Secondbrooks
-
Posts
669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Secondbrooks
-
-
Warelephants with kevlar/ERA-protection and ATGMs?
Ammo caches for all sides would be quite okay, pure light infantry without vehicles really could use them. Or then just trucks for Syria.
-
Perhaps the trees aren't programmed to break under indirect hits?
Atleast earlier they were. Few MRL batteries were enough to make large spot of forest turn into wasteland, i'm not sure are trunks undestructable, but branches does get blasted away..
But they indeed are tough. If thinking that each trunk is just one tree as they are then they take loads of damage. Seems like much more that some heavy MBT is able without seriously breaking
-
Forested maps right now are rather cubersome to play. Somehow LOS and LOF are hard to understand and it's hard to plan by those. Game still doesn't handle combat in forest very well (infantry is inferior to tanks in forest, for example). I would think that it would be a lot easier to play jungle/forest-combat with CMx1 engine... 1:1 doesn't seem to work that much with trees, at least from player's perspective.
Then again Vietnam wasn't just about jungles... But what is Vietnam-game without proper jungles? Next to nothing.
-
So M249 is both LMG and SAW, as is RPD. And M240 is probably too in something like Recon squads/teams armed with it. Such relief. Thanks.
-
except for the RPD
For shake of my last bits of mental health i have to (finally) ask this. Are SAWs such as RPD (well not sure about this) and M249 considered to be LMGs or are they just SAWs and not LMGs?
And if there is some difference, what it is then? Weight? Place to where weapon gets slotted (into riflesquads or platoons MG-teams)? or something else.
What is definition of SAW? And what is definition of LMG?
So there.
-
So are you going to see these things far forward? I suspect not and based on years of exercising against this threat the default was that if you identified ZSU-23/4, SA-9 or SA-13 then 9 times out of 10 you could confidently assess that the Regimental HQ or the Artillery Battalion were not too far away.
Or then they are just decoys. Ofcourse there are loads of other things which has potential to expose regimental HQ and similar. So identified AA-battery is preferably just one piece of intelligence material.
Granted i know about intelligence and counter-intelligence (if decoys can be put under that name) as much as pig understands about pearls and diamonds.
-
Well, I hope I don't have to wait that long to get a genuine set of m/05 in my hands
Steve
Don't know how soon copyright owned by FDF ceases... If copyright is right word? what i mean is that FDF is only one who can buy those items. There's talk that uniform is released to civilian markets in one or two years if FDF doesn't expand it's copyright for more.
So you probably will get it sooner that 2040. Price will be too salty atleast for my wallet, heck i had to make my own (lousy) 3D-outfit for húnting porpuses. But to guy who is about to buy BMP3 i quess it's, eh, filthy cheap
-
"poor" ? Please elaborate on this. Or did you just mean "old"?
Don't know other than that DDR's rifles needed quite bit of care from weaponshmits to get into average condition, so eventually they weren't that cheap. Old or just poorly made, i don't know which. I've handled DDR-rifle which had everything knit together and barrel painted to yellow to mark that it's practice weapon, those were issued to MOUT-training. So my personal experiences are rather limited.
Steve: We will probably have professional military by that time. And they will still use M/05 because defense budget can pay just their salaries
-
Heh, all these equipment stories are the same
Well we received rather modern kit back in 1999, most of kit was from 80s at latest, as that was time when newest combatants kit was taken into use and there was enough of it to share to ever guy in training. Summer uniforms were from 60s, as newer uniforms were still in "vacation rotation". New uniforms are used first at leves, parades, longer vacations, then after some time they are moved to field-service for traning units and finally put into "wartime slot".
And first 5 years of reservist rotation kit usually should to be rather good as reservist still belongs to most vital units. During second and possibly third rotation to lower level units issued kit starts to degenerate quite fast, and most of low-level units might get just combat gear from 60s, rest he has to bring from his home. Have heard few stories from guys at refresment training who has been shocked (freaked out to be more precise) when they understand how poor equipment they are issued. In 80s even weaponry of some units could consist mostly ww2 era weapons, SMGs, semi-action rifles, Maxim MGs, 75mm PAKs. I didn't much laugh when i understood that. During 90s all men could be armed with assault rifles, thanks to poor but cheap DDR and Chinese AKs which came to markets.
Well wartime manpower has reduced to about half in last decade so issues with equipment has got better. FDF has finally been able to get rid of it's ww2 gear (presumably) completely last year.
-
One real world tactic that I can't see working in CM:SF is discussed in "Dusty Warriors"
Step 1) Plaster objective with artillery/air as required
Step 2) Rampage right up to the objective in Warriors, whilst mounted and spraying the bejesus out of everything in sight and a few things that aren't
Step 3) Throw the infantry out of the back so they can shoot things and people and blow stuff up.
Step 4) Back up a little and continue machine gunning anything not dressed in DPM
Step 5) Look for the raving lunatic masquerading as your section commander then go and pick him up.
Step 6) Move to the next bit of dead ground
Step 7) GOTO Step 1)
I've used this as Syria, when testing how it works. If there is enough arty (about 20-30 tubes does it for defeding company
), and fire mission planning and attacking mech unit's movement's goes smoothly much nothing will stand on it's way. This in battalion/reinforced company, having 1 tank for platoon of mech inf, vs defending light infantry company. I usually lost few vehicles because i didnt' bothered to give them area fire targets. Defending infantry was still pinned down in their foxholes (i used general ammo-type so that most defenders would survive the barrage) as assaulting infantry dismounted, charged and finally broke into defenses, blew-up and shot cowered enemy infantry. Old fashioned and brutal.
Ofcourse this was text-book example, defenders and everything were setup in "traditional" forms and ways, and i played against AI.
I've also used it with light infantry fights. As long as fire mission planning and other supporting fires and own assault element's movement goes well it's very succesful tactic.
Usually problem is insufficent amount of tubes (or too long time to wait for them)... Or that firemission lasted one minute longer than i tought, which is ouch!
-
Other than factors like maximum range, does the game model any other differences inherent in the two weapons, such as time needed to aim the weapon at a target?
I don't think so. Was once asking that is SAW poorer in CQB situation than M4 or similar considerable lighter weapon and Steve said that there is no such difference modeled. Along those lines.
-
I've been trying to say time after time that i don't much mean tactical side of things, but in wider scale. In operational and strategical level.
EDIT: Ali-Baba understood exactly what i'm after. And probably explained it in far more understandable form. Thanks for that.
-
Great. Can I have your stuff?
I play the game because it is the most realistic representation in a game that I have found to date (including ArmA) of what is going on in the world RIGHT now. Something I can immerse myself in. WW2 is fantastic etc, but is covered by so many different game companies and so many different genres of game. BFC filled a gap with CMSF and I salute them for doing so.
I think the rest of your post is utterly rubbish, especially the part of Soviet Doctrine being entirely useless. I also seriously doubt BFC are trying to make some hollywood movie here, and I think they approach the game with as much objectivity as possible.
Feel free to provide some examples of how BFC are playing Hollywood movie, and feel free to offer some suggestions (other than Normandy, which is what they are working on) to help BFC get back on track.
Yes. Conflict in Syria was interesting at start. Right now it ain't. What would make it more interesting? Make Republic Guard division/regiment to score stunning counter attack which wasn't expected or prepared for, that in my mind has various plus-points.
1. Campaign feels (it doesn't need to be) more challenging, not just tactical battles. If i can see large red arrow almost touching blue arrow's flank on briefing screen then i usually start to think that we are screwed. This makes nice vibes runnign down my spine.
2. Results probably will echo to gameplay, forcing developers to design different kind campaign-missions, they might be more challening or not.
3. Syria wouldnt' be as dead horse to beat as one expected. Yes it can be that in tactical scale (like in Objective Pooh), but i'm not talking of tactical scale, i'm talking about whole conflict.
4. It doesnt' need to make Syria to win.
That is simple, but not only solution. Ofcourse it's too late for that, general lines for progress of war have already been set. And i don't expect Brits or rest of company to fare worse.
Another (and better) would be to make mini-campaign(s) from Syrian point-of-view (i doupt BFC has resources to make full campaign for Syria) and more scenarios which are playable for Syria. Atleast that way (official) story of conflict would get more interesting "OMG! We gonna die!"-vibes. Right now CMSF tells mostly just US&co side of story, in which most drama seems to be that will men get their daily rations or not (being bit sarcastic).
In CMx1 most scenarios and operations were playable for both sides. It felt good. I'm not hoping that BFC would go back into WW2 (permanently), modern setting has much new to offer. But the way BFC made it's scenarios and operations playable for both sides (there were few exeptions) back in CMx1 was good solution and BFC should aim for it once again. Hopefully CMSF Cold War as well as Normandy will have that once again. Stories themselves will be more engaging, of that i'm quite sure.
-
You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but in fairness, I don't see how you can state that BF are being un-objective. They are merely modelling reality, in that syria, like most middle-eastern countries, uses soviet equipment, and is inferior, militarily speaking, to the west, both in equipment and in training.
By objective i mean not taking sides. Right now CMSF feels more subjective than objective in that way. Whole attitude of BFC (or maybe just Steve) feels wrong for Syria. That is not nice thing for wargame me thinks.
Sure conflict it self might be objective (i don't posses enough brain-powerz to judge that), but then again whole conflict is becoming quite boring. That is my another point.
-
Have to admit that i'm not probably going to buy Brit module. One reason being that RED doesnt' get new toys and another reason being that RED still is weakling, it's the one which you take from dark closet and beat with stick. Again and again and again.
I basically have grown fed with background story. Superior West beating Middle-Eastern county relying on Soviet equipment and doctorines (which by default are bad, useless almost). No question of outcome. No drama, tragedy (for West). And devs taking quite purely western approach and point-of-view, so tragedy and drama on Syria side doesn't get noted. Getting rather boring i might say.
Sure i can play as Syria, or Blue-vs-Blue. Yes, i've been doing that. However game has gotten to state that it has become boring, ugly even i might say: I dont' want to play game which has basically grown so west-centric, how many scenarios did we have playable for Syria in USMC module? I doupt Brit module will have more. At start it atleast little bit tried to focus also on Syria. But now it (the game, developers) doesn't try at all anymore: They have gotten sucked into "West being main character, the hero"-state of business, which ofcourse is most cost-effective solution. I somehow have seen Battlefront being somehow gallant/objective/equal knight (back in CMx1 days) but more and more CMSF progresses, less i see that. Quite frankly i dont' see objectivity or equality at all anymore.
Ofcourse this is just me. I'm not whining or anything (If my text seems to be dramatic that is just the way i like to write). I'm not that fanatic fan to actually really-really-really care about it. just rambling as i have time and this thing crossed my mind.
-
Secondbrooks,
Not quite true. Yes, the BAR was an insufficient weapon for the task compared to a belt fed MG. The Bren was better than the BAR but still not the optimal design to center on. No question there.
Where you are wrong is about the functionality of 2x LMGs per Squad. The original concept was to have a small base of fire built around a single LMG and have the larger mass of the Squad maneuver and/or try to pick off the guys cowering or running away from the LMGs. The thing is the US Squad was so HUGE that, basically, the base of fire was too small proportional to the numbers of riflemen. I think that's your point. However, I suggest even a MG42 would be too small for supporting 10 other soldiers. It's not simply a matter of volume of fire but of being in more than one place simultaneously..
Think about leap frogging. How quickly would maneuver require the base of fire to relocate to keep up with the others? Often. What would the Squad do for a base of fire when the single LMG was on the move? Not have a base of fire
The solution developed was quite elegant. Instead of having 2 teams where one is base and the other is maneuver, why not have 2 teams where each one has its own base of fire? That way if leap frogging there is *always* a base of fire can relocate forward as quickly as the leg infantry.
This is how nearly all modern combat units are organized, with the apparent exception of Finland.
If you need more evidence of this, look at many of the WW2 German Squads. Arguably they had the most advanced LMG of its day, but they increased the count from one to two even though often times the squad size was slightly smaller (8 men vs 9). If you look at CMBB you'll see that most of those formations have dedicated transport, so I'm going to guess that one of the reason they didn't issue 2x LMGs to everybody is this might not have been terribly practical given the strain on logistics which was acute through most of the post 1942 theaters. Cost, training, etc. likely were the remaining reasons. However, a fairly large range of Squad types were issued with 2xLMGs instead of the 1xLMG which most "vanilla" Rifle Squads had.
Are my brains having some sort brain rotting decease which eats my IQ... Which makes it ever worse is that i have hard times to understand what has been said in these Forums. It's like -25% to ability to understand English when i come here. I don't know is that coded feature or bug, but Battlefront forums are funky in that way.
But are you saying same thing as i did?
Like i said things started to turn more into teams. And there to ability for teams to support each of other, giving them flexibility and more independence from platoon. In ww2 squad's battle was more dependant of platoon. Not as flexible. But without doupt there was arising idea of using two equal teams in squad (equality being that they both had LMG). Some nations like ours used high numbers of SMGs in this role too. They were much lighter for logistics too.
Then again studies i've been reading seems to point out to fact that for example in Vietnam squads hardly ever used teams (so they went back to ww2 style) if their manpower dropped to around 8. After this concept of two LMGs is seen to be bit too overpowered in firepower.
About Finland... Heck i wish i knew what is reasons behind this. But i can't get confirmation from anywhere. We even got grenade lauchers during this millenium for MOUT oriented units, woodland jaegers will probably never sees them... Well maybe during next century.
One thing interesting is that SMGs were most valued weapons, assault/support weapon with 70 rounds. I think half of the highest merits soldier could had, Mannerheim's Cross, was given to soldiers who used SMGs.
Yes. And that is seen as limit to combat capacity. 1-2 casualties and by historic reference you don't have functioning teams anymore, even more they are more weapon-squads than riflesquads. With 9 men squads. Marines can first drop off their third team.The reduction from Squad size of 11 to 9, 8, and even 7!! has more to do with mechanization rather than anything else. There's a practical limit to how many soldiers you can cram into a single armored vehicle, and 9 seems to be about it. The only way around this is to go HUGE like the Marines have done with the AAV. But the concept of the Marines as a fighting force is distinctly different from most country's fighting forces (including the US Army), so it's a bit of an odd exception. However, note that they are organized around 3x LMGs. This gives the Marines an edge over all smaller forces in terms of firepower, ability to maneuver, and capability to sustain casualties and remain effective. Anybody playing CM:SF Marines knows this already
But anyways it's just theories and learned facts (at least from one side) which i've had luxury to be able to read. I don't say i agree with them whole hearhtly.
Okay. I'd like to disagree, but then again i really don't know much. Like Clavicula_nox said:The general consensus is "no", which is why as the world has urbanized over the decades the combat forces have gone with smaller and lighter weapons with more capacity for short range firepower vs. long range. Other weapons are tasked with greater combat ranges so that, in theory, there is a net gain of combat potential and little loss in any specific way that could get a force into serious problems.Steve
So it's probably out of scope of CMSF anyways. Too small micro details.If the game could simulate the influences of adrenaline overdoses, then I would say "No", weight shouldn't come into play once the unit triggers that overdoes; otherwise, I would say "Yes", weight should definitely affect your abilities to fight at close range.
Elmar Bijlsma wrote:
Having fired both the FN FAL and the Diemaco C7 I suspect the reason for the preference amongst some for 7.62 is morale. Firing your gun is known to be a morale booster. And boy, when you fire off a 7.62, you sure get the bigger boost. While the C7 is much kinder to the firer, firing the FAL was very satisfying.
I tested my first 12 gauge shotgun to day. Butt was resting on wrong spot. Bang was loud (i had cigarette's filters in my ears), recoil bruised my shoulder muscle. It made me weep... Almost. At least it made me feel like idiot.
-
The other differences are generally smoothed out by numbers and/or unit weapon mix. If you look at a typical Syrian squad and a typical US or British Squad you see the same type of mix at roughly the same numbers. This was not true in WW2 since nations were still trying to figure out what the best mix of weapons and size of their squads should be. By war's end a more-or-less optimal size of 9 men with 2x LMGs (automatic rifles) and the rest automatic rifles was arrived at by pretty much all sides and it hasn't undergone much change since.
I don't find info supporting this. US had two BARs as BAR was insufficent giving firepower needed. MG42 was very well sufficent. Today why two LMGs and such is favored is more idenpendent teams able to support each of other in more flexible manner. During ww2 it was more situation based and the team without LMG wasn't as able to provide firesupport to enable LMG-team to start moving.
Also after ww2 11 guys was considered to be optimal (after typical casulites it got to 9). 4 guys tied to BARs, while rest providing close combat ability. More interesting now days is the fact that there seems to be quite lot of questionicing is todays 9-men squads being far too overpowered when it comes to firepower, and far too underpowered (after casulites) when it comes to CQB capacity and also inability to work in teams. 4 guys wiedling LMG/SAW or greandelauncher, 1 leading, four riflemen... When few guys gets taken away, riflemen's number gets lower as firepower rulez and it has to be maintained... Then again riflemen should provide best CQB capacity. So basically what we would have here is former riflesquad acting now as weapons-squad... Heck i don't know, we still use concept of one LMG (because of "no money"-issues or because of studied facts i dunno).
To make it clear i don't care is rifle M16/M4 or AK the thing i'm interested more is: Does rifle have anykind bonus in CQB. Does it make soldier to perform better at some situations compared to guy armed SAW or rifle+M203 (and sh*tloads of grenades)?
Does weight affect to CQB capacity?
-
Thing which makes me wonder is that: Does regular assault rifle give individual better close combat abilities than rifle with grenade launcher or SAW or LMG in CMSF?
-
"All of you think that you know war because you have read Jomini. But if war could be learned from his book, would I have allowed it to be published?"
Napoleon
True. I find it hard to believe that some field manuals would have any so vital info which one wouldn't know. For example our officers back in cold war times did study in academies of both sides. Soviets infact "demanded" that us to sent few officers into Frunce for a year.
One even published book about what he learned and experienced while studying in Frunze. At same time other officers visited NATO academies also. One one didn't seem to be bothered by that fact that information might have leaked a bit to other camp... Well in West Point (if i recall correctly) they weren't allowed to participate on lessons conserning nuclear weapons.
Soviets strickly denied that they would use such thing... atleast before NATO. Ofcourse teaching might have been alerted to be more wrong than right.
-
Well that isn't most clear post i must admit.
But no vodka, just trying to make rainy day bit brighter for myself.
-
WOAH! Just had strong flashback! Back in Steel Panter days i liked to study ever vehicle in game. In SP2 i remembered ever piece of equipment and it's specs from major armies (that encyklopedia thingy if someone remebers). Ofcourse i still sucked as a player; idiot can remeber all kinds of stuff but idiot usually isn't good at thinking... Or sumthink, hard subject to think about.
Once i look first time at CMBO it was like double WOAH!! when i could see armor quality, slopness and all kinds of shi-... stuff.
And by reading c3k's post i suddenly remembered that i really never didn't study them. Well bit of Sherman and Tiger, the usuall you know, nothing hardcore. This is my triple WOAH!!! I feel almost ashamed that all that work they put on such details really didn't make me to put my energy on it.
Forth WOAH!!!! is that i really didn't care that CMSF didn't offer my much any additional info... Ofcourse i still probably suck as a player. And i learn that my old T-55 really doesnt' see M1 before M1 sees it.... Then i tend to forget it.
This is my constructive post. Or sumtink.
-
It's always fun to watch when "pride of arms/unit/branch" goes to clashing course.
I hate artillery guys, such slobs they are. And usually stupid too.
-
AT-4 takes minute or bit above, while going into positions. This includes rush to actual positions (100-50 meters). And ATGM-system is ready to fire when this time has been passed. In CMSF we can ignore rush so minute should be pretty close, with well drilled team. If there is no additional whistles and bells (Thermals and countermeasure-detector) it's less than minute.
Pack-up time is matter of seconds, before men rushes away from their firing positions. Basically gunner flips sight down, and lifts launcher up. Loader and leader takes missiles which are remaining. Only after rush to "safe-zone" launcher is "undeployed", tripod collapsed and laucher put into carrying pack. While missiles might be attached to carrying frames. We are speaking of around 10-20 seconds of additional time in here. Thermals and countermeasure-detector will slow things bit, but Syrian don't have them in their AT-4 so it doesn't matter.
Fix that
And i dont' think any other AT-4 kind ATGM-system (Saxhorn, Kornet for example) is worse, because they basically are the same.Overall i won't say that SPG-9 is dead meat once it fires... Right now it basically is, because first time it changes it's positions it's useless for way too long time, but well positioned SPG-9 is painful needle in opponent's flesh. It's all about guality of firing positions.
Ps. Oh yeah i happened to ask this from actual user, that AT-4 thing.
-
When i was in the army, my commander - tank captain told me something about tests running in Germany... They were shooting with Leo's against the T-72M1 and the results were very negative for West Germans. He was in exchange program in Germany and riding a real Leo. This information told him German Officer who was participating on these tests. He showed me even some photos, but sorry i don't have any copy.
I also think CM:SF2 should be vanilla 80's with modules bringing new models
Funny how during one test BMP-2's 30mm AP round pierced T-72M1's armor and exited thru commander's or gunner's hatch. Destroying lots of expensive sensoring gear which were inserted inside tank's turret to monitor effects of impacts from 30mm AP-rounds.
Bad luck as 30mm happened to hit some "go-thru" and basically didnt' face much any armor at all... Untill it rammed itself thru hatch.
Of new Syrian unities for CMSF?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I try to think that Red should get something, but outside elephants, trucks and ammo caches i can't think of anything which really would add something valuable to game. Basically whole Syrian army has been represented already doesn't it? Well they may have excluded some Gray Beard Division with training like 'conscript - 10', but that really DOESN'T add anything for Syrian side. They can have fairly modern kit, T-90, BMP-3s, Kornets, RPG-29s, body armors etc.
Sure it would be nice to get all of those under same battalion under same organic structure, which i'd like to call Dream Battalion. Right now i can have all those but as they are distributed bit to everywhere, sharing no information with each of other etc.
I agree that i see CMSF's current progress to be one-sided... But then again i can't really say that BFC should add more vehicles etc, i'm interested more about campaigns and missions, from official point of view (Red vs Red is interesting, Red vs Blue is even more!). However i don't expect to get those.