Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BlackMoria

  1. If the French look anything like your avatar, there is a reason they were not invited to the party. :P Seriously, I would love to see the French in CMBS
  2. *blink*blink* Yeeaah...Riiight. Was it April 1 in Russia the day that article came out? Edit: looking at the rest of the articles on that site - if it is typical of unbiased reporting in Russian, the best thing the West can do is do is send massive shipments of tin foil hats for the Russians to wear. I have never seen such tripe in my life.
  3. What is wrong with having both .... and much more. There is lots of interesting things that can be done under the umbrella of a 'NATO' module, like the Poles, which I would like very much like to see in the game.
  4. If DMS is rendered hors de combat like yourself, will this be decided by proxies - hence the brave/suicidal charge of IanL for the middle of the bridge? Or are you just claiming a moral / immoral victory by getting IanL on the bridge, even if the game ends, based on the terms, as a draw.
  5. Damage to the vehicle aside, the bigger concern is your bloody tank falling into the basement. I don't know about the Ukraine but most structures have basements and the most floors simply can not support the weight of a modern tank driving into the building. Tanks have to use bridges rated for their weight to cross and bridges are designed for vehicle traffic. Most building and houses are not.
  6. No. Personnel setting is HE round using a Time fuze or a VT fuze. General setting is Point Detonating (PD) fuze. Armor setting is PD fuze set to delay setting, allowing the round to penetrate deeper before going off.
  7. I got a shipping notice yesterday from Battlefront so it looks like they are shipping them out now.
  8. Steamrollering the AI, as I usually do. I have noted that the AI is better that CMSF. The battle plans by the scenario designers is also much better, making many CMBS scenarios challenging. And I am challenged and some of my victories are hard won as a result. Which is good in my book.
  9. At least you will be carried off on your shield. IanL can stand on the bridge, head uplifted to the skies with a clenched fist and scream "Vengence!" in your honor.
  10. I'm your huckleberry if you can find some others who want to engage in this experiment.
  11. MLRS type systems are referred to as 'Grid Square Removal Systems' jokingly in the military. The footprint of a salvo is nearly 1 km across. Now, if everything single map in CMBS (including the Quick Battle maps) was minimum 2 km square in size, maybe a case could be made, but most maps are not that size, making MLRS systems impractical for the map scale. Now for quick battles, imagine the most likely outcome. You buy a Grad system, your opponent buys a MLRS. Now you can't use the rocket systems once in contact unless you like fragging your own troops, so they become a turn one or turn two system. You can rule lawyer that you aren't targeting the setup area, it is just a consequence of such a large system that the setup area falls in the footprint... Now, at the start of the battle, you rocket your opponent, he rockets you. Then you play with what is left standing. That might be interesting to some people but not others. Another thing is larger rocket systems are brigade and division assets. CMBS is a company level game for the most part, with some large maps perhaps capable of fielding a battalion but it is very rare for a scenario to have a battalion worth of assets to play. Typically, most games are few platoons to a few companies in size. At that scale, MLRS systems are not going to be used in the battle - they would be used on forces before they actually entered the scenario map because only the truly desperate use large rocket systems on forces in contact.
  12. Ouch. 7 BMP kills and 31 enemy casualties. Yeah, Tunguska from hell. Hero of the Ex-Soviet Union to his comrades.
  13. Did another pass at this scenario last night. I stayed with my same basic plan that I used for my first scenario. Played out differently (different AI plan I think) but the results nearly the same. I got 1 WIA and 1 aircraft shot down. This time, my Stinger missed when the fast air showed and a munition landed mere metres from one of my vehicles but had no effect other than give a very significant pucker factor to my pixeltruppen. I tucked my vehicles into treelines as the fast air came around. This time, the Stinger downed the attacking air (saw the message, heard the plane go down). Then I heard a jet pass overhead. Oh crap, a second SU. What followed was a intense 5 minutes of the SU and my vehicles playing hide and seek. I obviously did the hiding part. The jet made about 4-5 passes but didn't see my vehicles because there was not a followup attack before it RTBed. So, hiding does work but it is not perfect. Vehicles can be spotted in trees and attacked but with 4-5 passes overhead, I think the probably of being spotted is on the low end, otherwise I would be attacked. So for those frustrated with the scenario, keep plugging at it. It is possible to hide vehicles in treelines successfully but as I stated, it is not a sure thing.
  14. Wow. I guess I have to re-assessment my no casualty victory for this scenario for an earlier thread in which people were posting their best game. Looks like pulling off a victory for this scenario warrants bragging rights and to do it with no casualties is nothing short of downright amazing. At the time I played it, I didn't think it was markedly hard to win. Sure, it was a very challenging tactical puzzle but it didn't stand out in my mind as 'the scenario to beat' and I found other scenarios equally challenging. All the factors must of played in my favor. Now I feel like the guy not realizing he was in the crosshairs of a sniper and moves unknownly out of sight, never realizing how close he came to the fatal shot. Just like I wasn't aware there was a second Frogfoot. After my forces shot down the first one, I had the objectives and was moving for the exit point so I must of exited the map before the second one showed up. I need to replay this one and see what happens in a second playthrough.
  15. Luck! My stinger team lucked in and downed the fast air on the first pass before it dropped munitions.
  16. Bridgehead at Kharalyk, eh? Gotta fire that one up this weekend. I will let you know how it turns out.
  17. Yeah, Imperial Grunt is the villain to send the bill and hate mail to.
  18. Can I assume, Pete, that the observer needs to observe something to trigger the AI behavior to call in an airstrike? As in, if you are not seen by the observer/HQ, there will be no AI action to initiate the air support call? Or can the AI 'go fishing' and put down an area target and hope something stumbles into the net?
  19. Well, I suppose it could have played more like what was expected if Blue forces stepped off right away and turned it into a quasi -meeting engagement type battle. Problem is, the air assets given allowed for a 'hold in place and find out what we are going up against' approach. Plus, I am not the 'push into the unknown' type of commander. I always try to define and fix the enemy and try to know what I am getting myself into. Which meant I was quite content to allow the Russians to stumble into my kill zones.
  20. As I understand it from the revamp of of the activation system - no, it will NOT affect your activations.
  21. Woods will give cover from observation for vehicle from the air but it isn't a sure thing. I have hid from air attack in trees in CMSF with success for the most part but I can't say for sure that the spotting routines haven't changed for CMBS. Llikewise, I have not done any scenario building so I don't know if airstrikes for the AI are event driven or if they are called by observers conditionally based on triggers. Therefore, I can't say what the impact on the airstrike will be if all the observers capable of calling an airstrike are out of the picture. Good questions but I don't have ready answers for you. Perhaps one of the scenario builders members with knowledge of that could weigh in.
  22. Ouch! It appears you have the ground battle in hand, it is just the air war part. And with just a single Stinger squad, winning that is literally hit or miss on the fortunes of war. You could revert back to an earlier game save prior to the fast air coming in and see what fortune pitches you for the Stinger team results. Or try again with a new game and assess if it is worth going for every objective or take the minimum objectives for a win and clear off the map before the fast air comes on or gamble on a better outcome with the Stinger team.
  23. That reflects my experience with the scenario. Started with defining the battlefield and fixing the enemy. Worked what contacts I had over with precision rounds and Apaches. Defeated several minor armor thrusts. Noted more armor building up further back in the map. Snaked my forces into positions to observe. Apaches worked over area where possible tank contacts were noted. Engaged in long range battle (2000 to 3000 metres) with Russian armor. Blunted attack. My reinforcements came in. Slowly moved forward and engaged enemy as they appeared, taking the major middle objective. Game ends with Total Victory for me. Map at ends showed 90% of Russian armored vehicles were destroyed. Okay, it wasn't the Battle of Kursk with both sides madly rushing at each other but the battle unfolded as I wanted it to. At no time did I feel that I didn't have a grip on the situation and I controlled the tempo of the battle the entire game. Yeah, it was slow unfolding battle but I have seen longer ones watching US forces in Iraq in real life (like the one in which an US mech infantry company took 3 hours to move and secure three buildings that were 1200 metres distance. Most of that time was waiting for air support and artillery to be allocated and work the area over.
  • Create New...