Jump to content

Rinaldi

Members
  • Content Count

    941
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Rinaldi

  1. More or less sums my opinion up as well. There's a wealth of content for SF2 that isn't available in CMBS by simple virtue that SF2 has a longer pedigree, but Black Sea has more compelling force-on-force situations. All the factions have the potential to give you a bloody nose or worse. SF2 has a decent amount of force on force as well, quite a bit of it every bit as challenging as BS, but there's an overwhelming qualitative superiority for BLUFOR that makes it more of an academic exercise than in Black Sea. I see you purchased CMSF2, which is definitely a good choice for singleplayer focus. Enjoy playing.
  2. Oh, perhaps so. It's been a very long time since I touched any CMBN campaign so I may be inflating numbers.
  3. One for certain; part of the "Moment in Time" campaign. You command Schiffstamm battalion and generally get asked to dash yourself to pieces counterattacking a dug in few platoons of American airborne. Very difficult scenario.
  4. Yes I believe that's erroneous. A lot of the Kriegsmarine formations in France and the Netherlands that found themselves pressed into service as riflemen either came from Torpedo schools or the U-Boat Flotillas themselves, especially in Brittany - to say nothing of the infantry "divisions" they formed during the last few desperate months of fighting. I'm willing to accept that there was a low amount of officers to NCOs, given that most of the still-active Kriegsmarine men would have been drawn from these types of units, which were habitually tiny, but I doubt as junior a rating as an Ensign would be leading entire battalions.
  5. Canadian Riflemen storm a house under the cover of friendly armour and smoke, Op CHARNWOOD. Bloody Buron. Ta for the patches Battlefront, better late than never. Singleplayer is alive and well again for me as a result. An AAR of my re-visiting this classic scenario can be read here. Enjoy. More to follow; making text AARs is less time consuming than videos at present.
  6. Basically this, haha! On a serious note, there may be very serious/legitimate reasons not to surrender even if your force is wiped out e.g.: in CMSF/CMSF2 the Syrian player often has very generous point bonuses for causing BLUFOR losses in spite of loss of terrain objectives. Surrendering negates that, usually.
  7. Only the AI will automatically surrender; hot-seats are multiplayer and said games between 'two' humans will only end when a ceasefire is agreed on, surrender is issued or time has run out.
  8. If this is directed at me: Thanks, I run 0 mods on my Shock Force and Black Sea installs currently. The images are just from a text AAR of Halt Hammerzeit I've been slowly working on, as I haven't the time or software presently to cut a video.
  9. Oh goodness, George, I went and mixed them up...which I suppose illustrates the point about confusing nomenclature, as well as how daft I am.
  10. No sadly, nothing more than speculation; I wonder if that's because they count the actual crewman as 'infantry' - which would therefore fall under 'refit' rather than attached to the vehicle - which would fall under repair. Possible oversight. Easily fixed I suppose by a campaign designer being merciful and just slamming 100/100 on both values at a certain point. Speaking of which, nitpicky but some errata to my previous post: Last mission of TF 3-69 actually only gives the US a 25 percent chance to refit.
  11. You have the measure of it. Refit would replace a knocked out or destroyed vehicle, whereas a repair would say, bring back to the TO&E a fallen-out vehicle (say if it was immobilized) or put all its subsystems back to status green. I used Ian's website to finally figure it out by looking at the scripted values for the Black Sea campaigns. For example, you have a 50/50 chance of refit before the final US mission. I struck out and therefore had to make due with a heavily worn-out Scout platoon. The confusion comes for a lot of people, understandably, because 'refitting' a vehicle is often used interchangeably with 'repairing' one. Whereas in the context of CM it means 'refitting the unit' versus 'repairing the vehicle.'
  12. Everyone, let's take a moment to give @Sgt.Squarehead a slow clap for his fantastic bait. We already have a nationalist spaz-out in response. Telemark Battalion DUI: 2.SS Das Reich DUI: Really makes you think friendo. Going to be a Y I K E S from me.
  13. They're using SS runes and the idiots who follow them use dirt-ass Neo Nazi rock to celebrate them, the only cover they deserve is how they're giving the bots who slurp up Russian propaganda an inch to turn into a mile.
  14. Far right trite, not worth your or anyone else's time.
  15. Only when it's asinine. Yes, a m113 in an insurgency - definitely a front-line unit for a conventional, fictional conflict.
  16. Putting the Dragon in would finally silence those who believe @Battlefront.com is a NATO stooge; finally a BLUE ATGM with an equally hilarious failure rate of the average RED one.
  17. Glad you know :^), just pointing out that it's all the more reason not to see it in.
  18. 1st of 4th is a dedicated OPFOR unit so it using dated equipment is by no means a good measure of what is front line equipment, @sburke
  19. Another thread sent off the rails and burning at the bottom of the valley by our favourite bots. It's good to have consistency in life, it's an anchor.
  20. Might not have to wait that long. I imagine the hinted-at Marine module will mirror SF2's in adding additional formations for the other armies. I'd place money on seeing Air Assault regiments for the Russians and Ukrainians in that.
  21. Really disappointed to read that, I really liked Red Storm Rising, though yes of course like most WWIII alternatives it is always 'best case' for one side or the other. A similar criticism can be shared with Red Army, which I equally loved. The only real 'breaks' from reality as the authors knew at the time in both books is (a) the total denuclearization/dechemicallization of the battlefield and (b) the aggressive stance the Soviet Navy took. Each his own of course. From a purely literal perspective, Red Army is just a better book, with actual character development and depth. Anyways, as for the actual hypothetical @kinophile I'm going to be revealing my power levels here, but I always figured the following: Tensions remain high because the UKR has enclaves in the separatist regions, so it would be plausible that all belligerents have forces 'near ready' on the border with one another. When the balloon goes up following the 'Ambush' incident, things deteriorate rapidly as a result. By early July the first ABCT units are arriving - based on @George MC's standalone scenarios and the TF 3-69 campaign, the timeline goes in two ways: The Russian spearheads are either cut off and defeated in detail along E-95 (Attacking N-S) and P-32 (Attacking E-W), which are roughly perpendicular to one another and form an obvious pocket; or The Russians manage to maintain their momentum on the South-North axes and defeat and destroy the NATO counter-offensives. August scenario diverges in a similar manner: If NATO win in July, they 'race to the river' to defeat remaining Russian forces across the Dnieper and push into the southeast, if Russia win they mop up south of Kiev and start banging on the bargaining table. I think the 'keep it simple' scenario was done deliberately, best not to overthink it beyond the above in my view. It also suggests why the game plays out the way it does, its bang-bang from the word 'go' without all the strategic preponderance everyone else is worrying about. It's a true flashpoint conflict in every sense of the word. Compelling stuff, really, hats off to Battlefront for it.
×
×
  • Create New...