metalbrew
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by metalbrew
-
-
I think the animation you're describing is the direct attack mode. If you fire the Javelin at less than 150m, it doesn't perform the top-attack popup.
I've had direct-attack Javelins miss more than they hit. In 2 cases, the Javelin flew through the building and exploded in the street behind.
-
Syrian AT4s (Russian designs) or the US AT4 (Swedish designs)?Originally posted by Flanker15:I don't know how strong it is but I had a M1 ignore 5 AT-4 hits to the area of the turret ring just under the barrel. I usually think of that area being the weakest place on front turret armor but I could be wrong, also shouldn't the hits atleast damage the gun?
-
Sounds like an excellent opportunity to plug CM:1812.Originally posted by Truppenfuhrung:P.S.: As a quebecer I can tell you that life here would be much more better if USA would have won the war of 1812...
-
What factors affect how units aim at an enemy? I mean, if they have the whole tank profile to choose from what will they aim at?
-
The Stryker ICV and CV vehicles have remote weapon systems that allow the primary gun to fired while buttoned. The recon version does not have the remote weapon system and you need to be unbuttoned to use.
I haven't had any issues with the TacAI not firing the 12.7mm gun. Can you think of more specifics?
The TacAI doesn't seem to fire the 40mm grenade launcher at infantry until around 200m. I don't know if this is intentional behavior or not. The blast radius of this weapon is about 10m so area fire works really well in the mean time. I've seen the TacAI fire the 40mm at 1000m at vehicles.
The 2 guys in the back are the air guard. They are members of the mounted infantry squad in the vehicle. Their purpose is to prevent flank and rear attacks. These guys are great for killing RPG teams that have manuvered behind or above you.
The rest of your questions I don't know about.
-
In mission 6 you must advance through all of the phase lines to the rear of the map.
These lines on my map are labeled Cowboys, Raiders, and Steelers (all names of American football teams). I don't think it's 100% necessary to fight all of the enemies on the map. You get credit for killing enemies but keep your casualties low.
At the end of the mission, you must occupy either of the FIST OPs and the CP7 spaces near the beginning of the map.
-
No, I really don't want the deck stacked one way or the other. If anyone feels my conditions aren't fair or in the spirit of the point we've been discussing, please point out where the fallacy lies. I realize I left the door wide open for abuse of the theme though. It all comes down to the idea that birdstrike (or anyone who cares to play) has to play as well or better as I can play without dismounting my infantry.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Metalbrew is stacking the deck with contrived caveats the same way JasonC used to in the CM:BB scenario discussion forum, by the way. Seems like old times.
Honestly, I thought about including conditions about unit experience and motivation so that birdstrike didn't create green Strykers (or Brads...) and crack infantry. The more I thought about it the more I thought I could cope with whatever was included. Besides, if I'm only given poor units and still succeed, well that makes my point all the stronger.
The comment about armor is directly related to all of my previous "don't dismount" statements where I've said the infantry is only useful for firing Javelins. I've always ceded the point that infantry is useful for firing Javelins, whether it be at buildings or armor. If you haven't read my previous statements, you may not realize that this has never been a point of contention.
It might be interesting to note that I finished Louch's excellent Chechnya village attack scenario with only the BTRs. I lost 1 BTR in the process.
-
Dial it down, metalbrew. Aside from butting into something that doesn't concern you, you've taken swipes at Rob and myself in different threads in an unprovoked manner, not to mention you have absolutely no more authority or say in who gets banned around here than Rob, myself, or anyone else not on staff at BF.C. Based on your attack-dog style, I'd gently suggest you are in far more danger of being banned than Rob is. </font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by metalbrew:
Are you really this stupid? You wandered into a thread and began pissing all over the place. You've been told to leave many times and you refuse. Next step, banned. Have fun with what's left of your life.
-
</font>Originally posted by Rob Ross:So cavscout, exactly why did you say this then?
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />It's a man thing, you wouldn't understand...
-
I think you might like the tactical vignette scenarios included with the game. The 2 included were very good. I think the Chechnya scenario is comparable.Originally posted by molotov_billy:I played the red on red chechnya user-created scenario that was recently posted - and that was the first really enjoyable scenario I've played so far, other than the airport mission. Give it a try if you're bored.
-
While it's true that the US needs to keep casualties low, the standards are quite different for an all out conventional war vs a security mission like Iraq. The political considerations that require very low casualties during a security mission aren't there for all out war. We obviously don't want huge casualties but our tolerance for them is much higher during something like this fiction invasion of Syria.
My point is, replaying large scenarios until you can get by with only one or two casualties isn't necessarily very realistic. Play the game how you wish though.
-
Sure, whatever you like.
The scenario would be a US player vs. the Syrian AI. You can play the game however you like (I assume with dismounted infantry) and I'll play the same game however I like (infantry embarked). My goal is show that dismounted infantry are only needed for AT roles, if there's no armor in the scenario my infantry will stay inside the tincans.
If you need a few days, no rush. My email is in my profile.
-
What else can I possibly say to get you to hear what I'm saying? What you're describing cannot be done. You can build it exactly to the letter that you've described and I will not play into your script.
You have the added burden to show how that scenario is uniquely suited to a combined infantry and vehicle attack (or just infantry if you prefer). Build the scenario to your liking and specification and I'll prove vehicles alone can dominate without infantry support. Before I go to that trouble though show me you can successfully complete the same scenario with dismounts.
Extra credit if the scenario is remotely fun. As described it sounds like a tedious contrived example that I'll be able to break out of the script and defeat regardless.
I'm not calling you out. I'm saying the game is very easy to exploit in ways that aren't possible in real life. I understand infantry are important to real life MOUT and ambush denial. However in the game and playing against the AI these situations can very easily be gamed with fewer losses and higher scores.
If you're serious about building the scenario I'm serious about writing up my side of the AAR. Text and screencaps will be included.
-
It can't be done. The game is not capable of creating such a scenario.Originally posted by birdstrike: You are talking about the stock scenarios. Sadly a number of them favor these gamey exploits. But I will tell you, any capable scenario designer will punish the use of vehicles without infantry, and the unncecessary destruction of buildings, not to mention ammo expenditure. -
This is the red herring of the game. Dismounted infantry die. Any situation you find yourself in where an AT team can kill an IFV there will be a squad of enemy infantry to kill your dismounts too. If you're losing IFVs drive slower. The US IFVs spot much better than infantry.Originally posted by birdstrike:Maybe because I have lost too many ICVs and their passengers to AT weapons.
What's your hurry? I don't think there's a mission in the campaign that I didn't have 30 extra minutes left after the enemy surrendered. Knock the entire city down. Even if there's a penalty for destroying a city, knock the city down. Don't believe any scenario briefing that tells you to search a building and then destroy it. There's no functionality built into the game to score you based on whether you searched a building before you destroyed it. Destroy the building and then drive into the rubble to get credit for securing the objective.Originally posted by birdstrike:Also, an infantry squad has a better FOV and is capable to deal out alot of damage compared to a stryker with an M2, for instance.
Name one.Originally posted by birdstrike:And depending on scenario design, there will be places you simply cannot go with a vehicle, or not as easy as on foot.
The game is flawed and very easy. It's not just that you don't need to dismount infantry but rather 99% of the time against the AI, dismounting is the wrong thing to do with respect to your overall game score. I say play every gamey angle you can find in the game for all it's worth. Tell the forum where you find gamey shortcuts and maybe the shortcuts will be patched and removed for the benefit of a better game.
-
I had no serious difficulty in the campaign on elite. The AI plans put no pressure on me.
I thought most of the campaign missions were too heavily based on "Ah-Ha!" factor.
"The Air Force bombed this area and they think they got all the bad guys, go in a make sure. Here's a couple of TOW equipped Strykers just in case... Ah-Ha! Surprise! There's 14 T-62s no one noticed popping out of nowhere. Good thing we gave you the heavily foreshadowed TOW equipped Strykers..."
The predictable AI and scripted nature of AI movement makes for very boring combat. Since much of the AI is broken now I'll give it a chance in future patches too, but I think the AI is just too brain dead to provide any challenge. The only real chance for a challenging red vs. blue engagement with the AI playing red is to give the Syrians a huge numbers advantage and go with the "The Air Force is napping, go clear out that village..." storyline. Even that is boring after a while.
Seeing the AI as it is makes me wish for a more capable red force. One with BMP3s, T80s, T90s, Soviet designed airpower, and copious artillery of it's own. The more I think about it, I just want better play balance for multiplayer games and I really care less about an accurate Syrian inventory. The Syrian angle is boring and short lived. If QBs ever get fixed I'll probably end up playing red vs. red and blue vs. blue just to get some balance.
I venture a guess that one of the big draws (for fans and players) for including the Brits and Germans eventually is so players will have a properly equipped enemy to fight. Since the whole thing is fiction anyway, include the Russians too. I don't really care what premise the Russians arrive, as long as they bring their armor and infantry.
-
Is this Syrian doctrine or a best guess from BTS?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:The Syrian APFSDS are useless against the front of an Abrams, so they fire HEAT in the hopes of causing some sort of damage.
The inverted T below the Abrams main gun and in the vicinity of the driver's hatch should be vulnerable to a well placed APFSDS. At least the Russians say this is vulnerable. Is the inverted T modeled in the game?
What's going on with the reluctance to use the only weapon they have that can kill the Abrams (ATGMs)?
-
If you keep your vehicles 150m away from enemy infantry they are very safe. The AI doesn't seem to fire RPG7s until you get closer. Therefore you can usually sit far back, spot hiding enemies way too easily, and pound them with 40mm grenades and .50 cal. Against a human, they'd likely give a manual targeting order and the squad or AT team will fire from much further away.
Of course, more serious AT threats exist but primarily you face RPG7. If you face AT3s, get closer than 500m and the won't fire. AT4, AT5, 73mm recoilless, AT14, and RPG29 need to be killed as high priority targets. The AI won't perform hit and run tactics so while you may lose 1 vehicle to a surprise hit you can pound the AT team with your other vehicles and continue advancing. Human opponents will often withdraw their AT teams after 1 shot and live to fire another shot.
By dealing with AI led AT teams you only face RPG7 and as long as you stay outside the AI's engagement range that's easy to deal with. The AI is very predictable.
Since infantry is very fragile and there's an easy way to defeat the AI from afar, I haven't found a compelling reason to dismount my own infantry. My exceptions are when I need to use Javelins. I usually acquire the Javelins, split into an AT Team, then put everyone back in the vehicle. For now the game is broken though so squads don't rejoin. This means I can conveniently dismount just the AT team when needed. If the AT team dies performing it's mission, well that's only 2 guys dead vs. a whole 9 man squad.
I finished the campaign with 25 dead and 43 wounded. I lost 3 Strykers, 1 M1, and 1 Bradley along the way.
I have confidence that as the game gets patched things will get harder. For now the AI is predictable and easy to defeat. Against humans I play differently.
-
The game underrates the Syrians currently.
The Syrians usually fire HEAT at M1s rather than APFSDS. They rarely fire their ATGMs at all. A prepared Syrian fighting force would not fire main gun rounds at M1s unless they had clear side or rear shots. They would fire the ATGMs. If they chose to fire main gun rounds at all, the only choice they should make is APFSDS. Of course, being only 200m away may have meant that the ATGMs were too close to fire depending on the T72 and model of ATGM they carried.
With all of that being said, the M1 should be able to easily live through 10 hits from the 125mm gun with high quality munitions as long as the rounds always hit the frontal armor.
-
In CM:SF, don't dismount infantry. Fight from your IFVs. There's only a few situations where dismounting is preferable and MOUT isn't one of them.
Try it out, move vehicles slowly, compare casualty numbers to see the difference.
BTW, I'm specifically talking about playing vs. the AI. The AI is pretty bad and you can spot units very far away. No need to risk infantry to complete the campaign. I just finished the elite campaign for the 2nd time (this time with the v1.02 patch) and only dismounted to fulfill AT roles or in the few scenarios where you begin on-foot.
-
I suspect a lot of damage is absorbed by US body armor. Put a platoon of Syrian SF (they also have body armor) in the trench and I'd bet the US company is stopped.
Sure there's a lot of variables but I'm playing a hunch.
-
Kip,
How about replaying the battle with Syrians vs Syrians. My guess is that situation would be more revealing of the game itself.
-
Yeah. Kid. You act like one.</font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Angryson:
KID
-
You are an idiot.Originally posted by FaxisAxis:Boo hoo, Yeah I guess we are all so disappointed-I knew this was going to happen way before it was released-, and the game is just no good until all the patches in the future fix some of these problems..etc include talking grandiloquently out of your asses. (you know how many times I've read this crap-for one thing all the patches and support in the world aren't going to make the game the way you you want it to be- you'll see. So just move on or back I should say and go play some more CMx1.
PBEM Game Problem
in Combat Mission: Shock Force Tech Support
Posted
It's happening in all of my games with mounted infantry. I think my games function correctly if I start disembarked and then embark on the 2nd turn. I haven't had much testing time this week, if anyone thinks my solution works please let me know.