Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bozowans

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

632 profile views
  1. I've seen friendly fire happen a lot in these games when it's at night or dawn/dusk. I've seen squads hose down multiple friendly vehicles like that so I don't think it's a bug. The tank commander really should've buttoned up though. There are rounds cracking just a few inches away from his head. It's not like he would know where they are coming from. In real life he would simply hear a loud CRACK CRACK CRACK CRACK right next to his head and he would instantly duck down out of reflex. I've always thought tank commanders are too slow to button up in these games. I've had guys get killed by friendly small arms fire as well. One time I had a guy crouching next to a hedgerow and he was hosed down by a long burst from a friendly tank at close range. It was at night, there was no other shooting going on anywhere on the map, and no enemies nearby for hundreds of meters. The tank just opened up on its own and killed him out of the blue. In retrospect it might have been a ricochet off the hedgerow berm that actually killed him since other people say that only ricochets can kill friendlies it seems. It was hard to tell though as he was killed almost instantly in a hail of bullets. I suppose it's possible that one of the first bullets passed through him harmlessly, hit the berm, then immediately jumped back and killed him within a split second.
  2. And then Notre Dame burns up... coincidence?
  3. Yeah they don't explode when hit in real life. It's like shooting a metal tank full of water. It just punches a hole in the tank and the fuel starts leaking out. They don't explode in the game either. I saw a WW2 flamethrower demonstration in person once. They are also much more silent than you might think. There is no big WHOOOSH sound like you hear in movies. At least not with the small backpack flamethrowers. Flamethrower duty would still be very dangerous though because you have to get very close to the enemy. It's very hard to use them in CM for that reason. My flamethrower guys either get killed before they get close enough, or the enemy gets killed by other means before they get close enough. So they're useless either way. Even if they don't explode, it would still be really awful to have to carry one in a real war. You can run with them but they're very heavy and awkward to carry and you probably won't be able to react or take cover as quickly. If by some chance you manage to get close enough to use it, then your exact location is instantly broadcast to everyone around you for a mile in every direction, like a giant beacon that says SHOOT ME.
  4. I don't think I would want to see this coming down the street
  5. Okay that's interesting! Thanks for doing that test. Kinda makes me want to get into scenario design. I've played the CM games for a long time but never made any maps or scenarios for it. I still haven't played most of the CMSF scenarios, but most of the ones I've seen give loads of points for destroying enemy units and for occupying objectives. If there are preserve objectives, I haven't seen any yet that are worth so much that they can cancel out an entire Red force surrender and all other objectives. It would be very interesting to see a scenario that the Blue force can still lose even if they wipe out the entire Red force.
  6. So is it possible to lose a scenario even if you force the enemy to surrender completely, just by blowing up too many buildings? I thought that if one side surrendered, they automatically forfeit all objectives. Even if I take massive losses, I've still always gotten Total Victories if I've forced the AI to surrender. In a more evenly-matched battle of course (or if the timer runs out), losing points from collateral damage might be enough to tip the scale away from you, so it's good to be careful. Like you said though, it's hard to balance things in CMSF. It's usually not even a question of whether the Blue force loses or not. It's just a matter of how many losses the Blue force takes before wiping the Red force out completely and forcing a surrender.
  7. Does collateral damage even matter all that much? If you destroy so much of the enemy that it forces them to surrender completely, you still get a Total Victory even if you destroyed some of the buildings you weren't supposed to, right? At least that's what happened in the most recent scenario I played. I wasn't supposed to blow up the civilian houses on that map, yet I blew up some of them anyway, and I still got a Total Victory just by wiping out the enemy and forcing a surrender. The points I lost from blowing up buildings didn't really make much difference. That's my rule when playing these games. When in doubt, blow everything up.
  8. Here's a lucky shot. I was just playing the U.S. Army, trying to be extra careful, advancing very slowly and cautiously, using dead ground to move troops forward and hull down positions for every vehicle and then everything went horribly wrong. I parked an M1 tank in a hull down position along the side of a road when a Kornet opened fire on it. Here's the view from the ATGM position at maximum zoom: The missile missed the tank, flying right over the top of it. It continued to fly for another 40 meters through the woods behind it until it just so happened to slam into a tree RIGHT in the middle of an infantry squad moving through the woods. The infantry were in dead ground behind that road embankment and were not even visible from the ATGM position, and I thought they would be safe moving through the woods. The missile miraculously flew past several other trees just so it could hit the one right in the center of the squad. One man was killed, another incapacitated, and every other member of the squad was wounded except for two. The next turn I tried to pull the tank back and hide it behind some trees, but part of its turret was still visible and it was knocked out from the front by a second missile. I guess you really don't wanna mess around with those Kornets.
  9. I know I've been playing too much CM when I'm driving around and see a field and wonder how many hundreds of meters there are across it, or whether that building way off in the distance is within rifle range or not.
  10. I was looking through my old screenshots folder and couldn't remember if I had posted these anywhere. An advancing Soviet rifleman stopped to take a shot with his Mosin at a German AT gun across the street. The view from the gun: The gun fired and the shell flew through the wooden fence, between the guy's legs, then through the front door of the house behind him, and then finally exploded against the opposite wall. The shell was flying mere inches from the ground. That was one lucky bastard! The gun crew was not so lucky considering what happened to them a few moments later. I thought that was one of the more unusual shots I've seen in these games.
  11. There is an interesting paper I read a long time ago called Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer, by US Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a512331.pdf You might find it interesting since it goes into a lot of detail about modern infantry doctrine and weapons. It argued that U.S. infantry have been very under-powered for the type of fighting they were doing in Afghanistan. Back in the early 20th century, the U.S. went into WW1 with a professional army and a doctrine emphasizing marksmanship and accurate volleys of long-distance rifle fire. They used bigger rifles and bullets that could hit things pretty effectively out to 500m, and be very lethal even at 1000m. Going into WW2, Korea and then Vietnam, the U.S. had gotten used to dealing with large conscript armies on a very different type of battlefield, and doctrine shifted away from marksmanship and moved toward fire and maneuver tactics, with the emphasis on putting out a high volume of suppressive fire at shorter distances. Current U.S. equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for fighting on level terrain at ranges less than 300m. According to that paper, "Not only is the current U.S. infantryman less equipped to kill his enemy than his World War I predecessor, he is carrying far more weight than him." The 5.56 ammo used these days is less lethal and less effective at long range. In Afghanistan, the Taliban liked to park themselves up on mountaintops and just plink away at distant U.S. infantry using heavy machine guns (like the DShK with those giant 12.7x108mm bullets) and mortars, and the U.S. infantry down in the valleys would not be able to put down effective return fire. The heavily-laden U.S. infantry could not effectively maneuver in the rugged terrain and high altitudes, and would often have to sit there helplessly until they either pulled out or called in big guns and air support. CM seems to simulate this kind of thing pretty well. Weapon ballistics are what these games do best IMO. Sometimes I'm surprised at how under-powered my infantry is and I find myself relying very heavily on my vehicles and big guns in order to do anything. I remember playing many Shock Force scenarios where my U.S. infantry are getting sniped away or getting hit by DShK fire at long range and my infantry are helpless to do anything about it. Or maybe I'll pour thousands of rounds of 5.56 ammo into a building only to realize that it had little effect. I don't know much at all about British or the other NATO forces though, but they seem to be pretty similar to the U.S. I haven't played with the other Western forces very much. At least with the U.S, their vehicles and artillery and air support is their biggest asset. The infantry is there to be bodyguards and scouts for their vehicles. Once the infantry spots something, the vehicles roll up and destroy it. With the Syrians, it seems their best tactics are to either ambush the enemy at close range, or snipe and harass them at long range and then relocate before they can call in those big guns. Getting into an extended firefight at medium range is what Western forces are best at. They carry loads of ammo and their good morale and high volume of fire means they will always get fire superiority eventually and win. With the Syrians (especially the uncons/insurgents), running out of ammo can be a big concern, so you want to either harass and ambush or hit the enemy as hard as you can as quickly as possible with everything you have, to try and overrun their positions.
  12. I love the camera work in that. A lot of stable, wide angle shots and no nauseating shakey-cam like you see all the time in modern film-making. You can actually see what's happening. Looks like an interesting movie too, I'll have to check it out. I don't get to see a lot of East German anti-fascist films.
  13. I totally agree with the artillery thing. A while ago I read a memoir of a company commander in WW2 and he described walking artillery fire onto distant enemy positions just by the sound of it. He hit something too because he saw something really big blow up on the horizon. Artillery is obviously really, really loud and you can hear the shells flying through the air. Experienced soldiers can often tell where a shell is gonna hit before it even hits just by the sound it makes in the air. They'll know whether it's incoming or outgoing, and they'll know if they need to take cover or not. I don't care if artillery called in outside of LOS is inaccurate because sometimes you don't need it to be accurate. Also, for years I've wished they would add the ability to adjust the length and intensity of fire missions in progress. If I order a long, slow harassing mission on suspected enemy positions and accidentally start hitting a really important target (like a huge infantry concentration that I didn't know was there before), I want my FO to start yelling into the radio to keep firing and speed it up. I can't do that though. I would have to cancel the mission and call in an entirely new one and wait for spotting rounds to hit a target they were already hitting just a minute ago.
  14. No mention of CM: Stalingrad? Any early war east front stuff would be good. Instead of going back a year to 1943 for their next east front game, I wish they would skip a year or two and go back to when the German tanks were still grey. I'm just tired of seeing yellow German tanks in every game. Also I love playing as the Soviets. Charging into battle with waves of tank riders into a gigantic artillery barrage is an experience you just don't get anywhere else.
  15. I take it that means Shock Force 2 is doing well then? It's a shame to hear about the decline of wargaming. I'm quite young myself and it makes me wonder what wargaming will look like decades down the line (if it doesn't just die out). CM is like the dream wargame I had when I was playing with little toy soldiers and reading history books as a kid. I was amazed when I first saw CM with the 1:1 soldier representation and all that. Seems like one big cause of that decline would just be the sheer number of games there are now. It's like we're living in a golden age of video games where there are thousands and thousands of them to choose from. Someone else mentioned Paradox games like CK2 and EU4, and just those alone can suck hundreds of hours of your life away from you. I've spent way too much time with just CK2. Then there's all these other countless genres that I want to try out now and then. On top of that, people tend to work longer hours these days for less pay, and at least in the USA, the vast majority of people here live paycheck to paycheck or are outright in debt. So who has time to sit down and learn how to play complicated wargames? Gamers these days seem to demand infinite replayability for the cheapest possible price and the lowest possible effort, and it's easy to find some cheap game on Steam for a few bucks until you get bored of it and then go on to the next cheap game. It doesn't seem like there is really any answer to that.
  • Create New...