Secondbrooks
-
Posts
669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Secondbrooks
-
-
It would be logical to not have. I think that if two squads from different platoons are next to each of other they do not communicate (=give targets) to each of other, if their platoon or company leaders are unavailable. Atleast to it seems that information moves thru chain of command, but i haven't much studied the matter. Just impressions what i've got.
-
No IEDs and Mines being on mission causes crashes to anyone else? Has to be my CMSF then.
-
Oh! I've missed this. So late reply.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:I think the other factor here is that the Bradley has very good defenses and offensive weapons. Swap the Bradleys out with Humvees or even Strykers with .50cal and I think you'll notice a significant difference in that Trident Valley ambush spot, all else being equal.
This is the case, yes. Firepower is poor, surivability is good. I just didn't understand reason how this particular case is such hard to win against Bradleys: Almost similar cases ends up differently... It's the small things, which turns out to be the BIG things. Well i'm bit wiser now.
-
Gunshield? Some 'go thru', for optics, wires or what ever. Don't know are they modelled, but i don't think i've ever seen T-72 taking out M1s from front.
-
Some much good things from 70's.. Finally i'm shamed that i haven't even been born yet back then. Boardgames closest to wargames which i have played have been warhammer 40k Space Hulk... I'm just computer-wargamer-wannabeOriginally posted by gibsonm:The “East is Red” is the title of an old (ancient?) Simulations Publications Inc (SPI) game about a Soviet invasion of China in the 70’s. More detail on this here.
I just figured if you were going to go off with the pixies putting in Divisional demolitions on a small (max 4km x 4km) map, you might as well got for broke and have the battle on the irradiated edges of the map around a big hole.
I think heavier ordinance, mines and divisional claymore, would be suitable material for CMx2 Campaigns 'The cold war'-module or Combat Mission Campaigns 'The cold war'-module... If one will come at some time.
-
Nuclear mines for Nato would do juuuust fine to compensate Soviet's advantage on dogs and claymores. They were/are tactical level i believe.
But what are these: 'PLA’s tactical nuclear demolitions'? Are you thinking of including China as well? Well, why not!
-
So they were using or planning to use dogs in sabotage(?) or antivehicle role back in 80s?Originally posted by John Kettler:Secondbrooks,
Was just reading about mine dogs in Suvorov's SPETSNAZ. There's a picture of a mine dog and his handler just prior to Kursk, and Suvorov describes the much more powerful and fuzing sophisticated version in SPETSNAZ use circa 1980s. Two birds with one stone!
Regards,
John Kettler
We also could have Soviet extra-large IED's which blows terrain features to faces of aggresors. Bury enough explosives (couple truckloads) to "friendly" bank of road and when enemy division attacks blow the whole road to enemy's eyes... 'divisional claymore' i believe is/was it's name.
But those would be for cold war module... And 'divisional claymore' would be most suitable maybe for CMx2 Cold War Campaigns?
Is BFC taking notes?
-
Panzerkampfhorses with 88? With horseshoes made of finest Krupp's steel.
Now that we have had our vehicleborneIEDs ,could we have tankdestoyer dogs too, with very fuzzy-behaving TacAI? It's eastern front thing sure, but there's lack of animals in CM-series, so this one could make it to Normandy aswell.
-
Yes. But usually all HEAT-warheads are designed to be in most effective distance from armor when fuze is ignited. There might be some specially designed warheads for slatarmor, which for example some middle-east contries produces (or is planning it).
Deforming happens if greande goes between slats, that won't happen if greande's nose hits directly to slat, when it blows up just like it should.
-
I've heard that half of penetrating power from PG-7 is cut during distance it flies from cage to armor (nothing official however). I figure that it goes thru, but effects after armor penetration are reduced quite a much.Originally posted by Adam1:Interesting, I thought it worked by detonating the RPG too far from the hull for the explosive jet to matter. If it does detonate on the cage, will it harm the vehicle? (irl)
-
There are spotting issues from terrain, which can have drastic effect on how ambush plays out with hiding order, should hiding be left out or not.
I'm still on way to understand these things, so i need to play specific situations once to know how it should be done to gain good results without micromanagement.
-
I have bit same thing from same mission (been playing it quite alot now) I had whole company waiting in vicinity of one (northernmost) village: one platoon cutting down road leading to village, one in village and one in reserve behind village. One Bradley platoon was on it's way to there too.
First bradley kinda panicked when it recived fire from behind (platoon cutting road) it started it's frenzy amok around village and in middle of my company: basically almost every AT-guy and BMP got change to shoot it at some point of time, alot missed rocket flew at that moment. I don't know how many hits it got while wandering around, but it had be atleast 10. Finally it lost it's track. Now it formed an sitting duck target, but this duck seemed to be still impossible to kill. Luckly it didn't fire back (might have been quite a mess that Bradley). I have two squads trying to take it out at this point and two BMPs heading to it's location (little but safe valley in between two platoons), but no luck crew stayed inside and nothing blew-up. It survined 3-4 minutes in total in from first rocket to moment when crew finally desided to dismount. That has been by far most resistant vehicle and most determed crew i've seen in CMSF.
-
Ordering my men to assault superiour fortified enemy across minefield where already ten corpses and burning remains of two Strykers were showing the result of earlier attempt... And they didn't even budge from their safe spots. :eek:
Well that was more because of poor AI-plan than self-preservation of my troops. Guys didn't respond to movement-orders anymore. I think this happens if reincorcements enters area outside their AI-plan or something... Atleast in earlier versions.
-
Bradley rolling just 30-40 meters away from my hiding infantryplatoon and they didn't see it. Not even symbol of suspected enemy location... Forest+trenches was location and targetarces were given to that sector. I was lucky to hear it, saw dust kicked into air from driving Bradley and told my men to un-hide, so that situation got saved.
But i've had few foiled ambushes as my men doesn't see what i expect them to see and my focus is distracted to some micromanagement-business in other side of map.
One of best ambushes i've seen was where enemy noticed my hiding men before i or my men noticed them, forest+trench and targetarces were given again while opponent came along road. I was again distracted to micromanagement in other ambush . Basically my men saw them when they jumped into trench for some bayonetgiving... I lost that ambush in quite humiliating way
[ April 07, 2008, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]
-
Yeah, altough Triden Valley is stock scenario in CMSF it's still not easy to tell what i'm actually doing.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:It's always difficult to comment on someone's game experience without actually seeing the game itself (I haven't had a chance to play Trident Valley) play out. But here is a guess...
Bradleys can easily punch through buildings. Give them a chance to punch walls and pretty much anybody inside will be shredded. Trying to hit guys in a trench or at ground height is inherently more difficult because the rounds have to hit right on target or they don't do any good. Buildings act as sponges. I also would imagine that the firing signature of an RPG-29 out a window at 100m would be pretty damned hard to miss by someone in overwatch.
My semi-informed guess is that the two different situations you saw are fairly accurate in a vacuum. Had there been a larger firefight distracting the Bradleys, or if the RPG-29s opened up on different Bradleys, or if they had been deployed in ways that made it more difficult for any one Bradley to engage more than one RPG team quickly, or something else... perhaps things would have turned out differently. Then again, I'm not so sure that a US commander would find a tradeoff between 1 Bradley and 3 RPG-29s to be as bad of an exchange as you feel it is
I'm testing both sitations and currently it seems that forest is doing the good things for Syria. Tried to use buildings "hidden" inside forest and result was very good for Syrian side, altough they needed almost all RPG-29's rockets they had. So they get good value of stealth and camoflage from trees (Bradleys didn't much fire)... Good.
In Trident Valley most likely my main problem is that Bradleys gets too close too fast, firingdistance at start of ambush is closer to 50 meters than 100 meters due blocked visibility, and Bradleys are moving fast. It seems to be fruitful to be ruthless and aggressive when getting into ambush at close ranges in CMSF... Which i'm quite supprised... Happily supprised.
-
Steve... From my part it was just poor joke. I don't oppose this 'Syrian inability to work in teams', as i don't much use it (Yup-yup! No leadership of anykind in me)
So i'm sorry from my behalf. My sense of humor has been guite bad this day (almost as bad as my typing).
Btw. haven't got any answer to my earlier post conserning Trident Valley (like someone actually did care... Laughing), but reasons for those events, mayhem for Syrian SF, are still unknown to me (Opps! That tells what kind NCO i am! A stupid and slow one, dang!) But when i made my own scenario with same distances while US is on road in middle of open, Syria in forest and trenches and result is that Syria rips a new one to US (while using buildings they are mostly wiped out). Can it be buildings and their negative effect on something like C2 of Syrians and/or building's vulnerability to 25mm grenades and maybe even easiness of spotting inside builsings by US, when comparing to trench in high ground and forest surrounding troops? As US returned fire alot slower (had problems in spotting Syrians in forest), their fire was scattered and some Bradleys didn't fire atall.
Just some thoughts, that's all. As i quite purely don't get it.
[ April 07, 2008, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]
-
compare to Finns: glorious 6 months of training. smallest tactical unit is company. defense and attack starts at range of 100 meters. fire from hip when running. attack tanks with molotov cocktails. if enemy gets into your trench (heh) use axe. bounding overwatch is done on scale of two men (one man shoots the other dashes). such innate Western tactical & doctrinal superiority.Originally posted by undead reindeer cavalry:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Splinty:
Syrian NCOs aren't trained and grown like their Western counterparts. They're chosen for their reliability and toughness like in the old Soviet system. A typical Syrian NCO has the same training and experience as one of his squaddies, hell he probably was drafted in the same round of call-ups!
</font>
-
Full of Spoilers about Trident Valley-mission
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I've been trying to play Trident Valley mission tweaked to have Syrian SF company and reservist AT-platoon having SPGs and AT-3s, instead of mechaniced company.
I don't know am i actually doing something wrong (well this should be from-the-book-ambush), but if my SF platoon (3 RPG-29s) can take out just one Bradley from platoon during ambush at less than 100 meters away and after that withness as rest of Bradley platoon first takes out all my At-specialists, and then kills rest of platoon if they open fire with their small arms (situation lasting about 2-3 minutes while SF platoon loosing most it's men)... I'm not much very pleased.
Situation is following. My ambush is set into Villages (platoon per village) which opponent is trying to take villages with bradley paltoon per villge+Company leading elements to village in middle. Whole platoon is able to open fire to spot where Bradley-platoon's infantry will disembark. Bradleys are comming one by one (but in haste tempo), my guys takes out the first one, but next ones (not visible at point when first one is being engaged and destoryed) arrives and immediatly starts to slaugther my AT-guys. Some AT-guys may be able to fire their second rocket and hit next Bradley but usually not resulting severe damage to Bradleys. Third and eventually forth Bradley arrives and my platoon has lost all AT-specialists, this happens in less than 30 seconds from opening fire.
If averagely only one of my three ambushing platoons can demolish whole Bradley platoon, while rest of fights result one derstroyed + 1 minorly damaged Bradley + some men dead, i'm prone to think that something smells bad. My gear is good, RPG-29 is beast, SF are veteran and well led and reservists are good too. I'm inside buildings, have very consentrated firepower (whole paltoon) to area where enemy will come (one-by-one). But yet i've lost.
Bonus:
My additional SPG's were having flankfiringpositions, in good AT-spirit, overwatching village in middle (which had Bradley platoon + Company's leading elements) was not other case. My SPG's could use all their ammo (about 8 HEATs+tandems + 4 HE) to single Bradley causing mobilitykill usually.
Any thoughts anyone to what i should do? I'm not manifesting against Bradleys resitance to beating, but to reason that my ambush which should have most of good cards on it's side gets mostly wiped out in short amount of time, usually tide of fight has turned against me (AT-men lying in their blood, while rest are not taking AT-wepon from him) in about than 30 seconds from first rocket hitting first Bradley.
EDIT: When talking about fight i'm meaning seperate fights (3) at each village.
Has to admit that i think that CMSF is vehicle focused/favoring game (which makes me sad), infantry can do things in reality that is not reasonable to put in CMSF, like things which JasonC told. While vehicles mostly can do just things which are in CMSF. Possible problem might we less visible if vehicles could take just 1-2 AT-round into their skin. The thing i usually preach for in some other games-related forums: if AT-guy can't work like in reality than vehicle shouldn't work and resist like in reality... I'm asshole who takes side of poor and misunderstood AT-guy.
[ April 06, 2008, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]
-
Is it 1.08 or what. but:
-CMSF crashes when mission introdces IED's, mines and maybe even UAZs. I click something and *CRASH!*
-My ATI x800 is having problems and VPU recoverer shuts down my card frequently. Also my computer freezes some times. This i can be imaging but when aquiring eqipment for my men from vehicle (BMP) this happens alot ... But i just formated my hard drive and problem might come from there, so just letting know.
-
Air-to-ground capability is in planning (and partially reached), but i think this capability will be complitely reached during 2010-2020, this is official story atleast. But i'm not very intrested on Airforces so might be that i'm dead wrong. But if there is capability but not weapons, then it would be possible that NATO could lend these to us if it's not tied to fighting and supplying arms to it's members in other fronts.
Your right with Hawks, i forgot them. Question is that does opponent reach air-superiority or does it need to divine it's forces to other sectors as well. I'm not sure does Russia have already AA-missiles which covers southern Finland complitely from Saint Petersburg... If it does... Hmm...
Your right with TRPs, overall Syria is way too slow with it's indirect fire. Good FO and good 120mm mortar crew seems to be able to deliver grenades into area of effect in 6-7 minutes. Which atleast info i'm having is way too slow on current standarts.
I'm not sure what your after with that tree-comment, but trees when foilage disabled aren't very big strain to CPU (even in 90% forest 10% open maps), this is impression i'm having. I would think that lots of tall buildings and large map is worst combination to computer in CMSF. Trenches too seems to cause loading time to increase.
-
TRP? Are you meaning target reference points which doesn't exist yet.
Problem with forest is quite clear, 3 trees per tile would be neseccary when trying to model terrain properly. Luckly we can disable tree's foilage
Basically only problems i've faced when creating terrain have been lack of walkable marsh, swamp and Syrian buildings, but i'm not very picky. But 1x1.5 kilometer map (50% forest and 50% wheatfield) caused very long loading times atleast in my slightly below average computer, but usually i tend to over-use trenches serving as ditches.
Not sure what are you after with overlap in airforces? Can Syria even have airstikes? Anyways those should have restricted from finns, because our F-18 Hornets, notice lack of '/A' letters, doesn't have air-to-ground capability currently. Well they could do cannonruns i quess
-
True, but then again most of poorly trained and equiped units are obsolent in CMSF scale as they take care of holding buildings and structures which mostly will get either bombed or tried to be destoyed by small special force-units. At least at start of war.
Type of attack most likely would be strategical strike to seize Helsinki Capital, with marines and airassaultunits direct hit to Helsinki and mechaniced units rolling from Karelia towards Capital (in Russian's case).
In this case units we would talk about in CMSF would be jaegerbrigade and brigade -05s + mechaniced combatunit and territorial batallions (which atleast in Helsinki's case aren't 2nd line troops but 1st line).
Level of traning with these units would be dependant of how early Finland would realise it's going to get attacked. Currently i think only 'Readinessbrigades' (brigade -05) have sufficent level of traning to start acting immediatly after mobilization. Rest would require week or two to fullfil lacks in equipment and traning... This however bases on my non-classified understandment.
-
i tried this. No modding, but trying out different ways to get as accurate representation of platoons, companies and batallions as possible.
First. No need to worry about 'rifle launched Grenade'. Only rifle that has that abilty is newest one. They have been produced only small amount and are given to constript training and peace keepers. Some cynical ones are saying that for possible war old rifles are saved and these new ones are ment to be broken in peace time and during war they task is to become as spare parts... However this is very cynical view.
Problems are in organisation. At company level both US and Syria are both way too heavy. Platoon's at both sides are different than finns, US being too heavy (well just MG-teams are too much) and Syria not having platoon leader's team, but usually their platoons are as light and similarry armed as finns have. Finnish should have seperate AT-team in each platoon (points goes to Syria). Ability not to split squads is bad when it comes to Syria, but i havent' much used this in CMSF (would douple the amount of micromanagement needed!).
Syrias AT-weaponry is close to finns, RPG-29 = Apilas, RPG-7 = M72 LAV, SPG-9 = 95mm recoiless gun. But finns goes the "western" way and uses disposable launchers and there usually would be mix of Apilas and M72 in platoon.
Some year 1995 module would be most accurate when it comes to armored equipment... Syrian equipment ofcourse.
Overall i'm satified with results what i can gain... But i don't need re-textured units for it, which to my understandment is all CMSF modder can do
EDIT: That training-video brings few memories, i have bad habit of watch it thru still.
[ April 02, 2008, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]
-
Thanks to 1:1 scale we would get more casualities, most likely KIA kind casualities.
More samples: "Mummy! My head doesn't fit into trench!" or "Daddy! My head got stuck to foxhole" Or "Our un-buttoned tank commander with head-as-big-as-tank's-turret just lost his head to 37mm AP-grenade"
Tell me your best attack tactic
in CMSF Strategy and Tactics Forum
Posted
+Flank attack tends to turn into frontal attacks eventually as defender responses... I think frontal assaults are being used by today even (Desert Storm had few of the didn't it). Of course what are we discussing to be frontal assault, as i'm not sure about terms: Platoon might maybe just charge, not assault, unlike company or batallion. Yes?