Jump to content

IMHO

Members
  • Posts

    962
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by IMHO

  1. That's why smileys were invented Apologies on my side for this misunderstanding. Let's leave it as lost in translation
  2. You don't know anything about me so don't patronize. Next time write in the post you're just venting your anger and not really seeking an advice. So we may duly disregard your creative thought.
  3. Delete the save file in File Explorer first. Then you'll be able to have a proper save under the same name. FYI @Kevin2k
  4. Try deleting your save file first via Explorer and then saving under the same name via the game. FYI: @Monty's Mighty Moustache, @umlaut, @RigTom
  5. Since you mentioned it CMCW screenshots that I've seen represent a Soviet Army field uniform. But in reality GSVG frontline troops were to fight in camo (Berezka at that time). Refer to Zapad exercises photos. For tanks/BMPs and other frontline equipment there were military district specific colors - e.g. GSGV and TurkVO used different ones. Comparing your and @BFCElvis screenshots - yours look perfect but for TurkVO (unlike GSVG) and @BFCElvis 's are kind of way off the mark. GSVG used a deeper green anyway unlike TurkVO. But most of all helmets are unnatural. They were colored at the production plant - so the same color for everyone and it was deeper green. If you want I can provide you the samples of old Soviet colors of 80s.
  6. I see now. The tank was looking (and was seen) through the tree trunks so with my preference for CMBS I didn't get the point. I'd say if someone has ever seen forests with little undergrowth (say mostly birch or many of pine forests) it would be an example of how CM is good rather than bad at representing concealment. In most (or rather all ) games we just get a generic forest with no differentiation between LOS through trunks or tree crowns. And in CMBS it does matter. PS Am I using "tree crown" correctly?
  7. Without a properly color metered display one can hardly guess.
  8. ? In my experience LOS in CMBS is pretty predictable. Just one needs to think not in terms of WYSIWYG but in terms of those ellipsoids-for-tree-crowns and tree trunks (that are not much of a concealment yet block the shells pretty well). IMO CMBS uses the best possible proxy for discovery - everything else would have increased the load hundreds of times for negligible improvement in gameplay. My guess is we have this discussion in CMBS thread because discovery in CMBS is maxed out so the difference between LOS and LOF is minimal. In my experience it's rather the opposite for CMBS - in many cases pixeltruppen tend to open fire having a clear LOS but no clear LOF. But guess there should be some logic in LOS-LOF buried deep down in the code. Yet TacAI way of thinking seems clear and predictable IMO.
  9. That's true. That's not true. Now speaking about CMBS. Trees have some sort of ellipses (that's my best guess as to approximating function ) to represent the tree crown. I don't have exact numbers from testing but in my experience they're different for different kinds of in-game trees. They're matched to visuals as best as humanly (CPU?) possible. Since it's a best match to the actual trees so tree crowns do not start from the bottom of the trunk. In many cases you can see through the tree crowns yet your pixeltruppen won't. Knowing when they won't one can use it to his/her advantage by moving behind those ellipses where you H2H opponent may see you yet have no way to shoot at you I'd say CMBS LOS is the best in class!
  10. Interesting. Does the smoke from the burning vehicles obscure both IR and "normal" vision or just the latter?
  11. I tested 122mm and 155mm precision rounds in CMBS against T-90s and BMP-3s - something like 30-50 of each caliber against each kind of target. I had many cases of 122mm direct hits on tanks and never got a kill - just equipment degradation (or track damage should the round have landed nearby). In my experience direct hits for precision rounds are about 1/3-1/2 of all shots so it should be 10-25 hits for each caliber. So I kinda doubt a 122mm can kill a tank in CMBS It kills BMP-3 pretty easily but I really doubt 80mm can do the same though it's just off the cuff opinion not based on testing. PS Sorry, I didn't track the exact progress as rough estimates were enough to answer the question I had back than. PPS I was testing to understand what effect should be considered satisfactory to stop expending precious ammo. So my conclusion was an M-kill is a VERY good result for 155mm precision vs T-90. Yes, 155mm can kill a T-90 but it's not that often to really plan for it.
  12. Distance? Angle? Soviet/Russian or Western penetration?
  13. You select a flight profile at the launch then the missile follows it automatically. For the seeker to work there should be some thermal gradient between the target and the background. I don't have a first hand experience but if other uncooled seekers are a proxy then few degrees would suffice. Small arms being actively used from inside enclosed spaces should be ok. Javelins are ubiquitously used in Afghanistan to target DShK nests. May be people who actually used it can comment. PS Though Javelin's direct attack is not as "direct" as KBP's laser beam riding so you can't actively guide the missile.
  14. There's a direct attack mode usable against field fortifications.
  15. What is this 9 pack of presumably unguided rockets? UPD I found out those are blanks to imitate shooting, part of MILES gear. Never seen it in pics, thank you so much!
  16. Having discussed this with that Foreign Intelligence Analytics guy it was the crux of the problem. Just like Kennedy-Lemay exchange at the time of Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK asked what Soviet Union would do should its forces on Cuba be bombed out and overrun and Lemay said they would do nothing because responding would mean the end of the world. The view that "they will never escalate to strategic" was promoted by the military but only because if we assume "they will" it automatically kills the need for huge armies, takes away generals' jobs and MIC's budgets. So on the Soviet side generals were allowed to say there's a room for avoiding going strategic yet it was done just not to alienate very influential armed forces. On the political level the untold understanding was it would escalate pretty quickly. And not because Soviets would have set the precedent by using tactical nukes first but just because Soviet Union had a massive superiority in conventional forces in Europe and loosing any sizeable part of Western Europe was unacceptable for NATO. So NATO would be pushed to strategic to avoid this unacceptable outcome. Another thing was Soviet's "rush to the Channel" strategy was driven not only by the desire to avoid American reinforcements reaching the other side of the Pond but also by the calculation that the Soviet Union cannot afford a long and protracted war. Economically OVD was no match to NATO. And by the second half of 70s - first half of 80s the Soviet Union critically depended on the West - oil and gas sales to the Western Europe, grain purchases from Canada and the US etc. Even limiting Soviet access to grain market would have meant severe rationing of calorie intake if not an outright hunger. Soviet Union imported 47 mln tons of grains in 1985 (45.6 by other estimations), 40% of all bread was made from imported wheat (36% if we count in imported rye). Locally produced wheat in Soviet Union was mostly feed grade not suitable for bakeries. Also Soviet cattle and poultry production very much depended on imported corn. So NATO had an option of not winning militarily yet stalling and waiting for the Soviet economy to implode into itself. Thus the only option the Soviet Union had was to get a quick decisive victory that would have secured a favorable negotiation position. Even a limited scale conventional war would have meant automatic trade sanctions and the end of Soviet Union's economy. But to get this quick and decisive victory the Soviet army should have brought to NATO a total military disaster on the fronts. And such a disaster would mean NATO had no other option but to go strategic pretty quickly. So in reality there was no solution to this problem.
  17. IMO you mix up duration and how advanced an opponent might be. I.e. Afghanistan "caveman" War is the longest War in American history. Can you provide examples of such "cavemen only" systems? IMO almost all American systems would fit easily a near-peer war. Except may be for Super Tucanos but they are quite rare. IMO the state of things are quite the opposite and America's using very advanced and expensive systems designed for a near-peer conflict to fight "cavemen" whereas much cheaper systems will suffice.
  18. Than for the US only China will count as a real war in your definition. Russia is far from being equal to US's might. History shows nations now rather avoid having wars with near-peer opponents so should we prepare for wars that never be?
  19. As long as you don't try to tamper with system processes CMBS behaved well and allowed proper switching between iGPU and dGPU right up to the moment I tried to change the GPU settings for Window Manager and a bunch of other system processes to reduce GPU temperature (DWM sometimes creates an inordinate load on GPU). After that - no luck. I reverted back all the settings yet CMBS still "prefers" iGPU.
  20. ICM should have no troubles with disposing of with the tanks shouldn't they? You're aware the old US Army calc for HE damage on the armor was a grave underestimation don't you? There was a thread some years ago where I posted the test range results. PS Gosh I've been to this place for well over 20 years by now. I remember I opened an account with CMBO discussion with my first post-grad job PPS Just as much as you are
  21. Unfortunately due to the game settings these do not convert into kills I.e. direct top hit to a tank from a 122 HE mortar would most likely end in KO though ingame it's no more than a mere one notch degradation of EITHER tracks or sighting IMO there are few things that really kill the game outright as compared to RL and HE effect on armor tops the list (together with AGL fire in CMBS )
  22. Agree with what you said yet it somehow does not make a different game mechanics for me. May be something's wrong with my take on the game I don't have CMCW yet it sounds like DPICM would have just walk CM's arty barrage just one step close to RL - big or small That IS deadly to armored units IRL.
  23. Thank you so much. Now it's one of my most listened to tracks!
  24. Thank you so much, @CMFDR. Now I have the name to the rhyme long loved!
  25. Russian MIC would love this statement. But not the Russian MoD How do you define the REAL war? To me - the real wars are the ones one has to fight now or in the near future. And those seems to be "to assassinate individuals in civilian settings" for the time being.
×
×
  • Create New...