Jump to content

BlackMoria

Members
  • Content Count

    460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by BlackMoria

  1. Bingo. And that game will not be done by BF. BF's business plan probably a five year plan and they are no doubt mum about those plans outside the immediate pending releases. But Steve has said enough that certain things (like no Arab-Israeli module) is not in any current business plan. That said, when it was revealed that CM:Afghanistan is being done by a Russian company, Steven indicated that will allowing third parties to use the CMSF engine to develop games was part of the BF strategy. Not to put too fine a point on this but if people really want to see a Arab-Israeli module, or a 80s Cold War module, or Chinese - Russian conflict or whatever and BF has said it is not in their book, then it is apparent that someone else has to step up to do it. Personally, if I had some programming skills and had some like talented friends, I would approach BF to do a game using their engine. Alas, I am from a small town in Manitoba and I neither the programming skills or programming buddies to make a team to do a game. But damn, I want to.
  2. It is not a simple as 'their people don't want freedom'. Try explaining what 'freedom' or 'democracy' to a people who never had it - it is neither easy to explain or easy to grasp. In Afghanistan, democracy is just another level of 'warlord' above their local tribal strongman (warlord), according to the average back country Afghani. Any tangible trappings of democracy is centralized in the big urban centres and at that, bastardized due to outmoded thinking to encompassing all past practices and customs, and rampant corruption. In rural Afghanistan, the average afghani frankly doesn't see it. And it he doesn't see it, he sure as hell isn't going to 'get it'. Freedom of speech (a tenet of democracy) is absolutely meaningless if opening your mouth is going to get you killed by the local warlord, the local crime gang or by the Taliban or Al-Queda. Electing a political representative for an elected assembly is meaningless if that means the only local person is running is the warlord because everyone else is afraid to. Or given the rampant corruption, your representative is enriching himself and doing little for the people who elected him. A free market economy means nothing if you raise only enough food to feed your family and the rest goes to warlord and his cronies or to poppy production (in which the same warlord, crime boss or Taliban takes the lion's share and leaves you just enough money for you not to starve. The biggest failing of the west was there was no Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and Iraq. It was generally assumed that people would 'naturally' desire a democratic government but it was completely overlooked that the existing tribal (warlord) system has been in place for thousands of years and for the most part, in places of the world in which people barely eke out a living, the tribal system works. More to the point - if a person can barely provide a living for himself under the tribal system, and his lot in life is not improved with a quasi-democracy government, then it is natural to assume that that person is not going embrace the concept of democracy with open arms because, frankly, it has no or little value to him. People stay with the status quo unless the new order is clearly of benefit to them and supports or validated their values and aspirations. No, it is not that average person in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't want democracy - it is they don't understand it nor appreciate it potential. Also, look at the birth and growth of democracy in history and it should come as no surprise that democracy was birth in nations that faced massive changes in the status quo due to social evolution or upheaval like the revolutions, political/religious reform movements and factors like the industrial evolution and the empowerment of the working class. All of which either Iraq or Afghanistan has had. Democracy may take hold in the Middle East but it is going to take a very, very long time....
  3. Did the Javelin buy go through for Canada? The Canadian military was looking at the Javelin system to most likely replace the Eryx ATGM and the US green lighted the sale of 200 CLUs and some 840 missiles. Then nothing. My search of the interweb can not find anything to indicate if the sale was finalized or if Canada went with another system (a Israeli system was in the running) or if the acquistion was cancelled.
  4. Hmm. You got the game and modules yesterday and already you have made the decision the game is crap. That is remarkable. It usually takes me a week of steady playing and kicking the tires before I write a game off as crap. Let me guess. You didn't play any of the scenarios, start any of the campaigns, download and try any of the hundreds of scenarios and mods. You went straight to the quick battles, found it wasn't like CMx1 and the game is crap. Or is my guess wrong?
  5. Sir, we will let you know where and when to report for your court-marital. Armoured vehicle casualties in the Gulf War 1 were approximately six, about half of that the result of blue on blue. Armoured vehicle casualties for the invasion of Iraq was about four. It is hard to come up with an exact count because most casualty reports report personnel and the various sources mention in passing if the vehicle was a casualty as well.
  6. My 2 cents thinks the campaign will have one of the nations as the 'core' troops and the other nations in the Nato module will appear in the campaign as supporting troops.
  7. Of course, I am looking forward to the NATO module for the Canadians, seeing as I am one. I, in particular, want to see how the Coyote Recce vehicle gets implemented in the game. Basically, the Coyote is a LAV 25 with an impressive sensor package which includes a MSTAR battlefield survelliance radar which can identify and track vehicles and troops out past 25+ kilometers, thermal imaging camera, day/night camera and a laser rangefinder/designator. The sensor package is usually mounted on a mast capable of telescoping to 10 metres (allowing the Coyote to be turret down behind hills and building and still use the sensors) but can also be remoted out to 200m on a tripod. It will be interesting to see how the capabilities of the Coyote get implemented into the NATO module. I talked with a soldier who was a sensor operator on a Coyote and he said that, barring blocking terrain and dead ground, he can identify vehicles and personnel movements easily out beyond 10 miles while he was in Afghanistan.
  8. I agree with Flanker15. In the first firing, it appears the operator in a near prone position is obscured behind the man crouching between the weapon and the camera. If you check the second firing, after the missile is launched, the operator starts to move and the camera catches just a glimpse of him just before the scene cut and he is clearly at the weapon in a near prone position.
  9. I've always play with 'force conservation' foremost in my mind. That said, it has to be balanced with getting the job done and meeting the objectives of the mission. The devil in the matter is finding that balance point between 'aggression' and 'caution'. For the most part, I have found that balance in my style of play and in only two scenarios (having played all the campaigns and all the standalone missions for Army and Marines and dozens of user scenarios), have I found the pressures of the clock overcoming my better judgement.
  10. I beat the rush. I was checking early this morning and noted it was available so I put in my order and got it very quickly (less that 5 mins) since there was little traffic. After I downloaded it, I checked the forums and noone had mentioned it yet.... which tells me I was nearly the first to put in my order. I would hate to be in the madding crowd right now watching the download bar slowly inch it's way to completion. Downside - I downloaded just before I headed off to work, so others are actually going to get to play it before me. Damn thing, this working for a living
  11. And it if FINALLY HERE! And the monkeys rejoiced... OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Downloading now.
  12. Also, many scenarios (not all, but many) can be completed within the time constraints because the AI forces will surrender before to have to seize all objectives or utterly destroy all the enemy forces. I have played all the scenarios and campaigns that came with the game and a great number of user provided scenarios and campaigns and I can only think of two games in which I though the time was insufficent. And I consider myself a cautious and methodical player. Most games will end before you run out the clock, either due to inflicting enough casualties or meeting a threshold level of victory resulting in the game ending.
  13. Yes, but having soldiers 'pass through' each other brings up some interesting issues. Let say that due to whatever circumstances, Soldiers A, B, and C are co-existent in the same spot during the squad move when a small arms round (5.56 for our illustration) hits Soldier A. What most likely happens is that Soldier A, B and C suffer the same combat result, which results in A,B, and C suffer the same injury or being killed. Not a desirable outcome. I think most players would prefer soldiers jostling into each other and slowing each other down rather than having a chance of one round = multiple kills when they start clumping together, a regular ocurrance when doing building and vehicle entries and exits.
  14. I got a triple kill once. I had worked a Army sniper team up on a ridge to get higher ground to work over a Syrian defensive position. The sniper with the 50 spotted a Syrian squad in a trench, side on from the sniper's viewpoint. The sniper fired and I witnessed 3 red crosses. Since it was RL, I couldn't go back to confirm the achievement. But gratifying, it was.
  15. Actually, I am hoping that there will be no new forum unless those who want the new forum promise to ask the Peng'ers over to play in the new sandbox. Then we can bid them a proper farewell as we frog march them to the curb....er.... give them a farewell party.
  16. Hmmm. The bribes have been payed, the required sacrifices made..... So where is it?
  17. First off, I am former military, which colors my opinions on such matters. I don't have an issue with the graphical depictions. It can be far worst - the depiction of men just hit with a 155mm round could show limbs and bodies blow apart. Many games, primarily first person shooters, really dish out the visuals for violence. Shock Force is downright tame in comparison. That said, I think it is good to have it shown, least we lose touch with the fact that war is a brutal, bloody, nightmarish pasttime. Other players have commented on how they try to preserve their pixeltruppen as much as possible and have guilt when a number of them fall. That is a good thing in my opinion. If our leaders who send men and women off the war had such sensibililtes, perhaps there would be less armed conflict in the world today. But really, SF is downright tame in its depiction of violence. Just look at the video games and the movies for comparison.
  18. My vote is to release the single scenarios. My justification is as follows: 1. You get the benefit of people like myself who play it and can make comment, so you in essence, get a Beta test of the scenario by someone other than yourself. 2. On the main forum page, someone is decrying the fact that campaign scenarios are not released as single scenarios and I have heard similar sentiment in other threads over the last six months. Normal Dude released his Task Force Panther campaign as single scenarios. If you did so as well, a trend could get established that hopefully others will folllow. 3. I don't think releasing single scenarios undercuts the campaign. I know that I will play your campaign for sure because even though I have played a few of your scenarios that may be in your campaign, I want to play through it again with force attrition and see how I fare. My two cents...
  19. The excellent Task Force Panther campaign by Normal Dude is available as individual scenarios in the repository. Hopefully, other designers follow suit and release the campaign scenarios as separate single scenarios.
  20. Moon let slip in another thread on the Strategy and Tactics Forum this interesting bit of intel. Hopefully, his comment is factual and not a throwaway comment to the slavering masses. If so, just a few more weeks till the Brits enter the AO. Oh....and the lineup starts behind me.
  21. You don't even have to be touching the CAS kill zone.... just being outside it puts one in danger of munitions applied to your precious whatever, as I found to my chagrin when one of my HMMVs got served up a 500lb 'party cracker' in 3:10 to Yuma. Vehicle was 100m outside the CAS zone. And I hold my breath anytime I have Apaches working the map. Apache rocket attacks have very large 'beaten zones' and since one can't control the direction they attack from, so being even 500 metres outside the CAS area can mean one can take a stray rocket in the pie hole.
  22. Canadian doctrine is for ICVs to be part of the defense, either dug into the position or with run up positions within the position and the vehicles 100 to 200m rear of the position prior to the run up. Service support vehicles are usually of to one rear flank in a harbour hide which is about 400-500m from the position. Given a typical CMSF map, the service support vehicles would most likely be off map unless the map was huge.
  23. I attribute it to 17 years of military service in the combat arms and some 30+ years of playing wargames. A mis-spent youth pushing cardboard counters or minatures around rather than chasing woman and guzzling beer. I could regale everyone with the time I totally screwed up our brigade exercise because I was in charge of the enemy force and I so totally screwed the brigadier's exercise by neutralizing friendly forces, hitting echelon units and raiding the brigade forward HQ and taking out the brigade commander in his command post. I got a supreme dressing down, a letter of reprimand and my career took a hit. I am still bitter about that to this day, despite being out of the service some 14 years now. A hard lesson about the military mindset but I still have pride that my one shot at command resulted in a company worth of troops completely screwing up a brigade worth of troops in some 36 hours of operations (I ran the company like a company of Soviet Spetnaz).
  24. Here is my quick and dirty AAR. The game play was RT (I only do RT) on Elite setting. I favor real time as it allows me to micromanage to my heart's content and in this scenario, micromanaging is my key to victory. ****** Spoilers Alert ********** I positioned FOs and Javelin teams on the high ground immediately in front of the tracks along the ridgeline. Forces can start on the ridgeline on the left of the road going through the gap but must move forward a bit to gain the high ground on the right side of the gap. At game start, I started taking some fire from a building just beyond the gap, which was hit with mortars in response. Meanwhile, the FAC/FO and three javelin teams moved to the crest of the ridge with the AAVs and Abrams taking reverse slope positions immediately behind the crest. My plan was to establish a firing line along the ridge in the event of a counterattack of armor. My main concern was AT-14 positions in the enemy defensive area so I fired several areas mortar missions on suspected launcher positions. Upon achieving the crest and taking up defensive positions, the Javelins teams and FAC/FO started to spot moving armor. BMPs started to be spotted at the far left corner of the battle area and Syrian tanks started to spotted moving right to left towards the right middle part of the battlefield. This is where micromanagement comes in. I can't get the degree of control I desire using the pause command so I manually manage a tactic I find most beneficial. I run pairs or groups of three M1s up to crest using the hunt command and allow them to spot and engage at will. I limit the exposure to no more than 10 seconds and then regardless of the outcome, the crested M1s are reversed into low ground while another group is moved to the crest, paused and then reversed. Groups of tanks alternate taking a crested hull down postion, spotting, firing once and then reversing. I usually can successfully duck below the crest and evade a incoming AT missile. Using the above 'move to crest, fire and reverse' tactics, the M1s, in conjuction with the Javelins picked off the enemy's moving armor during the space of some 10 minutes. Several AT-14 were spotted and destroyed by mortars. Two AT-14 shots actually struck my M1s but failed to kill them and only did moderate system damage. End result of the battle - I got a Total Victory due to enemy casualties and my forces didn't move forward of the ridgeline. I destroyed 6 tanks and 25 APCs and inflicted nearly 300 KIA. My losses were 3 KIA and 2 MIA, mostly due to Syrian artillery. All and all, it was a good battle and I enjoyed the intensity of doing a 'dance of death' atop the ridge in the face of god know how many AT-14s and not losing a single vehicle. Well done, Snake_eye. It was another great scenario. My choice of tactics made this scenario relatively easy for myself. I am going to try it again by going over the ridgeline and try to take some ground. I anticipate that it is not going to be so easy the next time. Thank you for another enjoyable scenario.
×
×
  • Create New...