Jump to content

hcrof

Members
  • Posts

    1,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hcrof

  1. This is the same mod as before but updated for v1.20. Previously, the new building textures clashed with the mod - this is the fix.
  2. Strange - I played a game with IED's a while ago and they worked as expected. I had one on either end of a killzone and one went off, the other didn't. That was in v1.08 though
  3. Welcome to the forums When a crew served weapon is deployed the deploy button will light up and the tripod will be shown if you zoom into the unit. Remember, it might take up to 5 minutes to deploy a weapon system so you might have to wait a bit.
  4. - The Syrian faces mod and the Syrian spy pack are awsome - its makes them look less like robots and more like real people. -The rag tagging mods look pretty good too but I don't use all of them because too much rag tagging makes the armies look pretty unprofessional. -the smoke effects mod is great, it looks much more realistic - I also use mords portraits and Scipios sillhouettes mods for a bit of flavour. sorry to all the other authers, I can't remember who did all the mods I use. Oh yeah, the African mods are good (I did one of them ) but unfortunately there arn't a lot of African battles out there. I tried to make one myself but it has stalled unfortunately - hopefully I can make another soon.
  5. An APFSDS round is just a big metal dart so if the armour is thin enough, the round will just pass right through the vehicle. There is always an explosion because of the energy delivered to the target but it would be smaller on lightly armoured targets because the round keeps moving. This is actually the reason why the British keep the HESH round - the APFSDS round might not be lethal enough if it just goes straight through so the HESH is used to more effectivly disable the vehicle. It should be more effective against buildings against HE too. Edit: Whoops - too late! Edit again: If you are using an Abrams the round will be depleted Uranium - I think that as the round hits the target the friction will cause the DU to burn and self sharpen, increasing the lethality. Could any expert confirm this?
  6. I personally regard the Taliban (or at least the footsoldiers) as a symptom of a deeper desease in the area. You can try to mask the symptom by killing the footsoldiers but its like scratching a rash, it keeps getting worse. What is needed is to build a state where the people respect the rule of law and the violence will disappear naturally. It should be simple but as we have found - it isn't . Scratching that itch was much more tempting than treating it and now its getting pretty painful!
  7. I like that idea - I would certainly enter one should it be announced!
  8. heh - occupational hazard! The Soviets considered 3% casualties during exercises acceptable. They mainly came from things like that! I don't know how that number compares with the west though
  9. Good points Lethaface - it is good IMO to try to see the viewpoints of others to understand them better, even if you believe they are fundimentally wrong. I have travelled to many places in the world and from some places the 'west' certainly doesn't look as rosy as it does on the inside. Likewise, regardless of ideolegy, if I was going to organise an insurgency against a vastly greater power I think I would be doing it just like the Taliban, Viet Cong or the IRA - all labled terrorist organisations by the west.
  10. I agree that the british army squad has more firepower than its US Army counterpart (not the US marines obviously), its just that the American forces have tanks, IFV's, planes, javelins etc. coming out of their ears whereas the British forces often have to 'Muddle through' without. Still, thats what we are good at right? @falconeer4250 - To answer question 2, AFAIK, only the Soviet influenced countries will attempt to fight from their IFV's (not possible in the game). Western coutries tend to dismount and lead the assault with infantry. Unloading 300-400m away from the enemy position would be a good bet but obviously don't take that as gospel Edit: flamingknives seems to have found that I am wrong about not dismounting! Still - I would still argue that western countries *usually* dismount
  11. I don't think the optics are that much better on the T-72M1V than the T-55MV, maybe you just got unlucky? Try staying fully below a ridge until the last moment and using infantry spotters to judge when to go hull down and blast their flanks. Staying unbuttoned should work as well with older tanks, especially at short range but a tight target arc will probably do better at longer range. You might be able to unbutton and go turret down with just the commander over the ridge but it would not tell you you have vision from a movement point, you would have to guess it and check for a grey line when you arrive.
  12. From Steves comments so far I would guess that the new QB system will offer ready built formations to the player, perhaps with a limited choice of attachments. So for example you could take a mech infantry formation with a core of a Mech infantry coy (+artillery/engineers/tank plt) or you could take a tank formation with 2 plt tanks (+infantry/artillery/scouts). The 'template' force would enforce balence, taking points out of the system. This would solve the gamey OOB's while allowing a player to customise forces to a certain extent. Creating 'battlegroups' or suchlike. IMO of course
  13. I have been considering writing up a piece on Soviet and likely Syrian tactics but they are not as complex at company level as NATO or even further up the formation. I am not sure if anyone would be interested though and it would need a lot of work. +1 on British tactics though, I would love a discription of platoon and company level tactics for the British army and how it differs from the Americans. There is not that much literature on the subject as far as I am aware. AFAIK, the British army is less firepower oriented than the US forces and try for maneuvre or aimed fire at range. This is simply because they lack the 'punch' of the Yanks but in Iraq or Afghanistan the tactics at the small unit level are very similar because of the nature of the war. Take fire from the concealed enemy, ID a target and let the big guns do the work - no one wants to press an attack because the risk of casualties are high. I am aware of the exceptions to this rule of course and the Brits do fix bayonets when the enemy is close. (only 2 per squad because of MG's and UGL's but its the thought that counts )
  14. Very cool but you would need 10x10km maps to even begin thinking about hunting tanks with helos. (Of course if CMSF:2 offers 10x10km playable maps I will be one happy customer )
  15. Very true. If nothing else, the Soviets were on a tight budget - especially with the infantry! An aimpoint sight would be nice but the soldiers wern't really expected to aim very much, just put down a lot of lead to keep the enemies head down before the final 'Urrah' and charge. Their money went to counters for advanced western technology like aircraft and of course tanks. Conventional ground forces were expected to have a very short lifespan in WW3 so anything that wasn't absolutely necessary for combat wasn't included.
  16. The Soviets view the Assault rifle more as a Sub machine gun and less than a rifle than the west. This is based on the success of the SMG squads in WW2. They are not expected to fight at range as their BMP/BTR will do this for them. Instead the AK series of rifles was to be used to put down a lot of fire very quickly as the squad moves into its final assault after dismounting from the vehicle at around 300m (IIRC) from the enemy. In fact, the Soviet infantry wasn't even expected to dismount at all if they thought they could just punch through the position while firing from the firing ports of the vehicle. Unsurprisingly the Soviets had no concept of regular 'light infantry' that fights with their rifle. Even their airborne troops where dropped into battle in armoured vehicles. This is because they regarded the modern battle as too fast and lethal for non armoured infantry, especially with NBC weapons flying around. Basically, the short answer is that the infantry arn't expected to need a scope givent their job in the Soviet way of war so paying for that expensive glass is a waste of money. They suffered for this in Afghanistan due to the harsh terrain restricting vehicle movement and the long range accuracy of the Enfield armed Mujahadin. In response they increased the number of SVD rifles available to the company and would create ad-hoc sniper squads to deal with them.
  17. The 155mm howitzer can fire anti tank cluster bombs (In real life, not the game) that have HEAT warheads and a huge number of bomblets. They are however banned in many countries and therefore their use in countries which do still field them (like the USA, Isreal) is severely discouraged.
  18. I am currently working with a load of Somerset builders and their accent takes a bit of getting used to - especially for a 'toff' like myself My accent seems to change depending who I am talking too, from very posh with my family to something a bit less obvious when talking to my mates.
  19. I have started being more careful with British infantry too. It does seem to me that they are less well protected than the Americans but I can't quite put my finger on it.
  20. I moved the vehicles as a group then issued move orders for the infantry individually, the idea being that they would leave when the warriors stopped at the end of the move and form up in front of the vehicles. I usually add a 5 second pause order for the infantry at the start to prevent this bug but this time I forgot - I thought it had been fixed so I was surprised to see it.
  21. Wow, interesting stuff there Smaragdadler. This will definately help me in my scenario making - Thanks!
  22. I've got to agree with you there Chainsaw - I love it and use it all the time. It has got much more punch than a 40mm grenade and the high arc means that it will winkle the enemy out from pretty heavy cover. I hear they want to get rid of it though (In real life)
  23. The AGS-17 is a mean weapon when used against you! On that mission I could not find one that was pinning down an entire platoon in the open for about 20 minutes. I threw artillery at everything that I thought could contain it but it would keep firing every time I tried to rush a squad forward. Eventually I attacked while mounted in warriors from a different direction. I never did find that AGS-17 untill Syrian surrender but a bit of smoke let me get my battered platoon back inside some armour. I don't think scenario designers use them enough - they are scary!
  24. I am on the 5th mission now and I have to say I am very impressed. To be honest, this campaign has grabbed my interest far more than the others partly because of the excellent maps, partly because I feel more vulnerable than the Americans and partly because I have family connections to the 9th/12th Lancers I really appreciate being able to follow the campaign on google earth - it feels very real. Well done to all involved!
×
×
  • Create New...