Jump to content

slysniper

Members
  • Posts

    3,538
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by slysniper

  1. I like them all. but as pointed out , the larger maps generally allow for aspects you cannot do on smaller maps. The secret is, what are you trying to portray. you do not need a huge map for city street fighting, actually a large city fight on a map too big becomes less enjoyable to me. a infantry only battle generally does not need a very large map to depict what is needed. but a battle where recon or maneuvering is a focus, then of course that map has to be large enough for that to be allowed. The secret is not what the size of the map is, but the right size for what type of battle it is. I recall designing a scenario where the offence needed to select one of three avenue's of approach. the terrain was such that once committed to a choice, there was no time to change or shift to the other options. the map was very large due to this, the tournament round started and many players just quit when they opened the scenario because the size intimidated them. but in truth, the map had about the same number of units as any medium battle and was focused on one or two battles the size most players were accustomed to. Many that played it praised it as one of the best they ever played. But I had to smile how many just did not even try to experience something they were not accustomed to. So in the end what I am saying, they all have their place. Just depends on the mood I am in.
  2. Amphibious Combat Vehicle under Wikipedia gives a basic understanding as to where the marine corp wants to go with their vision of needs. and if you do a search for "The Commandant's posture of the United States Marine corps presidents budget 2017" you will find more information than you want as to the present standing of our corp. and some of their requested needs note page 11 gives a little reference to getting certain programs up to needed status. The f-35 program (Of course this is listed since the corp is in terrible shape as to how many fighters they presently can actually use and how the funding for the f-35's have been a nightmare - but it is listed as to what they have coming for sure and their hopes for the rest of the funding needed.) And the ACV units - well I am glad to see it appears that funding has finally been made but the precise direction of the program still seems questionable. but it is stated 204 ACV's in the 4th quarter of the year 2020 as phase one and 490 in phase two. So there is some improvement to the Amphibious needs I have been referring to, I must admit the last I knew, they had not approved these. So only 3 years away from something they have been asking for roughly for 15 years. Most of the prototypes were along these lines
  3. Did I stir the sand in your sand box. First, I have not ever said anything about the stryker not doing or being the correct machine for its present mission. I think it does what it is intended to do. So you are getting me confused with others comments here. I do not think they should be changed in any manner other than I see no problem with adding 30 mm to the system. Second , I did get confused that I thought someone had mentioned, they would lose infantry transport ability. but that appears to be incorrect. So even better as not having a issue as to the 30mm being a part of the force make up. As for amphibious units, you don't like my point of view, that is so clear. As for generals seeing the lack we have and wanting that fixed. Since the only force that really ever is given that type of task is our marine corp, there is plenty of comments and needs that they presently have. But as is always the case, they do not get the funding to get those wish list made. So, as has always been the case, the marines are generally at the mercy of the other branches to somehow get them updated with equipment more suitable for the job at hand. In recent history, Iraq war, Marines tank corp was still in M60's until they manage to purchase none used M1's from the army . (no where to go for amphibious stuff - thus the issue) so just as you said, use them old aav's - remind me to have you be in one of those when they get used Oh, since some of you out there hate the thought that I would ever suggest that the M1 would have a Diesel engine. That fine and should be expected. look, when that tank came out, it was like one of the few times America managed to get it so right, by far the best tank in the world at the time. Even to this day, its design concepts has helped to hold it as one of the best platforms out there. but as to present design needs, does a tank truly need a turbine engine, does it impact it capabilities enough to justify it added requirements. (that is the question I really am posing) So if you cannot handle that, its ok. - who wouldn't want the best available thing if they can have it. The turbine engine is that, what I am pointing out is maybe, just maybe, its added benefits are not really needed. My point of view, you might not like it, but don't get all worked up about it if you don't agree
  4. that is back to the original discussion of stryker getting 30 mm cannons. So the point being , if a stryker cannot carry infantry as a payload, it does not make sense for that to be added as a option. My reply was , that if some stryker with 30 mm are part of a units , forces, they do not have to be infantry carriers also. They can just be attached support units, is that clear enough for you.
  5. Look, the point was, how outdated is the US forces in being able to make any inland waterway (rivers, lakes) amphibious crossing. My answer is, totally not prepared. ( what little we have is as you mentioned in the hands of the marine corp.) it is not enough, not designed well and not up to date to handle the task. So in that area the words you typed for me are fine - I do claim here that the US military amphibious units is an outdated, antiquated force so sure, I appreciate those 20 year old Russian platforms for that type of situations. But hey, look we have not needed them for the last 60 years as you mentioned, so why should we worry about having it now - you come back with the perfect American answer, don't prepare for every situation, lets just plan for the ones we think we can dictate will happen.
  6. Oops, my mistake, I was meaning the challenger which was the tank that was referenced , then analyzed how do we make something better than this. yes, you are totally correct as to 105 rounds being capable at the time to do the job. ( but the more likely real reason for not starting with the 120, was how to make more money on the equipment being sold to the government. Knowing that the 120 upgrade was almost a locked in guarantee to get the new contracts for the upgrades that was sure to be coming ) but hey, military contractors doing such things in this country, no, never been heard of. Diesel engines are used primarily because they're less fuel thirsty, not because they're better engines in any particular way. ( And this is about the only reason I question the gas turbine engines, not saying they are not the best possible thing to put in the tank.) But when it comes to design decisions, one must ask, what is gained, what is lost. So as we do in our military so often any more in this country, we don't prepare for all situations , we prepare for the ones which we think we can dictate to happen. simple example, we plan for air superiority, we really do not have our forces designed for anything but this situation. As for what I am discussing here, we again treat the logistics of running M1s with gas turbine engines as not a problem, again because we expect our logistics to be there , to work and that supplying them will not be a problem, its a mind set. I am just not sure that mind set is true, that is all I am saying ( And most other designers for other countries see it a little different, or those turbine engines would not just be in our tanks, that is all I am saying)
  7. Well, first, you need to decide for yourself if the assault command is worth using or not, the only way to decide that is to test it and try it. For me, as long as I know I have suppressive fire on the target and they are going to keep their heads down. then using assault is not a issue, its a choice. my other option is using another move command or the evade button as a move. now what is going to dictate which I choose, most of the time its other events on the map that are helping make the decision. evade will make all my men move to the target fast, not likely break or pin and get there about the same time. (thus not a joke, its a good assault option.) but if I do not want to risk a whole unit in such a move, then assault might be the best option. if I might receive fire from other directions and I have some cover in route to the target, then maybe quick is the best choice. There is never one answer for these things, and darn it sometimes I don't pick the best one, thus the reason its so fun to play.
  8. As for your other items of disagreeance, you can hove your opinion and I will have mine. except for the M1 gas turbine engine When the tank first came out, it was really needed, it was the only power horse to get the job done. But my proof of it not being the best design now with what has developed since then. just name any newer tank designs going down the path. Proof of great design is when someone copies you. That is the only evidence needed, its not the correct path. And you are crazy to not understand how the brits helped with the armor design on the M1, and look how similar the M1 is to the centurion, early design decisions were made from what the brits learned during their development. Designers do not start most projects from scratch, they take the best knowns out there and develop or try at least to develop a new and better mouse trap. (tank in this case)
  9. LAV-25 (and variants). AAV-7 (and variants). LCAC. (For those that do not know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion) Are you kidding me, thus the reason I said we have no ability. This are so outdated as to filling the needs of today, and we can do so much better. Lav-25 is ok, but that is almost a 40 year old platform. AAv-7 were never designed for land, they are truly only good in a constant water environment. (they were a piece of crap when they were new and now 50 years later, should not exist at all on the battlefield lcac is again outdated to what they have now if they would just build it. (plus we really need something that is good for land fighting and movement of troops, not just beaches. There is the next generation stuff out there, fast, mobile, more capable of multi tasking land and water situations. Your present list are knights of the round table in a world of guns
  10. Now, back to the point of the 30mm on a few attached strykers and that being added to the unit formations. In no way does that prevent them from doing any of their present missions or does it make a huge change in logistics. (they still have the same basic platform they are running on so support would not be taxed that much more). Now, there was a comment that they might not be able to be lifted in on the same planes. well, that might be true, and if so and you could not get the needed air, then I would say, they would be left behind if the mission was still needed. As for them carrying troops, simple answer, no. (just think of them as a added support unit , no troop support is mandatory to function as part of a stryker unit) See most of these issues come down to design and how to make a unit work - and as mentioned before - most Americans are real good at getting that concept screwed up.
  11. Logistics man, Logistics. To make a large organization run, it does require giving out different responsibilities to different groups and then when needed having a method to get them to work together on the same operation. If you can get around that, power to you. (So far most of the world has not figured out another way to make it work)
  12. In the right situations, it works better than the assault command.
  13. So this topic has not gone far. So there are a few comments that point out how in Truth, American military design for its equipment has a tendency to get lost as to its purpose. And if anything can be said, that is the only thing that almost always seems to happen with our stuff and is the biggest truth spoken. From the moment armies started making armor. America has had a tendency to miss the boat as to the best designs. (And don't give me that bull about the Sherman being the best tank. crap.) But the other truth is, American Soldiers have always managed to find a way to use what they have been given and learn how to make it fit their needs. The stryker isn't amphibious (well who said it needs to be that machine that floats on water) but I do agree that America is not prepared in the least degree for certain conflicts because of our lack to cross small water bodies with any type of military formed units with that ability. Its one area I think the Russian army shines, and if as a leader of their units and I was to be fighting Americans, I would find a way to take and make that mobility advantage pay off if I could. America needs amphibious mobile fighting unis, we lack them presently. As a Old Marine, I will say, we have designs and prototypes that fill that need with amazing capabilities but without approval, equipment built and units formed. We sit in a position that we should not, but what's new with how things are going anymore. I will say, we did almost get it right when the M1's came out. but we stole much of that from the Brits and in truth, they did have the 105's, which was the incorrect choice, so no surprise that needed fixed and it did not take long for that to happen. And second, I still am not sure that the M1 gas turbine engine was or is the best choice either. I understand better than most as to why they needed it. but as for feeding them things on the battlefield. talk about a nightmare in logistics. If anything was to ever go south, m1's stranded because of lack of fuel is a very easy scenario to create.
  14. And since I know how you love to run your men to bloody glory. Evade can also be used as a assault command. Just think of it as the button to make you a Russian commissar
  15. actually you are almost correct, I would do as you and get them the heck out of there but I would use the evade command for my movement. Evade button is the best tool in the game. Not only will the troops run to cover, but they will resist the urge to drop and get pinned again. I have found evade to be one of the best movement commands in the game.
  16. This is by far not a question that is easy to answer. First, I think you need to get your head out of how board games work, its hard to get cm to work on similar concepts. But my suggestion to you is this, you need to get a feel for how cm works with movement, yes, what you are requesting is good to understand. but getting a chart handed to you is not likely to happen. The best thing to do is set up a test map. place your units on the map and then run a test for what they will do in the terrain you want to check them against. you will get pretty direct results on distances a unit will make in that minute. Run the test multiple times, in each terrain type you want to check. But here is where the problem begins, ok that might get you a good number if the troops are in perfect order and no one is firing in their general area. but the truth is, the troops condition and how exhausted they are impacts how fast they move,. they might not even take your orders and follow them if they are having morale issues. Terrain does not work like a board game, woods is not always the same, depending on how the woods are created in the map, they can portray many different levels of obstruction to movement and viewing, none of which is easy for you to tell until your troops are actually in there doing it on the game. So in CM, its more of a feel for what you expect your units to do instead of knowing for sure what they will do. You will only get good at it after playing it alot and seeing the general tendencies of how troops react under certain conditions. So running troops that are fresh at full speed on turn one will result in what is expected. but running troops that might be exhausted, have a few men killed and still having to haul the same equipment is going to be a whole different world in what will happen. There just is no charts for this. The game is like real life, you don't know how far that second group is going to get in a minute, because in truth, you wouldn't know for sure in the real situation either. you would assume a logical guess and hope for the best, the same is true in the game
  17. putting 30mm on the stryker is not creating the end of the world situation. the units would still perform the same type of missions. Of course, in my world, they would only be a portion of the force make up. with the present .50s and Mk19s, and such still being part of the force mix. It would just add a little more flexibility as to what they are able to do. And in my book, any good commander wants as many options as he can gets. So anyone that gets defensive as to such a thing being a bad decision in my book is someone that is not mentally built to be a good leader. Pointing out that weapons will be used incorrectly because leaders will think they can do more than they should is a stupid argument. That fact will be there no matter what is provided at any scale. There will be plenty that will always make poor decisions no matter what they are in command of and how it should be used. So not providing a certain weapon to help prevent that is total crap, because it is not a true factor for those type of stupid events. Buts this is not a discussion as to human behavior is it.
  18. Boy, it sure would have been nice to get to this response much sooner. I always like it when you give clear statements as to why the game is designed in its present state, this does that. For me anyway, it is a good insight as to how you think of it as a designer, and for seeing the logical decisions you are making for why things are as they are.
  19. NO, I did not say change your present iron mode, I said add another level of iron mode with that feature. Personally , I could care less, I don't play it unless someone I am playing against has selected it. But adding another level that is harder for real is not a issue as long as it does not take a bunch of programming time, that is the sense I am getting from BF. Presently Iron mode really does not change the challenge much for someone who does not want it too. Having a Iron level 2 with less ability to see the whole situation sounds like a simple way to create that for those that want to compete that way.
  20. Steve, I think you just gave the answer to how to get that iron level 2 mode.. Why not provide this one more level of iron mode as a selection in the game that you just described. Don't allow the game in this mode to go to a deselected view. Thus, a simple change for those that just want to have the added challenge. Because as you said earlier, most players don't want this, but for a few who do, make it so they cannot cheat. no big picture view in the game at all. maybe it could be added without much effort, which since only a few want it I know you don't want to spend too much resources on it.
  21. Carlwaw, What is your point, to put yourself out there as a target for the few fans that sit around here and post all the time. Are you wanting to be a prophet and show us your foreseen powers to tell us what the future is, so we might follow you as the great all knowing war gaming god predictor. or are you just someone that likes to see if they can stir up trouble because there not enough of that around already. Whatever it is, which I really do not care what your motive is. You logic is as stupid and that of most of it here from posters on the forum. Look, there is no question as to this forum and any associated with these games as becoming less active on their sites. How could it be any other way. How many people want to spend day in and day out talking about the same old thing. Thus the lost of interest, thus the reason most have moved on. Most don't visit the sites much anymore because there is nothing new to discuss or learn. When there is not much change in the game, not much different in the tactics to use and not anything new to learn how to play the game better. (then why would anyone in their right mind spend much time here on the site.) Even when a new game release is had, the activity is nothing compared to when the first CMX2 game first came out (and it wont be) Until a day that a new entire game engine is made and a new way of having to play because of it is had. Then and only then will there be a increase in what we see as a game community on these sites. But as to how many play these games, how many drop in from time to time to see when the next is available and to what extent they manage to keep their costumers. The only source worth listening to is BF, because they are the only ones with any real facts and knowledge on the issue. From what I can tell, they seem to paint a very different picture than yours. Plus I know enough to know that those interested in these games are not the normal type of consumer anyway. For most its more like a addiction, seeking for a fix for a need that they have. For me, its that need to have the mental challenge of dealing with the tactical decisions that the game creates as one plays it, I love to put my wit against another's and see how well my decisions do. For some they are addicted to armor, they drool over the models like a work of art and are always trying to make them better. For others, its a way to experience history , history they cannot live for themselves. And the reasons go on. But the fix for their addictions is very limited, and BF is one of the very few places to get a hit, and they do just a good enough job that they want that hit again and again. So calm down, I know you are presently in withdrawals for whatever the fix is you need, or you would not be here in the first place at this time and with this attitude of yours. BF is wanting your money, they have product on the way and when it comes we can all get high on it for a moment til its time to beg for more.
  22. BF is alive and well. Its good to hear some news as to upcoming releases. CMSF II really excites me and will really pay off for you as it takes my money. Did not get the first version because of all the issues, so it will all be new content for me, that will be way more than I likely will ever get to. CMBS has become my favorite game in the series, so I can see CMSF moving high on my list also.
  23. When I was running Mcafee, back a year ago or so, it also had problems with CMFI. It did not identify the file for me but also would do a partial uninstall on me. I would have to turn it off to run the program. So this file is a bad named file, so is this not something that can be fixed in the program. Or is it something we just have to deal with on our end
  24. What the My windows defender found this in the file and has deleted Cmfi from my machine. Is there any known issue of this being within the program. Now or at any time??
  25. Well, it just so happened I had the perfect situation for the use of the command last night, very similar to the fine example given. I was playing CMBS and had a Bradley I wanted to move up to a hull down position so that I could fire on a house that I figured was a perfect location for defenders watching that ave. of approach. So I did just what you instructed, even set my movement point past the ridge just to make sure I would not stop it from getting to a spot far enough. gave the target as the house, which was single story high and lets see what happens. My unit moves up and stop way short of being able to put fire on that location. but what I did find was it was hull downed to that position. (at least that is what the unit tells me when I click on it and try to target that house) so by your example, I would have to select a target point in front of the house by a few hexes. (but if I do that, I will not know if I am going to get hull down or partial hull down.) But I gave the command another try and had the same results (two fails) Where as, I can just select the point I believe is going to give me a good hulldown position that I like, target the area I want to see, it tells me what my hulldown status will be and I can check it to any other location I might have concerns about. I hit the command and know for sure where my unit will go, and know what it is going to see after it gets there. Sorry, but I am still in the camp that the command is not that good and that there is a better method.
×
×
  • Create New...