Statisoris
-
Posts
413 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Statisoris
-
-
Come on people, rate it, Positive aspects with 10 points spread across and neagative aspects with 10 points spread across and explain your reasoning with little snippets. ITS FUN!
-
POSITIVE 10 POINTS
+3 Improved Editor
(the added complexity is awesome for design)
+2 1-1 Representation
(a huge step forward in realistic simulation)
+3 Infantry Aquire Ammo/Weapons System
(ability to resupply was much needed
for those longer battles and when you
just gotta have that hand cannon)
+1 Specialist Infantry
(Love how infantry are better or worse at
different tasks, much more realistic)
+1 Improved Artillery System
(The artillery system has much more variety
and options, much more flexible)
---------------------------------
NEGATIVE 10 POINTS
-1 No on-map artillery
(I miss running my mortar teams around,
it would also be nice to have on-map SP
artillery and static for scenario design)
-3 Inadequate Infantry Model
(-tactics,-cover,-concealment, an insanley
important concept for warfare/game
enjoyment)
-2 Lack of Infantry/Vehicle/Weapons Variety
(the unit variety was awesome in CM1)
-3 LOS/LOF Issues/Limitations
(I would have never dreamed this would
be an issue in CMx2, LOS/LOF is one of
most key concepts in warfare)
-1 Lack of detailed individual unit setup
(ammo,weapons,special gear,unit remaining
strenght/casualties, really enjoyed
customizing CM1 units)
[ October 28, 2007, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Statisoris ]
-
I almost choked on my coffee, thats freakin scary! :eek:
-
You know the order in which the last two posters posted is funny [patboy] then [sLIM]. Sounds like Fatboy Slim, if you know who that is. Ok, I'll go hide now.
-
The creator has spoken!
-
The Abrams does have a spall liner Exel, I asked a real world tanker. He didnt know if they had been in since the beggining, but they are now. Its made of thick kevlar.
-
I had the same wish last night when playing a blue on blue scenario. I had a plt. HQ and 1st Platoon on the roof of a building. 1st Platoon had a Javelin CLU and 4 spare Javelin Missiles.
A M1A1 came along and spotted the Javelin firing and riddled the roof with coax and .50 cal fire, which killed the Javelin man.
He was the only person killed, but the Javelin was just sitting there on the roof with 2 more M1A1s observed at about 500 - 600 m, facing away from 1st Platoon.
I was thinking... dang, I wish those guys could pick up that Javelin, I could win the scenario if they could.
-
I like cheese ........
Interpret as you see fit :eek:
-
I've seen this thread for a while and didnt think this was a real issue until last night. I was playing that campaign mission where you are assaulting the town with the airport hotel in it. My Bradleys spotted those static tanks and I think a T-62something. All they did was fire their HE-I at the tanks while sitting still. There range was around 400m. I tried targeting with the "Target" command, but they never fired the TOWs. They eventually were all destroyed by the tanks while sitting still and shooting HE-I at them.
-
Are you sure the 3rd was 3 weeks? It felt more like 3.5 - 4 weeks due to the delays.
Anyone up for some betting on the patch day, maybe with a prize for the winner/s? Could be fun.
-
I think the developers should make "token" posts every so often. For people like me, it just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to see a developer answer a question or three every once and a while. They dont need to get into arguments or lengthy discussions with posters, just answer a simple question or three a week and most of us will remain in our realm of gaming happiness.
-
I think Huntarr said in some thread somewhere that they are pulling back a little, due to all the griping about known issues and all the unnecessarily repeated questions and issues on the boards.
-
Ok, just wasnt sure since there really isnt any reliable data on the armor equivalency of the Bradleys front hull armor or the ERA mounted on the Bradley. In my experience, civilian estimated figures on armor equivalency and toughness of US vehicles is usually too conservative.
What I meant by there isnt much difference between them in penetrating power is, there isnt much difference between the RPG-7 and the older ATGMs when compared to the penetrating power of the newer ATGMs and the upgraded AT-3 and AT-4.
70mm difference vs 200-700mm difference for the others.
-
Ok, while playing the third mission in the CM:SF campaign my lone M2A3 kept getting knocked out by the AT-3s that are sitting across the field. I started to wonder, those AT-3s sure are old, I wonder how the basic AT-3B and AT-4A penetration power stacks up to an RPG-7 round, which fails to penetrate the front of my M2A3 about 30-40% of the time with the standard PG-7V round, so I went and compared them.
----------------------------------------------
AT-3B & AT-4A w/ associated warheads, penetration potential
Straight on - 400mm RHA
at a 60* angle - 200mm RHA
----------------------------------------------
RPG7 with PG7V round penetration
Straight on - 330mm RHA
at a 60* angle - 130mm RHA
----------------------------------------------
I was wondering, since the penetration on these weapons arent too different and the RPG is sometimes innefective when hitting the front of the Bradley, I was wondering if the Bradley should have a greater chance at avoiding dammage when hit by these particular ATGMS. Right now, when these ATGMs hit from the frontal arc of the Bradley, they always seem to result in a penetration and almost total kill. Maybe the chance of penetration should be toned down for these ATGMs, to give the Bradley a real chance against them. Since the armor equivalency and effectiveness on the new Bradley ERA are classified secret at present, there is a little wiggle room for making the Bradleys tougher from the front from older, non-tandem HEAT charges.
The new ERA on the Bradley probably helps out alot against these older types of shaped charges. So is the Bradley's ERA simulated in CM:SF even though it is not graphically shown? If it is not simulated why not, it seems to be on almost all the Bradleys these days and certainly would be on the ones going into Syria.
Have any of you heard of a Bradley surviving a frontal hit from a ATGM? Do you think the front of the M2A2/M2A3s with ERA should be a little bit tougher against low end, older, non-tandem shaped charges?
I feel like I'm just blabbering now, I'm going to bed.
References:
http://www.bazalt.ru/rpg-7v-eng.htm (RPG 7)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at3sagger.htm (AT 3)
http://www.wonderland.org.nz/fagot.htm (AT 4)
[ October 16, 2007, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Statisoris ]
-
Alright, hopefully its just a simple problem
-
RT
Some other things I noticed
The bug seems to not occur when saving in Setup phase.
Otherwise, the bug always occurs after atleast one second has elasped in the main action part of the game (non setup phase).
-
I'm suprised that the MG / ATGM deploy bug has not been fixed yet. I thought it was one of the most obvious issues.
-
-
Yea, in hard scenarios with close time limits, this bug is almost a game breaker.
I'm sure alot of people have had that feeling that time was moving a little too fast in their games.
By the way the official types are avoiding this one on two different forum sections, I feel like they are trying to make it quietly go away. They probably are like, O **** he found it! We must keep this knowledge secure. Yes wise one, the time is not right for this to be known. Locate his residence and insure that he doesnt speak of this again. Muwhahahaha
[ October 15, 2007, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Statisoris ]
-
Ok, well maybe you are right, what we really need is someone who has actually been in the things.
Maybe that M1TankCommander guy would know.
-
There are not any good first hand peer reviewed sources on the web that state that spall liners are in any model of the Abrams, however, there are many third party sites and forums that have stated that all Abrams variants have spall liners. I also recall hearing on several military documentaries that the Abrams has a spall liner. I suggest you go find a good book or technical manual on the Abrams variants and do some research.
-
Okkkkk..........
Can a developer type person say this bug was noticed and written down so I can stop worrying about it and posting here.
-
I posted this bug in the tech support section a little while ago, but noone has responded. Since I see it as a serious bug I wanted to post it here for people to become aware of it.
-----------------------------------------
Ok, think I found a new bug, didnt see it when I searched.
NOTE - I guess it might in some wierd way be an unsaid, really anoying game feature, not sure...
How I found it and recreating -
I have gotten into the habit of naming my saved campaign games after a scenario descriptor word and then the current in game time. An example for the second mission in the SF campaign. If the in game remaining time was [1:05:30] then I would name my save file for that point as "Airbase 1 05 30" or something like that.
To recreate the bug (playing on Elite)
1)start a game and let a few seconds pass
2)pause the game
3)note the current game time remaining
4)save your game
5)exit your current game to the main menu
6)load the save game file you just created
7)compare what your game-time is now and your previously noted game-time for that save game
What the bug does
If you follow the steps above to recreate the bug, you will loose 1 minute off of your previously noted game time remaining. So in my previous example, game-time would now be 1:04:30 instead of 1:05:30 at the time of save.
This can get really annoying if you have to reload your game often, you find that your time starts to run out really fast. I hope this isnt a game feature, its annoying.
-
Any developers know if this is an already known bug?
Should air support really take that long?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I think if the Hellfires used in CM:SF had the capability to fly the way they were meant to, there wouldnt be so many accuracy problems.
Look at the optional flight trajectories of the Hellfire series of ATGMs on this page.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114-employ.htm
After reviewing them you will notice that none of the optional trajectories are "an arrow straight line" to the target as in CM:SF. If CM:SF Hellfires simulated realistic flight trajectories, I bet all in game "Hellfire retardation" would be corrected. I dont see why it couldnt be done, just make the Hellfire come in at the same angle as the Maverick, problem solved.