Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Dillweed

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    317

  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Dillweed

    Abrams Tank: Redux

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I wouldn't want to sqeeze an Abrams into an alley, dark or not. I'm thinking the tiger in the alley in Kelly's Heroes. In a big change from the past, current US Army doctrine in to drive the tanks right into an urban environments. Think the "show of force" into b-dad during OIF.

    [ October 10, 2005, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Dillweed ]

    0

    Abrams Tank: Redux

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I'm not going to use this thread to toot my own horn about how right I was on the setting. That would be immature.

    Now that the setting has turned out to be what I predicted tongue.gif What's the chance that are we gonna get our hands on one of these babies? I know we'll be commanding a stryker unit, but perhaps we'll get one (platoon?) assigned for support for a more difficult MOUT mission.

    0

    How long before ROE makes M1A2 suck dead donkeys in victory conditions

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Barrold:

    I wouldn't assume they were in, but I would think these kinds of political considerations are to be expected in this situation.

    Different eras of course, but simply flattening a city block is not going to reflect well on the flattener.

    Look at Fallujah. In a WWII situation, such a place would have been clobbered as a matter of course, but it was handled much more surgically.

    BDH

    Think I read that something like 80% of the buildings were seriously damaged. In WW2 we would have just firebombed the whole city, but I'd hardly call Phantom Fury a "surgical operation"
    0

    So why not modern Iraq?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Read the previous posts on this issue:

    "There were several reasons for not doing OIF. First, it is controverisal in a very negative way. Most of the world sees it as act American (not even Anglo-American!) aggression. Right or wrong, that is the way it is. And now with 60% of the American public being against the war and only 30% or so thinking the Bush admin is effectively managing the war, domestic support is quite low too. So controversy is one reason. The other reason is that it is too recent. We don't have a lot of source materials to draw from to do historically correct battles the way we would like. Hard enough to do WWII battles with literally tens of thousands of books in print, but something that only started 2 years ago? Think about it [big Grin] Lastly, we wanted to explore the use of the Stryker Brigade as it was originally intended to be used. The SBCTs that have seen action in Iraq all came after the initial conventional warfare phase, which mens no Strykers vs. T-72s and other such challenges. Lastly (no, really...), by making a scenario in the near future we can predict, fairly accurately, what the forces will look like and the doctrine they will follow. Plucking some completely unbelievable scenario set even further away means a lot more speculating about weapons systems in use, their capabilities, and their likely means of use. We don't want to do that. That's why you'll see us skip on the timeline from near future modern combat to Space Lobsters (when we get around to it). If we're going to be making stuff up, we might as well go whole hog!

    Oh yeah, and anybody thinks there is no chance of another conflict in the world, or the ME, until Iraq is nicely tied up in a bow... whatever you're smoking it has the kind of nice, calming, and detached from reality effect that people go to jail for possessing [big Grin] While I agree that a preemptive Iraq type scenario is unlikely, a reactive Afghanistan scenario is very much an "any time, any place" possibility.

    Steve"

    0

    Game developement

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by track:

    I'm not a great fan of modern combat. There is

    no real conflict anymore. No third world country

    will be able to stand up and win against US. If it is, then it is not a true war, but rather a limited scale conflict.

    Now normally I would hurl countless obcenaties at you and tell you to read previous comments on this. But seeing as you are new, I'll be nice.

    What you say is true, for a world war 2 style conflict. Gulf War 1, blew one of the 5 largest armies in the world straight to hell in 100 hours. Thats great, but thats a big empty flat desert. You can see things from miles away. Now tradionally the way to beat US forces is to engage them REALLY close, like under 100m. This prevents supporting fire (arty/airstrikes) and allows the OPFOR to get a shot at more vulnerable sides of tanks. Now MOUT (or urban warfare for you knobs) accomplishes both of these things (very much so for the tanks) So with all the US's whiz bang toys stipped away things quickly become much more even. A US infantry company will outclass a militia any day of the week, no doubt, but in any infantry action, especially extended MOUT guys are gonna get killed. If the fighting goes on long enough this will be a serious problem. The company that the NY times's correspondent was embedded with in lost about %25 of its men over 8 days in Falluja. Considering Damascus is about 8 times larger than Falluja, you could see how a pretty rag-tag 3rd world force could give the image concious US a serious run for its money, at least.

    0

    Defense Contracts

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    If some military wants to derail our commercial work for any significant time even THEY will gag when they see how much it will cost them :D

    Steve

    Comrade Steve,

    Hopfully you overcharge the impirialist pigs for their tools to opress the prolatariat. $10k per copy seems adaquate.

    0

    My (semi) beef with CMSF

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Where can one find real quality info about about modern small unit tactics? Global security is my best bet. Seems like most stuff you hear about the American military is more or less propaganda about weapons systems. Hey, the f-16 is a great plane but when the smallest bomb it carries is 500lbs and there some 16-year old 50m away shoving an AK in your face you are SOL.

    Unless of course you are one of those crazy bastards from Operation Anaconda

    "Woah, that one almost got us. Can you get 'em any closer?"

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

    On the subject of this thread, I for one am definately disappointed with CMx2 cum Styker Force. :(

    My fears that CMx2 was really only going to be an improved version of the Close Combat series has come true! :eek:

    Even the North West ETO 44-45 WWII second CMx2 release is another bloody US Forces focused game!

    I am boycotting both of them, not buying either, nope... bloody f'ing oath. On principle, I refuse to allow myself to be railroaded from such a multi-national military simulation as CMx1 is to the myopia of U-arSed-Sodomy. :mad:

    I'm not displeased with the efforts of the designers in any way, since the screen shoots look terrific, however I understand and appreciate what they have and will be doing for the CMx2 engine and research etc, but I wonder how their OS marketing research went? :confused:

    I can't believe that some BFCs expect all us foreigners and the Germanophiles including those in North Anallier to be comfortable having to reduce ourselves to US Forces (and minor Arab Allies AIUI and WTF does anyone want to play them for - including most Arabs to be sure) especially cosidering all the veriety of CMx1. :(

    I am discusted on this issue, this is not a case of me primarily US bashing, but a lower gut reaction to this kind of another example of commercial US arrogance and imperialism, I had thought better of them to have disgraced themselves with this myopia. :eek:

    I suggest that CMx2 ought to be tagged McCMs until they become more broad in scope and less so full of saturated US greesy fat. :mad:

    Modules my man, modules.

    Plus everyone knows that the US is the best country and everything we do is always right. Its true, you know, because I heard the president say so. ;)

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Sergei:

    </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dillweed:

    Somebody missed my point, try reading the whole post next time.

    Somebody did. It's just that you can't call people as mother****ers and then claim that let's all be happy-happy without making yourself look like an arrogant arse. </font>
    0
×
×
  • Create New...