Jump to content

IICptMillerII

Members
  • Content Count

    1,162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

IICptMillerII last won the day on June 14

IICptMillerII had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About IICptMillerII

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,414 profile views
  1. I noticed this as well but I thought it was just a mod conflict. Guess there is a stock texture file missing.
  2. Saves were provided and tested. As well as new games with the patch applied by multiple beta testers. One of them said so at the top of this page of this thread:
  3. I think its due to the TO&E changes that v4.01 introduced. Someone trying to resume a save is playing an upgraded version of the game, and the save file is trying to call on data that is no longer valid because its been changed, which probably results in the crash. Just a guess, but it makes sense in my mind.
  4. Elvis added this to his initial post on the first page a bit after the updates dropped. Just know that this list is not exhaustive, but covers the major changes:
  5. For the most part, my tanks were engaging enemy infantry the furthest away from them, so the depression was actually realistic. This was partly by design. I wanted to make sure the tanks weren't overexposing themselves to reduce the chance of RPGs being fired at them, and so that whatever unit they were shooting at was thoroughly suppressed/destroyed. The Bradley scout vehicle that was destroyed was also engaging targets at the least extreme depression angle. Though I do think one of the tanks did fire at an enemy unit that was below realistic depression, but moments like that were the exception. Looking back at the pictures they are a bit disorienting and don't do the best job of conveying the scale. All that said, it would have been slightly more difficult to get effective vehicle fire down into that gully, and the infantry likely would have had to intervene sooner if there was turret elevation modeled in game.
  6. This is great to hear! Having had a chance to play a bit of 4.1 in the WWII titles, I've noticed that machine gun teams tend to displace more often than not after taking a bit of fire, which makes using them to suppress the the enemy rather troublesome. To me, this behavior appears to be directly linked to troops displacing in general, some of them towards the enemy. It appears that this has already been addressed and a hotfix can be expected "very soon," which is great news! Just to clarify, I think that the modern titles are great as they are, and I am overall quite happy with v4.1. Still looking forward to the final tweaks to be released. Then we can all go back to asking when the new modules will be out 😁
  7. The Bridges (Cont.) Then the infantry make contact. An enemy radioman is spotted moving between the buildings of NAI 6 up on the ridge. A Bradley from 2nd platoon spots the movement and pumps some 25mm HE rounds into the area. As 1st squad cautiously advances closer to the buildings of NAI 12, they draw fire. A casualty is suffered, and the squad goes to ground and begins returning fire. A sharp firefight breaks out. The infantry returns fire as tanks are brought up to pump coax and .50 cal fire into the buildings. A few enemy RPGs are fired at the tanks, but none hit. It’s a race to see who can build fire superiority and win the fight. A fire mission is called in on the buildings up on the ridge on NAI 6 to help suppress/destroy the enemy infantry there. Abrams along the MSR pump HEAT rounds into the buildings of NAI 12 and quickly help me gain fire superiority. With the enemy forces near the MSR either destroyed, suppressed, or under direct observation, I move 2 Abrams across Bridge 32 to strongpoint the other side. They take no fire and encounter no obstacles on the bridge or the far side. I now have possession of both Bridge objectives. I’ve spoken too soon. Scout team 2 moves up along the left (North) side of the bridge, only to discover what appears to be an entire infantry platoon in foxholes down in the gully directly next to the bridge. The scouts take a casualty before returning fire. This is a curious threat. It doesn’t pose any direct threat to vehicles moving across the bridge, though I can’t just leave it be. The enemy infantry could mount a suicidal yet potentially damaging attack from this position so it must be dealt with. The scouts Bradley moves up to put direct fire down into the enemy foxholes. It is only able to get a few bursts off before it is hit and knocked out by an RPG. Luckily, the crew survives and are able to bail out. Further, the Bradley is not on fire, so there is little risk to the scouts in close proximity. A moment later, the scouts return fire with their javelin, vaporizing one of the enemy foxholes. I decide to risk moving a tank forward to put fire into the gulch. I have the tank move forward just enough to only spot one of the enemy foxholes and give it a pause command of 20 seconds. After which the tank will reverse. The maneuver pays off, the tank is able to lay down coax fire and causes a casualty before reversing to safety. No RPGs are fired. The tank repeats this maneuver and is soon joined by a wingman. The wingman performs the same maneuver but from a different vantage point. They fire both coax and main gun rounds into the foxholes down in the gulch. 1st squad, 2nd platoon takes up a position overlooking the enemy in the gulch. They add their fire to the two tanks, and the enemy position is quickly destroyed. 2nd platoon continues to slowly advance on the buildings of NAI 12. A few enemy infantry make their presence known, but they are quickly bombarded by both small arms and 25mm fire from my infantry and Bradleys. One of the Bradleys fires a TOW into a building, destroying it. The resistance in NAI 12 is rapidly diminishing and the area is soon cleared. Some stragglers are seen milling around NAI 6 and are sporadically engaged by both Bradleys and infantry. The stragglers appear to be shellshocked and disoriented, wandering around with little semblance of order. At this point I think it is safe to assume that any threat posed by enemy units on NAI 6 has been neutralized. As final insurance, another short but sharp fire mission is called in on the rubble of NAI 6.
  8. FWIW I used to really struggle with arrows as well. I also have taken to drawing them manually with the pen tool in photoshop, and then adjusting them to make them look more presentable with the available pen manipulation tools in photoshop. Unfortunately as others have said, it is a pain to do and it takes time and practice. I've also found that photoshop is a highly perishable skill, so I tend to take a few notes on how I accomplish something in a word document for easy reference. Plus its always nice to have a great example from Bil to shamelessly emulate yourself! Back in relation to the AAR, I'm excited for a large fight to break out over this bridge. I really want to see how the C2 rules affect the dynamic of the firefight, and more specifically I want to see how they affect tactically adjusting once a fight is in progress. Reacting to new situations once one is already engaged is extremely difficult in reality, even with good C2. I'm interested to see if the rules depict this at all.
  9. This is a fair point and I agree for the most part. Javelins should prioritize enemy armor, as this is what they are primarily designed to destroy, and because it is a limited asset. That being said though, a heavy machine gun/sniper/etc pinning you down and causing casualties is a more immediate threat than a possible tank that isn't currently causing casualties. I am of the mind that while ammo should be prioritized, it should not be strictly rationed. Those reserve javelin missiles aren't worth anything if all the operators have been killed by that heavy machine gun/sniper/etc. Again, I agree with what you're saying, I just have a slightly different way of viewing the use of ammo. Both rationing and liberal use have drawbacks. Which approach is correct largely comes down to the specific situation and the ever present fog of war. C'est la guerre. Again I agree with what you are saying, but I tend to take a more proactive approach to defense. The best way to survive a gunshot wound is to not get shot in the first place. Same goes for tank combat. Many tend to place most of their faith in the armor of an Abrams tank, instead of following the tactical principle that if you are doing everything correctly the Abrams should never get shot at in the first place. Of course this is an ideal that is usually not attainable, but the principle remains. The best way to survive on any battlefield is to not get shot at. This is why I think the javelin increases survivability for infantry assets. It allows them to engage enemy armor (or other threats) from a concealed position, and has a very high certainty of destroying whatever target its engaging. If my javelin operators can wipe out all enemy tanks/IFVs before the enemy ever has a chance to engage my men, then I view them as the more survivable asset. Again, lots of this comes down to the specifics of the tactical situation and fog of war. I think the last screenshot of the previous update is a decent illustration of what I'm trying to convey: In this specific situation, the javelin operators have greater survivability compared to the tank they are engaging. Without the javelin, the only thing this infantry team would have would be concealment to protect them. With the javelin, they become the hunters and the tank the prey.
  10. Would you rather spend $100,000 on a missile to kill a single sniper, or would you rather sacrifice the life of your son to kill the sniper? I would gladly rot in debtors prison before I even began contemplating the latter option. The javelin is a fantastic weapon system that (in my humble opinion) redefines the tactical battlespace. It not only greatly increases the survivability of soft assets on the battlefield (such as infantry, light vehicles, recon assets, etc) but it also greatly increases their lethality as well. The 'holy trinity' of tactical warfare are lethality (firepower) mobility and survivability. The javelin is a real force multiplier of both lethality and survivability. Throw in a stryker for mobility, and the SBCT starts to make a lot more sense. The javelin is a tactical weapon designed to engage threats on a tactical battlefield. A tactical threat can be a tank, an IFV, or a single sniper or enemy forward observer. An actual example of inefficient use of assets given the target would be to call in a Tomahawk cruise missile on a single sniper. However this is impossible, seeing as the Tomahawk is a strategic level weapon and is never used for close support. That said, I would still hemorrhage millions of dollars on Tomahawks before contemplating the grim option I listed above. The next AAR update will be posted in the next few days, and there is a small tactical example of this discussion in action which is why I decided to address the javelin/cost/target "dilemma."
  11. THE BRIDGES At this point, things are looking pretty good. I’ve established a decent base of fire observing both Bridge objectives as well as the far side of the objectives. So far, things have been relatively quiet. Back on the elevated road leading to NAI 5, one of the fire teams from 1st platoon spots an enemy tank. It is on the far side on the bridges, in an orchard of small, short trees, surrounded by a dirt berm. They quickly break out the javelin and take aim. The javelin gunner acquires a lock and fires. The missile flies true, and comes down on top of the turret of the enemy tank, destroying it instantly. There are additional faint contacts in the area, but no one can see anything else yet. It is probably that there is at least a platoon of tanks, maybe more in this orchard. It appears that they are lying in wait for my forces to expose themselves while crossing the Bridges before they attempt to engage. To deal with this, I’ll keep the infantry in position and try to spot more tanks to engage with javelins. I’ve also made sure that my tanks in a base of fire can observe the dirt berms of the orchards. This way if the enemy does choose to reveal himself, I will have at least 2 assets to engage them, from 2 different angles and at different elevations. This should increase my ability to both spot and engage threats as they appear. Covered by infantry and tanks, 2 tanks from 2nd platoon move forward across Bridge 31. They take no fire as they move across the open bridge and encounter no obstacles of any type. The two tanks establish overwatch positions on the far side of Bridge 31. More assets move up and the bridge is strongpointed. Infantry from 2nd platoon begins to move up, mounted in their Bradley’s. They move up and deploy in front of NAI 12. The buildings on this NAI are right next to the MSR and would provide a good place for enemy infantry to set up an ambush against my vehicles. As this is happening, the infantry along the elevated road spot another T-72AV parked in the orchard. They engage it with a javelin missile, destroying this one as well.
  12. His gifs, and AARs in general, are fantastic and are the main inspiration for the graphics and presentation of my AAR. My trouble with the gifs though is I cannot seem to find an easy to use software to create the gifs in the first place. I can record and edit video no problem, but creating gifs eludes me thus far. I think there's a sweetspot somewhere in there that I'll attempt to find. I will say that posting the longer updates can get rather tedious, and mistakes are easier to make, so for the sake of workflow I want to reduce the size of updates in the future. I'll figure it out eventually 😁 @Sgt.Squarehead Here's a little behind the scenes info for you. When I first set up this mission, I used the T-72AV thinking that it used the same ammo as the T-72AV TURMS-T. I chose it over the TURMS as I wanted to simulate an OpFor having the more typical day/night sights found on most Soviet/Russian tanks (at least until pretty recently) instead of giving them the Italian thermals. However, after the battle was already being fought, I found out that the ammo used in the T-72AV TURMS-T is actually better than what is used in the base AV. In a perfect world, OpFor would have been equipped with a T-72 with day/night sights (like the AV) and also the best tank ammo the Syrians have access to in SF2 (the TURMS-T). If I break out OpFor for some more fun later on, I'll be equipping them with the TURMS-T to reflect the better ammo, and to make battles more challenging against mid-tier US assets (like the M1A1HC as opposed to the M1A2) To be clear, I do not know the specific ammo designations the Syrian tanks are using, but my testing showed that a TURMS-T can reliably penetrate the front armor of both the M1A1HC and Leopard 2A4 at combat ranges (1-2km). If I were to take an educated guess as to what the TURMS-T is firing, it would be BM-32 or BM-42 (or the closest equivalent).
  13. I think this is an excellent example of these rules in action. I find this situation to be very realistic. Units that are out of C2 will generally have less initiative all around as opposed to units that are in C2, and I think this depicts that. I also like how it forces to you think more realistically as well, instead of being able to spread out assets into hand picked points on the map and then just relying on the player having instant reactions to anything observed on the map through target commands. Very cool. Again another great examples of the rules in action. It adds more importance to HQ units, but also forces you to place them in positions where they may be more vulnerable. Agreed. One of the single most important factors in combat is the will to fight, or the will to keep fighting. This is just as true in a one on one fight of individuals, all the way to the strategic level with nation against nation. Many times throughout history, the victor is the one who manages to hang on for a few extra moments. I've always thought that CM does a really good job of capturing that aspect, specifically in PBEMs. Here is a technical question about CM and its C2 system: does it simulate line of sight radios? As in, are these BMPs out of contact because their HQ element is on the other side of a ridge, thus the radio signal cannot reach them?
  14. I appreciate the feedback all. I think I'll be able to find the balance between detailed posts and appropriate brevity. If I ever figure out how to incorporate gifs into future AARs that will go a long way to cutting down on text (I hope).
  15. I agree. Everything I have read on the modern Russian military (which admittedly is not a whole lot) shows that while the Russians have tried to professionalize their army, specifically their NCO corps since the fall of the Soviet Union, the effort has been largely ineffective. That doesn't mean that the army itself is ineffective, just that at this level I think Bil has it right that their C2 situation is going to be more rigid/restrictive than NATO counterparts. Here is a free PDF (though long) that attempts to detail objectively the way the modern Russian army fights. It is written by Lester Grau, a former combat infantryman in the US Army who wrote other very notable works on the then Soviets in Afghanistan, The Bear Went Over the Mountain as well as other books detailing the Soviet/Russian military. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot Spots/Documents/Russia/2017-07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-Bartles.pdf For those looking for a study of a contemporary combat example involving the Russians, this paper titled “Cyborgs at Little Stalingrad”: A Brief History of the Battles of the Donetsk Airport was released a few weeks ago and does a good job (though rather brief) on detailing how the Russian military was able to systematically surround and reduce the Donetsk Airport over a series of months, and paints a very competent picture of the Russians. https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-125-Cyborgs-at-Little-Stalingrad-A-Brief-History-of-the-Battle-of-the-Donetsk-Airport.pdf My intent isn't to turn this discussion into something not about C2 rules, just to show that while the Russians may have perceived disadvantages, there is reason to what they do and it can be very effective.
×
×
  • Create New...