Hortlund
-
Posts
950 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Hortlund
-
-
One of my favourite storys from Iraq re: using snipers.
Like the time when some ISF were driving and got blasted by an IED, causing numerous casualties and preventing them from recovering the vehicle. The terrorists came out and did their rifle-pumping-in-the-air thing, shooting AKs, dancing around like monkeys. Videos went ’round the world, making it appear the terrorists were running Mosul, which was pretty much what was being reported at the time.But that wasn’t the whole story. In the Yarmuk neighborhood, only terrorists openly carry AK-47s. The lawyers call this Hostile Intent. The soldiers call this Dead Man Walking.
Deuce Four is an overwhelmingly aggressive and effective unit, and they believe the best defense is a dead enemy. They are constantly thinking up innovative, unique, and effective ways to kill or capture the enemy; proactive not reactive. They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse.
The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the “casualties,” “abandoning” the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That’s when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.
-
Ardennes *drool*
-
Zetterling/Franksson see Prokhorovka as July 12th and 13th. If I remember correctly. I have the book right here, but only if you really want me to will I check that.
I actually had no Idea Carell and Rotmistrov had those figures...but they are truly absurd.
Ive never read their books on Kursk. Ive only read Carells book on Barbarossa, and while that was interesting and cute in a way, it was more along the lines of a childrens adventure-book (like Biggles or something) than something Id want to use in a serious discussion. Rotmistrov is russian, writing about his own actions, and his book was written during the good old days
so...lets just say Im not totally convinced about his qualities as an impartial author on the subject.
-
Best. Post. Ever.Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:Ok, as annoying as it is to see the forums overrun with new yappy little puppies excited about the new game burying us under a deluge of idiotic screennames like MEGADEATHSQUAD2000 and OBERSTRUMMBANFUEHRER, it's even more annoying to see this scourge of cyber pestilence with 5 or 10 posts apiece treated like human beings.
-
According to Franksson/Zetterling, that version is not too far off the mark. 334 Soviet tank losses at Prokhorovka vs 25 German.Originally posted by Andreas:Prokhorovka, the Paul Carell/Rotmistrov version of it.
All the best
Andreas
Or if you want to compare Zitadelle totals, 1600-1900 USSR vs 280 German.
Edit: With "loss" Franksson/Zetterling means total write-offs.
-
Ok, thanks.
You know...if at all possible, it would be a really really great feature. It would make multiplayer a really wonderful game.
-
About multiplayer, is it possible for two players to play against eachother during a campaign, and BOTH retain their suriviving units, gain experience, award medals etc?
Or is it more along the lines of one player playing a campaign, retaining his units etc, and just having a human opponent instead of an AI-opponent?
[ August 03, 2006, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Hortlund ]
-
Still, I think you get my point.
-
Grozny? Kabul?Originally posted by Cary:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hortlund:
Do not kid yourself about the usefulness of light infantry vs a modern army. The battle only looks equal because the modern army chooses to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
I'll grant you, the Israelis may be in that treacherous middle zone: just enough to be ineffective. </font>
-
The only thing that is saving the hezbollah is the rules of engagement that is tying the hands of the Israelis behind their backs.Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:some months ago i used to talk about the merits of sufficiently trained light infantry forces regarding the Syria 2007 scenario. i trust BattleFront is evaluating how Hezbollah, basicly a light infantry force, is doing in the current conflict against modern 1st class combined arms force that is artillery-air-armour heavy and a bit casulty shy. or to put it the other way around, how the 1st class force is doing against the light infantry force. how would a shock & awe "god with us" thunder run mech force fare?
If the Israelis were to let military cinsiderations dictate the RoE, the Israeli casualties would be minimal, the hezbollah losses heavy, but also the civilian losses.
For example, instead of going house-to-house in a Lebanese village, the village would be flattened with artillery, and then the IDF armor would enter the town. In that scenario, you would have minimal IDF losses, while Hezbollah and civilian losses would be heavy.
Do not kid yourself about the usefulness of light infantry vs a modern army. The battle only looks equal because the modern army chooses to fight with one hand tied behind its back.
It is always sad to see people arguing that Israel is no better than the terrorists, knowing that Israel could wipe out southern lebanon in a single afternoon if they wanted to. Knowing that the IDF are taking heavy casualties right now simply because they try to minimize the damage to Lebanese civilians.
To watch people argue that Israel is no better than the terrorists is like listening to a bunch of 10-yearold boys from Wisconsin who has never been outside their hometown arguing how to best get laid in Bangkok. Its amazing in a very painful and twisted way.
[ August 02, 2006, 08:19 AM: Message edited by: Hortlund ]
-
Bah, Swedish girls are the most beautiful girls in the world. Everyone knows that.
-
Hey, not everyone likes to play a computer game like the energizer bunny you know. Especially not a tactical wargame that is supposed to present somewhat more of a challenge beyond "click and drag-select your entire OOB and send them to the victory objective".
So the feck what if I want to pause the game every fifth second when I play? YOU dont have to play against me.
But if you remove the pause feature from the game, you kill the game for me. While if we add the pause feature to the game, you only have to avoid using it not to be bothered by it.
Seems like a pretty obvious desicion to me.
-
Pegasus Bridge anyone?
-
Heh, if we get Marines vs Japanese on Iwo and Okinawa in an addon, Im prepared to buy 10 copies of ToW myself.
-
Sounds like a good idea to me...
-
How about a screenshot of a dense wood-area with infantry moving through it? Something that would correspond to the tall pines in CMBB, where tanks cannot venture.
Can tanks venture into woods in this one btw?
-
Word is there will be a demo, yes.
Rumor seems to be that it might be an old CMBO-scenario re-used.
-
Usually, you dont unpause when someone else has paused. Ive never seen a game where there was a problem like the one you are describing. And in those games you usually have 6-10 players.
I suppose it could be a problem if you are playing with a bunch of retarded teenagers, but otherwise a gentlemans agreement not to unpause when someone else has paused works just fine.
-
Originally posted by Steiner14:
Hm, wouldn't that allow the one player who likes to micromanage, to pause as often as he wants?
Yes?
Apparently you see someone pausing alot as a problem? If you see that as a problem, the simple solution to that is to not play with someone who you think pauses too often.Two solutions come to mind:
A Pause counter. If you've used all your pause-credits, you can't pause anymore.
The counter could additionally be clock dependent, so that the credits are slowly increased over time.
Additionally the pause intervall could be timed. After that period, the game continues.
Your ideas to limit the number of allowed pauses is bound to create enormous frustration when a player is unable to pause during a critical moment in the game.
-
My guess is that they will do it the same as Paradox has done it. If one player in MP pauses, both players are paused. There is a 10 second "lock" where it is impossible for the other player to unpause, but after that, anyone can unpause the game, and the clock continues.
Sounds like a reasonable solution to the MP-problem to me.
-
Hehe, I think we're all on the same side here
Im trying to get a mental picture of how big a 4 square km map is going to be, and how long a maximum range shot would be.. How long is the diagonal of a 2x2 km square?
-
I doubt that hill in the background is in the playable area of the map though. What was it? 8 km rendered map, and 4 square km playable?
[ July 29, 2006, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Hortlund ]
-
Just wanted to add my opinion and say that for me, it is very important that the game has the correct ballistics, penetration figures and generally that the physics behind everything is as realistic and good as in CM.
I absolutely hate the dumbed-down games where anything can penetrate anything, just as long as you hit it enough times or whatever.
Edit: Thanks Moon, that answer is good enough for me.
-
So, since this is the game that will finally force me to buy a new computer, can you say anything about the minumum and the recommended sys specs?
M107 Barrett .50 cal Rifle
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I dont really see what the big fuss is about. You have two snipers, one with a .50 cal and one with a 7,62. Depending on target range and various other factors, either the .50 cal guy is the shooter and the 7.62 guy is the spotter or vice versa. The third guy is just additional security. He is not a spotter, just a backup or whatever you want to call it. He is not spotting for two guys at the same time, and the two snipers are not shooting at the same time unless something has gone horribly wrong.