undead reindeer cavalry
-
Posts
1,224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by undead reindeer cavalry
-
-
any plans for changing the random maps, so that they would be by default deep, not wide?
any plans for doing something to fix the issue of flanking by map borders? for example, make it so that the attacker can't place his troops on the map edges at the sides (with some marginal), so that unrealistic concenration of troops by map edges at sides would not be so profitable tactic? perhaps make the setup zone V shaped?
any plans of doing something to prevent the defender from setting up his AT-guns (and similar systems) horizontally (sidewise, rotated 90 degrees), instead of vertically facing towards the attacker? such a setup is a bit (not totally) unrealistic. perhaps fix it so that these kind of units can be rotated only by some 60 degrees or so.
of course all this can be done by the players, by both/each agreeing to not use such tactics. but still. in most cases flanking, horizontal placing of AT-units etc would not really take place on the CM scale to the extent they do currently.
-
yes, i think they had AA rockets in their battleships. in pods. shot them rockets up the sky where only the eagles dare. hit not, they ever did, i fear. thinking now, them Brits had them as well. but me not Navy person am. seas evil.
-
you filthy South-Finlanders! you cultured semi-European bastards! i bet you are just enjoying your wimpy pleasurable weather on your tastelessly decorated balconies, sipping wine & rotten cheese, while the stereos are playing Cheri Cheri Lady and you are enjoying it! why don't you move to France or somefink! :mad:
yah, already got the joy of -15C the other day.
-
in WW2 Japanese had rockets in their battleships for AA use. i don't know what their range was, but perhaps they could have been used against ground targets as well.
-
i am interested in CM:SF from this viewpoint as well, as Strykers are similar to our domestic wheeled APCs. and Bradley is pretty close to CV90, as is Abrams to Leopard-2.Originally posted by Peter Cairns:For a small european nation with no real domestic threat, but a committment to playing a rule with the UN and EU, then it seems to make pretty good sesne.
So you can see why I am quite keen on CM:SF, for me it's a sort of "Future Scottish Army" simulator.
-
i remember reading that the total cost of the full SEP project itself leads to a single M1A2SEP costing around 20 million due to the small number of delivered systems.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:Costs per M1A2 Abrams tank:
Original Cost - $5.6 Million
M1A2 SEP Upgrade - $2 to $3.7 Million
SEP Repair/Modification - $260k
Total: $9.56 Million
-
regarding using AA systems against ground targets, the real deal is not the AA-missiles, it's the 23mm AA-guns. when facing Stryker force they turn into very lethal AT-guns.
with their stealth, very fast ROF and the ability to punch thru Stryker, the 23mm AA-gun systems will light up platoons of Strykers in seconds. they also exist in such vast numbers, and are cheap in reality, that getting a AA-gun battery should be practically free when buying Syrian troops.
mobile AA-gun systems, the hundreds of Shilkas (4x23mm guns, very fast turret, able to engage moving ground targets on the move) will become very powerful predators.
the good things is that both the towed & self-propelled AA-gun systems are themselves soft targets, which should lead to very exciting & bloody battles. this applies to the ~2000 Syrian BMP-1s as well, which will transform from IFVs to tank hunters when facing a Stryker force.
i think the Syrian side will be the fundamentally easier side to play.
-
Apples and grapefruits. It's a bit easier to hide your tank brigades in forested hills than in an arid plateau... and I don't see how Syria would suddenly erect big forests on their eastern frontier to hide in.</font>Originally posted by Sergei:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns:
As it was after almost a month Serbian Tank losses were only just in to double figures. I don't think we can expect a scenario where the enemy is as accomadating as the Iraqi's and just lines them up in formation in the desert, for you to pick off as you like.
-
tweekable would be real neat. 60-90 seconds in a battle on desert, 30 secs in a battle in a town or city etc.
i think you are right about the PBEM thing, hadn't come to think about it.
-
has there been any bones regarding turn length in CMSF yet? perhaps down to 30 seconds?
-
you don't need Kornets or T-80s to have balanced fights. in urban terrain RPGs are perfectly good for stopping M1. in CMx1 terms, all your squads now have panzerschrecks. players will learn quickly to keep armor assets at overwatch positions. using M1s just as mobile pillboxes of course means that enemy tanks have good chances of flanking your armor, and Syrian tanks KO M1 just fine from the flanks.
battles will be interesting, exciting & very challenging for both sides.
-
i am a bit skeptical about there being cars and such in the game. the reason for my skepticism is entirely based on Steve's earlier comments regarding vehicle collisions: he seemed to be fairly determined that such things would be too marginal phenomena to waste programming time on. i have to say i am surprised of his take on the issue as he must have known already back then what the setting of the first CMx2 game would be.
in my opinion vehicle collisions would play an important role in the CMSF setting. i find it likely that the Syrian forces would use hasty improvised roadblocks (trucks etc) on the narrow streets, both to prevent movement of enemy vehicles and to block LOS of enemy overwatch. of course debris like cars would act as unintential roadblocks as well. you need vehicle collisions first of all to make these improvised roadblocks prevent movement of light vehicles, and secondly to allow heavy vehicles to breach these improvised roadblocks. one another natural key role for vehicle collisions in the CMSF setting would be the use of vehicles to breach those light brick walls to create additional passages for infantry. both of these two roles are IMO quite essential things to model in MOUT in Syria 2007 scenario.
-
flamethrowers?
wait till we get the Russian module that comes with TOS-1. 
here's some sweet 220mm thermobaric goodness for you:
-
awh, CMSF sound very good, but BMP-3s would make it super.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:(ex: we aren't simulating the handful of BMP-3s they acquired)
-
actually Iraqis did quite well against Americans when they got to fight in urban areas. at some places relatively weak units held important key points for days against US forces. the key for Syrian "success" would be ability to draw UN forces into urban areas. and that seems to be what CMSF is all about.
-
i for one am VERY happy & excited about the Syria 2007 setting!
red vs red should make very interesting games! should be good for simulating USSR operations in Afghanistan, or Russian operations in Chechenia etc.
i am positively surprised.
-
there's lots of good info about very modern stuff out there. here's one page to get you started:
-
wasn't there a hint that in CMx2 you might be able to export or import combat result data? if so, users could make their own multiplayer campaign engines.
-
-
something like the "follow vehicle" command in CMx1?
-
pics are from a Finnish multimedia DVD (www.suomensodat.com) that lets the users view some of the Continuation War battles in 3D.
-
lol, the company doing the localization for the Finnish version really screwed and apparently, according to rumours, leaked lots of beta screenshots!
these are supposed to be the localized Finnish versions, but you should be able to figure it out. e.g. "valitse taistelu" = "choose the battle".
sorry Dorosh, it seems no Finland 1939, but Finland 1941-1944 instead with what i gather is a fictional 1946-1947 Soviet invasion campaign!
-
this is actually an older thread.Originally posted by Dillweed:OMG didn't we just have a heated (not to mention long and pointless) debate on this very same subject 2 days ago?
i don't know what the subject was, but i doubt it was about tanks ramming anti-tank guns, as it happened so commonly, was documented and even shaped battlefield tactics during the war.To be fair, I guess the previous 9 page flame was about tanks ramming anti-tank guns, not other tanks.
i think Steve and others were talking about tanks running over infantry & gun crews, not AT-guns.
it is unfortunate that running over & vehicle collisions won't be included, as they were important parts of battles (i am still pretty sure people who argue against them do not realize the larger consequences it would have, except perhaps Steve who seems to realize what kind of amount of work it might potentially mean in the end), but i am sure we all can enjoy CMx2 without them being modelled in.
-
yes, but the problem is that you can't adjust the tube for every shot in CM: you adjust once in 60 seconds. the resulting scatter is some form of "abstraction", i guess.Originally posted by Tero:Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:
the problem in CM is rather that mortar fire is too accurate.
It is not. IRL you can land the mortar round on top each other. To make them scatter you have to adjust the tube for every shot.
one of my "want to see added" requests in the poll thread was ability to give a two dimensional area for area target command, so that we could adjust the scatter. i hate it when i am forced to waste precious resources on some small 5x5 meter spot for 60 seconds.
in CMx1 i have learned to buy green instead of veteran mortars (and IGs & tanks), so that i can get some scatter. i find veteran mortars close to useless, unless i want to target a single gun somewhere far off, which is usually not the case.
i agree.However, the lethality of the sub-81mm mortar rounds is IMO overmodelled in the game making these babies far too dangerous than they really were IRL.
i think the general problem in CMx1 is that combat is still too much Hollywood, meaning far too little suppression and far too much blood and superheroes. judging from the mentality expressed in the recent armor over run effects thread, the suppression-superheroes ratio is not going to change, which is a damned shame.
sure, i'd like that, but even 50 meters would make a dramatical effect IMO, not least due to how "zones" (those crucial 30 meters) function in CMx1.I second this. The range could be even as great as 200m though.
wait till we get the Russian module that comes with TOS-1. 
Weapon systems and target limitaions?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
googled a bit and found this pic of British AA rocket:
didn't find a pic of the Japanese AA rocket, but found many mentions about it. apparently they were used in carriers, not battleships.