leakyD
-
Posts
320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by leakyD
-
-
I really like this skin
NICE PIC!
-
I have a GTX 660 you can have, if you don't mind paying for shipping from Seattle. It is in perfect working condition. PM me if you are interested.
Hi Lingo, if offer is still available, my 260 could REALLY use an upgrade! Holding out on total system upgrade (2009 build), so 660 would be a great stopgap.
Sending PM...
Thx,
-
RT for small battles, WEGO for larger ones. Always IRON.
Yeah, IRON is tough. But so is the real deal. Battle is CHAOS.
Funny thing is, if you TRY to remember to use GOOD tactics, you'll do OK (mostly). Keywords here are TRY TO REMEMBER.
Too easy to forget and do silly/stupid/gamey stuff.... and get creamed....
-
Looking forward to the next update....
-
They are flavor objects and come with all their limitations. They should be used sparingly, and not to form continuous walls.
Dang.
Would be nice to have these updated to act like walls in a future update...
-
LOVE the concrete barriers in last pic. Game's looking great!
-
Nice Pics!
-
But US commanders nowadays are fairly intolerant of casualties, and you will see this reflected in VP scoring in many scenarios.
In other words, play CMSF as BLUE for CMBS primer, and we should be OK.
Except for all that new tech stuff.
-
Bunch of ravenous hyenas - go read the manual - yes, from end-to-end.
Might find a typo.
Should keep you (us?) busy for at least a day. Or two....
-
Or how 'bout the module with more... FIRE!
FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!
Ok, I'm done now.
Maybe.
No promises.....
-
yeah but you'd still need BF to create the proper TAC AI and ToE for the zombies.
Hah!
Still, it'd be interesting nonetheless (tactically) to have to operate conventional forces in a post-nuclear/chemical environment (I practiced enough MOPP ops in the 80's to still be curious how the hell this would play out in battle .....)
Maybe BFC can push this 10+yrs out, once they've refined the engine enough to warrant such time and effort....
-
Scenarios that were designed for the player to die valiantly in battle have a beauty all their own. If people were only into the game to win half the players would immediately quit after the first match.
Absolutely. Having your a$$ handed to you in CM is the best way to learn and appreciate the game. LEARNING is 1/2 the "fun" here!
-
He was simply saying the TAC AI might do it's math on the characteristics of a single round. I don't think we really know for sure.
WHAT?!? We are at the mercy of the "Ghost in The Machine" (AI)
BFC, please fix or.... well, y'know... the usual...
-
My guess is that versus BMP-3 front, the Tac-AI compares chance of penetration of a single auto-cannon round and a single ATGM and often goes with the ATGM. This of course ignores the cumulative chance of kill of multiple auto-cannon rounds in the same time it takes to aim and fire an ATGM and the chance that the ATGM could be outright "killed" by some form of countermeasure. In some circumstances it is the right behavior, in others not.
Ugh. Hopefully these adjustments aren't too much of a programming nightmare.
Who the hell fires single rounds, or even single bursts, of 25/30mm autocanon? It seems all the videos show multiple bursts when these weapons are used. Even Pzrldr stated "best practice" is to hold trigger until target burns. This isn't a day at the range, folks.
Hopefully further adjustments can be made without any negative effects....
-
No! No! No!
MORE FIRE. As in BURNABLE terrain.
We've been wait a BIT too long for this.
Let's PLEASE not distract the BFC and let them get BURNABLE terrain in. PLEASE????
Once we have this, then, perhaps, your lovely squalls.
Maybe we'll even get lucky and the rain can work to put the fires out. Maybe.
-
I agree, BMP use ATGM too often since CM:SF. BMP-1 could kill a Stryker with a gun, but always used Spigot. Though distance was small, 500-700m. Same for BMP-2. Then gunner started to reaload turning out of the hatch.
Interesting observation. I thought the BMP3's we're using too much 100mm ATGM, but Bill (and sburke) say no, so I'll defer to their in-game experience.
I'm sure we'll all get to see how this plays out soon enough at release
Worst case, I'm sure vehicle ATGM can be tweaked in an update, should the need permit.
-
No, you are right. The Bradley is routinely selecting TOW for BMP-3s, when 25mm would be more appropriate, as I have seen both against Bil and in other playtesting. I have posted this for the game design crew lead's attention (which may or may not result in a fix - if you have a case of South African wine, I can give you a PO box to ship it to. Might help). Ken, feel free to jump on my mantis.
Haha! Good to hear.
Wine for "features", eh? That's a nice business model... Where do I sign up?
This may be due to a near undermatch of 25mm against BMP3 front with reactive armor, but I tend to think the solution is simply fire more 25mm. I've got friends who killed T-72s (with crews in them!) from the front with 25mm in 03. Older export models, but still MBTs through the front. Mostly turret top/slope and hatches, driver hatch, turret ring, gun mount, and actual gun penetrations. Just hold down the triggers until the thing burns. 20 rounds in six seconds. I suspect that the BMP-3 would have a hard time taking the pounding.
Note to self: Hose target until all variables eliminated. Can do!
FWIW though, his T-90 that will (in a few turns on my thread) eat LT Upham's lunch, is indeed inside the TOW's min range. Also, the issue with beta builds that had us working behind the current product got fixed. Our posts are using the Beta16 build, which is the latest right now.
Nice! Glad to see the push to January release is allowing for fine-tuning....
-
Thermal sights in CMBS will give everyone fits. INF can be seen through fairly heavy trees, and what can be seen can be killed.
This, plus APS, I think, will be most challenging. Completely different approach with reacting to new tech, even if coming from CMSF.
I remember fuzzy blobs with the M2 thermals in '91. From Youtube videos I've seen, the new stuff is ridiculously more accurate and detailed!
-
Played with CMSF Demo, but didn't like the nerffed CMx1 features, as well as the one-sided battles. Good training for minimizing casualties as BLUE, but limited for conventional battle.
I also have emotional issues with the desert.
CM is finally "good enough for me" with the 3.0 update, and grabbed RT. Will definitely grab CMBS!
Once we get burnable terrain I'll grab BN and modules, if there is an additional vehicle pack (to play with the WASP's). Hopefully this will occur w. CMx2 engine (maybe w. Bulge and end-of-war modules? How the heck are you going to do Berlin battles without everything burning....?).
Oh how I miss the mayhem of CMx1 and fire....
-
Thanks gents!
I can understand battlefield stress/errors, but if one is fighting APS equipped enemy, I would think the radio would be buzzing with updates so gunners/commanders knew what to look out for, and use appropriate tactics/ammo accordingly.
And thanks c3k for BETA reminder.
I'll quit knee-jerking now and promptly STFU.
-
guys stop jumping to conclusions off a few incidents in game from an AAR with the game still going through beta.. It isn't enough data to make a judgement and if it makes you feel any better I just had a Bradley take out 3 tanks with 30mm.... yes 3.
Ok, but still... Should AI be using ATGM at such close ranges?... what the heck is the AI doing here?
-
After seeing the "over use" of BMP/Bradley ATGM use in the Beta AAR, I had to get some clarity.
If there is supporting evidence of "generous" use of IFV ATGM as SOP for US/RU/UKR forces (hell, I'll take any army at this point), then someone smack me on the head with it.
If not, then this will need to be tweaked prior to ship. Bradley & BMP3 (haven't seen BMP2 use, yet - is this a bug specific to BMP3/Bradley?).
Otherwise there are going to be some SERIOUS tactical issues with IFV overuse of ATGM.
This will be especially important when facing APS equipped vehicles.
NO Beta AAR SPOILERS here, as it'd be great to get Bill's/Pzrldr's opinions/views here.
Can any Dev's chime in here? Yes, stop eating leftovers and chime in.
-
“Holy ****, why’d you shoot the TOW? Quick, go to AP!”
Yeah. Exactly.
Why the heck is the AI using vehicle ATGM so much? Bill's BMP's are doing the same thing with their 100mm ATGMs.
As a former Bradley gunner and TC, TOW are NOT to be used on the small stuff at main gun ranges. Pzrldr you know this as well.
IFV's only have a few rounds of ATGM, which should only be used as situation dictates (LONG ranges, bunkers, MBT's etc). M3's have a few more, but still... There are a LOT more 25/30mm rounds to play with.
BFC, can we please get some tweaks to this before ship? That, or we need a new "Target ATGM only" command or somefink.
-
God know what one might expect to hit with it.
Not much.
We never trained on the "AA" sight, and it was NEVER referenced on gunnery ranges or even in field during Desert Storm. EVER.
I doubt ANY units have referenced recently either. Can you say AIR SUPERIORITY?
Perhaps if there was pending conflict against opponent with air assets, there'd be a "day at the range" to hose some target drones, but that'd prob be the only training before deploying to the field.
Interestingly, when one of my units were still on M113's, during field exercises, there'd be OPFOR AH-1 choppers hovering behind treelines, taking popshots at us with their MILES gear (almost at DANGER CLOSE ranges). The .50cals on the M113's couldn't pierce the treelines.
Once we upgraded to M2 Bradley's, the OPFOR choppers "disappeared" during similar training, never to be seen again. Coincidence?
That's not a tank, though.
Yeah, but it's an AFV, so close enough for gov't work.
Free Copy AAR: c3k vs DMS. No DMS.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by leakyD
LoL!