Erwin
-
Posts
17,458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
32
Posts posted by Erwin
-
-
Anyone read this. Wondered if it was worth getting.
-
Unfortunately there are no formation commands of the type you mean. Can try and do that manually with split squads, but it's not the same.
-
57 minutes ago, Cirrus said:
I tested the short waypoint behavior. Routing wise it works yes!
But it has the downside that it slows down running as they stop on every waypoint of quick command.
One often has to work around the CM engine/Tac AI limitations. But, splltting into teams and using short waypoints works. One simply has to allow for the extra time the troops need.
-
6 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:
Impressive story, Frank. Thank you for sharing that with us. Can't have been easy. My advice would be to ignore this reaction, make use of this publicity and finish your work. Personally I would be disappointed if your thread will not be unlocked again soon.
Couldn't have said it better. Ignore the negativity. You have a lot of supporters here.
-
3 hours ago, Cirrus said:
There was no splitting. I do not understand why it would make any difference on running safest route.
A larger unit will spread over more real estate and is usually less efective and gets KIA much quicker. Experienced players split.
3 hours ago, Cirrus said:What is short? If it is 20m then maybe not.
Waypoints may need to be as short as one can make them in order to guarantee a unit follows the path you want. One cannot rely on the Tac AI.
-
It is only sensible to copy all content onto an ext BU drive (maybe a little bulky) and also an ext Flashdrive (very portable). They are so inexpensive these days.
-
57 minutes ago, Simcoe said:
WW2 mechanics have been bolted onto a 21st century conflict.
Until then I'd rather stick with the age the mechanics were made for.
Never thought about the CM2 games like that, but it is a very valid point. Maybe that is why we used to see CMSF scenarios that had a lot of EW but very little airpower. Nowadays, airpower in the modern games seems more prevalent and so it has become more obvious where the game system is breaking down.
-
Can we assume that you have first split the squad(s) into teams? And also have used short waypoints, so the troops do not have the luxury of plotting their own route?
-
Excellent WSJ Guide to ME issues - perhaps helpful for CMSF scenario designers?
Iran
The terrorist group ISIS-K struck an Iranian mourning ceremony for Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. strike in 2020. Iran subsequently fired long-range missiles targeting what it said were terrorists in Syria, Iraq and Pakistan. Analysts said Iran was demonstrating its weapons’ capabilities to the world, and to the U.S. and Israel in particular. In turn, Pakistan fired back on Iran but was careful to say it didn’t want escalation.
Lebanon-Israel Border
There are daily exchanges between the Israeli military and Iran-backed Lebanese militia group Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terrorist group that has vowed to keep firing on Israeli positions for the duration of the war in Gaza. Israel, for its part, says it wants Hezbollah to pull its forces back from the border. Israel says it would prefer diplomacy but is prepared for war.
Attacks
Iraq
Iran-backed militias have fired dozens of rockets at American bases in Iraq and Syria. In response, the U.S. carried out a strike that killed a top Iraqi militia commander. Iraq now says that it is reconsidering hosting international troops.
Red Sea
Iran-backed Houthis have conducted strikes targeting more than two dozen ships in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, upending ship traffic heading to and from the Suez Canal. In response, the U.S. has led dozens of strikes on Yemen in recent weeks.
-
Only mentioned this as some players have asked about gaming the current Ukraine situation.
-
Re casualties from ricochets: Will experience this usually in urban-type scenarios where one has many units support firing at a house/wall, and one unit attempting to assault. That assaulting unit may take casualties from ricochets due to the massive amount of lead being chucked. In situations like this I try to have most supporting units cease fire just b4 the assaulting unit reaches the wall/house it will attempt to enter/breach.
-
Am really hoping that this is their last gasp at monetizing CM2 b4 announcing CM3.
-
Am also surprised that there is no AI routine in CM2 that stops heavy fire being targeted danger close to friendly inf. Causing friendly fire casualties is a frustrating aspect of CM2. It's unavoidable since large caliber weapons may suddenly notice a previously unseen enemy unit and suddenly open fire regardless of the fact taht it is causing many friendly casualties among inf that just happen to be in the way, or close to the new enemy unit. If that is realistic - ie; happens so commonly in RL - that is scandalous.
In CM1, units would refuse to fire at a location too near to friendly inf (one could not target such locations).
-
BF is concerned about the politics of the situation. However, GMT has a cardboard sim on the current war:
https://insidegmt.com/defiance-design-happy-hour-partisan-sof-operations-vs-regular-russian-forces/
"...simulation of the 2nd Russo-Ukrainian War, beginning with Volume 1: Miracle on Dnipro: Kyiv & Chernihiv campaign, from time to time. ...a simulation regarding an ongoing conflict..."
-
1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:
Ricochets seem to be the only way non explosive projectiles can cause friendly casualties. E.g. I discovered that .50 cal fire from a Stryker was hitting a tree which a fireteam was positioned under, shredding them due to ricochets bouncing down at them.
Smaller than 50 cal cannot cause casualties from direct fire, but all calibers can cause casualties from ricochets.
-
Yes, it is hard to understand some of the decisions made for CM2 that seem to be a retrograde step. I also miss the "one click" 180 degree covered arc of CM1.
-
Let's hope that their equipment is as well made as the stuff they export to us.
-
I started with armor arcs but there are so many bunkers in Mission 5 that invariably there was a bunker in the arc someplace and Jav's chose the bunkers as their desired target. Then I tried manual targeting with a nice line to an AFV, but each Jav would detour away and hit a bunker instead. This is a pretty major bug imo.
That's why I posted the advice above re how to not waste Jav's and win M5 fairly easily.
-
A challenge in CM2 is that even if one has (say) a battalion of troops occupying a location, a single cowering enemy hidden someplace in that location can deny you the victory of "occupying" the objective. CM1 handled this much better as (IIRC) it looked at the percentage of forces in a location and allocated victory in that more reasonable way.
-
In Mission 5, there are many bunkers next to AFV's. Even if one manually targets a Jav at an AFV (or building etc) the Javelins will alter course in mid-flight and attack a bunker instead(!) Not sure if multiple Javs will destroy a bunker but one hit will not. The problem is how to deal with the AFV's and get some use out of the Jav's.
*******SPOILERS*******
It was necessary to use the aircraft and precision arty to destroy the AFV's. While waiting for the TOW's to arrive one can start to assault the NW objective. When the TOW's arrived, use them to destroy the remaining AFV's. After that, use TOW's to destroy the bunkers. Once the bunkers are gone, the Jav's are useful for attacking inf in buildings or for destroying walls etc. It's fairly easy after that to attack and take the main objectives with the inf and AAV's.
-
Am surprised no one has noted a major bug - that Javelins will deviate from attacking an AFV (or anything) and instead attack a bunker. Have been playing Mission 5 of "Gung Ho!" and PT has placed many bunkers next to AFV's. Even when manually targeting a Javelin at an AFV or other target, the Javelin will alter course in mid-flight and attack a bunker instead. Unfortunately, a Javelin cannot destroy a bunker. Will post SPOILERS on the "Gung Ho!" thread to help show how to overcome this in M5.
-
Very happy to hear that these campaigns are being improved. I think that CMSF is also my favorite as I enjoy playing to minimize friendly casualties. In the other game titles one has to accept that one will lose a lot of men. Also, I get the impression that RL tactics work more convincingly in CMSF.
While there are many tutorials on RL tactics for WW2 and the more modern titles, I often do not find them viable. Not sure if that is a weakness in the game system - eg accuracy gets gets strange at long ranges or just that the map terrains create situations that are not common. Eg: In CM games one gets the sense that everyone should be equipped with SMG's as most battles are at short range. In RL they are at much longer ranges and rifles actually were more useful.
-
Isolating Taiwan via blockade would be a more likely strategy as it would dare the US to "do something". Very hard for the US to get reinforcements to or even close to the island due to the Chinese developing long range anti-ship missiles - longer than the range of our aircraft carrier's planes. At the same time the US/West cannot afford to lose Taiwan's indispensable chip production.
The weakness of subs is that once a sub fires anything everyone knows where it is and anti-sub missiles will soon be raining down on it. They are largely "one shot" weapons.
-
Shows that a well-modded CM1 is not much inferior to CM2 graphics.
The CM2 FAQ Thread
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
The marine module of CMSF2 has AAV's. Paper Tiger's "Gung Ho!" campaign features them in (IIRC) every mission.