Nidan1
-
Posts
5,561 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nidan1
-
-
Du bist auf Wien?
If those are true coordinates watch the skies for swarms of Cylon raiders
-
Then it is likely that if one of your units comes along side an enemy vehicle that is not moving, it should then be determined if it is just abandoned, completely destroyed or something else. The designation should then change.
I have never noticed this in the game, it might be a feature for a future update.
-
yeah it will end. We are doing a pretty good job of destroying our planet. It may take a bit yet, but going by present trends humanity will extinguish itself in a very relatively short time.
You have morons in Southern California during the worst drought in our history using MORE water because they think money decides how much of our planet's resources they get to waste.
Not that it is only the rich, my neighbor across the street still has water flowing into his gutters from over watering his lawn. He must be pissed at me "lowering his property values" because my lawn is dried up and brown - he can relax, I am gonna plant native grasses I promise it will look better.
and this has what to do with the needless deaths of some very brave young Americans? Men who might have had answers to problems affecting humanity, had their lives not been cut short by hubris and stupidity.
But then you are an admitted doodyhead, so what do you know?
-
Today is the 10th Anniversary of the pivotal action of Operation Redwings in Afghanistan, that cost the lives of 19 of the finest men that the US Military has to offer.
Inter-Service rivalry, multiple comms problems, no unified command structure and poor planning led to the ambush that killed Mike Murphy, Danny Dietz, Matt Axelson and 16 additional special ops men who came to rescue them. Marcus Luttrel the "Lone Survivor" was taken in by Pashtun villagers and eventually rescued.
The insanity of war, and what it does to people's lives all over the world. Will it ever end?
-
This is my experience also. One Tunguska will destroy any Shadow or Raven UAVs the US player uses. The Gray Eagle is generally to expensive, in both rarity and purchase points for the US player to afford. On the other hand the Russian Zala UAV is a cost effective purchased and cannot be shot down by the US. If you are playing Russians buy a Tunguska, a few Igla-s for backup and a Zala UAV. Keep the Tunguska safe from direct fire (Just use it for air defense) and you can, in most cases, negate US air power.
I've played a couple of PBEM QBs against a very competent Redfor player, and in cases where I have been using US units I have chosen not to buy fixed wing or helicopter assets. UAVs come standard with most US infantry platoons, so if you are playing medium to large QBs you get enough points to buy one or two platoons of SP 155mm artillery, which I think are equal to or more effective than CAS, with less chance of friendly fire incidents. Let the Russian player buy all the AAA and AA missles he wants, with nothing to shoot at but UAVs, they are so much clutter on the battlefield
-
Don't you think the fact itself that "redfor needs far more practice to become same level with blufor" is meaning of inequality? You must admit, that the playing blufor is very-easy-mode.
I dunno how much you are good in CMBS, but if there are tournaments, my 5cents for winner will be blufor. I never saw any decent & patient blufor player committed suicide like you mentioned.
Back to original topic, I agree with the posts that the redfor tank and IFV prices should be readjusted.
What you say is true if you purchase all crack US crews and teams in a QB and play on a 5000mx 5000m pool table, and then let the TAC AI make all of your decisions. Playing the Redfor side requires more flexibility and innovation because of the disparity in technology. A 125mm gun on a Russian tank will put a hole in an Abrams if you hit it in the right spot. AT-14s will do the same. There is a nice selection of UKR and Russian systems, using them correctly is the hard part.
-
Trying to make QBs against human opponents as fair as possible and still allow for the game to be fun is a tricky balancing act. Selecting nothing but crack Abrams crews might be fun for the US player, but watching one AFV after another blasted into so much junk would not be fun for the Russian player. US superiority in spotting and target acquisition is nearly as effective with regular Abrams crews. Picking US crews that are not top in their class at gunnery school is more in keeping with what you would see on the real battlefield.
IMO its the map that creates most opportunities for parity for the Russian player. Using the map wisely along with the some of the other tactics mentioned here by other posters can certainly give the Russian force a fighting chance against a US combined arms unit. Map selection in a QB is very important IMO, you must recognize what the map is giving you before force selection. Agreeing to a basic force structure with your opponent gives you some limits that can help making unit selection easier, and avoiding the impulse to buy nothing but uber equipment.
Pure game experience is another factor, the more you play, the more you learn, the more you learn the better you get. Well it should work that way.
-
My pixeltruppen are immortal. They are resurrected all the time. Wonderful.
-
You are right about pathing. Bridges are still a problem and a lot of micro management in moving must be done in wooded areas as well. Movement becomes even more complex when units get lased and issue a warning, what they do next can often make or break a seriously constructed movement order. Which is why in most cases I like to keep them as simple as possible especially with armored vehicles.
-
Geez how did this thread morph in to a discussion on mortality?
All we'd really have to do, sburke, is make Soylant Green.
-
It was actually a tank, the chassis of the PT-76 was used for other Soviet vehicles that were not.
"The tank was developed for the Russian Army to meet their requirement of an amphibious light reconnaissance tank after the World War II. It was developed along with an armoured personnel carrier (APC), BTR-50P, and they share common automotive and suspension systems. The first prototype was developed in 1950 and after further trials and improvements it entered into service in 1952. The variant PT-76B was the final production model of the tank built at the Volgograd Tractor Plant."
-
I didn't say you did, I was referring to a post by umlaut, from way earlier in this thread (it goes back to last year).
Tournaments are not everyone's up of tea, granted, but the example given about the ROW tournaments was an answer to folks who felt that feedback was an important component to getting more user designed battles for CMx2.
-
I don't think its necessary for designers to "start or run a tournament" in order to get feedback on their design efforts. In fact, and John K can correct me if I'm wrong, the tournament parameters were established before any scenarios were even created. A call then went out to the community for people interested in designing specifically for the current tournament. In the case of ROW once the rules were established and people understood what was involved, scenarios were not hard to come by. Just having one of your scenario designs as part of the ROW Tournament was a small honor in itself. So the "feel good" aspect of doing something creative and having others enjoy it could be had without specific feedback.
As one poster said previously, do the scenario design for your own satisfaction, and don't expect any support for the outside and you will be better off. If you decide to make your creation available to the community and someone pats you on the back, so much the better.
The future of these games and our enjoyment of them is a continuous flow of additional battles that are designed by other players. QBs are fine but in my opinion they dont take the place of scenarios.
-
From Colorado Springs, Colorado to Columbus Georgia in one post! Wow you are crazy....crazy quick or you have a transporter!
-
U.S. Marine Corps[edit]
The U.S. Marine Corps, has retained the regiment as a basic unit smaller than a division but larger than a battalion, and it continues to employ reinforced regiments as R.C.T.s in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Under current US Marine Corps doctrine, a Marine Division typically contains three organic Marine infantry regiments. Whenever a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) is formed within its parent Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF), one of the division’s infantry regiments is designated as the base of the Regimental Combat Team (RCT) and serves as the Ground Combat Element (GCE) of the MEB.
The regiment, commanded by a colonel, consists of a Headquarters Company and three identical Marine infantry battalions. The regiment is then heavily reinforced by other division assets to form the RCT.
These reinforcements typically include:
One artillery battalion (drawn from the division’s organic artillery regiment), consisting of a Headquarters and Service Battery and four identical firing batteries, each containing six 155mm towed howitzers;
An armored vehicle battalion equivalent, consisting of an Assault Amphibian Company (Reinforced) (48 Amphibious Assault Vehicles), a Light Armored Reconnaissance Company (Reinforced) (27 Light Armored Vehicles) and a Tank Company (Reinforced) (14 Main Battle Tanks), each drawn from their parent division’s organic type battalion;
A combat support battalion equivalent, consisting of a Combat Engineer Company, a Reconnaissance Company (each drawn from their parent division’s organic type battalion), and a Support Company, formed from the parent division’s Headquarters Battalion, consisting of platoons from the Headquarters, Communications, and Truck companies.(copied from Wikipedia)
Again this is not your British Airborne unit, sorry....but the USMC has retained the regimental infantry concept since WW2, which is similar in some ways to the regiments of the British Army. Marine units of this type formed the right flank of the drive from Kuwait to Baghdad, and while they did not face the type of weapons system depicted in CMBS, their performance can give you an indication on the uses of light infantry with extra support provided to survive on the modern battlefield. With the help of special amphibious assault vessels maintained by the US Navy, the USMC is one of the few large organizations still capable of inserting into a battlespace from the sea.
-
We all know what great terrain for armor exists in Thailand
It amazes me what these small countries spend their money on, while the major portions of their populations live in conditions that have not changed in hundreds of years. Maybe they need the tanks to protect the human smuggling routes.http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2014/226832.htm
Sorry to hijack the technical discussion, it all just seems so pointless.
-
Photoshop? Main non, mon ami. sburke needs no friggin' photoshop to look like that.
Want one too?
Well you and that other nitwit sburke (spelt not bolded), need to realize I was not quoting you!
Its an inside joke, that neither of you would understand....heck Berli may not even understand or care to understand.
PS now I'm quoting you.
-
Was the driver of the pickup deliberately trying to run you down? Makes sense based on your personality.
(Seriously)....glad you are OK. Nice to have you back.
-
With a naval gunfire liason officer in the command section of the engaged unit, 8 inch cruiser fire could be called in accurately within 100 meters of friendly positions, and the first round would be on the way within 90 seconds, and this was back in 1966. I cant figure out why it takes so long in CMBS.
Are their any current vets on board who can relate modern time on target times that come close to what we see in the game? Or do they really seem to be slow and unrealistic? Five minutes can seem like an eternity when the bad guys are overrunning your positions.
-
Lol - close but not quite runtime is 2:41:37
That could get a little tight for sburke if he doesn't get some rain soon...
Are we supposed to be watching Krieg oder Frieden in Europa............? Sprechen sie langsamer bitte!, the moderator speaks so fast, I cannot keep up. What was Steve looking at, was it the same video with the same guy who speaks like an auctioneer.
Thanks for that bit of information. No wonder I could not find that quote in the original German. I will remove it from my sig, although it is a good phrase anyway if it is not attributed to Goethe it seems wrong for me to do so.
-
Nope I did not. It is in the Russian text. You need to use the wet part of the brain though
Oooooh I love puzzles.
-
Did someone say Germany?
Here's a source from one of the largest "submainstreams". I am a little afraid it may go against the feelings of some of my fellow American citizens, so I'll make no big effort to translate it here unless people want me to. If your German is good enough to sit through this, you also won't be offended by some passive aggressive whining. Like I explained in one of my previous posts - you'll already know it is central to German discussion culture.
Это, главным образом, для "российского и украинской стороны":
Вы должны пойти на канал wwwKenFMde, и поиск самого длинного видео. Это относительно новая. Это хорошо описывает вид большого и важного меньшинства в Германии.
Я был бы рад, если вы посмотрите на видео с друзьями вместе. Лучший пишет кто-то субтитры.
This is German? Or did you forget to attach a link?
-
I come to Russian military forums, it's a circle-jerk of bouncing similar opinions on a one side loop. I come to US oriented forums like this one, and it is exactly the same circle-jerk of high an mighty opinionated posting, just the other way around. Such a shame mp.net has died. It felt like the only place where two camps would actually meet and have a discussion.
Seems to me there are a lot of disagreeing opinions in this thread. This discussion IMO has not been one sided at all.
-
About that current "Administration" line (why in quotes and why capitalized?), lets recall Putin had pulled the exact same false flag un-invasion stunt in Georgia back when no less a figure than Darth Cheney was in charge of strutting and blustering around the world stage. Didn't intimidate Putin in the least. I can't recall what the Cheney administration's response was over Georgia. Did they have a response?
Capitalized for some emphasis only.
Going back to 2008 does't shed any constructive light on the discussion at hand.There are similarities, but not relevant here.
Obviously you do not have warm feelings for the Bush Administration or Dick Cheney in particular based on your comments. That is OK you are entitled to support whomever you wish.
However I don't remember that Administration being proud of "leading from behind".
What makes you think it wouldn't? The Russians slapped our ally in the mouth in 2008 and keeping Ukraine in their sphere and out of NATO has been one of their key foreign policy objectives for the last fifteen years or so. At least. They've been pretty clear that it's something they're willing to nuke people over and we're not, world influence or not.
U.S. concentration on the Middle East and the war on terror in general, has given Putin some impetus to think that he can do what he wants to former Soviet Republics, because NATO and the U.S. specifically are too busy fighting jihadists and are too overwhelmed to counter his aggression with real military solutions. As far as being willing to nuke people at the drop of a hat, this to me sounds like a lot of hot air and empty threats. There would be no future for Russia to seriously damage countries with economies that are the only thing propping the Russian one up at the moment.
We are on opposite ends of the political spectrum and I respect that but, honestly what should he have done to stop Russia from invading Ukraine?
There are a few criticisms that I absolutely understand and agree with to a degree, in terms of foreign policy like the Syrian debacle which was honestly just a lot of words (AKA the "red line"), although we did get an agreement with the Russians and Syria to get rid of there chemical weapons.
When I hear or see people saying that we have withdrawn from the world stage, I just can't wrap my head around a statement like that, I would love to hear some examples of this, otherwise it sounds like a Fox News talking point.
I think you misunderstood my first statement. I was agreeing with you, but perhaps I worded it poorly.
Well, it seems Assad is ridding himself of his chemical weapons by using them.
Withdrawing all of our military units from Iraq, after announcing it ahead of time before the stabilization of the countryside could take hold.
Announcing when U.S. troops would be out of Afghanistan.
Encouraging Libyan rebels to overthrow Ghaddafi, and then doing nothing to stop the slaughter that followed.
Refusing to send arms to the Kurds
Refusing to send arms to the Ukraine
Perhaps the mere perception that America has withdrawn from its position as the world's only superpower, is enough to permit the chaos that is happening throughout the world to blossom. While you are right to believe that America has not given up its influence in the world lately, we still do come to the rescue when natural disasters strike around the world, our political and military influence has certainly waned recently. You say it could be a Fox News talking point, trouble is no one else is watching the other cable news stations to hear the counter arguments.
It amazes me what these small countries spend their money on, while the major portions of their populations live in conditions that have not changed in hundreds of years. Maybe they need the tanks to protect the human smuggling routes.
The future of user made scenarios – and the lack of community feedback
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Wonderful, a city I have always wanted to visit.