Jump to content

CPC922

Members
  • Content Count

    115
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    CPC922 got a reaction from Hister in Steam players for multiplayer   
    Huge fan of steam. Gone are the days of having to search for patches... oh wait... 🤔 😋
     
    I understand the argument made by the developers against Steam but from a customer standpoint, I see nothing but value. 
  2. Like
    CPC922 got a reaction from Lethaface in Steam players for multiplayer   
    Huge fan of steam. Gone are the days of having to search for patches... oh wait... 🤔 😋
     
    I understand the argument made by the developers against Steam but from a customer standpoint, I see nothing but value. 
  3. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from The_MonkeyKing in Steam players for multiplayer   
    Amen. 
  4. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from The_MonkeyKing in Steam players for multiplayer   
    Huge fan of steam. Gone are the days of having to search for patches... oh wait... 🤔 😋
     
    I understand the argument made by the developers against Steam but from a customer standpoint, I see nothing but value. 
  5. Like
    CPC922 reacted to Apocalypse 31 in Disappointed   
    I don't follow the forums much, and BFC doesn't extend communication beyond here.
    I guess that's a good thing, then. Aim small, miss small. 🙄
  6. Like
    CPC922 reacted to Apocalypse 31 in Disappointed   
    Really disappointed in what I've seen with SF2 screenshots.
     
    Looks like the same old CM2 game engine. Call it upgrade 4, upgrade 100...or whatever it's called now. It's still the same engt that was developed in the late 1990s.
     
    I was hoping for something more...perhaps a new game engine that would support larger maps, better terrain, better performance, better multiplayer.
     
  7. Like
    CPC922 got a reaction from HerrTom in HerrTom's explosions   
    Just wanted to stop by and say thank you as I am using your mod currently and it adds some spice to the explosions. Always appreciate the eye candy. 
  8. Like
    CPC922 reacted to AtheistDane in BMP-3 on the firing range   
    Nice video. I wish CM had better explosions (4:06).
  9. Like
    CPC922 reacted to HerrTom in By the Beautiful Blue Dniepr   
    Time for another adventure in Southern Ukraine!  Best read while humming Strauss. 

    We return to the same AO at dusk the day of the invasion.  The Russian advance has been amazingly swift.  By the end of the first day, Kherson is already under threat of Russian forces.  The Ukrainian defence is in shambles and is prepared to make another heroic stand at the small town of Prydniprovs'ke just to the west of Kherson.

    From the briefing:
    SITUATION
    Thanks to the successful battle and crossing of the canals near Pryvitnoe by 2nd Battalion, we have been tasked with exploiting the gap in the Ukrainian lines.
    We have one final barrier to cross before the total colapse of the Ukrainian defenses occurs on the southern flank: the river Dniepr.  Ukrainian forces are dug in deep alon the major crossings near Kherson and 1st Battalion has encountered stiff resistance further north of us.
    Intelligence has identified a weak spot by the town of Prydinprovs'ke.  This will be a tough one, since there is only one bridge in the area.  We'll have to force a river crossing.  Thankfully, the Ukrainian units have only just arrived and not had time to dig in properly.
    MISSION
    Our job is to cross the Dniepr and move troops further north to further stress the fragile Ukrainian defense.  Thus, we have two main objectives for this engagement:
    1. Cross the river and penetrate the enemy lines and continue to Kherson
    2. Eliminate the defenders on the river crossing for follow on forces to continue at speed
    3. Minimize casualties.  It should go without saying that sacrificing too many of our boys will reduce the effectiveness of our crossing, and no one wants to write those letters.
    FRIENDLY FORCES
    Our 2nd Battalion, 18 Motor Rifle Regiment has the following assets in the area:
    - Reconnaisance platoon
    - ATGM platoon
    - Grenade launcher platoon
    - 2 combined arms companies
        - 3 platoons of BTR-82 mounted infantry (amphibious)
        - 1 platoon of T-72B3 tanks
    Support assets are as follows:
    - 3 platoons of 2S3M2 152mm howitzers, a total of 18 guns on call for this crossing
    - 1 platoon of 2S7M2 203mm howitzers, a total of 4 guns on call from the divisional resources.  We're lucky to have these, so use them wisely.
    - 1 flight of Mi-24PN gunships from frontal aviation
    ENEMY FORCES
    Enemy forces consist of elements of the 28 Mechanised Brigade that our sister battalion previously faced at Pryvitnoe.  These guys are tough, so be careful!
    PLAN
    There are three crossing points that we have identified.
    The first, and most dangerous is the bridge leading into Prydinprovs'ke.  This is a long and wide open approach so should be considered only a last resort until the overlooking areas are cleared.
    The second and primary crossing point is Landing Zone Boris, across from the Dachas at point Elena.  The dachas provide decent cover for the approach to the river and point Boris is a fairly flat area also covered by trees.
    The final crossing point is to Landing Zone Vasiliy.  There is a narrow path up through the area, but it may be an unexpected direction.

    ---
    And finally, the map of the area:

    Coming next, initial disposition, further briefing, and terrain reconnaissance.  I also just realised that it is not highway E97 that leads here - bah, I'll fix it tomorrow
  10. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from astano in New Small SP Scenario - "Shadow and Flame"   
    Excellent. Thoroughly enjoyed playing this one. 
  11. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from rocketman in Prioritizing the SCENARIO EDITOR ?   
    I will definitely try the static defense as my first initial scenario! Hopefully you all will give it a shot and I can only wish it will at least give you some trouble  
  12. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from IanL in Hunt Command + UAV   
    I have tested this in the editor and this is the case.

    If a unit is currently running a UAV mission and they have received a spot via the UAV and are out of contact with the enemy, the unit cannot use the hunt order. They immediately cancel the order as though they have made contact with enemy and/or taking fire.

    Is this done purposely or an unwanted feature? If so, any plans on correcting?

    Thank you.
  13. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from IanL in Hunt Command + UAV   
    Hi everyone,
     
    When playing through the Russian campaign, I have noticed that I am unable to use the hunt command with an HQ squad to search some nearby forests. The reason being I believe, is that this HQ is also running a UAV mission on another part of the map which has detected enemy AFV's. That being specified, I have tried multiple times to issue a hunt command for the squad yet it keeps being canceled. I believe it is simply due to the fact that they have "spotted" something (UAV spots) and won't continue even though they are not receiving any direct or indirect fire. However, I can move them by any other command. 
     
    Now the question is, was this coded in or is this an unwanted feature? 
     
    Thanks!
     
     
     
     
  14. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from Rinaldi in Hunt Command + UAV   
    Hi everyone,
     
    When playing through the Russian campaign, I have noticed that I am unable to use the hunt command with an HQ squad to search some nearby forests. The reason being I believe, is that this HQ is also running a UAV mission on another part of the map which has detected enemy AFV's. That being specified, I have tried multiple times to issue a hunt command for the squad yet it keeps being canceled. I believe it is simply due to the fact that they have "spotted" something (UAV spots) and won't continue even though they are not receiving any direct or indirect fire. However, I can move them by any other command. 
     
    Now the question is, was this coded in or is this an unwanted feature? 
     
    Thanks!
     
     
     
     
  15. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from xIGuNDoCIx in AAR Question   
    I started a topic on this some time ago. Hopefully someday it will be addressed.
     
    http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117296-combat-victories-fire-support/
  16. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from Mord in CM Black Sea – BETA Battle Report - Russian Side   
    First post here.
     
    Been playing since CMBN and I just wanted to say thank you Bil for your excellent posts as I have been following for quite some time without joining the forums.
     
    Quite excited for this next installment and even more excited for what BF will be able to accomplish with their next game engine in the future! 
  17. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from LukeFF in Combat Victories & Fire Support?   
    Might not be "critical" but it would be lovely to have since after every battle, I'm wondering f just how effective my support assets were.
  18. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from IanL in Combat Victories & Fire Support?   
    Might not be "critical" but it would be lovely to have since after every battle, I'm wondering f just how effective my support assets were.
  19. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from IanL in Combat Victories & Fire Support?   
    I assumed it had been brought up before, but I guess I never came across the post. In reality I should have used the search function however, I am glad to have brought it up once more. I truly think it would be incredibly useful and satisfying to know just how effective your support fire missions so you can better utilize them in future scenarios. I also would love the opportunity to be able to know what unit destroyed x unit at the end of game play. 
  20. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from agusto in Combat Victories & Fire Support?   
    Hi everyone,
     
    I was just curious if BF will ever implement a system where we can determine how effective our fire support was during a scenario? For example, at the end of the battle when reviewing individual units combat victories, I would love the ability to determine who/what was taken out by fire support. Just a running tally would be fine but the ability to know who/what was taken out would be fantastic. Any developments on such a count system? 
     
    Thank you! 
     
    -Chris
  21. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from agusto in CM Black Sea – BETA Battle Report - Russian Side   
    First post here.
     
    Been playing since CMBN and I just wanted to say thank you Bil for your excellent posts as I have been following for quite some time without joining the forums.
     
    Quite excited for this next installment and even more excited for what BF will be able to accomplish with their next game engine in the future! 
  22. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from verulam in CM Black Sea – BETA Battle Report - Russian Side   
    First post here.
     
    Been playing since CMBN and I just wanted to say thank you Bil for your excellent posts as I have been following for quite some time without joining the forums.
     
    Quite excited for this next installment and even more excited for what BF will be able to accomplish with their next game engine in the future! 
  23. Upvote
    CPC922 got a reaction from Bil Hardenberger in CM Black Sea – BETA Battle Report - Russian Side   
    First post here.
     
    Been playing since CMBN and I just wanted to say thank you Bil for your excellent posts as I have been following for quite some time without joining the forums.
     
    Quite excited for this next installment and even more excited for what BF will be able to accomplish with their next game engine in the future! 
×
×
  • Create New...