting information on the fighting vehicles of the next logical Target in the BF storyline: http://spioenkop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/iranian-fighting-vehicles.html Interested to note they use Nork Ch'onma-Ho MBTs.....Although the picture provided looks just like a T-62 to me:
  8. I was surprised to discover just how much detail seems to be available on ISIS equipment, check this out: Iraq: http://spioenkop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/vehicles-and-equipment-captured.html Syria: http://spioenkop.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/vehicles-and-equipment-captured-and.html
  9. As stated we've seen T-90, T-90A & their respective command variants too IIRC, first arriving around November 2015: I'm pretty sure I've seen an export T-90S/SA version (without Shtora) too, but I can't find the picture right now.....Will post it if/when I do.
  10. Now doesn't that look like a much more interesting & challenging scenario than smashing things to bits with Abrams.....I want CM:SF II even more now!
  11. Part of the issue is that the designer must manually place the reinforcing units on the map, on a small map they can be restricted as to where they can place them.....Ask me how I know! Don't forget about @LongLeftFlank's remarkable Ramadi map (this is just part of it, it's bigger now): If you need a volunteer to test scenario design ideas I'd be glad to help out.....I'm no expert, but I do know my way round the editor and I like experimenting with it to see what it will do. I went to test the 'TRPs as reinforcements' idea, but sadly you can't even set them (or any other Fortifications) as a reinforcement (so there goes my idea for FASCAM too). PS - I recommend making exit zones at least two tiles deep at the map edge, if they are only one tile deep they can be hard to spot. It may also be worth considering using several small exits painted as the same objective rather than one large one. In preview mode the objective name ('EXIT HERE' or whatever) will be repeated over each painted area making the whole more visible. PPS - Possibly worth noting for reference, two tile deep exit zones have a second advantage when used with AI controlled units.....In my experience the AI will not execute a Dash move order to a map edge tile, no idea why this might be so, simply reporting my experience.
  12. Good show.....Reverse slopes only really exist when you are stuck on the ground.
  13. Amen to that fella, you have my sympathies and understanding. I'm all up to V:4, but I have CM:SF & CM:A too if that's an option.
  14. I was going to point this thread out to @dragonwynn for his Korea project.....But then I noticed who the OP was.
  15. It's difficult to implement over large urban areas.....I've allocated fairly massive VPs** to the various urban blocks in 'Ashsh al Dababir' to represent civilian loss of life in the event of excessive destruction by the player, but they really do have to go totally & utterly mad (flattening multiple structures in each block) before the VP cost becomes significant. ** Flatten the lot, you lose.....No matter what else you do.
  16. Sorry.....Having one of 'those' days.
  17. That's a good point.....I'd definitely call that a linear smokescreen. CM already has the black smoke, so it should be doable.
  18. Was a bit surprised your opponent didn't use a delayed 'linear strike' into the woods, they are such an obvious axis of advance and the US usually have plenty of artillery to spare.
  19. Great stuff.....Thanks! It would be great if these guys could cooperate with Bovington.
  20. There's a certain graceful irony to it though.....I kinda like it (as a piece of art).
  21. They have to recalculate their trajectories at the new position, if the ground is not flat & level (it never is) the tubes need to be realigned and so on.....Fairly confident there are several guys here who could explain the procedure much more thoroughly. @Combatintman @TheForwardObserver IMHO direct firing with mortar-tracks is just asking for trouble, much safer to park them at the bottom of the slope and use a forward observer or their platoon HQ to call in their fire.
×
×
  • Create New...