General Jack Ripper
-
Posts
2,326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by General Jack Ripper
-
-
On 4/8/2019 at 4:27 PM, Bulletpoint said:
Please note that it's a minus 2 leader. The real leader (+0) was killed about 15 seconds earlier.
Clearly, the new leader was too dumb to realize he should be suppressed.
-
22 hours ago, sburke said:
it was staged, look closely they are all actors... At 3:33 that is Tom Hanks. You may remember him appearing in a CMBN action where he got the moniker "tube guy".
That was Tom Sizemore. Tom Hanks is your squad leader who always gets shot first.
-
14 hours ago, Gazmaps said:
I would assume their intent is that their are differences other than just appearance. As it stands now with the Technicals, their are no differences between Combatants and Fighter Technicals
The difference between the technicals lies in the composition of their crew.
Pickup trucks with weapons on them are the same as other pickup trucks with weapons on them, regardless of the credit score of the owner.
-
On 4/12/2019 at 1:43 PM, ncc1701e said:
Well this thread is sticky there: http://community.battlefront.com/forum/53-cmsf-strategy-and-tactics-forum/
How surprising it is back?
-
On 4/9/2019 at 5:48 PM, ncc1701e said:
Hello,
Several methods have been discussed here. Personally, this is my nightmare.
Cheers
Oh god, I thought that was dead and buried by now... LET IT DIE!!
-
On 4/7/2019 at 6:10 PM, Alchenar said:
Okay so to be absolutely clear: the manual is self-contradictory on what is hidden and what is not. A command described to 'detect and mark hidden minefields' is not obvious that it can only be used to target non hidden minefields.
This is also literally the only move command that works like a target command. It's inconsistent with how all other controls work, if it worked like other move commands then you'd expect it to be a special form of 'hunt', which is clearly what so many new players expect.
Indeed, it does seem the game manual is in need of a rewrite.
-
27 minutes ago, Alchenar said:
I love how your strategy for clearing mines is to have your squad of engineers stand and work right in front of a platoon of Abrams shooting downrange.
So... The Abrams tanks have absolutely nothing to do with the point being made. The engineers work would be exactly the same if the tanks weren't there.
I care not for your analysis of my tactical acumen, because I found and dealt with the mines, and apparently you were unable to do so.QuoteAt a minimum it is completely intuitive and not really apparent from the manual that in order to 'mark mines' you have to actually see the mines first, and by 'see' them actually see them even if you 100% know they are there because the briefing and map tell you they are there.
How can you 'Mark Mines' if you haven't detected them yet?
What game in existence allows you to activate a context-sensitive command when the context necessary for that command is nonexistent?
Notice how no one is complaining about their inability to 'Acquire' weapons and ammo out of thin air?
That's because it's self-evident one must be in a vehicle or next to an ammo dump to use it. WHY ARE PEOPLE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT 'MARK MINES' WORKS DIFFERENTLY?
You have to be standing near the mines to have it work, and in order to stand near the mines, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. The manual also makes it explicit that anti-tank mines do not harm infantry, so you can draw the logical conclusion that having infantry walk around and among the AT Mines will allow you to detect them without any possible risk.QuoteRight now the scenario is designed to tell you that CM doesn't handle mines well.
I would say the scenario is designed to hold your hand by telling you where the evil scary minefield is, and also give you all the tools you need to overcome the obstacle. Imagine for a moment the anguish you would feel, if the game DIDN'T tell you there was a minefield there!
QuoteMINES
There are four "flavors" of minefields in the game: anti-personnel, anti-tank, and mixed (meaning: a mix of both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines in the same field). Obviously, anti-personnel mines are meant to harm infantry primarily, while anti-tank mines are usually bigger and pack more punch, and are intended to disable or at least immobilize vehicles and tanks. Anti-tank mines cannot be set off by infantry on foot, but anti-personnel mines can be set off by vehicles.
Troops moving through minefields have some ability to notice the mines without exploding them. This is much more likely when the soldiers are crawling or walking (and to a lesser extent, "hunting"), the soldiers are engineers or are experienced, and if the minefield has already been discovered (e.g. by setting off a mine)
Engineers have the ability to mark known minefields. After a minefield is marked by an engineer unit, other units may safely (but slowly) move through it without running the risk of setting off additional mines. See the Mark Mines command in the Command chapter of the engine manual for more details.
MARK MINES
This command enables engineer units to detect and mark hidden minefields so that other units are aware of them. Other units can then move through the marked minefield, albeit slowly. Mark Mines is a very slow movement command that takes the unit’s full attention and reduces awareness and returning fire.
Restrictions - only Engineers can mark mines.
If there is any problem with marking mines, it is the ambiguous wording in the engine manual which makes it seem like 'Mark Mines' is a movement command, but by referencing the bolded spots of the game manual section quoted above (emphasis mine), one can easily see the technique by which one detects and marks an anti-tank minefield:
- Anti-tank mines cannot be set off by infantry on foot,
- Troops moving through minefields have some ability to notice the mines without exploding them.
- Engineers have the ability to mark known minefields.
See? It's as easy as 1, 2, 3.
Now just wait until you get to a scenario where you are told, "There may be some minefields somewhere," but are NOT told where they are, what type they are, or how large they are...
-
You know, you guys could just go play the darn game...
Just sayin'.
-
-
That's gotta be one of the coolest jobs in the world, "Let's build a vehicle, then shoot at it all day!"
-
17 hours ago, grungar said:
is cease fire against the ai sleeze fire. I've scored wins and losses using it.
If the scenario designer allows you to, you can do it.
There are ways of making a ceasefire victory impossible until certain conditions are met. -
13 hours ago, wadepm said:
"The guy didn't click the thing so we have to wait for the clock to run out so we can do it ourselves."
"Oh, he probably doesn't know he can do that since it isn't in the manual"
'Deploy Weapon' is a toggle switch. How hard is it to toggle a switch?
It's either ON or OFF.Sheesh.
-
13 hours ago, wadepm said:
Fom what you are saying the pack up time should be some amount of time if you are moving a distance further than 4 action squares. But it is always 0 no matter how far you are moving. I ran some tests with the SG43 - no metter how far you move, 1, 2, 3 or 4 squares, the pack up time is always 0 and the set up time is always what it says on the GUI.
No. I deliberately said zero pack up time to simulate the ability to wheel the gun away.
If you move one to four action spots and toggle the deploy weapon command to 'on', you will deploy the gun instantly after stopping. This is a known game mechanic.
-
16 minutes ago, Frenchy56 said:
Otherwise they would be dragged around, and I'm sure at least two men could lift them up if the need arises. I think the current logic the game uses is the breaking down into multiple parts thing, which is probably why it's so long.
I think it's intended to be an abstraction representing the ability to quickly move the gun instantly, but transporting it over any real distance would require some fiddling, at least to clear the gun and stow the ammo, etc.
Remember, you can deploy machineguns over a short distance without having a setup time. So you could grab your russian mg, move it instantly (zero pack up time), move 4 action spots, and deploy instantly. So you can potentially be very mobile with it. But the gun is still heavy, and even being dragged you clear the gun and then have to emplace it, check your line of fire, then reload the gun before firing.
-
23 hours ago, Bozowans said:
There is an interesting paper I read a long time ago called Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer, by US Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart.
I've been looking for that forever after reading a magazine article quoting sections of it.
Thanks.
-
On 3/6/2019 at 8:36 PM, wadepm said:
- Why is the deploy time for the Soviet MGs so long? I understand they are on wheels, which presumably is why the packup time is so short, but why then the long setup time? I would have thought the wheels would help with the setup too.
Which ones are water-cooled, and which ones are air-cooled?
Which are belt-fed, and which are magazine fed?
Which are light enough to be man-portable, and which require multiple crewmembers?
Which have an optional bipod, and which fire only from a tripod?There's a heck of a lot more questions to ask and answer here besides, "I don't get why a gun on wheels has a setup time."
-
Even something as portable as a BAR doesn't have a "0" pack up time.
-
6 hours ago, Sublime said:
If you pay close enough attention and stare into blackness you occassionally will see a flash of an old disused train station just sitting underground sealed off like a time capsule.
When I was a kid, I used to sit right up close to the window on the T specifically to look down the older tunnels.
-
-
On 3/9/2019 at 7:28 AM, Sublime said:
(If you know boston its paralell to mass ave by berklee college of music, 1 block to the side of mass ave on the fenway park side, the first old buildings by the parking garage)
Wandering the back alleys of Boston reveals all sorts of interesting things:
-
1 hour ago, Mord said:
Damn, I am getting cynical in my old age!
Mord.
It's the privilege you get from living for so long. I can't wait until my 60's, then I can be like Emrys.
-
4 hours ago, HerrTom said:
In The Bear Went Over the Mountain there are many examples of Mujahadeen fighters fortifying in compounds in villages. The 40th Army had tonnes of trouble reducing those strongholds, even with BMP, tank, and artillery and aviation support.
The houses are practically pillboxes!
I read that, well spotted.
-
19 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
This definitely appears to be the case with the newer engines, but it wasn't so with CM:SF1 as far as I can tell.....This may be the source of the confusion (not sure about CM:A).
That's why I was wondering about the differences between game settings, because I do recall specific discussion regarding how Syrian buildings seemed bulletproof, and then people posting photos and videos showing how solid that type of brick and concrete construction really is.
Like little fortresses. -
12 hours ago, RockinHarry said:
question is how well is that beeing simulated (or approximated) in the CMX2 series? Not just considering actual wall penetration capabilities of the various gun/round types, but also pecularities of different building types, window configurations and such. Hard to tell actually, as it´s all anything but WYSIWYG.
I think the abstracted generic 'building' type tends to change slightly depending on which title you're playing.
Your middle eastern concrete and brick constructed house is a bit more sturdy than your wooden framed normandy house.
But then again, you're shooting 5.56mm in syria, and .30-06 in normandy, sooo...I think the approximations are okay, maybe a little conservative, but one thing you don't seem to need to worry about is secondary frag and projectiles. I've seen rpg rounds impact a wall directly opposite a few guys, and not even a scratch was inflicted. There is simulation based on round size, weight and velocity, but there is approximation based on building materiel and construction.
So I would say the performance is reliably predictable, but abstracted. You'll see hundreds of rounds go skipping off a wall, but then that one lucky bastard gets through and kills your platoon hq.
10 hours ago, Erwin said:The other thing to keep in mind is that weapons in CM2 rarely are able to penetrate thru 2 walls. One would think that 50 cal and above would be able to fire thru several walls with effect. But, that is not the case.
Um, it actually is the case. I've placed .30 cal fire onto a target effectively suppressing it by shooting THROUGH one house to hit the one behind it. I've seen .50cal go through several walls in a row before being stopped. One time during the road to montebourg I had to cease fire from an M1917 Water Cooled specifically because he was shooting through three houses in a row and suppressing my own guys sneaking up behind the third house.
It does exist man, just depends on the type of building.
So... The Abrams tanks have absolutely nothing to do with the point being made. The engineers work would be exactly the same if the tanks weren't there.
Infantry walking pace
in Combat Mission Shock Force 2
Posted · Edited by General Jack Ripper
There are very few maps you will ever see that cannot be crossed with a Move command in about ten minutes or so.
Any battle you fight which has reinforcements showing up "in the rear" which need to "march to the front" are much, much longer than ten minutes.
Take a breather every once in a while, you'll live longer.
Set your Move order, then go off and fight with the rest of your force while you wait for the reinforcement to catch up, just like real life.
I swear, people are grasping for any possible reason to be mad about anything these days.
I want one faster than Fast, but also slower than Fast, with deliberately screwed up pathfinding called "Serpentine!"