dima

Do you happened to have a replay?

Semi-OT One way to have fun with BTR-80

On the russian page they posted equipment list http://www.snowball.ru/afgan/?page=tech http://www.snowball.ru/afgan/?page=tech2

I think the main interest would be replaying and learning the history of that war. The game will hopefully reflect real battles that really happened. You'd be able to see what the russians were up against, what the Mujahedins were up against and how it all went. That's the difference between it and CMSF that tries to replicate a would-be war that may or may not play out as we think.

I still don't understand why the word "bloody" is considered a profanity in Britain...

Doesn't say that it is a module.

Unfortunately the article is very vague. It says the ETA is fall of 09. It says there will be 2 campaigns, and 115 new units. The person complained that the balance is weird, in the ambush the tanks just destroyed the abmushers and then the column, when ordered to move forward again, just went every which way. Overall the article is weird and quite negative. I mean I have never red the preview article of a product where reviewer was bashing it. I thought when preview is being done and the magazine gets an exclusive preview version there is at least an attempt to do professional and balanced review and reviewer is not a Diablo fan - in this case the reviewer is...

I am afraid there were no T-80's at any time in that Afghanistan war. Nor any T-72. The 40-th army entered Afghanistan with T-54/55. In 1980 they started getting T-62 and T-64. The latter were very soon withdrawn due to either engine or tracks problems in the mountains.

Mostly yes. With the exception of T-80's and T-72B's (which is almost a T-90) you've got pretty much all the tanks russians have. I wouldn't even bother changing voices. Just make a scenario with the proper briefing and noone will even notice.

Just a few minor technical corrections Buy the time PG round hits the target the rocket motor is no longer burning. In RPG-7 it only burns for 0.6 seconds after leaving the launcher and in RPG-29 it only burns while the round is still in the tube. The round reaches 300m/s for RPG-7 and even more for RPG-29. Also, the "plasma" effect of these rounds is technically incorrect. It is not the plasma that penetrates. Shaped charge is "shaped" so that it forms a metal rod of the sort that moves faster than the speed of sound in metal. When that happens the armor at such circumstances behaves not as a solid object but as a liquid. So technically the armor is not burned through but liquified and pushed in. To slightly offset this composite armor was developed using ceramics, and other non-metal materials. But that's another topic

You are kidding!? Real BMP-3? Even I find that hard to believe. And even so, wouldn't it be easier for you to buy T-72? I heard they were dime a dozen in mid-90's...

I think this is an urban legend. AFAIK russians never got their hands on Abrams.

At that time there was no tricking was needed. The country was falling apart, nobody cared about anything, there was no leadership (unlike today). Nobody wanted to continue building or maintaining the army or military complex. Plants that were building missiles yesterday were converted to build frying pans (i kid you not). As a result a lot of "secrets" were leaked. Just had to pay, and not that much actually.

Well, there are artists and art buffs. Artists love to paint pictures themselves, they enjoy it. Art buffs like to collect works of artists while themselves they don't paint (because they can't). Guess which category you belong to?

Oh, really, I actually thought those ones are no-no due to EULA...

Just need to take nukes (at least tactical nukes) into consideration. Not necessarily simulating them (cause that would mean BOOM - Mission Complete) but perhaps the aftermath of them on the battlefield.

Awesome, thanks guys!

Bump. So, so far only MikeyD allowed others to reuse his maps... Anyone else?

No, not by a long shot I am afraid. The active defense idea is good on paper but less so in real trials. Too many stars need to allign for it to work. Besides, how do you even approach to use it against something like Javelin. The introduction of Javelin itself was a huge leap forward and no amount of ERA can compensate for it. The state of current russian MBT, the T-90, leaves a lot to be desired. Its ERA actually provides less coverage than that on T-80. As for T-95 - it is still a vaporware. I've done a lot of research for CMSF about true russian tank capabilities, a lot from semi-official, but verifiable sources and can say that a lot of it is overstated. (That doesn't mean that what we read about M1A2 in Jane's is all true. For example recent pictures of destroyed Abramses from Iraq show surprisingly thin side protection)

Thank you Mike!

In the last few month there's been less and less new scenarios. And no wonder. Scenario making is a hard work. First you have to make a map, then add your forces, then play though and balance it. But I find that making a map - especially good one - takes bulk of the effort. At the same time there are a lot of scenarios out there that people made, many with great maps. We've played through them once and now they are forgotten But it doesn't have to be this way! I'd like to suggest to the existing scenario authors to put their map in "public domain" so to speak. In other words if existing scenario designers would post here to say: - Everyone, feel free to use a map from my such and such scenario, modify it and build up on it. Just put a credit in the briefing that I am an original creator. Then I would hope a lot of other CMSF customers (especially new ones) may be more inclined to create new battles in less time. Map making (unlike force selection and balancing) is more art than anything else. I can easily see each map be used for at least another 3 scenarios without loosing uniqueness, surprise and charm! Scenario authors - wadda you say?

Marshal, Absolutely do release it as beta. A lot of authors later release updated versions of their stuff. There is only so much you can test by yourself. BTW, thanks for the hard work of creating a campaign!

MGS does not carry any passengers, so it isn't a true IFV but a support vehicle.

The proper term is - commander who values his men. In other words "not a butcher".

There is an easy solution. Open a mission in Mission Editor and set whatever time limit you want. Then save it and play! I do it very often myself with many user-made missions. In real life the tasks in typical CM missions we do take 5 times as much to ensure that unnecessary casualties are avoided. Noone is expecting you to capture a town in 1 hour