Jump to content

DerKommissar

Members
  • Posts

    1,017
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by DerKommissar

  1. I don't envy anyone playing SAA in SF2. There's only one way a fight between T-62s and an Apache can go -- like Cheech & Chong, Up in Smoke. Congrats on a valiant last stand!
  2. Ambush! A LAV becomes the first casualty of a SAA ATGM. A recoilless rifle joins in, countered by 25mm Bushmaster. Infantry launch rockets and grenades at the SAA defenders. Northern Lights The Battlegroup begins offensive on a well fortified SAA chemical weapons facility. Infantry begin to clear out the flanks, the staging ground for the assaults on Tundra. The SAA defenders are well equipped with ATGMs and heavy rockets. The Leopard 2's take point. The LAVs and Coyotes on the flanks, join in. SAA defenders are suppressed by cannon fire and air-burst mortars. A rolling barrage covers the infantry's insertion into Tundra's flank. SAA's flank is penetrated. Exploitation of the breakthrough is quickly followed up by a combined arms thrust. Gunner, cease fire! The Battlegroup clears the stubborn defenders of the chemical weapons facility.
  3. A New Hope The main roads are mined. The Battlegroup detours into the side streets, only to encounter road blocks and ambushes. The ground shakes as a VBIED detonates -- prematurely. Direct assaults proved costly and slow. The Battlegroup focuses on the weak flanks of the Fedayeen. The Fighters' flank is devoid of IEDs or mines. The few defenders give way to concentrated firepower. Nasri is now under surveillance. An Apache is called-in to beat the enemy into submission.
  4. My strategy for this campaign focused on minimizing casualties, above all else. First Mission was a Minor Victory for me, because I didn't take the objective in time. You do get some victory points for retaining your troops, though. It would be cool if you could turn off the time limit. The idea was to recce the strongpoints, outmaneuver them, surround them and then pound them. Each strongpoint was dealt with, individually. Then, the noose tightened. Half of all victories in this campaign came from surrender, prior to occupation of the primary objective(s). I don't remember if that tandem RPG hit it, but it certainly shrugged off RPG-7s. These screenshots were taken a year ago, on a bit of a whim. I'll see if I have any of actual detonations. The Leo 1 did have to drive behind the Leo 2s, almost all the time. The quick firing 105mm did well against RPG-launchers, really nullifying them with HEAT. It even got into a tank duel, later on in the campaign (no spoilers).
  5. Leap of Faith The Battlegroup cautiously moves into a Fedayeen-held town. The Fighters delay the Battlegroup's advance with hit and run attacks. The Light Infantry establishes a base of fire, and breaches into the heart of Faith. Mines explode, and leave a rifleman bleeding out. There is no safe way to get to him. Fedayeen strong points are isolated and pounded with HEAT rounds and automatic fire. The Fighters' avenue of retreat is cut off -- no way to outrun a LAV. The remaining Fighters eventually surrender. An IED rocks the Leopard 1, the TC counts his blessings. Faith is under control, but there is still a long way to the region's capital.
  6. Battlegroup's Leopard 2's roll across the Highway to Tall Tamir. A hail of infantry rockets, faces a hail of cannon shells. Pioneers clear the bridges from IEDs and mines, behind an air-burst barrage.
  7. Khabour Trail The Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battlegroup Tall Tamir & Al Hasakah, 2008 The Light Infantry approach the Urban centre of the Al Haskah Governate. Syrian Irregulars are engaged, near a Retirement Home. Ambush! The Jihadists organize a deadly maze. The advance is slowed.
  8. Sounds intense -- like a battle for the Reichstag should be. Can't wait for the massive 2x2 hour assault -- also greatly appreciate having both sides playable.
  9. Ausf. H was the pinnacle of P. 4 development, equipped with new armour and new gun. The plain M4 had a taller silhouette, slower speed, less muzzle velocity, worse TC cupola, worse long range optics, etc. Sure, the M4 had 1cm more of effective glacis armour (Ausf. H had 8cm at 90 degrees). I think the M4 also had better situational awareness for the gunner. Later variants would improve on a lot of the deficiencies, and they cost more. I don't know about unit cost, but I would think the Ausf. H would cost more to produce than M4. I know the StuG was cheaper than the P. 3. Lacking a turret, I would expect it to cost significantly less points. I really have no idea how force points are calculated. It usually involves a bit of trial and error to get the most bang for your buck in QB. I find static weapons to be inexplicably expensive.
  10. Men of War and Call to Arms have a shooter mode, that's fairly seamlessly integrated. Although, I almost never use it for forces larger than a platoon. My time is more constructively spent micro-managing the units, rather than pew-pewing. Brass Brigade is pretty much an old-school Battlefield game, rather than a tactics title. I actually dig Cyberpunk 2077, a lot. I've gotten some ridiculous bugs, but nothing progress impeding. It generally looks and runs great. It's a solid CRPG, and feels like a worthy Deus Ex successor. Great voice acting and level design really make it stand out. I did hear it barely works on consoles, though.
  11. Oh yeah, dude! That's next on my list. 100%, would love a prequel.
  12. Yep, lovin' it! When Keanu Reeves said we had a city to burn, he didn't mean Berlin -- did he?
  13. I recommend Island of Fire, by Jason D. Mark. It's a day-by-day coverage of the German assault on Stalingrad, from both Wehrmacht and Red Army perspectives. It's jam-packed with real maps, photos and reports. The focus is put on the tactical and operational levels, but not without strategic context. Perfect to get you hyped for urban, and prepared for winter, operations on the Ostfront -- that we'll hopefully see soon in F&R.
  14. I'm not a huge fan of modern war movies. They tend to narrow the scope down, and turn up the drama. The film becomes just another soap opera (ie. White Tiger, Fury), rather than a depiction of events (ie. Liberation, Patton). I guess if I have absolutely nothing to do, I may watch a bit on Youtube just for the vehicles.
  15. I haven't used them in CM:SF2, but I have used them in CM:A. So, keep your salt shaker handy: a. Always keep them within shouting range of their respective infantry platoon. For this vehicle, the infantry must do the spotting. b. They work best on flat terrain. In Afghanistan, this was a distinct limitation. c. Use them in a reactionary role, to establish fire superiority. Keep them behind the infantry line, and quickly move them up to hot spots. Reverse them from anything over .50 cal. Even against 80s insurgents, the BMP-1 was vulnerable when isolated and stationary. I don't recommend using it as a pillbox in 2008.
  16. It looks like they're still very much busy putting the module together. I think they'll need some time to test, even after all models, textures and campaigns are in-game. Not to mention that Christmas is around the corner, and the Devs may take time off to spend with their families. As such, I have a feeling that Fire & Rubble will be delayed from early January -- possibly into February. Hopefully we'll get some showy AARs before then.
  17. I've wondered why there's no Carl G's in Khabour Trail. It is in service with the CAF, and most missions are in built-up areas. My theory is that the plan for the CMSF Campaign put an emphasis on speed. Almost every mission is Attack/Assault, and you are given plenty of organic, and off-map fire support. The infantry sometimes struggles to keep up, and gets tired. I've seen the LAW being used once or twice, but I generally don't close in on fortified positions without a Leo or a LAV to keep company. Infantry firefights happen at longer ranges, or are over before they can launch one.
  18. I do not think it is fair to compare disposable launchers to reusable launchers to ATGMs. They all have their place, although that place may be different -- depending on doctrine. In principle, the reusable launcher has the ability to deal with a wide array of targets, with different warheads. Naturally, these weapons need a 2-man team: a gunner and someone to lug around ammo. Should every squad have a dedicated 2-man launcher team? Should they only be in support weapons squads? Should they only be in heavy weapons platoons, companies, etc.? It may not be advantageous to have every light infantry squad weighed down by the launcher and ammo. Especially, if the opponent does not have armour or fortified positions. It would be better to issue them a Light Anti-tank Weapon, just in case. I am guessing you'll see them more widely used with NATO forces in Central/Eastern Europe and less so in Afghanistan/Iraq/Syria. Soviet doctrine is about bang for buck. If their successors can, in any way, add a little bit more oomph to the squad, they'll do it. Special operators may choose to go for a disposable RPG, instead, though.
  19. I've had a RPG hit a LEO 2's driver's hatch, wound the driver and force the crew to bail. If I remember correctly, a 115mm APFSDS can do about 0.5 m RHE at 2km. I can imagine it'd do damage to an M1's front hull , at point blank -- especially if it hit a weak spot or lower glacis. It probably went straight through a Stryker's rear without bouncing about and just left two shiney new pistol ports.
  20. Aye. P3s are my favourite panzers. I think they're a better tank than the T34/76. P3 had an excellent 5-man crew layout, great observation and 2 fantastic MGs. It's no wonder they became observation and command vehicles. Will the Ausf. N variant be included? I've found them to be excellent support tanks, in CM:FI. Better suited for the job than a Panther. Like Rommel said, let the artillery take care of enemy tanks. If push comes to shove, there's always the HEAT round.
  21. I've enjoyed all the stock campaigns, that I had the pleasure to play. I loved the Kampfgruppe Peiper Campaign for CM:FB, the most. Here's a few things that make it stand out: 1. It's a massive campaign with a lot of branching paths. It really felt "dynamic". You had to make the decision on what to capture, because the next mission would depend on it. 2. It has a diverse OOB, that persistently shows up. I prefer combined arms missions as opposed to spec ops stuff. You get to know your units, as most of them show up frequently. 3. It's very authentic to the historical events and locations, but also gives you the freedom to make your own timeline. This got me really immersed and engrossed in both the game, and the history. I even made an AAR for this campaign, showing its grandeur. Honourable mentions to Khabour Trail and Highland Games.
  22. Here, here! Toss the dogs of war a bone. I'm, still, holding out hope Fire & Rubble will be released before Cyberpunk 2077.
  23. After they patched infantry breaking from heavy cover, I felt the same way. Missions that were a breeze, suddenly demanded a fundamental re-thinking. I am, currently, finishing up the Khabour Trail campaign -- here's my two nickels: 1. Garrisoned enemy squads are ordered to only open fire at short range. This makes them difficult to spot. Once they engage, their AKs volume of fire takes precedence over the optics on your ARs. Try to engage at longer ranges, when possible. 2. In pure rifle engagements, higher ground is a distinct advantage. It is easier to hit a prone defender, if you're shooting down, into the window. Likewise, it is harder to hit someone prone, if the shooter is shooting up, at the window. 3. Use your mobility to your advantage. Attack static positions from various unexpected angles to overload their targeting buffers. Avoid LOS from suspected strongpoints, and outmaneuver them. Hitting their rear echelon will be easier. 4. Knowing is half the battle. Take your time to recon and probe, before you commit your forces. Briefings can give hints of likely enemy strongpoints. 5. Under strict engagement orders, you can use air-bursts as long-lasting suppressive fire. They can encourage a large area to keep their heads down. After this patch, I've been concentrating my forces more. There is more depth, with multiple lines of over-watching units. The Schwerpunkt is usually a hard to reach place, at the edge of the map. The enemy can't flank you, if the flank does not exist.
×
×
  • Create New...