civdiv
-
Posts
664 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by civdiv
-
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Not entirely correct, CM could model it but we would have to rescope the size of squads and what a "platoon" means. TacAI would need some serious upgrades as would spotting and urban combat etc, but modeling a SOTF linked and able to carry out Direct Actions is doable. If you look as CMCW, Direction Found is basically in the ballpark. We would have to build an entirely new support layer but the bones are already in the mix across the titles. There would be a bill to model new tech and how its mechanics work but again not impossible.
The biggest weakness to the argument is not that it could not be done in CM, it is how do you make it anything not repetitious to the point of boredom? How many HVT missions can you do before they all start to be the same? You could do some SW type stuff with partner forces which might be interesting but in CM it would probably be not that different from what is already there. They make good Hollywood scripts but as a wargame, not so sure.
Yes, BF COULD do it, but SHOULD they do it? No, in my opinion. The game engine doesn’t support it, and even with modifications, won’t do it well. Go get a game like Squad if you want that stuff. Yes, it’s a FPS, but that is the way something like this needs to be done.
-
32 minutes ago, Combatintman said:
Which point in the video? The footage is a mix of all sorts - some from Soviet films - a lot of it staged in various training areas. Some of it looks like Salisbury Plain but the sequences of the Soviets going through villages I don't recognize as UK training areas - I'm guessing they're US training areas in the US Zone down south but can't say for sure.
8:28, 9:46, 10:02 and 12:55.
-
where are the links in your sig block supposed to go? They all go the same place for me, the Battlefront home page.
-
I think the most significant evolution in ground combat recently was the Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. I would like something like that to get modeled to include all the drone stuff including the suicide drones. Maybe info on the effectiveness on stuff like ADA might be tough to obtain. But in both Libya and Armenia it seemed even fairly decent kit like Pantsir was close to helpless against these drones.
-
From the video, are they bombarding a mock up village, or is it an abandoned village or what?
-
Sort of related, and very interesting;
-
Quote
How a Dispute Over Groceries Led to Artillery Strikes in Ukraine
In a sign of volatile East-West relations, a dispute over shopping in the Ukrainian conflict zone spiraled into fighting that sent war jitters rippling through Europe and the U.S.
-
49 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:
That's what militaries do and that's why they shouldn't be used when you're not trying to kill people and blow stuff up.
155mm tube artillery is not a good way to build infrastructure or manage a election.
H
Who else is going to do it, the State Department? Keep in mind the military doesn’t make foreign policy, they simply carry it out. We have to have faith in our civilian leadership, and the electorate, to make good decisions. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were military failures, they were political and foreign policy failures.
-
I don’t see dirty bombs as being much different than 9/11. Sure, it would likely have a bigger economic impact but at the end of the day we have the Afghan scenario. It isn’t a war on the Syrian people, it is basic regime change, because they will not give in to our demands, and fighting an insurgency. And while we certainly killed a lot of civilians, 99.9% of the time it was not on purpose.
-
On 10/28/2021 at 9:11 AM, Bozowans said:
I am wondering what role the Islamic State would play in this timeline. They had their origins back in 1999 with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Their goal of establishing a Sunni caliphate had been established for years prior to the CMSF2 timeline. They were quick to take advantage of the chaos of the real Syrian Civil War, eventually building up the al-Nusra Front, although these were anti-Assad fighters intending to establish an Islamic Emirate under sharia law. If Islamic State or Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists were the ones who did the dirty bomb attacks in the CMSF2 timeline, you have to wonder why the Assad regime would be protecting them.
Under Battlefront's timeline, Syria is assumed to have learned lessons from watching the annihilation of Iraq's military in Desert Storm and again in the 2003 invasion. It even says as much in some of the mission briefings. I remember the Task Force Thunder briefing mentioning that the Syrians were not the incompetent, militarily inept pushovers the blowhards rant about.
At the time this game was made, Iran was a constant target for American threats and saber-rattling. Even though BFC picked Syria for the setting, I feel like BFC was trying to make a bit of a statement with this game, to push back against those "blowhards" who thought the US military was invincible and an invasion of Iran would be a cakewalk. Some of the scenarios if CMSF2 are really quite difficult. While the coalition forces would certainly win the initial invasion, occupy the country and oust Assad, it would have been a much bloodier fight than Iraq and Afghanistan.
I doubt the coalition forces would be able to successfully occupy and pacify Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. I also doubt that Syria would have a peaceful transition to democracy after such a bloody invasion, somehow avoiding all the corruption, mismanagement, and factional in-fighting of Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps the CMSF2 invasion would merely kickstart the rise of the Islamic State years ahead of schedule, leading to a whole other intensely bloody phase of war.
I agree with many of your points. I do not think an invasion of Syria would have been that hard, but the ‘peace’ that followed would have been just as hard as it was in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our military is great at killing people and lighting stuff on fire, but the various organs of the US Federal Government and the International Coalition suck at achieving peace. Then throw in meddling by Turkey, Russia and Iran, toss in the Kurds, throw in AQ and the inevitability of the rise of ISIS, which already existed, and you have a dumpster fire.
-
The CM engine cannot do SOF type GWOT missions. CM is designed to handle company and battalion level conventional combat, not what you appear to be asking for, which is really platoon and below level tactical combat. And the human cannot control the actions of the sub units to the degree required. And any SOF raid/strike takes days and weeks of planning, with lots of folks spending literally years worth of man hours to launch a team on a mission. While they result in tens of minutes of action packed excitement, it takes a lot of drudgery to get there.
As others have said, fighting a counter insurgency like Iraq and Afghanistan in this game engine sounds about as compelling as watching paint dry. Lots of static FOBs, endless boring patrols, and every once in a while you get shot at or your vehicle suddenly explodes.
-
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 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.
-
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?
-
Yeah, CM is never going to adequately (not even close) simulate the Bin Laden raid. The raid is FPS stuff, not tactical combat. You can’t simulate alert level, etc. You get your assault squad waxed making a breach it isn’t (usually) really your fault.
-
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.
-
Not sure why but I switched VPN servers and now I am back in. So this is resolved but still might be of interest to someone.
-
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!
-
To reset your password just try to log in here and hit 'forgot password' or whatever the option is;
https://www.battlefront.com/index.php?p=home
If it is more involved then just resetting your password I think this is right, look in the top right corner to submit a ticket;
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Russian arms topic revived... :)
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Peetchka and Speetchka are the only ones I know. I can’t remember which is which.