Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DerKommissar

  • Rank
    Inconsequential Rambler

Profile Information

  • Location:
    RL Cadia

Recent Profile Visitors

1,415 profile views
  1. Another advantage of tank riding is the increase of the number of mk I eyeballs on an AFV. Helpful in detecting ambushes, which became more common with HEAT launchers and defensive posture.
  2. Cool video, is that variant equipped with independent thermal imager for TC? I've heard that they had early ones on the UK versions? The MGS concept just doesn't want to die.
  3. I've moved on from my prototype Black Sea campaign to the Canadian CM:SF 2 campaign. Syrian RPG-7s are as effective as firecrackers against the front glacis of my Leo2a6s. I've been parking my Leos right up to enemy buildings -- and I've never seen any entrenched defender turn POW so easily! Recoil-less rifles and ATGMs tend to miss on first shot, and are quickly eliminated by overwatching IFVs. The biggest threat to my IFVs has been the mud. I also played the UK campaign in CM:SF1 and remember only losing 1 Chally due to a bottom glacis RPG-29 hit. I was quite upset, until I realized that actually happened. I've lost quite a few Warriors to RPGs, though. My advice: a. Keep your MBT's sides facing secured positions. You can't rely on side armour for anything more than .50 cal protection. 14.7mm can mess up your tracks, which leads you to mobility losses. This means flanking MBTs with infantry squads should be standard operating procedure. b. Don't use IFVs, or gods-forbid APCs, in assault roles. Either leave them to the rear, on overwatch -- or have them follow behind your MBTs & infantry. Don't trust ERA or cage armour, even if it looks impressive. c. Try to engage less technologically advanced opponents at arm's reach. Enemy RPGs, recoil-less rifles and ATGMs have less chance of scoring hits at longer ranges. The flat, desert, terrain allows for good LOS. It just so happens that Western optics and weapons are designed for long ranges.
  4. Really excited for 2020, the roadmap looks almost identical to my own internal wishlist. Good to hear UNCONs are coming to RT, and fingers crossed for CM:FB Scheldt campaign. I am surprised that you dismiss Citino so easily. All the lectures I've seen, have been hosted by the US military in US military institutions. I believe he worked at West Point, and other military colleges -- his specialty being Wehrmacht operations. I'd recommend checking out his lectures on youtube, because he talks about how/why Jerry lost WW2.
  5. Task Force D AAR 999 - 176 = 823 Points added to Force Pool, and Objective Completion
  6. Agreed with most of this, except that Fortnite and Overwatch are good shooters. As a fan of Unreal Tournament and Quake series', I felt both games were a step backwards in terms of both content and quality. I'd recommend trying out WW1 shooters, like Tannenberg and Verdun -- I've enjoyed them more than I thought I would. Insurgency Sandstorm is also fun, especially for CMSF fans. My favourite Battlefield was actually 2142, and I think they were all good up until BF4 (which should have been a DLC for BF3). In ye olden days, not everyone had viable internet. So, even MP shooters had to have singleplayer components. This meant they had to develop AI, varied maps and game modes (like UT 2004). Now, multiplayer shooters have no need to develop AI, or any sort of asymmetric component. All they need to do is use the same perfectly balanced scheme, and let the players entertain themselves. Until the new one comes out and/or the community dies and the game becomes essentially useless. Balance is a double edge sword, and a requirement for a 32v32 game. Both sides become reskins of eachother, and each map is essentially mirrored. As variance approaches zero, the game's identity does too. I've had this issue with Starcraft 2, as well. Once you've played a day or two, you've seen all that there is. The only time I play this type of game is when I have a squad of friends to muck about with. Which is something I love about CM -- there's no one-size-fits-all solution. Whenever I settle into generic tactics, I find myself in a crazy situation with AFVs burning and pixeltruppen screaming in agony. Sun Tzu said something about knowing your enemy and knowing yourself -- in modern multiplayer shooters, you're already done. I'm a big Arma fan. It's an engine for amazing community mods, rather than a solid vanilla game. I've recently been having a blast playing Drongo's Random Displacements Campaign with the IronFront mod. The original IronFront devs allowed the modders to use their stuff, as long as they reduce the texture detail. So, the modders are introducing their own skins to beautify it. I do wish more shooters had combined arms and high command interfaces.
  7. Task Force C AAR 999 - 113 = 886 Points added to Force pool, and Objective completion
  8. Could it have something to do with the Malmedy massacre? I've recently beaten the Peiper campaign and was surprised how well the US infantry stuck to their foxholes. The execution of POWs by SS troops may have motivated them to fight to the last man -- like in Ostfront. Even though, I managed to round up 3 to 6 POWs every battle. Hate to think of what would have happened to them.
  9. Is it the T-72B3 or the T-72B3M? The 'M' variant is very recent AFAIK, and has the brand new 360 degrees TC's thermal optic. As mostly a UKR player, I aught to say that my conclusion is not different from yours. The Oplot-M is not a significant enough improvement to warrant the price tag. I'll say this about the T-90AM too. The T-72B3 (I don't think they have the 'M' variant, yet), and the Bulat are your best choices for bang/buck. I've had 1 well placed T-72B3 destroy most of my Oplot-M squadron, along with a platoon of ATGMs. I've heard that the UKR tank AI likes to use ATGM instead of APFSDS. But in my experience, that is not the case:
  10. Thanks for the response, I appreciate the consideration. I realize you guys have bigger fish to fry. Eagerly awaiting R2V patch
  11. The import/export of OOBs has 3 major benefits, outside of an interface for third-party campaign systems: a. Import your forces from a scripted campaign, and continue their struggle in QB. b. Have a persistent OOB over a series of QB battles. Gives the player incentive to minimize casualties. c. Convenience. A player can save their favourite formations and easily swap them in and out without having to spend time editing. I cannot speak for the customer base, but I think there would be great value in such a small feature.
  12. I've been experimenting with my own dynamic campaign system, and I couldn't get around that you can't load/import OOBs. I believe persistent OOBs are already in the editor, and especially in the scripted campaigns. Just one button that loads an OOB from a save file into the QB force builder, would open up a world of possibilities.
  13. Just tried to play the South African campaign. Can confirm this, on my end -- as well.
  • Create New...