Jump to content

Apocal

Members
  • Content Count

    1,822
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Apocal

  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. Yeah, I believe you on that, I'm just thinking it has to be the result of the hotkeys file not playing nice with some weird combination of things, since you said it isn't consistent.
  8. Have you changed mice? And do you play full-screen or in some kind of windowed mode?
  9. I have never noticed a difference in performance between designated marksmen-type troops and regular riflemen. Actual snipers, sure, but buried within a rifle squad, it is going to be quite difficult to tease out who is killing and who is just making noise and smoke.
  10. 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
  11. Our supply lines were hit by other methods though, most notably suicide bombers and stay-behinds in cities. That maybe stalled the 3rd ID for a few days, while the 1st MarDiv went right on ahead with even more AFVs, including their Abrams. But more to the point: it isn't as if our potential opponents' logistics have been hit by aircraft either. There have been exactly zero high intensity conflicts between top-line armies in the last few decades. Obviously since they all have nukes, something that the Russians have been pretty open in their belief will stave off any sort of serious militar
  12. This one? It was struck by a SPG-73 in the rear hull, which led to a fuel fire that they couldn't extinguish.
  13. g2mil.com is Sparky's site. He's literally insane, for starters. Secondly, he isn't the most honest person out there. Thirdly, his actual military experience consists of never deploying to a warzone and being so nutty the Army Reserves or National Guard refused to promote him to Captain. Fourthly, he's also the guy who claims that Shermans and King Tigers are superior to the Abrams. Point No. 1 is generally true, but he flat out lies in the specifics to strengthen his case. There was a study conducted by Marines of their own fuel use in OIF I (the initial invasion, lots of AFVs involved,
  14. Unintentional repeat? What was the other thing, besides the engine compartment? Excalibur has INS as well and if it is anything like JDAM, the GPS set is effectively backup to the INS, not the other way around. In other words, if you spoof the GPS, the weapon just ignores it and goes pure INS. It's also technically tricky to spoof the later marks because they have built-in protection that basically amounts to the weapon making sure the GPS signal is coming from above and not below. I don't think EWAR effects it in-game, other than taking a stupendously long time to arrive.
  15. Almost every ground vehicle in the US inventory uses JP-8. It isn't a unique thing to the Abrams and I'm somewhat mystified on how you came to conclusion it was the wrong fuel. On top of that, I'm almost certain the AGT1500 specifically is fuel type agnostic, so it burns diesel, gasoline, straight kerosene, or even straight up bunker crude.
  16. Why is running on JP-8 a concern? And I'm pretty sure an Abrams will run on anything you put in, it is just JP-8 is the Army's preferred brand, so every vehicle uses it.
  17. I know, that was the point of bringing it up as an example. I do see the advantages of it, I just don't think it is as effective as you state it is.
  18. You can edit battles but not complete campaigns. But if you make your own battle or even go hog wild in the quick battle buy screen, you can have at least 25 TRPs. That's a lot of TRPs. This is a bit of semantics in-game, but a TRP (target reference point) isn't necessarily registered (the process you describe). It is just something used as a easy guide when referring to things around the battlefield. CMx2's TRPs are supposed to combine both, which is why all units get a bonus to accuracy when firing in the vicinity of a TRP.
  19. Nobody runs around that fast on the real life battlefield and real life artillery barrages might very well cover half a CMx2 map. The Russians aren't shy about dumping massed artillery in company- or even platoon-level fights. Within CMx2 scope, artillery's suppression comes from dudes just not sticking around where artillery is falling (or even might fall) and/or keeping their heads down while it rains. It is just in-game most troops act like Rambo and pop their heads right back up without much fear, even if you wipe out half the platoon, and usually retain their core firepower (machine guns
  20. I'm not really advertising anything, since this is a free game and no longer in active development, but I just found out about it a few days ago and it is quite the nice little experience. Armoured Commander (yes, spelled with a 'u'). Just to get things out of the way, it is based upon an old Avalon Hill boardgame called Patton's Best. You could consider it the computer version of the same. For those who haven't played either Patton's Best, you're basically thrust into WW2 as a tank commander in the 4th Armored Division on 27 Jul 44. You control your tank's movements on an operational map
×
×
  • Create New...