Jump to content

Apocal

Members
  • Content Count

    1,822
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Apocal last won the day on June 17 2015

Apocal had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Apocal

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Location
    California
  • Interests
    Military History, Wargames, First Person Shooters, Simulations

Recent Profile Visitors

1,730 profile views
  1. I'm still here. There were a few others, but yeah, they mostly shift to other games about six or nine months after a release, as they play through all the content. Probably not much bigger, because the complicated (and occasionally frustrating) issues with a more complex spotting routine lead to a lot of player frustrations, but especially in WeGo when I can't simply back down a vehicle that hasn't spotted something it should see quite clearly (e.g. a Tiger emerging perpendicular to the tank from a woodline, less than 100m away with TC unbuttoned). The fine map-grid wouldn't be an adva
  2. That has been happening occasionally for years. It is rare that I notice it because I don't often look at my own troops close up, but sometimes in the post-battle review I notice guys with two long arms. I don't know if it is a bug or unintended behavior from the bazooka/PF code or what and I can't figure out how to reliably cause it, but it does happen. Not really a big deal either way.
  3. CMBN has been out for over half a decade. I don't know how you got a full count of CMBN, but running a ctrl+f search for "btt" on the CMFB scenario page shows a total count of 38. And even that is inflated by a pair of dealership scenarios and some that came stock with CMFB itself. The same for CMRT reveals 118. I think it is fair to say that the rate of user made scenario production is pretty well outstripped by the active playerbase's ability to run through them all. I'm not knocking anyone for it, just saying: if veterans were playing scenarios rather than QBs, I'm pretty sure we'd see more
  4. If that was the case, you'd expect to see more user-made single-player scenarios and activity around scenario hosting sites, particularly for the newer releases. But as it stands, CMFB has very relatively few user made scenarios, considering how long it has been released and the popularity of its subject matter.
  5. Anyway, one serious problem with that setup is that you really, really cannot stay there once the enemy knows you are there. It is useful for ambush or light screening if they are just blithely driving through like they own the joint, but if they know what is up, they'll just stop their IFVs/tanks and slow roll into LoS. Even BMP-2s have sensors good enough to pick out troops in trenches and their weapons will annihilate them in short order if there isn't some counter to put into play. In this case, the counter can be the mountain rifle platoon's own BMPs, but they aren't fully reliable i
  6. I mean, it isn't anything especially interesting to look at: Three squad-sized trench positions, each separated (ideally) by 100-150m, with an outpost positioned approximately 150-200m out in front and BMPs a short (but LoS-blocked) distance to the rear. Spacing set so that nothing can approach through a gap in the weapons' effective range and the OP in front means you have some time to shift forward the BMPs or fall back the squads in case of an approaching force the platoon itself cannot handle. Two of the three squads broken into triple teams, one squad separated in half with the second hal
  7. Yo, Oleksandr, I appreciate the way you're laying this out and everything, but you're spending a lot of points on fortifications (assuming QBs) to protect some pretty cheap units. The dismounted portion of the mountain rifle platoon costs about as much as the 10x trenches (200 points) necessary to fortify them and it still doesn't protect against 122/152 artillery. Modest amounts of 152 in particular (roughly 40 shells or in other words a heavy+medium fire mission) will basically eviscerate them in spite of the trench network you laid out. 200 points won't quite get your (Russian) opponent a f
  8. Conventional munitions get less accurate in heavy winds, judging from some quick-and-dirty testing. Because they accelerate more slowly and decelerate more readily, as far as I can tell. Now that I look closer, I'm starting to see more of the effects. But I guess my issue is that I have to really look for them to notice, instead of weather being shoved in my face like in real life.
  9. Yeah, putting regimental and divisional pieces into the AT network or even as direct fire support was such a standard Soviet practice I can't think of any justification for not including them as on-board assets, especially not when the 150mm SIG managed to find its way on-board as far back as CMBN. Suppression is fine, even with a gun shield. The gun shield itself is pretty small and I have no trouble imagining it is very difficult to service the piece while staying completely protected behind it.
  10. Has anyone noticed the extreme heat/extreme cold temperature settings in the scenario editor actually having a tangible effect in-game?
  11. It doesn't come up because game issues are mostly agnostic towards the game mode. I play a lot more real time than WeGo. Basically the latter only for campaign missions that are unexpectedly huge and PBEM. But I'm a bit out of the PBEM game for now and I've played through almost every campaign.
  12. It still exists as WeGo. Just select "turn-based" when starting a new scenario or quick battle.
  13. The game already does this. If it didn't, trees wouldn't be able to catch rounds the way they do and artillery shells would have even patterns even on reverse slopes.
  14. I wasn't saying it was unwinnable, just it forces you to take losses in a stupid manner. I guess I could complain that it basically got the entire relationship of a successful river-crossing wrong; intact defenses overwatching the crossing points with ample and unsuppressed artillery available is basically the conditions for a bloody failure on the part of the attackers attempting to cross. But I don't care that much compared to the scale being like double from playable and other stuff.
×
×
  • Create New...