vincere
-
Posts
1,121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by vincere
-
-
A10 getting new wings: "This makeover will allow the A-10 to continue to protect our troops and to operate into 2035"
-
I went with updated setting, seems like many more possibilities.
-
One thing I found in the new black sea is that the US army troops in particular seem to be extremely prone to being pinned and cowering. One or two shots from an AK will send an entire rifle squad into laying down and being shot one by one, even when surrounded by AFVs and having good command lines etc.
It's extremely unrealistic. US soldiers and marines would only devolve to such behavior under the most extreme conditions (continuous artillery suppression or continuous supression by a MG etc). It seems like the us army guys are pajamas to the worst extent in black sea.
From a game design perspective:
1. Group suppression needs to be replaced with individual suppression. This is made obvious when in "assault" during bounding overwatch. If the manuever elements gets suppressed the base of fire ellement will immediately start cowering. The whole job of the base of fire is to protect the manuever element and NOT lay down and give up. The guys manuevering are relying on the base.
3. Reaction to contact drills would be nice. Taking fire from the front? Get out of your stupid file and get ON LINE and return FIRE
My sample of game play is so far small, but fully consistent with your observation that US appear way to easily cowered and pinned.
And suggestions 1 and 3 would be great.
-
Ideally needs some tuning. As others have said, early losses could just as likely make others up for the fight even more.
-
Not a lot of actual combat going on in these vids......sounds of firing in the distance, guys shooting grenades but obviously not being shot at and other stuff. All firing looks indirect and not aimed.
I know people are dying there sadly. but to call these examples "Combat Footage" is a stretch.
Similar to what I was thinking.
Some interesting points I noted.
1. They appear to have ammo to burn.
2. Lots of under barrel grenades firing vaguely in a direction. Ok vague firing has it's place but there was no professionalism of somebody spotting and calling fro adjustments. Generally mush of the firing seen in vids posted looks mostly ineffective, and somewhat unprofessional.
3. Some professional types in snow suites appear- hmm all their faces are blanked for the news vids... could they be shy.
4. "Finish them off" was said to 2 wounded Ukrainian prisoners- then un background "Press is here, there will be no finishing off." I sadly get the impression that finishing off occurs.. likely ob both sides... but I'd speculate more so with the unregulated fighting groups.
-
All right! Thank you all, Battlefront and beta testers.
Here here, thanks to all contributors.
-
I'd agree that in general, shared morale seems a little harsh. But that near instant stuff sounds like an oversight of something.
-
piles of boxes can be done only in the editor by the scenario designer, by selecting a supply platoon and order its status to be "dismounted".
Ah, got it. Thanks.
So I'll use supply trucks/ vehicles most times to save messing.
-
Re 1. I guess you mean for Quick Battles. IFVs can have supplies, and there is a 4 vehicle supply section that has a truck. Need to check myself whether it has Javs.
2. Yes. But there are other factors. Recon troops are there. Also Forward and air observes. And the Jav teams seem to have extended vision with their jav sights. Also, check the other equipment panel, some squads have extras, and some have good sights on weapons.
Also, some vehicles are good, plus the drones.
-
Can we buy ammo caches in quick battles? If so how?
So far I've only found supply trucks- and I like long infantry battles
-
Big thanks to OP and others for this! I never even noticed it, let alone used it.
Alas, it is too late for some of the lads from Company C.
But will be sure to save other guys! -
With regard to CM1 they were called operations and were essentially a complete battle played out on a single map with the fighting broken up into a number of engagements (up to 10) happening over a relatively short period of time, like up to 24 hours or so, depends on how it was setup, it included the chance of night ops. So one operation might consist of six 45 minute fire fights on a largish map with the front line adjusting on the map depending on the ending positions of each side. IIRC the map state and destroyed vehicles etc were all retained over the course of the battle and you'd get some resupply and reinforcements happening during the lulls between fighting.
As I mentioned above I really don't like that this feature was dropped. To me, from what I've read, this far more along the lines of how real battles played out. With scenerioes we have now we get just the single firefights and don't have the option to simulate multiple attacks and counter attacks with fighting over an objective flaring up then dying down many times over the course of a day which happened basically all the time.
-F
Yeah, I can only scratch my head and think they heard the grog complaints and made the wrong conclusions. Regressing to linear instead of improving it. I could be wrong, but imagine the core would like more dynamic campaigns. It's one of those that keep being asked here, and I note that games with a similar tactical level tend to have evolved or have similar requests for dynamic campaigns.
-
Yeah, it's QB and I pick high motivation for at least 2 units. Thing is the rest of his squad, 3 or 4 guys are still bailing. He turned and ran back into the fight. Few second to go in the turn and he gets clipped wounded, and still pulling another grenade about to throw it. He has supressed and injured one squad and has another coming at him from his 9 o'clock.
Will see if he makes it tomorrow.
-
Veteran US squad fighting in close wood land being overrun by a platoon. The quad is rattled and worse- I can't order them- running away
But the machine gunner stands up changes direction and starts blazing away. He runs about 15m towards one squad and fires standing at 2 different squads changes direction runs some more and stars lobbing grenades that stops the second Russian squad.
He's not the only one. A forward observer is on his own behind enemy lines after being overrun and is fighting 2 squads. He Killed 3-4 guys on his own in one minute.
It awesome experience to see, like watching a movie or story in the making.
Can somebody in the know confirm that this is coded for the odd guy to see red mist and go fanatic?
-
I must be on my 10th; but looks like the speeds are picking up a bit.
-
me my prognosis, Tuesday or Wednesday .... the wait is over, the greater the pleasure will be great
Nah, tomorrow.
"the greater the pleasure will be great :)" But yes, Yes, YES!!
-
Hey, thanks for taking time to reply here, and the invite. Will head your way.
Good luck with getting to Alpha !!
-
For localized defense, yes this is true (Tunguska, Pantsir, TOR, etc). The US simply hasn't focused on this area apart from Stinger and Avenger (which uses Stingers). That said, Stingers are excellent MANPADS but are still limited as MANPADS. US air defense doctrine is focused more on Air Superiority through fighters supported by strategic SAMs. The downside of this is a weakness (as in less favorable, not a hopeless situation) to helicopters. However on a wider scale, I would say Patriot is greater than or equal to any of the big Russian systems, and is fielded in larger numbers than their newest stuff. If this is applied to Sea to Air defensive missiles, then US takes a clear lead.
I was getting the impression S400 trumps Patriot. In addition, they have much more robust layered and layered surface to air defence assets. Understandable, seeing how US anticipate Air superiority at some point. Or the ability to create it in regions for specific periods.
-
Well other than people throwing around code words...the only evidence that we have is someone saying the download on the website slowed down...which could indicate something being uploaded to said Battlefront server. All speculation of course, but were all desperate refresh monkeys so we'll take what we can get.
and talk: "The chair is on the wall."
-
Examples of what?
Refresh monkey threads
-
Short answer: I guess that the russian Krizhantema is possibly the best ATGM present in CMBS - at least after having read the equipment list on the website. That said, you have also to find out which weapon system is actually best suited for your tactics.
In general, you can assume that russian ATGMs are the best for the russians, while US ATGMs are the best for the americans. Modern anti tank missiles are all able to take out every tank on the battlefield with one shot. Russian and NATO doctrines though, tend to employ these weapons in different ways; based on the different doctrines the militaries of those countries employ.
As good a CM is, doctrine is one of the weak areas. I felt CM1 command and fanaticism in CMBB at least seemed to give a different flavour.
Have not felt that with Shock Force or Normandy. Same with most other games, players will play with the best tactics they can despite historical doctrine.
I take your point though.
-
And an extremely big gun.
John has a big rifle, and a big gun, his rifle is for shooting...
-
IS IT SAFE?
From what I saw it's best to ask that repeatedly
-
I'm a little out of date. Before Javelin I thought hand-held At.
1. But does Russia still have a Weapons mounted AT Missile superiority? Either in range or ubiquity of them. They seem far more prevalent on Russian Vehicles.
2. I have an idea that Russia is superior to US/West on Ground to Air missile defence. But realise my view is historical. Is it still the case for weapons systems and the numbers.
3. Others????
But will be sure to save other guys! 
Infantry TAC AI - trying not to rant
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
It is, as is adjusting position after a few shots before firing again.
Often doesn't happen, even with trained and experienced soldiers. Both are tiring; and easy to forget when pumped.