Jump to content

Molloy

Members
  • Posts

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Molloy's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. I set up a test scenario of a platoon of BMP-2s (Republican Guard) facing Strykers at 250 and 500 meters (all line formation, 12oc facing respectively). They mostly fired AP rounds. However, as JasonC correctly stated, this should be catastrophic to the Strykers, but instead the rounds were ricocheting, causing little damage. Dozens of 30mm AP were impacting and yet the Strykers kept chattering away with their fifties, until the AT-5s finally silenced them.
  2. The original animation was much better. Now, there are far too many ugly specs of gray/brown that clutter the screen with any decent volume of artillery fire. Bring back the elegant smoke!
  3. ^It's no surprise that Woodey lives in Phoenix.
  4. Although JonS' use of Clausewitz's famous line makes sense in the context of the discussion, I find it interesting to note how its common use strays far from the original intent. The following analysis is by Christopher Bassford: "One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation. For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is merely a continuation of politics," ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point—made earlier in the analysis—that "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale." His synthesis, which resolves the deficiencies of these two bold statements, says that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. This synthesis lies in his "fascinating trinity" [wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit]: a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation."
  5. With those settings, at Blue start-up my framerate according to FRAPS is 16. Im running P4 3.6, 2gb PC2 4200, GeForce 8600GT, updated drivers. [ August 18, 2007, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Molloy ]
  6. He means the "Training Campaign" set in Yakima, WA. The last mission of that campaign is a somewhat tricky MOUT scenario. I believe if you search around a bit you will find some screenshots and ways people approached it tactically.
  7. Under Administration commands, select "Anti-tank team", which selects the squad's best AT assets (Javelin, if equipped). Issue them a target and they will fire the missile. [ August 17, 2007, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Molloy ]
  8. The following comes a little late, and was with version 091, but here it is anyway... ********SPOILER ALERT******** ParaBellum, Earnestly, a great little scenario. I played it three times to completion from both sides, and played partial games in hotseat controlling both sides to test certain elements. It seems that any criticism I might have concerns current bugs/game limitations rather than your design. Examples of this are LOS/LOF problems (specifically with walls), and the reluctance (and sluggishness) of BMPs to fire either AP rounds or their ATGMs. The current state of the game makes expected outcomes more difficult, but not impossible, to achieve. I found your AI plans to be acceptable, however in every game (either as Blue or Red) I scored a total victory, badly mauling the computer opponent, but this is to be expected as it was generally in CMx1 and the Shock Force campaign. However, when playing hotseat, both sides slugged it out and it was much more balanced- I pulled out a minor victory against myself . I find that your initial setup for Red is not optimal in light of the problems listed above. Units in the open (even if behind a "wall" and hiding) stand little chance of survival; the same holds for units on rooftops (at least until some LOS/LOF issues are addressed). When playing Red against Blue AI, this wasn't a critical issue, as I could effectively ambush and engage the near hapless Strykers/Bradleys (who often get bogged and/or dispersed attempting to cross the road ditches) with RPGs from multiple angles simultaneously, inflicting heavy loses (2 out of the 3 games as Red I KOed every Blue vehicle, without suffering significant casualties). By setting up the Red forces in either level 1 or 2 of the buildings, often using other buildings rather than walls as LOS/LOF blocks against Blue lines-of-fire and avenues of approach, the outcome was even more lopsided, as the AI tends to employ units in a piecemeal fashion. The combination of RPGs and artillery was highly unpleasant for Blue (stay mounted—get hit by RPGs; dismount—get hit by arty). This was a problem for the AI, as they tend to bunch around the nearest cluster of houses (SE section of the map) facing the "Police HQ". For a human player, this is not so much of an issue due to a much more coherent and organized advance. When Playing Blue (my first game, with no knowledge of the above) I did the opposite of what the AI tends to do, and took my forces North, utilizing the open ground and facing to maximize local firepower superiority, even with the risk of increased exposure. However, I felt this was mitigated somewhat by the range, and by being exposed only frontally to two building facades of the Police HQ, rather than dozens of potential enemy positions and angles by swinging south to the housing cluster. This approach worked well against the Red AI. I used the F-16 air strikes against Wadi al Bugger, which was highly effective, and seemed the most obvious choice. This resulted in little and sporadic resistance after clearing the Police HQ and adjacent field. By the time the Bradley (and BMP) reinforcements arrived, I was already advancing on Wadi al Bugger. The Bradleys, Mk 19 Strykers, and Javelin armed dismounts made short work of the mech units in all games I played as Blue. BMPs simply do not stand a chance in open battle in the current state of the game (which seems flawed—IFVs should not dread an ICV like Stryker). Even when playing as Red, I was very cautious with them, essentially keyholing them in ambush for fear of open engagement (or rather, disengagement ) even with numerical superiority thanks to work of the RPG teams. In conclusion, your map is fantastic, and your scenario all-around is a nice size, tactically interesting, and fun! I don't how much can be done about the StratAI plans, as I am not that familiar with the editor yet. I think this scenario is good as is, and will only benefit when BFC resolves the bugs/issues which cause much of the unbalancing. It also has great multiplayer potential. Thanks ParaBellum, and I hope my input is somewhat helpful.
  9. I have been very impressed by the vehicle smoke, both in its appearance/behavior and its low impact on game performance (at least on my setup). I have used the Stryker's in lieu of artillery delivered smoke to good effect. A platoon of Strykers can put up enough smoke (and accurately) to blanket most small to medium sized maps, especially with a decent wind. I use this to screen and conceal maneuverer, specifically to hide dust trails kicked up by my moving vehicles. Certainly not optimal, but can be used in a pinch.
  10. I also experienced this problem (though intermittently, which I thought was strange). After playing with it a bit, I believe I have found the problem. Preset views 8 and 9 do not display the map if shadows are toggled off. With shadows on, the map is visible. [ August 16, 2007, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Molloy ]
  11. Hamachi is great. I was having router difficulties as well, and within 10 minutes of downloading the program I was playing without a hitch. A very simple and elegant work-around.
×
×
  • Create New...