PSY
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by PSY
-
-
Here's a question I'd like answered:
When trying to direct artillery am I better off using the FSV Stryker vehicle or the FO passenger in the FSV. What if the FSV seems to have better visibility on the target than the FO passenger (even when unbuttoned/opened up). Is the FO more effective when inside the FSV?
-
Copying over my answer from the "Help on loading APCs" thread:Originally posted by thewood:How do you know an APCs capacity and what happens if you try to overload them?
If you look at the vehicle silhouette in the unit info panel, you'll see two sets of dots, one on the left, one on the right. The set of dots on the left should be blue and indicate crew members -- if the dots on the left aren't all blue, someone is either KIA or WIA. The set of dots on the right indicate passenger positions. If the dot is green, the passenger position is filled, if its grey, you can put another passenger into the vehicle. (p.43 of Battlefront version of the manual).
As far as overloading them goes, if you move the mouse on top of an already loaded APC instead of getting the standard Green Down-Arrow Triangle icon, you get a Yellow Down-Arrow Triangle Icon with a black triangle on the bottom. It will take the command, but I'm assuming they won't load (I get the same Yellow caution icon if I try to laod a squad into a Stryker MGS).
[ July 29, 2007, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: PSY ]
-
If you look at the vehicle silhouette in the unit info panel, you'll see two sets of dots, one on the left, one on the right. The set of dots on the left should be blue and indicate crew members -- if the dots on the left aren't all blue, someone is either KIA or WIA. The set of dots on the right indicate passenger positions. If the dot is green, the passenger position is filled, if its grey, you can put another passenger into the vehicle. (p.43 of Battlefront version of the manual).Originally posted by thewood:Also, how I determine a vehicles troop capacity?
-
FWIW according to the manual, crawling is "very tiring and should only be used for distances" (p.55 of Battlefront Version of the Manual).Originally posted by Moosegum:Thanks for the advice, Sergei. My problem, I think, was that I made my men crawl too much (not sprinting), and it took them close to 10 minutes to catch their breath afterwards, which seemed a bit long to me. But I guess it's hot and all that.
-
I couldn't get the Javelins to auto-fire against the bunkers in the Training Scenario. However, once I manually targeted the bunkers using the squad's Target button, they did fire the Javelins.
It could be the squads don't consider the bunkers enough of a threat to waste their Javelins on, and they're trying to save the Javelins for non-existent future tanks (after all there are only a max of three Javelins per squad, so it doesn't do to waste them).
-
Use the "Pause" command found in the "Special Commands" tab. The first time you click on it, it will delay execution of the next order by 15 seconds. If you click on it twice, it will delay execution by 30 seconds, and so on up to 1:30 seconds.Originally posted by Other Means:As in, give unit move order, give next unit "move in 20secs" order.
(Not to be confused with the "Pause" "Instant Command" which is above the regular tabbed commands and looks like a cancel sign and is next to the octagon stop sign. That "Pause" will stop all command execution until you click it again directly.)
-
I'm having a great time. Finished the training mission and am on the 2nd mission of the regular campaign. Kudos for a great game.
-
I'm pretty sure that would be Brooski who posted about 7 posts up from your post and got the "And you are...?" reply from stoat.Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:Out of Tom vs Bruce, Bruce Geryk is the guy you want for wargames.
Originally posted by Brooski:Why do you say he is reviewing an early build? The build he and I played is the same as the gold master version sent to Paradox.
-
Sergei, I think you're showing some racist tendencies of your own. What does whether or not he's Chinese have to do with his comments? Are you somehow alleging that because he may be Chinese we should view his comments differently than if he were white? Are you calling him out and saying that because he may be Chinese he shouldn't be allowed express an opinion? I don't see what his ethnicity has to do with anything, and I don't see how bringing it out can be viewed as anything other than the use of a racist ploy in an attempt to silence him.Originally posted by Sergei:Now tell me, Mr. Lee (Chinese name?)
I should also point out, that the name Lee is hardly exclusively Chinese. Consider this man for example:
[ July 22, 2007, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: PSY ]
-
I like the detail on the units. Any chance we can get higher resolution shots. Unless I'm doing something wrong, this batch all looks to be 640x430 which is really small.
-
I liked this part, a rather interesting metric to see how much soldiers like a particular type of equipment:
Before long, many soldiers began naming their Strykers, though I’ve never heard of anyone naming a Humvee. Even an up-armored Humvee is just a machine, a necessary carapace. But a Stryker gets treated like a member of the platoon. Soldiers take extra care of them.When a Humvee is badly damaged, it gets turned in to the mechanics with nary a further thought. But when a Stryker gets badly damaged, the soldiers visit it and hang around it and volunteer to help the mechanics and technicians nurse it back to life. I couldn’t make up anything this bizarre.
-
I dunno, it doesn't seem less relevant than a lot of the other threads we've had in the CM:SF forum. Is this any less relevant than "Me and my M-14", "Peter and Dan Snow: Yom Kippur War: BBC2 21:00 Tonight", "Another skirmish in Iraq !", or "IEDs in Baquba"?Originally posted by Speedy:This should probably be in the general forum.
-
Or better yet a "Gone Gold" announcement with "Now available for download for both those with preorders and new orders."Originally posted by Vern_S:A "Gone Gold" announcement combined with a "Demo ready for download" would certainly make many peoples day.
-
I'm hoping they'll allow us to mix and match terrain between CM:SF and CMx2:WWII. That would open up all sorts of modern war possibilities.Originally posted by Dook:You know, by the time all the modules come out, you will be able to come pretty close to creating the much-requested and much-refused US-USSR Cold War game, albeit a few years later than some might like. Highly capable AFVs and air support for both sides and, if the accounts of a Ft. Lewis-like setting available for CMSF are true, terrain that might simulate central Europe.
Plus, the ability to mix and match at will. Who said BFC would never do a hypothetical conflict?
-
That would be great. Not for Blue on Red, but as Speedy says it would make for more interesting Red on Red scenarios.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I can't comment on Red airpower, but I wouldn't rule it out exactly.
Also are the various CMx2 games going to be compatible enough to take CM:SF vehicles and play them on a Western European map if we've got CM:WW2 installed or are our modern armies always going to be limited to Syrian terrain?
-
What's the latest on how close a soldier can be to the Stryker MGS when the gun fires. I seem to recall hearing something about it being extremely dangerous for someone to be outside and nearby the MGS when it fires.
-
I agree. A scenario doesn't need armor to be fun. I think a PTO CM could be a lot of fun. I definitely would buy it.Originally posted by rangerj:Personally, I prefer infantry combat to armor. ... I guess that's just the grunt coming out in me, but I would like to see the infantry heavy PTO get a chance.
-
I'm sure I'll buy CM:SF sooner or later, probably sooner. However, I find the topic matter to be rather depressing given the current daily news from Iraq.
I'm sure it will still be interesting from an intellectual standpoint. But from a fun standpoint, I really don't need or want more reminders that we've got troops getting killed out in the Middle East.
I'd be up for Goose Green though
-
Date is November 25, 1942. Tanks were from 1st Battalion of the 1st Armored Regiment under John Knight Waters (who was Patton's son-in-law). Location is near the village of Djedeida on the banks of the Medjerda river near Bizerte.Originally posted by Reichenberg:Very interesting PSY. Can you post more info about it? What airfield, date.... I could not find any according info on the net and I would like to read more about that incident.
I agree, definitely not a priority.Originally posted by Reichenberg:But nevertheless I think there are more important issues with ToW than airfields included on maps.
-
Rick Atkinson's excellent An Army at Dawn about North Africa from 1942-1943 describes an attack on an operating German Airfield near Tunis by 17 Stuart Tanks (see pages 189-191).Originally posted by Reichenberg:Please correct me if I am wrong, but I never heard of any WW2 accounts were ground troops attacked an airfield that was actually still operating. Maybe it happened in Russia or Poland but I would consider it highly unlikely and unrealistic.
Seventeen Stuarts surged up and over the crest of the hill, tracks churning the wheat stubble as they barreled down the front slope from the northwest. Tank commanders craned for a better view from the open turret hatches and spurred their drivers forward. Several dozen Messerschmitts, Stukas, and Junkerses crowded around the dirt airstrip, reminding one American officer of "fat geese on a small pond." Some were taking gas at a makeshift fuel dump; others were being rearmed with bombs and belts of machine-gun bullets....
[The Stuart's 37mm main guns] proved lethal to aircraft sheet metal. Planes blew up, planes disintegrated, planes collided with other planes making for the end of the runway. A Messerschmitt gained enough speed to lift off, only to be raked by machine-gun bullets and cartwheel burning, to earth. Mud slowed the taxiing Junkerses long enough for American gunners to take languid aim and machine-gun the fuselages from propeller to vertical stabilizer.
...
In half an hour the fight was over. Barlow [Major in command] pulled his whopping tankers back up the hill. The raid had cost him one tank destroyed, several damaged, and two men killed by strafing, including a platoon leader. He paused for a final look at the carnage below. Wreckage from more than twenty German planes lay scattered in a burning swath longer than a mile. Spikes of flame from detonating fuel and ammunition flared the length of the runway, illuminating scattered propellers, wheels, and fuselages.
-
I don't think that characterization of Strkers is completely accurate. In particular Strykers were not designed specifically for COIN or urban terrain. The original reason for the development of the Stryker was to create a fast, quickly deployable force.Originally posted by civdiv:I would think the units that would invade Syria would be pretty heavily 'meched-up' until they got the urban areas. The Stryker is designed for COIN and mostly for urban terrain. It is first a troop transporter and then a weak fire support vehicle. Yes I know there are anti-tank and mortars varients but I would expect, at least initially, that M2s and M3s would be more prevelent than Strykers.
civdiv
Global SecurityOne of the Army's transformation goals is to be able to deploy brigade combat teams anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a division in 120 hours and five divisions within 30 days, according to Army Chief of Staff GEN Eric K. Shinseki.
Think, for example, of Desert Shield where we had to move the 82nd and 101st quickly into Saudi Arabia in case Saddam tried to take Saudi Arabia in addition to Kuwait. In this situation we would have been hard pressed to hold off an attack, because the 82nd and 101st lack the heavy equipment of a mech or armored division.Army Stryker WebsiteThe Stryker, the combat vehicle of choice for the Army’s Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), is a highly deployable-wheeled armored vehicle that combines firepower, battlefield mobility, survivability and versatility, with reduced logistics requirements.
The idea is that Stryker equiped forces can be moved in quickly like airborne divisions, but have more staying power than the airborne, because of their Stryker vehicles. Heavier equipment including armor and mech will follow, but will take much longer to arrive. In an international crisis situation in which the US military needs to move quickly, Strykers would be among the first units deployed. Depending on the situation, they might have to enter combat before heavier equipment arrived.
Consider a situation in which we had to enter Syria quickly without having an opportunity to build our forces up. In such a situation Strykers might very well take the lead.
While Strykers in Iraq are doing a good job with COIN, that is not why they were originally designed.
Here are the links for my quotes:
<a href="http://www.army.mil/features/stryker/default.htm" target="_blank">
US Army Stryker Website</a>
-
The episode is available to watch for free on CBS.com. You will have to watch a Zodiac Movie add four times (spaced when regular advertisements would occur). Video quality is so-so -- looks okay at ~400x300 but not so hot when switched to full screen.
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/the_unit/
I thought it was pretty decent. I'll probably watch other episodes.
-
Just out of curiosity why the huge imbalance in troops. Is the Swedish army that much bigger than the others?Originally posted by mazex:The NBT consists of a mechanzed batallion (2500 soldiers), where Sweden supplies 2100, Finland 200, Norway 150 and Estonia 50.
-
I'd still like to hear more about how it handles widescreen. Almost all new laptops seem to be widescreen these days. If CMX2 takes the image and stretches it, that's going to look awful.
Dynamic Entry
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
rudel, what about Assault? Where would you put that in your list? Does this work for entering buildings?