hellfish
-
Posts
1,877 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hellfish
-
-
When I cross trained with the Brits, they were taught to do it (so they said), but in my six years as an infantryman, two of which I was an M60 gunner, we were never taught how to do it.
-
I used to love random maps too, until I got fed up with just how random they really were. Roads running into houses, lakes on the top of hills, etc. For CMBB and CMAK I went and downloaded map packs for my quick battles and I haven't looked back. I expect no less from CMSF - tons of great and logical maps made by users.
-
Now it's "Army Strong is Army Wrong".
-
I really like the box art. Can I ask who the artist was? Any way to get a print?
-
I know, but the fact that it's there... *shudder*
-
I'd be so embarrassed to wear that thing... "Army Strong" bull****.
-
In combat you don't wear earplugs. You might not hear something else important, like orders shouted.
-
I think you're restricted on size force too. I had about 200 points in my French campaign, and I couldn't add a reserve S-35 (at 180 points) because it said I didn't have any open slots available in my deployment list.
I was kinda bummed about that, and had no way of knowing that there was a limit.
-
For what it's worth, I DLed it at about 300 two days ago. Maybe it's just the time of day you're DLing it?
-
Heck yes!
-
Close Combat has had 10 years to refine itself. ToW has had less than a week. As it stands right now, ToW is more fun and offers better gameplay than CCIII for me.
Anybody remember CC1? Thats's what you should be comparing TOW to, if anything, based on gameplay merits.
I love ToW so far, and while I won't say it's better or worse than the CC series, I'm going to play it for quite a while.
I expect expansion packs or upgrades in the future as well, which I'll happily buy.
-
Yeah, I was getting 800+ kbps. It was coooooooool. :cool:Originally posted by MikeyD:Since Matts announcement is dated 10pm yesterday it sounds like you might've grabbed the first download on an open line! I shudder to think how many people are now trying to download this same demo all at the same time. :eek:
-
I like the game! It's definitely not the usual BS swarm & rush game normal RTSes are. I like the detail a lot. Graphics are excellent (I had a little schutzen fire his AT weapon at a T-34... very neat to watch!).Originally posted by Dirtweasle:Any of the old CM hands have any comments on the demo so far?
-
I downloaded it in about 15 minutes last night. I was impressed with that alone, nevermind the cool demo...
-
x2. I really enjoyed the demo. The game is a lot more difficult than I thought it would be. You've really got to think about what you're doing. And besides that, the game is beautiful and well polished.Originally posted by Zatoichi:Hello all - long time lurker etc etc etc.
Well, I'm impressed with the demo, I am enjoying it immensely and it has whetted my appetite for the main game no end. As for the above 'review' - you just can't please some people, eh?
Well done to all involved in this game.
-
I'd argue that the Stryker has been an uncommonly successful program. What, like 3.5 years from concept to combat and within all reasonable budget parameters?Originally posted by civdiv:The whole program is a huge waste of money. While a feat of technology the Osprey is an example of the exact type of aircraft you don't want in the military. I could see a few dozen for special missions, but it is not a helo replacement.
All the services have a big, dumb, overpriced, albatross of a military development project. The Navy just shut down their LCS program after unit cost reached over 300 million per hull. Throw enough money at a program and you will end up turning a big, ocean going, patrol boat into a destroyer. What are they fighting, Martians? At least it works, but it is over priced. The Army has Stryker or the self-propelled howitzer or the FCS program, and now the USMC has the AAAV and the Osprey. The air force has the F/A-22 program at what, 130 million per air frame? No service, IMHO, is as unscrupulous as the Air Force about money.
civdiv
The big Army albatross these days is indeed the FCS, which is thankfully being gutted anew every month.
-
A lot of the French equipment is great - the AMX-10RC is one of my favorite pieces of kit.
-
Dutch were in Iraq (still may be?) and are in Afghanistan.
I'd like to see the Spanish too. They've got the nice Leopards, some cool cavalry armored cars and their own IFV. Would dovetail well with a German module, I think, especially since they use MG3s and G36 small arms.
-
IIRC when they decided to keep the Leo1 in service.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:ack! When did they cancel the MGS order? I hadn't heard that.
-
Actually, they canceled their MGS order. The MMEV is still a go, though.The new LAV III variants they are playing around with are very close to some of the Stryker variants. And they have the Stryker MGS on order so that will be identical. [/QB]Also, check this out:
Canada is rumored to have just purchased 80 Leopard 2A4s from the Germans and leased 20 Leo2A6Ms for Afghanistan. It sounds like the rumors are true this time, too!
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-leopard2-afghan.htm
Rumours emerged on 10 Feb 2007 that Canada was tank shopping in Germany. Media reports [1] said that Canada had negotiated the lease of 20 Leopard 2A6M tanks from Bundeswehr stocks and purchased 80 more older Leopard 2A4s. The newer 2A6Ms, which have add-on mine-protection, would be sent to Kandahar. Less well-protected Leopard 2A4s would go to Canada for training purposes. Both models differ considerably from serving Leopard C2s.Since the latest Leopard model [2] cannot be delivered quickly, the 2A6M was leased instead – mine protection includes added floor plates, blast-resistant crew seats, plus revised ammunition stowage. The basic vehicle is a Leopard 2A6 [3] with third-generation composite armour (similar in both shape and composition to the heavy MEXAS add-on armour kits applied to the Canadian Forces Leopard C2s sent to Kandahar).
The older Leopard 2A4 has a completely different turret with more upright armour. The gun is also different. Both 2A4s and 2A6Ms have Rheinmetall 120mm smooth bore guns but the 2A6 gun barrel is 1.3m longer. This gives the gun higher muzzle velocity (more useful in tank battles than in the direct-fire support role). Secondary armament for both Leopard models is two 7.62mm machineguns – presumably C6s for 2A4s and German MG3s [4] for 2A6Ms.
This lease/purchase surprised Canadian media but deployed Leopards are wearing out fast and it may be simpler/cheaper to replace than repair. In light of the German refusal to send troops to Kandahar, it galls to see Canadian defence dollars building up Angela Merkel’s treasury. Still, needs must and the deal means quick delivery, spares, maintenance software etc.
-
The Aussies have diesel M1A1s now. I wonder what their experience is.
-
There'd have to be an option for "fix bayonets". Every firefight I read about seems to have Brits fixing bayonets at one point or another.
I always thought it was easier to shoot the bad guys.
-
Another one I just remembered that is excellent is "The Battle of Hunger Hill" by Dan Bolger. Excellent command view of light infantry operations over the course of two rotations through the JRTC at Fort Polk. Lots of lessons learned and lessons applied, all of which are applicable to the infantrymen at the heart of the Stryker brigades.
[ February 15, 2007, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: fytinghellfish ]
-
Close, but not quite the same.
Module Related Question
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
The Marines, at least, are significantly different.
Marines operate in light-infantry centric roles. They have thirteen man squads, vice nine men in the Army. They have a lot of diverse support weaponry available to them - SMAWs, Javelins, M240Gs - plus LAV-25s, AAV-7s and M1A1 tanks.
The vehicles are especially different compared to the Army. While LAVs are related to Strykers, they are not the same vehicle and have very different capabilties and roles. AAV-7s are thin skinned behemoths capable of carrying 25 Marines at a time. Even the M1A1s are different, as Marines have made a few tweaks (including ATGM decoys).
Marines are a much more integrated force than the Army is too - each MEU trains together and operates as one, unlike Army units which are often patched together ad hoc. They have very tight integration with naval gunfire and close air support elements as well.