Kwazydog
-
Posts
1,547 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Kwazydog
-
-
Angryson, I dont have time to dig out the details just at the moment but when we made the 203 many months back I beleive the info we had indicated that the 203A1 would be the replacement for the 203 in the near future due to its better compatability with the M4.Originally posted by Angryson:Damn. The SAW thing makes baby jesus cry. Or at least my SAW gunners.
Really though, where did you hear about the 203? I have heard zip about it. I would like to know fo' sho'.
If this turns out not to be the case though this is an easy one for us to adjust in a patch, along with the SAW stock
-
Actually the length of the M203 is correct for the shorter M203A1 which is designed for use with the M4. At this point we will likely stick with the M249 already in game but may slip the extendable stock version in in an expansion.Originally posted by Angryson:2: Are you going to correct the barrel length on the M203?
[ May 24, 2007, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Before someone asks Ill mention that the Syrian tanks in those screen arent textured yet
-
Thats why its called it a betaOriginally posted by Homo ferricus:how come the ACU pattern and color of the backpacks atop the Strykers are different from the pattern and color of the ACU on the infantry?
The solider uniforms were done way back before the uniforms were even introduced and has too much saturation overall. Before release we will normalise the colour of both items.
-
Hi Guys,
Just FYI Im guessing the comments to do with terrain needing tidying are to do with LODs (level of detail models) on certain terrain objects, which we are currently working on...for instance are palm trees loose their leaves very quicky at the moment and look rather odd
There are a lot of loose ends that need tidying up but they are all falling into place!As we get LODs in terrain reduction and overall detail can be increased, results in better performance and better quality visuals.
Dan
-
I was at a conference a few months back where a US military spokesman whom was giving a lecture on IEDs said that they believe that early detection and disposal was the key to removing the IED threat, not more heavily armored vehicles. The reason being of course is that any vehicle is vulnerable to an IED depending on the size and type of IED used, and the size and complexity of the IEDs used in Iraq today is significantly greater than even a year ago and can be adapted very quickly.Originally posted by civdiv:But some analysts have long questioned the wisdom of moving away from more heavily armored tracked vehicles like tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles to wheeled transports, like the Stryker.
"
Ive seen enough footage of IEDs now to pretty much guarantee that an IED the size of one needed to take out a Stryker would likely have the same effect on an M2. Short of converting M1s to APCs and even then reinforcing their lower hull or creating a similarly large heavily armored vehicle I really cant see a new vehicle being a solution to the IED threat. To be honest I dont know if there is a solution.
[ May 13, 2007, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Umm, Im pretty sure what Martin was doing there was making a 'joke', hehe.Originally posted by Nick Schieben:Copying you? You wish ...
I was reading a COD forum yesterday about this announcement and I was quite suprised to see how many people were welcoming the change as they were wanting a break from the WW2 theme. It should be very impressive if their previous releases are anything to go by.
-
Hi Guys,
A few quick answers...
I would have to check with Chalres to be 100% currently but as I understand it they currently do offer a degree of cover, and affect movement. I would say that these objects are certainly something we will expand on in the future, both in what we can use them for and variety, as they are a great addition to see in game.Originally posted by panzermartin:One question though..will these provide any cover/concealment for troops?
Actually I think that there is a knocked over one in there but keep in mind guys that Matt was just showing off the different options available. The barrel for instance will likely look much more suitable next to a small farm houseI guess we'll either need knocked over barrels or just have to take care about placing them in scenarios.
Oil drums are in too, and have been for some time.
Lol, tire grog. Actually its a stryker wheel at the moment, hehe, but it will likely be retextured. And all barrles should be considered empty too[qb]Second, the tire tread pattern is off. qb]
.
-
Heya M1! Yup, we used them off of a reference model we had and ironically they are about the only thing that we didnt rebuild, but they do need some reworking and are on the to do list
There are two types of grenades though, some shorter and some longer. I chose the longer ones at random but will probably swap back as it is what people are used to seeing. I dont have time to dig out any pics of the longer ones at the moment but you often see them in photos from Iraq.Dan
[ February 10, 2007, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Originally posted by civdiv:
Actually they have AT-7/13/14 in reasonable numbers, something like 2000 AT-14 Kornets IIRC though the number varies. Many of their tanks have ERA applied and a reasonable number have been modernised over the last decade or so. The quantities of APCs and IFV's shouldnt be dismissed either.I guess we will have to agree to disagree as I still cant see any way that at CM's scale Iran would be a tactically more challanging or interesting opponent. In fact you could probably do a reasonable 'Iran' scenario with a subset of Syrias equipment, providing you dont want to use Zulfiqar, which they likely have very few of, or some of the old US equipment they have, which is likely well past its used by date without spares.
-
Actually Civdiv, although I haven't looked into it for some time, I dont know if this accurate? As I recall the Syrians have around 2000 more tanks than Iran, about 1500 more BMP IFV's and around 1000 more BTR, etc APC's. On top of this and very importantly, their antitank missile armory tends to be considerably more modern than Irans with AT-7, AT-13 and AT-14 missiles part their inventory (as I recall the Iranians use mainly AT-3/4/5's). What this results in is that man for man, the Syrians tend to have more and better quality equipment at their disposal.Originally posted by civdiv:Steve,
Iran; more interesting equipment OOB, more of it, more modern, more conventional (in some ways)
As such, *within CM's scale* I think you'll find that Syria's equipment provides a much more interesting and challenging opponent than that of Iran.
[ February 02, 2007, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
To be honest wouldn’t be be underestimating the Egyptians if we assumed this though? If we can guess that this would likely be the case then they are obviously well aware of the fact, and likely have appropriate measures in place to make sure its not an issue. Just a thought, anways.Originally posted by KNac:The operative state of USA-build weapons for Egypt would be lacking to say the least in a conflict like this, as they are dependent on USA for any spare piece or repair, and obviously in a event like this USA would withdraw any support.
-
Seriously guys this is something youll likely never notice in game as you have to be very close to see this. We will take another look at it down the track though.
-
Also Mikey, keep in mind that the Strykers slat armor isnt designed as stand of armor as such, but instead is designed to squish older RPG rounds which should damage their piezo-electric fuze, hopefully stopping a detonation. In fact, from what Ive read the stand off distance isnt enough to make considerable impact on the RPG's warhead, and penetration would still be possible if it was detonated (though considerable less catastrophic). Any rounds made post '79 arent affected by this though.Originally posted by MikeyD:I wonder if they're going to code the BMP's 73mm gun/launcher to defeat the slat cage or not. Eh, probably not, the round's little more than an old RPG projectile - but then again, a 73mm warhead diameter means it might just be able to sneak between the slat bars! Hmmm...
As such, slat armor should likely have little effect on the 73mm, and next to none on the At-3, particually the later models with significantly larger warheads.
-
Kineas, I hope so too and think it will, Ive found it a lot of dun in the little testing Ive had time to do thus far.
Too true, but CM and Armed Assault are two very different beasts with very different target audiences. The FPS market is extremely hard to break into these days unfortunately as it is such a saturated genre.Originally posted by Kineas:I trust in you that you can keep this product line alive (and make nice profit of it) and we'll keep getting quality wargames in 3D. But don't really count on the casual players, even Armed Assault is on the verge.
Dan
-
Heya Nathan!Originally posted by TheNathan:Just my observation, I'm probably wrong, but with my limited knowledge of the wargaming market, and associated wargames, isn't a niche audience anyway? That's what CM is, a wargame, no matter how you package it.
Well this is probably a much better question for Steve as I honestly don't know a details here, but I think its a pretty safe bet to say that if CM was *just* a niche product it likely wouldn't have moved pass CMBO and BFC likely wouldn't have made it in the first place
. CM has a very wide audience and reaches well beyond your average wargamer, which is a large part of why it was been so popular over the years. This is because of its approach towards wargaming in my opinion.The wargamer market on its own likely can be counted in its thousands and not all of those buy each and every wargame. Wargames based in a 3D playing field do take considerably more work to create than those in the 2D, and if we were just aiming at the hard core wargaming market with our games Id think that it would not be all that a viable prospect considering the likely response to the product.
That being said, we don't want to water down our games in any way for the mass market and we never have, we just need to make sure we reach them and hopefully spark their interest along the way! As such we do need to consider all aspects of a theatre before we invest the time needed to create it. And on that note I will add...personally I don't think that you guys should discount the Syrian military so readily.
In fact we have often been surprised by some of the results we have seen whilst testing. Sure on a 1 to 1 basis the T-72 is no match for an M1A1, but how about a T-72 with kontact-5 reactive armor and AT-11's fired via a modern fire control system? For that matter how will you handle a regular old T-72M1 with your Stryker MGS when armor support isn't at call? Overall I think and hope that you guys might be surprised at the challenges faced in CMSF, especially in urban combat, as I know that we have been at times.Dan
PS : And do understand that I am a wargamer myself who would love to play a 'Team Yankee' scenario in CM's environment! Working on this side of the curtain though I do also understand that bigger picture is important also
[ December 23, 2006, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Nice to see you Foobar and glad you like the way its shaping up! If you check out the latest blog you will find some detailed shots of a few of the in game models which might be of interestOriginally posted by *Captain Foobar*:Bring on CMSF!
-
Merry Christmas to you guys too!
For those that havnt noticed Martin posted up a little xmas present for you all in the latest blog, too
-
I think that the problem here is that when you guys say 'audience' you are thinking of the wargaming crowd, not CM's overall audience in general. These days box art on the shelf of M1's in woodland camo driving down a forested lane is more likely to confuse potential buyers than intrigure them, and that is something that I think is important for us to consider when looking at the bigger picture. Whilst visual recognition wasnt such an issue for WW2 as most people are familiar with that era, I think that it is important for a modern wargames appeal in order to capture the wider audiences attention.Originally posted by TheNathan:Yeah but my big question is why bother with a scenario the audience is not all that enthusiastic about.
Anyways, just my 2c from a visual perspective and something that has not been considered. Note that Im not suggesting that this is why we actually chose the setting, I leave those descisions up to Steve and Charles, but just something that I think is very important to consider when discussing the topic at hand.
[ December 23, 2006, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Me too, hehe, as their vehicles look so damn coolOriginally posted by Battlefront.com:Having said that, I *am* very much looking forward to playing as the Syrians. Steve
[ December 15, 2006, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Cpl, if we did remove the armor visually then the engine wouldn’t be able to account for it with regards to hit detection, as it uses true LOS for such things. As such a vehicle without it would be treated as just that. The same is true for reactive armor by the way, allowing shots to find weak spots that the bricks might not cover.
Also its interesting to note that the armor is apparently not designed to detonate an RPG as such, but rather crush the outer casing which then damages the warheads fusing mechanism. Ive read reports of Strykers returning to base with more more than one warhead actually stuck in the slats. This only works on warheads designed before the 80's, but this includes much of the worlds inventory still.
Ill also add that it doesnt look quite so ugly when viewed from higher than eye level, which you often are in game
Dan
-
Hi Rudel
Lets call it origional then, basically I was referring too the origional export model of the T-72 which went into production in 1975 with an optic sight, not a generic vehicle as such. Either way though it makes sense that this vehicle would be pretty much out of server by now, so we will likely scratch it off of the listOriginally posted by rudel.dietrich:I would strongly compel you guys to split up T-72 models (and all tank models) into each kind of variant instead of having a generic 'early' model.
It was out lowest prioroty T-72 as it appeared that they had few of them left and require an alteration to the turrets model.
This is where some confusion begins unfortunately though. As I understand it the Syrians have the T-72M (unofficially referred to as the T-72G I believe), not the T-72A. The T-72M is actually based on the base T-72 (with regards to armor) but has the fire control system off of the T-72A. When it shipped it didnt have the skirt armor, launchers or extra hull armor. In the late 80's an upgrade was offered to bring it up too this standard though (basically a T-72m1 without the additional turret armor), but we are assuming that not all vehicles would have gone through this process.The A model has a laser range finder, very early computer fire control system, a little more armour, side skirts and electronic smoke launcher.
In the early 90's the Syrians put in an order for 300+ T-72M1s (the last they would recieved) which is basically the T-72A including the upgraded front turret armor, skirts, launchers, etc. Even though much hardware that was ordered during this time was never delivered due to financial issues, the Slovakians delivered 260 of these vehicles in '92 with 58 more being delivered in '93. The export version of the T-72B was offered in 1987, known as the T-72S. As the Syrians put in an order for the M1s in the early 90's though it seems unlikely that they ever aquired any of these, likely due to financial reasons. After this point though I can find no further reference to them purchasing further models of the T-72. In '98 they appears to turn their attention to the T-80 for future purchases. I still cant find any reference to a T-72M1s type vehicle, maybe its a finish only designation?
So as best I can tell the T-72 models that the Syrians have actually purchased are the T-72, T-72M and T-72M1. There is documentation that they have upgraded these in various ways though including reactive armor kits and the turms upgrade.
The Turms upgrade is basically bringing the T-72 up to the T-72M3 standard and is likely being built onto the newer M1 vehicles.
The upgrade includes installing Galileo's Tank Universal Reconfiguration Modular System T-series tank (TURMS-T) fire-control system (FCS).TURMS-T is a modular third-generation computerised day/ thermal FCS especially developed for the fire-control modernisation/ upgrade of Russian-originated T-family tanks.
The system includes gunner's and commander's stabilised sights (both with second-generation infra-red cameras) and a new turret-management computer and set of sensors, so that the gun stabilisation and accuracy is improved to the level of latest-generation tanks, even in move-to-move firing.
The upgrade includes installing new armour and an attachment for the Russian KBP Instrument Design Bureau 9K119 Reflecks (AT-11) ATGM, which is fired through the T-72's 125mm smoothbore main gun. The armour and missile attachment are supplied by undisclosed subcontractors to Galileo. The upgrade programme began last year, with all of the systems now delivered to Syria. Installation of the systems is being conducted in-country, with about half of the T-72s modernised to date.
Hope that might help clarify what we have currently found
Dan
[ December 10, 2006, 10:05 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Hi Rudel! Yes, working out exactly that the Syrians have is a problem, particularly as the Russians exported vehicles that were configured differently to what they use under their own designations. From what I could confirm, the Syrians likely have...Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:I also think we are running into a little bit of confusion over the variant names.
Is the T-72M1 the T-72M1S that I listed?
Those 400 'T-72'
Are those baseline models or T-72A, T-72B or T-72G or something completly different?
It would help if Dan could be a little more specific.
Does the Turms variant go under a different name?
Maybe the T-72AV version that I have listed?
T-72 'early' - Original model of the T-72 with optic sight.
T-72M - Export version of the base T-72 but include TPD-K1 FCS off of T-72A. Armor is as per T-72M though.
T-72M 'upgraded' - Export version as above but has been upgrade towards M1 standards. This includes replacing gill armor with skirts, smoke launchers, as well as extra armor welded to front hull.
T-72M1 - True export version of T-72A including turret armor quartz/steel insert.
T-72 'Turms' - This is a Syrian upgrade which we are currently calling turms as we don’t know the official designation, with around 122 being converted. Upgrades FCS, likely second generation reactive armor, etc, most likely placed on T-72M1's. Pretty serious upgrade overall.
Reactive armor (T-72AV) - A reasonable portion of the Syrian T-72s have received reactive armor upgrades of one sort or another, and we likely plan to place 1st generation reactive armor on most of the versions above as an option.
That’s currently what we are heading towards but as always we are certainly open to new info. Ive never actually heard of the T-71MIS designation, so I cant really comment on that one, but we are probably thinking of the same vehicle under different designations. I have read of a T-72S though which is an export version of the T-72B I believe, including an upgraded FCS and engine, but as the Syrians only ordered the M1's from Poland in the early 90's and their cash flow went in the wrong direction after that, I found it unlikely that they have many/any of these available (and couldn’t find any reference to them having any).
[ December 09, 2006, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]
-
Hehe well I havnt even seen it in game yet but the T-72 would be pretty high up on the funky list I think. Once its in Im sure we can arrange a couple of shots.Originally posted by Sequoia:So Kwazydog, If you read this, which artwork are you most proud of so far (and can we see it
). I must add though one of the neatest vehicle features is the work Charles has done on the articualted suspension, it really adds a lot of momentum to vehicles. I spent about an hour just driving the M1 around a map when it went in game
new video on youtube
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted