Jump to content

civdiv

Members
  • Posts

    602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by civdiv

  1. 2 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

    Well it really isn't apples to apples even in the time frame.  Grozny was something closer to hybrid warfare in a dense urban setting with the Russian military a shell of its former self.  Desert Storm was a large mechanized fight between two "peer" forces with the US at the top of its game...and the Iraqi's who were frankly bafflingly bad.  

    In reality Gulf War probably gives enough of a hint at where things would have stood in a late 80s fight but in 82 things were very different.  The US was still rebuilding in the post-Vietnam era.  Goldwater Nicols had not passed yet and Airland Battle was in its infancy.  The US definitely did not have either a quantitative or qualitative edge yet.  As to troop quality comparisons, again really hard to do, there isn't much point to it really as it becomes a philosophical discussion really.  You can argue both sides without a definitive answer, so we have best guessing and play balance considerations at the end.  

    My comparison isn’t perfect as I have admitted, but can you give me a better comparison given the topic?

    Israeli conflicts against countries using Soviet tactics?

  2. 2 minutes ago, Gkenny said:

    You do realize the collapse of the Soviet Union occured between the game's timeframe and those events, right? Not to mention all of the other differences...

    Sorry but it is the closest ‘apples to apples’ I could come up with. It isn’t close to perfect but given the timeframe and countries involved it is the closest I could think of.

  3. 9 hours ago, The_Capt said:

    I started with them closer to parity, again Soviets slightly higher, and then through playtesting we increased Soviet quality where it looked needed.  If anyone plays the US Campaign standalone scenarios as H2H, I would probably go in and tinker with the experience settings much closer to parity.

    We really did it by feel, as opposed to any "realistic" metrics, largely because "realistic" metrics available were (and are) highly subjective.  The line in the West is that that the Soviets were largely nearly useless uneducated conscripts (which frankly has some truth) while NATO had highly educated professional armies.  The line in the USSR, was that the West was soft, weak and entitled (which frankly has some truth) while the troops of the Soviet Union were made of steel and sacrifice.  Which one is accurate?

    Compare Desert Storm to the Russian Battle of Grozny. Roughly the same timeframe. How did each perform?

  4. On 10/27/2020 at 9:05 PM, holoween said:

    I can tell you i wouldnt want to be the guy having to launch a javelin at an mbt that can fire a 120mm+ airburst he shell, has several thermal optics equally if not more powerfull than my own. I might kill the tank but the he grenade will kill me and my buddies. And if the tank has an APS i cant even expect a kill. And since tanks arent used alone and if the one im shooting at doesnt get me another one probably will.

    As for economics youre not really making fair comparisons. Every MBT will cost far more to initially acuire but the ammunition is far cheaper. Now take in mind youre not always shooting at MBTs so your cost effectiveness for missiles goes way down.

    What are the economics when you throw in loitering munitions like the Harpy/Harop which proved pretty effective during the recent Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict? I am not sure if I would use a multi-million dollar (what does it cost?) Harop on a bus full of conscripts but the price point on these things is only going to come down.

  5. Added Later: Ok, I found on the support site FAQ that I do need three profiles so I have answered my own question.

    I did a quick search and I cannot find a similar question.

    I have a profile for battlefront.com to access the games I have purchased. I have a seperate profile to post on the forum. Now, I want to submit a ticket in regards to the games I have purchased but when I go to submit a help ticket it asks me to log in. Neither of my other profiles work. Does submitting a help ticket require a third profile?

     

    Thanks in advance for your help!

  6. Last night I was reading the Forums on my iPad without issue. Then at some point late last night I started getting a 403 Error 'The request could not be satisfied'. It says 'request blocked'. I can get to the Community webpage but I cant get to the forums themselves on my iPad.

    Now I am overseas and running through a VPN. But on my laptop (where I am typing this post from), again from overseas and behind the same VPN (VPN service, I haven't compared specific VPN servers between my iPad and laptop yet) I have no issues.

  7. 7 hours ago, Schrullenhaft said:

    civdiv - what video card are you using ? Is this a laptop or a desktop computer ? If you're using a GeForce, then set 'Antialiasing - FXAA' to OFF in the Nvidia control panel (3D Settings > Manage 3D settings.

    Schrullenhaft, thanks for you advice. I figured it out and it is weird but it’s fixed. For reference;

    MSI GS65 with NVIDIA GTX1070.

    For some reason CMBN was defaulting to the integrated graphics rather than the GTX1070. I went into the NVIDIA Control Panel and forced it to use the GTX1070 and all is good with the world again.

    The weird thing is that CMBN was the only game using the integrated graphics by default.

  8. So I may have the same issue. When selecting a scenario or campaign the text has weird blob like artifacts that replace some letters making stuff almost unreadable. The text is then fine in the scenario briefing but then in the game the same textual artifacts return.

    Turning on antialiasing did not do anything nor did plugging my display number into the file mentioned in this topic.

  9. On 2/19/2020 at 8:56 PM, MikeyD said:

    As an example of how complicated a title like this can get, here's a pict of a cast hull M4A1 76mm with HVSS suspension. First shipped to Europe in April 45 but never saw combat. There's also the HVSS M4A3 105mm howitzer version that also never saw combat. Then there's the really obscure American Hybrid hull Sherman mounting the British 17 pounder! (GASP!) Also sent into the theater too late to see combat. On the Russian side there's the IS-3 of course but also the T-44 which was being produced but didn't seen combat. If this title were to start May 1945 then things get very complicated very quickly.

    M4A1 HVSS.jpg

    Many of those were just combat trials so they don’t need to be included.

    I’d be semi interested but my first choice would be an entirely new project; early war on both fronts.

  10. On 1/7/2018 at 5:46 AM, JSj said:

    (Admin note! - an offhanded comment about a fix coming in 2018 generated quite an off-topic discussion in the 2018 thread.  I moved it here as its own new thread)

    Actually, accuracy is what matters when it comes to suppression, not rate of fire. There is a study done on this, I have not managed to find a link to the article online, so I have attached the PDF here.

    The real role of small arms in combat.pdf 415.19 kB · 155 downloads

    This study sounds very flawed. It sounds like they had visible targets they were trying to suppress and the simulator lowered the target if the shot(s) are close enough.

    So, some points;

    1. It seems their ‘suppression algorithm’ is kind of made up. Where is the scientific basis to what results in suppression? In a firefight auditory exclusion and tunnel vision are common. In this state a target might not even know rounds are whipping by in close proximity.

    2. If you see the target you shoot to kill it. What this study seems to show that if you miss close enough the target is suppressed. If you can see the target and you are in the effective range of your weapon system you should be killing the target (hitting it) not suppressing it. You don’t suppress visible targets, you destroy them. You suppress enemy positions or suspected positions but if you have a visible target you take well aimed rounds to kill it. This study seems to promote the idea that several ‘close’ (misses) rounds are better than one well aimed hit. That’s a bad idea. It’s like the old ‘how many times do you shoot an enemy soldier’. You shoot them until they are not visible or they have been clearly eliminated as a threat.

    2. Ok, one LMG is more accurate than another, big deal. Rate and volume of fire are a factor. Say your company is attacking an unseen platoon in a tree line. You know they are there but you do not have a clear target. If you have a clear target see para 1 above. So you let loose with the mgs. To the guy in the tree line that just got sprayed by a 100 round belt, he doesn’t care about the 99 bullets that didn’t come near him. He cares about the one that kicked up dirt right next to his head.

    3. Trying to simulate para 2, did they have 30 of these sensors hidden in a tree line? Sounds like they didn’t. Trying to determine suppression with one guy firing at one target is worthless. And if the target is visible you kill it. 

    It really seems like they are talking about individual marksmanship and giving suppression credit for multiple near misses. The goal is to shoot the enemy when they present a visible target not miss and keep them pinned after they take cover. In the study these are not dynamic targets; if you ‘suppress’ them they stay in the same spot. They don’t low crawl to the flank and roll your trench up with grenades ‘Band of Brothers’ style.

  11. If the source said ‘pushing a bag out just before the jumper jumped’ it’s not a source to be trusted. You have to jump with that stuff attached to you and then release a quick release to extend the rope. Let me break it down for you further. Take a 45 or 55 pound bumper plate, attach it to your belt, stand on your roof and throw it off with six feet of rope attached to you. Now throw in a slipstream of 150 mph.

    Paratroopers were very regimented from what I have read. But I can also see a company or battalion saying ‘screw that’ and carrying more ammo (I doubt less). I spent a good bit of time in the military and I frequently carried more than the SOP. And I know folks who also carried less. 

  12. Forgive me if this has been posted before.

    Villers-Bocage Vidéo on YouTube

    A couple of questions;

    1. In the beginning, the couple of impacts around the British artillery piece. I think that’s indirect fire; thoughts?

    2. Towards the end, the scene with the knocked out Tiger I in an urban setting. That hole in the back of the turret; is that an armor penetration? And what probably made that big a hole?

×
×
  • Create New...