Jump to content

IICptMillerII

Members
  • Content Count

    1,274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

IICptMillerII last won the day on September 2 2019

IICptMillerII had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About IICptMillerII

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,772 profile views
  1. Yup, those are the ones I was thinking about! Thanks for clarifying that for me. Apologies for the confusion.
  2. Ahh oh well. I don't have CMBN installed on this computer right now as I'm away from my desktop, but I thought there was an airborne scenario that covered parts of Operation Varsity. Anyone know the scenario I'm talking about? It's large and there are a few different variations of it that come in the battlepack.
  3. If I'm not mistaken, I think Operation Varsity is covered in the battlepack for CMBN, though I would always welcome an additional campaign or set of scenarios. Personally I really hope we see some coverage of the crossing of the Rhine. Having a scenario/campaign that covers both the Rangers amphibious assault across the Rhine would be great, especially now that CM simulates amphibious vehicles. DUKW's anyone? That and some coverage of the Bridge at Remagen would be cool as well.
  4. I haven't played the USMC campagn in a while, but I am 99% sure that there are core units. In campaigns you can have core units and you can also have attached units. The attached units are additional units for a specific mission that are not part of your core force set up. For example, if you have a campaign following an infantry battalion one of the missions could have a tank company attached, but they are not part of your core force. It could be what you are seeing are missions that involve a lot of attached units, or it could also be that you are using core units, but each mission is a different group of core units and you have yet to see the carry over yet.
  5. The internet does more harm than good. Combat footage from the Syrian civil war of people hipping and hopping through streets, wildly blind firing their weapons all over the place and spraying machine gun fire down random side roads is not indicative of firefights in any way. I can assure you that most disciplined armies do not act like that while under fire. There are a ton of modern examples of a disciplined army fighting against what you see in those combat footage vidoes, and the results are extremely one sided. I will definitely agree that the animations in CM do not allow for an accurate representation of all of the various movements humans (disciplined or not) do perform while in combat, though I think most games/simulators are guilty of this as well. This is actually exactly what CM does. Microterrain is not visually simulated, but it is calculated when determining if a pixeltruppen takes fire that actually wounds him or not. CM simulates that humans are, like you have pointed out, not always so easy to hit even when moving through or taking cover in "open" terrain. See above as to why this is.
  6. Hang in there man! I'm sure you have more longevity than you give yourself credit for. On the bright side, now that the CMFI module is done, BFC has been freed up to develop Fire and Rubble and the other things they're working on. The CMFI module did quite a lot to hog development time and attention and slowed other projects down. In other words, the bottleneck on development has been cleared. As to the partisans, they will definitely be included in the Fire and Rubble module, though I have no idea how their availability will be handled yet. Could be that after a set date, or a location, they are not available for purchase/use, but that is just speculation on my part. Its important to remember that while the new module will focus on the end of the war, a lot of the assets being added were present during the Bagration timeframe as well. Just like how CMFB covers more than the Battle of the Bulge, even though that is its primary focus.
  7. Yeah... no. There isn’t a single doctrine, SOP, ATP, or TTP out there that assumes anything is invincible, especially when it comes to hardware. In fact, every single one of those governing documents/doctrines/procedures assumes (correctly) that the hardware is not only capable of failure/destruction, but most likely will even under ideal circumstances. Just because something is considered survivable or hard to kill dies not mean it’s ok for that thing to take damage or be in a compromising position. Humans can survive direct hots from .50 caliber rounds and even 25mm HE. Does that mean everyone disregards these things as threats though? No, of course not. The whole “muh murican” memes are old and boring and definitely shouldn’t be used as an example of anything, especially survivability against ATGMs or RPGs.
  8. Yeah I have to parrot @DerKommissar on this one. Citino is very highly regarded by the US Army among others, and his book titled “Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm” is in fact a fantastic overview of modern maneuver warfare. I would say Citino is quite well versed in the nuance of at least operational warfare in a WWII and post WWII world. While I’ve read his maneuver warfare book, I have not read any of his books that cover in depth German military operations, strategy and operational art during WWII, but I also know that these works are highly regarded by sources I trust. So again I have to disagree with your claim that he lacks the needed knowledge to discuss/analyze these topics.
  9. Agree completely. The more content the better.
  10. Big fan of that first screenshot of the fighters moving along the mountain trail at night, very cool!
  11. Those skins look great! I think they would fit in very well in @Combatintman's 'Op Baras' Scenario. Looking forward to the release!
  12. The only way for this to be tested and verified as an issue is for savegames to be posted/submitted for testing and review. If you notice this behavior, save the turn and submit it.
  13. Winter on the Eastern Front, in CM, finally! Thanks for the bones! Especially glad to see that Black Sea will be getting some love in the (hopefully) near future. Looking forward to the new content. Happy New Years!
  14. No military is going to advertise its losses, to the enemy it is fighting, during the conflict. “Hey Adolf, you knocked out xx Sherman’s this month! Just wanted to let you know so you know that us allies are the good guys because we disclose everything immediately!” -Eisenhower, showing the world that being a war fighter is no excuse not to disclose the truth at all times. The vast majority are wear and tear. Sorry to shatter the sexy image, but after 2003-2004 tanks simply weren’t heavily used all over the place (or really at all in Afghanistan) because they were the wrong tool for the job. On top of that, no one was driving these things down city streets to be lit up by RPGs from every possible angle. So do most heavy units that rotate through NTC. No joke, this happens. A unit slated for a deployment will go to NTC for a train up and break all of their equipment, rendering them unable to deploy. Granted that isn’t the norm, but it has happened a few times. Point is, combat conditions and just general field operations are hard on vehicles. They require constant maintenance to keep in the field. And there are different levels of maintenance as well. All those Bradley’s at a depot in TX? Those are deadlined vehicles that have to be repaired by the company that makes the Bradley. Not from combat damage, but regular wear and tear. These vehicles are 30-40 years old, and are handled by 18-20 year olds who are tired, hopped up on caffeine, and pissed off at everything. And they’re essentially driving a big rental vehicle that they perceive to be invincible. How long do you think your car would last in the hands of a 19 year old with a fetish for amateur off-roading? Again, the point is that regular wear and tear does far more damage to vehicles than people realize. Not to mention the desert is not a friendly environment to vehicles. As you correctly point out, a US Abrams does not equal an Iraqi Abrams. And the fact that the Iraqis lost so many tanks to ISIS is no surprise. You know who the Iraqis also lost a lot of tanks to? Literal human wave attacks in the Iran-Iraq war. As in Iraqi tanks in fighting positions were overrun by Iranian human wave attacks, across open terrain. Yeah... I think it’s safe to say that Iraq could use some remedial training in the art of armored warfare. I certainly agree on both points here. I don’t think RPGs are undermodeled, and I also think that the wounded to killed ratio in general, but specifically with vehicle crews favors killed over wounded far too much. But I suppose that’s a different discussion.
×
×
  • Create New...