Jump to content

IICptMillerII

Members
  • Content Count

    1,106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

IICptMillerII last won the day on February 7

IICptMillerII had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About IICptMillerII

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,286 profile views
  1. I'll echo Warts here; very well said indeed. Hope things turn around for you soon. At least you have the patches to look forward to! 😁
  2. I'll take that as a compliment 😁 I think this is a large part of the reason why CMFB has relatively few uniform mods compared to other WWII titles. I know that some of the uniform mod makers in the past have been contracted by BFC to do the uniform models of newer CM games, which is in large part why the uniforms in CMFB and CMSF2 (apologies if I've forgotten one) look so spectacular on release. RE: Scenario Making I've just never been very good at putting a map together. I can never seem to get the building placement right, or the map to look real and lived in, and I always have issues translating the scale from the 2D map you place everything on to the 3D game you actually play in. That's probably the single biggest reason I haven't gotten into scenario creation, though I fully acknowledge that this is an issue on my end, not anything to do with the scenario editor. Again though I'll point out that the scenario's and campaigns in CMFB are in my humble opinion some of the best stock scenarios/campaigns that have shipped with a CM title. The reworked campaigns and scenario's that came with CMSF2 continued that strong tradition, and CMBS also had great stock scenarios/campaigns that were immensely bolstered by the release of the mission pack. In general, I think that there is a lot higher quality stuff shipping with the stock games the past few years, so community members feel less of a need to create their own standard scenarios. Instead, we are starting to get scenario's that stretch the limits and capabilities of the CMx engine, like what @MOS:96B2P is doing. If the stock quality remains going forward (which I fully expect it to) I think unique scenario designs will be more common as well.
  3. The reason TO&E fixes are being bundled together with the infantry behavior fixes was explained by Steve in a post last summer iirc. Basically, instead of doing incremental patches, they decided to go for one big engine patch that would affect all games running on v4. Again iirc, Steve stated that in the future (after the large patch comes out for all v4 engine games) they will go back to focusing on incremental patches. For now its the nature of the beast and we're all stuck with it, but it sounds like things will improve going forward. As Elvis has said, the patches are in the final stages of testing. Hopefully, things go smoothly from here and the patches are released soon and put all of this to rest. I know I'm looking forward to that.
  4. Can't speak for everyone, nor do I consider myself a proper content creator, but for me its a matter of carving out the time to sit down and finish a project. Between life being what it is, and other competing interests, sometimes making a new mod or whatever just isn't at the top of the priority list. That said though, I think others here are right when they say that there is already a ton of community made content out there for SF1 that works fine in SF2. Another aspect is that SF2 has so much content inherently that many are probably still playing through it all. Add on to that some are likely waiting for the revamped Canadian/Dutch/British campaigns. Give it time, I'm sure there will be more community made content coming out in the future. Some of it may already be in the works!
  5. Thanks for the heads up, this looks like it could be a great resource for Black Sea.
  6. I'm not going to touch the state of the British army, or other European armies. This thread has remained civil and I do not want to be the reason it turns sour. I will say to this point that regardless of the current size/capabilities of European military's, the US is still expected to do the majority of the work. This is not just fighting, but the transportation and logistics. It's been this way all through the Cold War and remains today. The US does something close to 75% of all logistics tasks in Europe. Agreed. The Iraqi military failed on all levels to properly train and integrate their various commands/assets. Not to say they were a push over, they weren't despite the end results, but they were certainly far from reaching the capabilities of the Soviets or even other Warsaw Pact nations at the time. And this is the problem. The idea that 3 brigades can hold 140km of territory is absurd. The standard combat width of a division is 10-30km on average (obviously this can vary based on terrain and what the division is up against). If the Ukrainian military hopes to hold its own, or reclaim territory against the threats it is up against, it will need to increase in size and improve its training standards. Granted, this has been happening to some degree since 2014 with all of the NATO partnerships and missions in Ukraine, so it is taking a step in the right direction. However, learning the wrong lessons helps no one. Agreed. The versatility of the 105mm round keeps it relevant in both small scale conflicts and possible peer to peer conflicts of the near future and beyond. That said, it is important to remember that, in the US Army at least, 155mm has been standardized because the time on target and accuracy is largely the same as the 105mm. The 105mm is more useful nowadays with light units, such as airborne and air assault where weight is the primary concern. Again though I agree that generally speaking it is much better to have more of something that is adequate than a handful of high level, expensive and limited precision rounds. Dark times indeed. Though not unexpected. Unfortunately those smarter than us tend to believe that we have entered into the age where the infantry, or the field artillery, or the tank, or the [insert main weapon of war here] has been made obsolete by new technology, or the nature of war itself changing. In the end these views are proven to be hilariously false, and then the cycle repeats. Frustrating, but everyone always says that history repeats itself. On the battalion level I agree. You are better off giving units at this scale priority of fires of brigade level assets and higher instead of overloading the Bn with too many of its own organic fires. However, on the Brigade level and above, I tend to think that more organic fires of conventional tube artillery is a good thing, and in the case of the US Army, sorely needed. 18 guns to a brigade just isn't enough. Its an issue that the Field Artillery have been rather vocal about, but there doesn't appear to be a fix on the horizon in the near future sadly.
  7. I wanted to point out how you are both saying similar things here. Squarehead is correct in saying that some (though I must admit it was a minority in the US at least) viewed the success of Desert Storm as proof that massed Soviet artillery would have been less of a decisive factor than originally feared. The basis for this was the ease that Coalition forces destroyed the (very large) Iraqi artillery corps in Desert Storm. Quick background, the Iraqi military had a lot of hardware in 1991. Not only did they have the 4th largest army by manpower in the world at the time, but they had the hardware (tanks, artillery, both tube and rocket) to back up that manpower. Many Coalition commanders were worried that entire battalions would be annihilated by Iraqi artillery concentrations, and is part of the reason why anticipated casualty figures were so high. However in practice, while the Iraqi's had the hardware, they lacked the training to properly employ the hardware. Much of the Iraqi artillery was destroyed by aircraft and counter battery fires, and the Iraqi artillery that was able to fire generally failed to hit anything. Again, this was not a fault of the hardware, or amount of hardware they had, but a fault of poor training (this includes tactics, techniques, procedures, all that). Now, for the same reason that some in the West underestimated Soviet artillery based on Iraqi performance, some in the West are now overestimating the capabilities of Russian artillery based on Ukrainian performance. I am not saying that Russian artillery is ineffectual by any means. However, I would point out that just like the Iraqi military in 1991 was a bad indicator of Soviet military capability, the modern day Ukrainian military is a bad indicator of NATO militaries today. The Ukrainian military, especially during 2014, was a small, ill equipped and trained force not ready for any type of real conflict. Their equipment was mostly vintage Soviet. In a way comparable to the Iraqi's in 1991, except this time in 2014. Point being, the equipment was old, dated and poorly used. For the same reason that the Soviet military in the 80s would have performed much better than the Iraqi's did in 1991, NATO militaries would perform much better against Russia in the 2017 conflict depicted in BS. By the way, this applies across the board; tank combat, infantry combat, urban warfare, artillery, electronic warfare, etc. This is not now, nor will it ever be true. The idea that a small well trained/equipped battalion of 400 men can do the job of 4000 is a myth as old as warfare itself. While everyone likes the story of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, they also forget that there were over 6000 other Greeks there as well, and even when the Spartans remained as the rear guard, another 500-1000 Greeks stayed with them. In modern times, the same myth persists. Partly because the idea of small special forces teams wiping out entire armies "Commando" style has been so romanticized, and partly because many nations are seeking further ways to reduce defense spending while still clinging to the idea that their tiny military can still hold it's own in a real fight. The fact remains that the most important "force multiplier" is mass. This is exactly correct. A "battalion tactical group" trying to act as a brigade is a very good way to get a battalion destroyed in short order. One can get away with it in a low intensity, static and frozen conflict like what is currently happening in Eastern Ukraine today, but it would collapse in a matter of hours in the larger conflict depicted in Black Sea. Completely agree.
  8. It is fixed. Men will no longer displace out of cover into the open when under artillery/direct fire. I believe @Sgt.Squarehead was referring to the more nuanced tweaks made to infantry behavior that shipped with CMSF2, instead of just the artillery fix.
  9. Thanks for the update Elvis! Looking forward to the release. As the patches are engine patches, the following games will receive a patch when they are released: Combat Mission Black Sea Combat Mission Battle for Normandy Combat Mission Red Thunder Combat Mission Fortress Italy Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg CMSF2 already has the engine patch applied, so I don’t think it’ll be getting a patch this round.
  10. Completely agree with this. The best way by far to clear a building is to blow it up. Rules of Engagement (ROE) change the tactics, techniques and procedures you are able to employ. Good ROE are designed to maximize a soldiers tactical flexibility in a given environment. Unfortunately, many ROE end up hurting the soldiers forced to work under their restrictive guidelines. Combat Mission accurately portrays this. In the mission you are describing, you have to modify your tactics given the restrictive ROE you must operate under. I wrote this post a while ago, which details one of the ways I try to take down a building if forced to manually clear it, though there are many other good points in the thread as well:
  11. I’ll check it out when I get a chance to. The fact that the explosions can clear most, but not all mines is pretty cool. In reality a MICLIC lane still has to be cleared and proofed due to this.
  12. I’m not an explosives expert so if someone is more knowledgeable behind the physics wants to chime in please do, but my understanding is because the mines are placed on the pavement, the explosion just scatters them around and clutters the area with debris making the mines harder to spot. The resulting state of the road is less of a tactical issue 😄
  13. Looks very cool. Love the daisy chain effect. Have you tested if it works on clearing mines at all? Also a quick little “did-you-know” about MICLICs; they’re ineffective against mines that are placed on pavement, meaning the mines have to be manually removed by using a lasso and pulling them out of the road to create a lane. Just a fun little tidbit.
  14. You do realize that this is all a correct reflection of reality right? In the Marines the javelin is a company level weapon. Meaning there is only 1 javelin launcher per company. But all AAVs carry ammo for it. It is this way in the game because it is this way in real life. If you have a problem with it you can always direct your opinion in correspondence to the Marines. They’re out of Quantico Virginia. Oh and the Marines have had the AAV for decades. Since the 80s at least.
×
×
  • Create New...