cool breeze
-
Posts
985 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cool breeze
-
-
That thing looks awesome, would definitely use it.
-
I think the AI sends em back into the grinder for ya.
-
I think the new balance is better for more fluid situations, but I agree it's probably a bit much for prepared defenses as it is right now. I think some sort of hold position command would be good so we could let the pTruppen know we want them to stay put whatever they might think about it, until of course they break completely. For example in that Alexander house platoon defense mission, I had them in the only relatively safe spot, and they kept leaving it to die exposed in a piece of low ground among many of their dead comrades who also thought it was a good idea to leave the position I told them to be it.
-
My introduction to shooting was with the Pink Pistols, a local gay shooting/self-defence club. And the leader of the group rents the indoor municipal shooting range so the group can practice combat shooting techniques and rapid (semi auto) fire. So I didn't start with the minutes per round expectation you did. For me, when I count out 7 seconds in my head it seems like a long time.
-
I don't have a lot of time at the range but Id call that slow aimed fire
-
That data dump on artillery tests JK gave a couple pages back was really good and explained/showed that stuff
-
I meant in real life.
-
25 minutes ago, Erwin said:
The BMP's and infantry were almost a liability cannon fodder as they got killed easily by enemy weapons systems one doesn't even spot until a friendly unit gets killed.
While not the only thing infantry are good for, I think being there to make stuff shoot is actually one of their important roles. A tank attack can simply be sat out in the basements if there aren't infantry supporting the attack.
-
2 hours ago, Armorgunner said:
For sure, it does. I only answered the post i was named in, so i missed your post. Sorry for that
Wasn't expecting you to respond to me since I'm not saying anything contrary to what you are saying. your test matches my experience, that the only way to reliably kill an Abrams with artillery in the game is to hit it on the roof with the 203. Still worth shooting 155 at it, but mostly just cause its such a huge threat that anything that might help should go in.
Some of that binary experience might be about the player experience vs testing in hotseat. when its the other guys tank thats taken dmg its not so much the subsystem damage you notice at the end of the game AAR, but whether its weapons controls/ main gun still work and its still murderizing your guys.
-
I think the 203mm partially penetrating the roof armour kinda shows my point.
Edit to add: maybe its a euphemism. I mean I don't expect full penetration before detonation, but partial penetration is a funny way of saying blown the F up.
-
My non expert take is that your test shows that with point detonation, the game doesn't have it way off, at least not for t-90s. There is damage which is good. But I think it also shows some of the little details where its off. The crater under the last tank in the last screenshot seems like it should have taken all the ERA of the front hull and probably firepower killed it. It seems like there is generally do much yellow damage vs red damage to subsystems , and not enough outright kills. That was a lot of accurate firepower you delivered. I don't think artillery is usually that accurate IRL. At least not in the situations its normally used against tanks from which the pics of blown up tanks we got comes from.
-
and I think the pics of 120mm results show those are a bit more effective than the game has it but thats more iffy.
-
but it is also about what happens when a 155 lands on or right next to, or a 205 lands nearbyish
-
I don't think the debate here is so much about how the game gets it when the vehicle gets smacked with precision strikes, but about non precision rounds landing 10 meters behind or to the sides or airbursting above without much if any chance to do real damage.
-
My only real success with russian artillery without precision rounds (against armour) has been against the AI in pretty silly situations. Like 30 tanks going in a mob down a narrow forest road and I'm pounding them with like 12 155mm AND 2-6 205mm. The 205 kills stuff when you put the crater on it, when your lucky, and the 155 kills stuff when you get a direct hit if your lucky, and a if you're luckier some M or K kills with craters. Occasionally light stuff goes down at a distance from frags but its very rare. I dunno if Ive ever seen a Bradlely get killed when it wasn't sitting in a crater.
As far as I recall.
Also, Haiduk says, IRL in the Ukraine right now, the soldiers don't consider armoured vehicles safe places to be, preferring foxholes and such as being more shrapnel proof. However, in game, I find that unless my IFV's might receive direct fire or precision artillery, inside a IFV is about the safest place to be in an artillery barrage.
And I don't think it's bad how it is I just think it would be better if they added some bigger, faster, higher energy fragments to the artillery, particularly to the airbursts. and probably a more stripping of subsystems from blast and smaller fragments. Some of the roof armour seems too tough, but bigger faster frags might fix that.
-
I'm pretty sure it's been audio edited to sound robotic. Its especially apparent in some of the end words where it auto-tunes through like 3 or 4 tunes in one word real quick. I think it's done to make some people think/feel they are getting such secret confidential information that the person recording it has to protect their identity to avoid retaliation.
-
I dont understand why the robot voice is so popular for vids like that. Happy Easter!
-
Ok, can this thread perhaps be the final resting place of the line that tanks are mostly immune to artillery?
-
The US has an anti material sniper rifle or two, but I think just one, that is kind of like a PTRD. You can have it in your UKR or DPR force by adding the American sniper to the team you want. Gotta use the mission editor for that but that doesn't sound like a problem.
-
2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:
Just because a 155mm round to the turret of an M48 can knock that vehicle out, does not mean that same effect applies to every tank that has ever existed ever.
3 hours ago, John Kettler said:Interestingly enough, none of the damage to the armored vehicles or tanks was the result of direct hits—all the damage was caused by near hits
It was mostly not talking about direct hits. But I guess is is tough to know how more modern armor might react differently. but on the other hand a lot of it is still steel.
-
I'd love to see the 20 or whatever tester Armata end up in CMBS. Its a game, easy to justify it, and it doesn't seem far fetched to me.
-
So, just to be clear, and no offense, but are you a real live woman on here?
-
Yesterday right after reading your response I read the rest of the wikipedia article, and a bit about H&Ks free floating barrels; quite an impressive gun. I see it was intended that it use a 100 round mag, seems once they get that sorted out it will be unarguably better than the M249. And it seems like it might be an ok replacement for it as is, either way I'm all for them getting them. I think in the future they could hopefully replace the m16/m4, they seem like a straight big upgrade. It seems like this opens up the possibility of re-adding a squad level MMG like the M240L. Squads have been carrying around two main forms of ammo for so long, boxed machine gun ammo and magazines for riffles, that it seems like they might as well keep doing it. It also makes sense, since you are upping the range of your riflemen, to up the range of the machine gun support to keep it longer range than the rest.
-
6 hours ago, c3k said:
So, according the secret plan, the USMC will have HK416s in each squad...AND...they'll keep the SAW. Of course, they'll demonstrate/test the HK416 and "discover" how much better it is than the M16.
That was my thinking too when this issue crossed my mind late at night, maybe its just the Marines being the Marines and trying to get their hands on every piece of fancy tech they can. it seems like it is surely an upgrade to the assault rifles, so if they are just really hoping to carry em all I'm all for it.
2 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:2. There's some discussion to if a full up machine gun is useful at the fireteam level, or if it just slows them down. This is especially profound for the USMC who place a high emphasis on dismounted movement. The logic of the IAR is to keep the mobility up, but give a weapon better suited to suppression effects than simple rifle fire
I agree with your post generally but what about the IAR makes it more "suppressive" than a basic rifle? Unless the supression comes from putting holes in the enemy and I see how that works. The IAR is more accurate which makes more dead enemies and the dead are suppressed but I don't think that's what you mean.
Polish antitank pistol in action
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
ohh and by the way... not that there is anything wrong with being gay, i dont think there is, but just for the record, Im not. I just think its a cool club and I support gay self defense. lol