Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by MikeyD

  1. Its a bit ironic that people are demanding the game code be opened when so many don't bother to try the game tools that are available. If you're bored learn how to create proper AI orders sets to direct AI opponent forces in attack or defense. Learn how to build proper maps. Give the community some 3rd party scenarios set in Berlin or with Americans' backs to the Rhine, or hiding in the spa town of Baden-Baden. The game editor is 2/3rds the fun of having the game! Before you ask for 'more' first make use of what you've got.
  2. Back-in-the-day a nerdy college friend told me how he once found himself sitting at a table with the publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine at some event. He proceeded to spend the entire time bending the poor guy's ear telling him EXACTLY what was wrong with the magazine and how EXACTLY to fix it. I'm sure the publisher guy reeeeeally appreciated all that valuable input from a random pimply 17 year old.
  3. Here's a screenshot I found from the Beta, August of 2020 (long before release). Perhaps the title's first deep test map, perhaps the first long rage spotting test. A T72 spots and squarely nails a M60A2 from 2100 meters. At the time there was no gnashing of teeth over T72 underperforming. Quite the contrary, Beta testers coming off CMSF2 were in for a rude awakening. Far from being 'meat on the table' (Syrian army vs M60A2). the Russian tanks in Cold War were kicking __ and taking names.
  4. There was an unusual spotting bug discovered with Tiger I some years ago. The tank commander had bad forward spotting ability. It was found that the (invisible) tank commander was sitting sideways in his seat and the vision block wasn't in front of him. That was our first indication that there's more going on 'under the hood' with situational awareness than we imagined there was in the game. I recall spotting targets with the good-old T34-76 where the commander also acts as gunner. Commander up in cupola spots a target, slips down to his gunner seat and loses the target, pops back up and spots the target again, back down to the gunner's seat and loses it again. The 3 foot(?) height difference between commander's and gunner's station was the difference between seeing and not seeing the target.
  5. I got spoiled by CMSF2. Watching infantry move around without body armor gives me the creeps.
  6. I recall someone had posted, or I had seen somewhere else, that Russian tank night sights for infrared spotlight fighting had utility even without the IR spotlight being turned on. I recall nothing beyond that, it may have given the night sight's useful passive rage. All I remember is exclaiming 'Oh!' when I read it.
  7. My Between Two Farbahns scenario has the opponents start 2000m apart. T72 Ural vs M60A2 on a rainy morning. Playing the American side you're as likely to get a hit from an unseen enemy as get off the first shot unspotted. Results have varied wildly as I tested-out different tank types in the scenarios. When the Russians get laser rangefinders and missiles their first round hit probability jumps significantly. M60A3 TTS is approaching ubertank status, except for its relative inability to take a hit.
  8. One thing that is (in my opinion) badly underutilized in the game is Red electronic warfare. Late 70s/early 80s the Russians had a tremendous brute force EW capability. It doesn't get used much in scenarios because not being able to call in air and artillery or keep your units in contact is... not fun, gamewise. I haven't tested it in-game but I would assume an on-map tank unit unable to communicate with anything but hand signals when unbuttoned would find its target acquisition abilities degraded somewhat. If US observers took away anything from the Ukraine conflict it was that we are not prepared to wage war in a heavy EW environment. About comparing cross-platform WWII equipment, Red-on-red battles in the CMRT module can pit Russian armor vs Lend Lease armor.
  9. The WWII German army squad was largely saddled with bolt action rifles, the MG42 integrated into the squad was meant to make up for the lack of infantry 'oomph'. The Americans fielded a larger squad with semi-auto Garand so the firepower was more evenly distributed. Americans taking out an enemy MG42 meant your work was half finished. Germans taking out an enemy BAR only improved things marginally. Not because the BAR was so much worse but because it made up a smaller fraction of the squad's aggregate firepower.
  10. Its not modeled in the game. For any weapon.
  11. For unequal tank vision performance try M48A5 versus T64B. Tracer graphics in the game are only there as a player crutch, they aren't actual tracers. None of the many-many AA guns in the titles fire 'tracers'. There is no 'better' panel display than bright green. The panel is there to roughly differentiate between heavy tank, light tanks and soft skins, its not going to differentiate between two tanks that both have more armor protection than a King Tiger.
  12. Blast orders are movement orders and that can cause headaches of a variety of sorts. What I've been doing is, instead of putting the Blast movement order inside the building, I place it on the same side as the troops next to them. That way they won't decide to just use the convenient door instead.
  13. M60's armor superiority is all on the side and rear, away from the special armor where T72's protection is in fact better. M60A1 weighs 11 tons more than T72. Its lower hull is highly angled. The armor differences are only apparent when facing medium caliber projectiles, though. When facing the big stuff the side armor on both vehicles is overmatched and might as well be made of cardboard.
  14. A not-uncommon reaction when FPS players first try CM is to assume something's wrong with the game. Because shooter game stratagems don't often work. I compare it to first learning to parallel park. Your initial reaction is 'This is an impossible task!' Then you wonder if there is something mechanically wrong with the car. But soon enough you've mastered the art of parallel parking and can do it with the best of 'em. This appears to be the most common source of 'The game is fundamentally flawed' posts. You're still learning to parallel park.
  15. Flat map 'gunslinger shoot-out' tests are of limited utility and give skewed results. The results aren't really applicable to proper scenario engagements in believable conditions at normal combat ranges. Also, those are not just M60s, they're M60A3s firing depleted uranium APFSDS with a whole new fire control computer mounted. If they're M60A3 TTS they can also see through smoke. If you redo that test with baseline M60A1 results may be quite different.
  16. The 'favorite game' question is a bit subject to 'first girlfriend bias' where the first... um, game... you got your hands on is going to be the one against which all subsequent... um, games... are judged.
  17. That was REALLY hard to follow. I'm reading your complaints and wonder if you've actually played the product. I genuinely don't understand what you're talking about. Combat Mission Professional is not a general public product but a product for... industry and military usage. It was rather a surprise that a version of it found its way onto Youtube. You will never see Combat Mission Professional unless you've somehow found your way into 'UK Fight Club'. Why would you have any expectations that you would be allowed to monkey with the game code?
  18. Was your air controller killed off in a previous campaign battle?
  19. CMCW timeframe is right on the cusp where the US realized they were in trouble. The game starts out with them firing WWII technology APDS rounds and finishes with them firing depleted uranium APFSDS rounds. Not to mention the transition from TOW to ITOW, from M113A1 to Bradley, and introduction of thermal gun sights. One gets the impression if the US had invented the T64 they would have talked the tank up as the best thing since sliced bread, and they would have savagely mocked the (let's imagine Russian) M60 series for its flaws. Heck, the US even had an inferiority complex over the PT-76 light tank(!) and spent decades trying to field an American equivalent.
  20. Someone here recently said during NATO maneuvers in the 70s(?), playing OPFOR they were often able to locate American positions at night from the smell of weed and the sound of beer cans being popped.
  21. Well, its abstracted. Less trained troops get spotted more easily than well trained troops (elite troops are almost like the Predator monster). You can interpret that as poorly trained troops moving about too much, making noise... or glinty bayonets.
  22. The coaxial mg opening is an (admittedly small) entry from the armor exterior into the interior. Here's a famous picture of a Pershing penetrated through the coax aperture. Admittedly, that was an 88 penetration from near point blank range.
  23. I read a (real world) report awhile ago that said on average it would take ten cluster munition hits to guarantee a tank is knocked out. More if the fuel tanks and ammo racks aren't full. That would require an absurd concentration of submunition rounds over the target to achieve saturation. Their estimate may have included the usual high percentage of duds among the bomblets. The US concluded that cluster munitions are not effective antitank weapons. I had posted the relevant text somewhere on this site awhile ago.
  24. M728 had been on the BFC original to-do list, as well, but got removed. I can't recall why. Perhaps because it didn't have a place in hot front line combat. Perhaps it was as simple as "The deadline's been moved up, cut the least important vehicles!"
  • Create New...