dima
-
Posts
939 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dima
-
-
Semi-OT
One way to have fun with BTR-80
-
-
I am excited about being able to play Soviet Forces from the height of their power.
But to be quite honest the opponent here is even less capable, and by a wide margin so, than the Syrians in CM:SF. I don't think that the finer points of modeling infantry in CM:<modern> are well enough developed to tackle Soviet mech formations with Mujaheddin. If I didn't miss anything this game also will not see the foxholes with fog of war that we hopefully get in CM:<ww2> (and obviously neither are trenches subject to FoW).
I wonder what the prospect of gaming options is with this title.
Red on Red (or is that now Blue on Blue?) might be very interesting here, as in simulating some internal Soviet conflict. But that would at least require that you can load different uniform and vehicle skins for the same units for different sides, which to my knowledge hasn't been implemented either. If it was then a conflict of Soviets versus India or China would be within modeling range of this title.
I think in a on-sentence summary I can sum it up as: the limitations of the infantry model in pre-Normandy CMx2 don't seem to mix with a game that only has infantry on one side.
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.
-
You don't need a demo, just play a regular game and imagine everybody's got a thick Liverpool accent and every 3rd word is a profanity.
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...
-
That's the cynical take on it. I would think though that it would be difficult to do an earlier campaign without at least a few new units - maybe the BMD-1, BTR-D and T80, and even the other tank versions in common with CMSF would be slightly better than what the Syrians get (being Russian native rather than export versions).
But yeah, it would be great to get the ZSU-23. How could you have an Afghan campaign and not have it in?
Right?
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.
-
The way current slat works is no different then some of the bar armor used in WWII against panzerfausts. You basicially have metal bars spaced far enough apart to allow the RPG to wedge itself between the two bars. The RPG then run out of propellant and having not made contact with anything, then detonates prematurely, ensuring there is not enough inertia from the momentum of the round and contact with a solid object to form the lethal plasma cone. That is why there is also standoff from the vehicle (distance will remain unmentioned) and a strict compliance (as can be permitted) with noting stored between the slat and vehicle. As Lt Mike stated, you could not use anything but a metallic material because the rocket is still travelling several hundred feet per second and is propelling a weighted projectile.
As for how long it takes to place slat on, it took us initally about 12 hours, with crane support and no pneumatic tools to place all of the slat. It is definitely a depot level application if practical application allows.
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
-
Oh, I know. A few years later it was still pretty bad when I had a deposit down on a BMP-3. They were coming off a base in St. Petersburg. Story was the general in charge was selling stuff so he could keep his soldiers paid. That long shot ended with me getting my money back after the broker was jailed for immigration violations. Long story
Steve
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...
-
Have you ever heard the story about how the Russians got their hands on an Abrams? The tale I heard, General Dymanics was showing the tank on a promotional tour through the Middle East. When the Abrams roadshow got to Egypt the tank 'somehow' managed to be loaded aboard the wrong ship at the port! One Abrams special-delivery straight to Russia.
I think this is an urban legend. AFAIK russians never got their hands on Abrams.
-
Wow... amazing how easy it was to trick the Russians into selling off one of their newest and most advanced tanks.
Steve
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.
-
This all seems strangely backward to me. Half the fun of the game for me is going into the map editor and creating my own little slices of the world. Its only after the terrain's done to my liking that I bother thinking seriously about constructing a believable scenario around it. Only doing force placement and AI planning on a scenario seems like only selecting household chores as your 'marital duties'. You're leaving out all the fun stuff!
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?
-
Don't forget that all the scens on the disk and with the module are available for this treatment (which I think is a good idea).
Oh, really, I actually thought those ones are no-no due to EULA...
-
That's why I believe Shock Force 2 should be set in 80's of 20th century instead of modern times. NATO vs Warsaw Pact, this would be a perfect match.
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?
-
Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.
No, not by a long shot I am afraid.
BTW.. do not forget about the Russian Active, Hard Kill defensive aids. Defence Update… the Israelis Jane’s…. believes the Russian Arena hard kill system would have “devastated” the ‘90s generation of NATO ATGMs. Others now have the same, 15 years later…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!
-
Perhaps the comparison should be between BMP-3 and Stryker MGS?
MGS does not carry any passengers, so it isn't a true IFV but a support vehicle.
-
I was just mentioning to someone earlier that when it comes to playing CM I'm a coward.
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
T-90 bug
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Do you happened to have a replay?