Apocal
-
Posts
1,833 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Apocal
-
-
Ok, i wasnt aware that micro UAVs can be shot down, i just hasnt happened to me yet. Still i disagree with you on the 3 other points you brought forward in your last post. Firstly, i do not think that this is a diversion from the topic. You suggested that aircraft should stay in the engagement area for prolonged periods of time or should loiter over the battlefield, waiting for someone to call an airstrike, and i am argueing why i do not think that this would be particularily feasable. IMO that is perfectly on topic.
There is already a 2-3 minute re-attack time per air asset, the aircraft aren't over the battlefield for anything but around 10-15 seconds (judging by on-map engagements). Obviously they are flying back to an IP before attacking again. I'd like it if they held at the IP rather than deciding (at random) to stop attacking so I need to either cancel an already running strike or let them sit idle in the stack. I'm not asking that they strike the target and yank back around for another attack 30 seconds after another.
Thridly, regarding the Reaper, it does not necessarily fly at high altitudes, for the same reason as jets and helicopters in CMBS dont do that, it just flies at the maximum distance to the target its sensors allow - which is horizontal and not vertical.In-game Reapers spot moving men reliably, that's inconsistent with them being at maximum distance. On the other hand, if such space safe exists for Reapers utilizing their sensor range, why not also the fixed-wing aircraft delivering (relative to the defenses simulated) standoff weapons from even further out?
-
Actually in cant see why the Reaper beeing invulnerable to MANPADS and AAA contradicts the presence of MiGs or S-300s. But the inability to shoot down some drones is a problem. I think though the invulnerability of certain drones is rather a bug than intended. For example the russian Zala-T drone (the small, hand launched one) cant be shot down either, neither by AAA nor rifle fire.
The only reason MANPADS or AAA can't shoot down a Reaper is due to it flying at high altitude. Other than that, it is completely defenseless, no flares, no warning systems and typically flies at helicopter speeds. If it is flying at high altitude without any sort of defensive system whatsoever, what are those theoretical MiGs and S-300s doing again? And it isn't a bug that the Reaper is invulnerable during Observe missions, they put it in the manual. When it performs Strike missions it can definitely be shot down. Also -- as far as I can tell -- the Zala can be shot down by AAA, it is just most players facing them choose the side (US Army) without any AAA available in quick battles.
edit: Yeah, I just shot down all three Russian UAVs using the Tunguska. Spotted the Zala surprisingly fast as well, within two minutes. That is a shorter time than my Ravens generally last against air defenses.
Anyway, this is all sidebar to the real issue; aircraft breaking off attacks and not being able to get back into play.
-
And here we are in 2015, and I must say I agree with what Ken said back then. Sorry for raising this old thread from the grave, but I've read the arguments for and against, and it still seems to me that if artillery were as weak against buildings in real life as portrayed in this game, nobody would bother using it.
Troops seem quite unaffected by direct 105-mm hits against buildings, no matter if the shell hits the roof or the walls. Strangely, rounds hitting 30 metres away seem _more_ effective in killing troops inside buildings than direct hits.
If we're keeping artillery weak because we worry about game balance, I think it would be better to balance the amount and accuracy of artillery rather than the impact of the individual shells.
Eh... it is easy enough to simply collapse the building entirely in-game, so that is what most people go for.
-
The Skif ATGM has recently restarted production for the Ukrainian army, but for domestic use it is designated the Stugna-P. The name SKIF is an export designation, the name in the game should be changed to reflect that. The actual missle is the same.
I'm pretty sure Battlefront knew that, since they note the real name in the manual. No idea why they chose to call it the Skif in-game though.
-
The premise for CMBS is though that neither side has clear air superiority, so we can assume that there are russian MiGs patroling the skies over eastern Ukraine and that there are S-300 sites or similar capable weapon systems all over the place.
That is pretty much contradicted by the Reaper being unable to be shot down on Observe missions by on-map SAMs or AAA.
-
I can only speak from my experience as virtual pilot (i have been a fan of all sorts of combat flight sims since i was in my early teens), but loitering over the target area to wait for targets to pop up is usually only an options if the AA threat is litterally non-existent. Circling over for example a city for 30 minutes and observing the area is something that can be done in Afgahnistan, where most of the times the insurgents dont have anything better than 50 year old DShKs to engage aircraft, but in a high threat environment where every (russian) mech infantry platoon has at least 1 MANPAD and there is a chance of more MANPADs or AA vehicles beeing in the area, no pilot in his right mind would stay in the area longer than absolutely necessary.
The Iraqis had MANPADS available. Our aircraft just flew above the effective range of MANPADS and AAA, over their own "backfield" so it was never a real concern.
-
The issue isn't that it can't see it. The issue is that your CPU can generally handle only so much processing in the spotting cycles. This leads to occasional issues where a unit should absolutely see another, but is is simply between cycles. It does not happen all the time, but it is inevitable that it is going to happen once in a while. The fix would bring your PC to it's knees and you wouldn't be able to play at all. The alternative might be to limit the total number of units and map size down so they could up the spotting cycle, but I expect almost no one would want that even if it did eliminate the issue. It just doesn't happen that often to pay such a draconian price all the time.
Maybe in 10 years we will all have the processing power that BF could do CMx4 without having to do spotting cycles at all. Then we will probably complain that the battlefield doesn't have the correct smell for cordite and blood and someone needs to mod that.
The spotting cycle for units close to each other is lowered.
As a note, ~7 second spotting time is shortened when units are in close proximity. I think it can go down to ~1 second IIRC. Unfortunately wherever the line is drawn there is a possibility for something to crop up that should be treated the opposite way that it is.
-
When directing a multi-aircraft strike with one JTAC, it is irritating when aircraft break off due to being unable to find a target and -- due to the one strike restriction in place -- cannot be brought back into play. As for solutions:
1) Aircraft in a multi-aircraft strike will not break off as long as at least one aircraft spots something, i.e. all or nothing. Either they all break off due to failure to spot targets or they all stick around to continue hunting.
2) A special status like "HOLDING" enabling them to be either re-directed by the original JTAC or snapped up by another available JTAC.
3) Remove the one strike restriction.
4) Allow unassigned aircraft to seamlessly join a strike already in progress.
-
Hey, as much as I hate to be the dumb guy in the thread, I downloaded the *.brz file, now what do I do with it?
-
So essentially every vehicle would need its own? Self protection rather than area protection? A different kind of APS, sort of?
Michael
Not every vehicle, but one per platoon of dismounts or something like that. And hoping your opponent isn't grimey enough to simply throw DPICM instead.
-
How close to the actual strike would an EW unit have to be to have any effect on the sensor in the shells?
Basically directly under the newer shells. They have sidelobe suppression features installed so pushing RF through the sides doesn't work; it has to come from the front or back.
-
Re: Frigates
The USN has retired the Perry's in favor of the LCS (recently redesignated as a Frigate). The problem is the LCS is a terrible platform for many reasons. The problem is that we wouldn't consider buying the rights to produce a European frigate here at home. The Danish Iver Huitfeldt class for example being cheaper and far more capable while still being designed along modular lines like LCS.
LCS is fine for pushing sensors into the danger zones where we expect to take hits regardless of capability, which is what its main mission is. Its certainly better equipped than the OHPs were, since it actually has a functioning radar and missile system.
Yeah, the LCS from my casual look is probably okay for its original designed mission, but is probably a whole lot less than optimal for the jobs that real frigates are called on to do. I expect the Navy is well aware of this and has been forced to go down this road due to budget constraints.
The jobs that "real frigates" are called to do amount to running down pirates, drug runners and showing the flag. Half the OHPs (the short hulls) didn't even have towed arrays, the SM-1 never worked as advertised, it wasn't equipped with ASROC, had a limited helo complement and generally was the butt of all the jokes, i.e. "The Hellen Keller-class; can't hear ****, can't see ****."
-
But the laser designater and the person running it aren't cheap either. Precision rounds are pretty expensive and they still not very common. That is why you still have tanks and missles.
Excal doesn't require a laser designator. The actual GPS+LRF combos used were pretty well cheap, occasionally off-the-shelf. Excal itself only costs around $30,000 - $50,000 per round, which might as well be a rounding error -- even when buying dozens -- when you're dealing with the money required to field a modern maneuver battalion.
-
What I've noticed is quite a lot of this: tank 1 is the only tank with visual, but tank 3 is already slewing round to the target. Observing the Russians, they don't slew until they have a visual.
Who's icon mod is this?
-
I was toying around in CMNO a while back as was surprised when my Arleigh Burke had no Harpoons, Tomahawks and Sm2s couldn't target enemy surface units. Only had a Seahawk with Hellfires which was vulnerable to SAMs and losing it would have reduced my ASW capabilities considerably. So sounds like its true the surface warfare capabilty has been drastically reduced.
Many believe in an all out war the SSNs are the real capitial ships. The diesel/electric subs being purchased in Asia are supposedly very quiet and potentially very deadly. Don't know how competent and well trained the crews are, but one would think a well commanded diesel sub could really cause problems.
Burkes should still have Tomahawks, just not the anti-ship version of Tomahawk. The late-model ones don't have Harpoons, but that's because the surface navy didn't want to shell out bucks for keeping Harpoons relevant during the nineties budget crunch. The air navy did, which is why they had (have) the SLAM-ER on their birds and that's where most of our anti-ship capability currently resides. Submarines are cool and work in some circumstances and we do have a lot of them, but based on what I saw during the last decade, if any serious war pops off, they're going to have better things to do than dedicated themselves to popping surface ships... unless those surface ships are trying to sortie from a monitored port.
That is changing in the very near-term, but for now, if you want to see how the USN would mallet a bunch of ships, use a carrier's airwing with P-3/P-8/MQ-4C support for surveillance and maybe the White Cloud constellation for additional ELINT capability.
-
Your AARs are top notch, the Shurikens were a nice touch.
It doesn't strike you as odd that the pride of the fleet always has a tug? Steam Plants are old but they're not that unreliable if well maintained. From my understanding the boilers were not replaced in the most recent overhaul.
Thanks.
It does strike me as odd. The Kuznetov was incredibly unreliable, but that was years ago and last we saw of her, she wasn't going dead in the water anymore. Her whole steam plant was supposed to come out, to be replaced by a gas turbine setup (IIRC) but for whatever reason didn't happen. Its possible they just ran out of money, its possible they just figured out what in her steam plant was giving them so much grief.
-
If, for example, you bought Hearts of Iron, HOI2 and HOI3 and all their expansions and DLC, how much would that have cost you? Sure, that's spread over 3 "entirely new games", but effectively the upgradeable nature of CMBN means that instead of having to buy 3 games (1 for each version) you only had to upgrade the existing game. For ten, or even 5, if you bought it in a bundle, measly bucks. And upgrades is all there is going to be for BN, in all likelihood. Maybe there will be a pack of new goodies. Which is entirely optional. Or don't you think you've had your money's worth?
The annoying thing to me about Battlefront is that I'm buying all these different theaters with no way to join them as a single, unified product.
-
As outdated as it's most recent deployment in May of 2014?
"As well as the Kuznetsov, the task group included the Kirov Class nuclear powered battle cruiser Pyotr Velikiy; three tankers; Segey Osipov, Kama and Dubna; one Ocean-going Tug Altay and the Landing Support Ship Minsk."
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2014/may/08/140508-russian-task-group
Edit: Are you the same Apocal who plays CMAN:O?
Yes, I'm the same Apocal. And the outdated part is "because it is so unreliable," the Russians are just paranoid about other people's tugs handling their precious carrier.
-
Re: The French Navy
Distinctly possible, but unlikely. The thing is no one besides the US or France can sortie a fighting force capable of projecting real power over distance. The Russian Navy is in sorry shape (Kuznetsov task forces always sail with a tug because the carrier keeps breaking) and China can't project a meaningful fleet that far, yet.
I didn't realize they'd invented time travel, because that is some seriously outdated info.
-
I'm sorry but I must disagree strenuously. When the T-34s were produced they not the right tank at the right time since they fail to hold back the German tide in 1941 and underperformed in 1942. If they were the right tank at the time, they would have been able to brush off the German army and counterattack into Axis territory. They could not do this in 1941 or 1942.
That has nothing to do with the merits (or lack thereof) of the T-34 and everything to do with the Soviet mechanized corps' all being unwieldy monsters of formations. In the circumstances where commanders had the experience and luck to handle more manageable forces, the T-34 did well enough to send the Germans into a furious upgrade cycle for their own tank park.
But if we are talking economics, you need to think about how much those anti-tank systems are costing the other side. If you think tanks are expensive, wait to you see the bill for modern combat aircraft! And precision artillery rounds aren't exactly jelly beans either. And while tanks do burn a lot of fuel—the M1 especially—moving almost anything to and around the battlefield is going to also.
The real test is how does each part of a well-integrated combat team perform its functions and is there anything that might do it better, and that is always a controversial subject. As it should be.
Precision guided artillery rounds actually save money over using the same amount of unguided HE to do the same. Excals aren't that expensive and fuel (to haul hundreds or thousands of shells) isn't that cheap.
-
How much does it cost to make an Abrams M1? Say 6 million? Im not familiar with military economics, but how many troops can you train and equip for that same 6 million, to effectively combat other infantry, armour and some AA capability (manpad SAMs)?
About two platoons of light infantry, roughly. The downside is that there is nothing in that capability that confers the ability to shrug off artillery and machine gun fire the way a tank can, so the easiest method to no-sell a pure infantry attack is a de-nuded (nearly empty) frontline feature machine guns, mines, wire, etc. that "hold" the attack in place long enough for artillery to respond. And artillery can respond frighteningly fast nowadays, on the order of two or three minutes from first call to shell fall. The traditional infantry counter to such firepower was nighttime infiltration, which shortened the effective range on most weapons at the cost of being slow. So your opponent could always respond to the breakthrough with adequate force to stop it.
But nowadays, most serious players have some form of night vision and the upper-end guys have "persistent stare" surveillance. You can certainly get lucky, innovative, etc. and carry an attack forward, but the idea is that you can't consistently repeat that success, day-in, day-out, without bleeding yourself dry. And once you've been bled, it doesn't matter what you hold or think you hold, you'll either give it up of your own accord to stop the bleeding or have your unit fall apart from the (figurative) blood loss.
That's why tanks are useful; the number of weapon on the battlefield that threaten them relative to an infantryman is something like an order of magnitude lower. There are high-end ATGMs around, sure, but not nearly as many as people assume. Meanwhile an infantryman is concerned with a single bullet or 1lbs. anti-personnel mine...
-
Posturing would be nice, but I'd like to see an ambush command first and foremost. I hate it when I have men hiding and do nothing when shot at.
I actually like it, because my opponent is usually performing recon-by-fire.
-
When every dollar you ever made as a company is a couple of zeros short of what the project would cost, the improvements in question cost might as well be on a moon of Saturn. If you could build it, and that is a question mark, it might take a scientific computing cluster to run it. If the Pentagon decided to rain money on BFC it still wouldn't go this way. It is just not happening.
You realize you're posting this in response to a guy who has coded a game with credibly adaptive AI, right? Nobody in this thread is asking for anything that is novel in the wargame/simulation world.
-
This is advantageous if it is a lightly protected IFV, but if your firing at an M1 or ERA equipped M2. Then hitting the centre mass will have little affect. When you say exposed, if the turret is available to be seen, will it fire at the turret or will still attempt to fire at the centre mass even if it is behind cover?
It aims at the turret.
Mild air support annoyance.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Even a ballistic JDAM goes further than a large UAV can pick out a moving man on their sensors. And the laser Maverick isn't simulated in-game.