Euri
-
Posts
510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Euri
-
-
If you refer to "Objective Delta" there are not any. Russian AFVs have amphibious capabilities though; keep that in consideration.
-
I understand all that alrewdy. My question was different. If enemy surrenders will one achieve a victory in all cases or still VPs do matter?
Imagine a simple situation. The enemy is inside the preserve objective. I bring the objective to the ground with artillery and the enemy surrenders. Is it possible for the outcome to be a defeat for me despite the surrender provided I set the preserve VPS high enough?
-
Imagine a case of terrorists taking control of the Pyramids, Matsu Pitsou or Acropolis for example. Or Palmyra, to get closer to reality.
-
Is it possible to assign a VP value high enough in respect of preserving a building intact, so that one would get a defeat result if that building was damaged notwithstanding an enemy surrender?
-
I meant "surrender". "Resign" is chess jargon (my main leisure obsession :-))
-
My point is that most of the time you don't. The AI will resign before this "clean up" phase in most scenarios. And I am only speaking about the game and US in particular.
-
Seems to be a bug, but I found a strange fix: select the command vehicle (the actual vehicle) for the BN HQ, and change the type. Doesn't matter what you change it to, you can even change it back, but once you do that I can edit the other BMPs in the companies and platoons.
It realy works! How did you even think about that?! And what amazes me is that the developers should be aware of the problem, otherwise it would be impossible to construct the OOB for the official Russian Campaign
-
Incidentally, what's the opinion on the suppression meter? I'm debating to put it all red - ie no gradation, just an increasingly dangerous block of red. This will clash with many people's familiarity with the current green-yellow-red gradation, but iIreckon if I'm going minimal iIneed to be rigorous. We can become used to anything, if it works smoothly.
If you ask me, I like the gradation.
-
Ha! I will try that. Thank you!
-
Please see this video which describes my problem and please explain what I am doing wrong. Thank you in advance
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9z2aTq5oxcqemZBSFVPT3FYb1k/view?usp=sharing
-
I like the UI a lot. Actually I am using it currently.
I don't like the portrait icons for Russian units. I have deleted the folder and kept the defaults.
I am also missing the colored leadership modifiers
-
I am cluless about modern battlefield. I am speaking about the game (when the terain is not dense urban) and in particular about the US. If playing the Russians vs US I always want to get into a firefight
-
-
I made some videos playing the 1st mission of US Campaign to demostrate the following point: That, except for urban warefare and in the capacity of Javelin bearers, US infantry is absolutely redundant in the game, and it is almost always a mistate to to anything with them
QED:
-
Thank you for the feedback
In the meantime please everybody find a new version (and hopefully the last one of this battle)
Version [R 1.01]
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9z2aTq5oxcqbXh4Z3lXZklCT3M
Based on some very constructive and to-the-point feeback I got from a player , I revised slightly the order of battle, basically sibsituting Humvees M1152 for the LMTVS. The reason for doing so is because my intention was to use the LMTVs for transport rather than as fire platforms. With their .50 calibler MG however, they could be used offensively with devastating effect spoiling the overall concept (being to solve certain tactical challenges with the infantry made availble to the US player). I have kept one LMTV in order to be able to offer a stock of 2 additional Javelins to the Jav team, but reduced the experience to Green to dissuade from using it offensively.
PS: I understnad that this battle poses some challenges to some of you. So I am thinking of writting a suggested tactical approach for US in the Designer Notes, in case some of you feel that they need to consult it.
Enjoy
-
Being amazed by the lethality of Tunguska as represented in the game and its spotting quickness, my question is the following: In reality, do these systems have the optics to survey the battlefield and the sky with equal efficiency or they are just buffed up in the CMBS. Have such platforms every been deployed deliberately to engage ground forces?
-
I am confused. The two download links on cmmods seem to contain exactly the same files when it comes to CMBS
-
-
I mention this in another thread but I think it deserves a separate post:
I fail to understand the doctrine behind tanks firing AT missiles against other tanks or AFVs when they have available a high caliber gun which can kill enemy tanks easily. I understand the AT missiles on AFVs (whose gun cannot kill a tank) but not for the tanks. AT missiles (at least as modeled in the game) have a much lower hit probability than the gun. And at distances within the range of 2kms I cannot see the reason why an Oplot (just an example) would choose to fire an AT missile against an enemy tank spotted at that distance rather than aim and shoot with the gun.
-
Is there any progress on this project? I liked very much the concept and the work-in-progress pics shown on cmmodsiii
-
I got AI surrender playing both sides.
The Russians clearly have some advantage which consists in the following:
(1) Veteran tank crews vs Regular one
(2) slightly more advantageous terrain for tank overwatch
(3) the propensity of Oplots to fire first AT missiles instead of the gun. Which makes no sense because of the lower hit probability of the missiles compared to gunshots (high accuracy) and the relatively close distance, which does not justify use of AT missiles (*)
For me the basic advantage of the human player vs the AI (irrespective of side) is that one can place its tanks on overwatch and hold back the advance of the AFVs and the troops, until all or most enemy tanks have been neutralized.
(*): Actually I cannot understand the doctrine behind having the tanks firing missiles when they have available a high caliber gun which can kill enemy tanks easily. I understand the AT missiles on the AFVs but not for the tanks.
-
SPOILERS
Do not try to assault the centraly buildings directly! Breach the southern wall en masse and start exchanging fire until you silence the threats. you have clearly superior firepower. Use the two towers overlooking the sea as fire bases. You have time. Remember that the guarison are green troops. They cannot stand the heat for too long. Dont rush! And smoke them, for god's shake! :-)
I deliberartly capped the jav number at two. So that one has to find a way to kill the last one with AT launchers. It is absolutely doable.
-
@Rebby
You mean something similar with Spetsnaz?
Have you tried "Spetsnaz: Kobalyev Towers"? [ http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=3551 ]
It is very close to what you expect. Much more complex than mine and with a really hillarious briefing
-
Strange thing: when I turn on your movie mod, it is as if antialising goes off and vehicle edges become jagged. If I am to normal mode, AA works fine. I set the AA on from the game settings. I am on nvidia, some earlier drivers that work just fine.
VP and Surrender question
in CM Black Sea Maps and Mods
Posted · Edited by Euri
I will try it. Thought to ask if someone new. Actually I would like to see surrender not triggering an automatic win. Imagine for example a scenario with enemies barricaded in a large goverment buidling, or chemical facility or hospital. I would like to be able to set the preserve value high enough to prevent a tactic of blasting the building to the ground with artillery or HE fire, killing almost all inside thus causing a surrender