Alan8325
-
Posts
583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alan8325
-
-
I don't consider it cheating to pause frequently to reassess and issue orders during RT play, considering much of what squad leaders and vehicle commanders would do in real life is up to the player to do everywhere around the battlefield with a company-sized unit in CMSF.
-
Do you know if the Cobra was equipped with ATGMs or was it just using unguided rockets? If all it has are guns and rockets, then it will use rockets on the "Heavy" missions. Those things seem to miss a lot. I haven't tried this campaign yet.
-
I'd still like to see the PM modeled, even if the hands of the gunner are crudely still in the pose like they are holding a rifle. IMO that would be better from both a visual and gameplay standpoint than using the AK-74 placeholder.
-
Yesterday I was playing the Rahadnak Valley Search scenario that comes with the Marines module and I had what looked like an HE RPG round take out an entire 4-man fireteam of mine. The team was in a building with everyone standing in front of one window and only one of the Marines was firing M-16 bursts at the RPG gunner, who was in a trench. Clearly not sufficiently suppressed, the RPG gunner fired off an HE round, which turns out to have been his last after reviewing the map, that killed or injured all four men. It must have gone through the window to do that kind of damage.
-
From my experience, the Marines equipped with the SMAW will rarely attack enemy infantry using the SMAW on their own, preferring to switch to the M-16. When the enemy is in a building and I order the SMAW team to target the enemy or area target the building, they use the SMAW and usually seem to use either HEDP or HEAT first, then Thermo. I do not know what factors determine which type of round they use. While we are on this topic, I haven't noticed any increased effectiveness of Thermo rounds vs. infantry in buildings compared to HEDP. Perhaps it has to go through the window but I keep hitting the wall or something.
As for the RPG HE rockets, I agree that they should be used first against infantry in the open. Usually my RPG gunners open up on their own against either vehicles or troops in buildings though, expending their HEAT rounds first. I do not know whether HEAT is more effective against troops in buildings compared to HE (OG-7v), but I would imagine it is which is why the AI uses it first.
-
Will it be reloadable with someone unbuttoned in CMSF? On the TUSK Abrams, I believe that the top M2HB is reloadable from the unbuttoned commander, but the M2HB mounted on the main gun is not.
-
SPz Marder 1A3/A5 coax have same elevation angles like main weapon, it is classic coax, but in the external box and it can't be reloaded from the inside IRCC.
It looks like a pretty big box though. Wikipedia says 5000 rounds total are carried for the MG3. Anyone know how many the box holds? Looks like maybe 500 or so.
-
Yes, the GMG crew that I had in mind did dismount from a vehicle. I haven't tried playing around with a GMG that started out dismounted, but I'll take your word for it. I do not know if the airburst effect is conical though. Is it conical straight down like the artillery airbursts?
As for flechettes, everything I'm reading is saying that there currently is no such thing as a ban on them, but there are several websites saying that there should be one. There are some stories of 105mm flechette (APERS-T?) rounds in use with the IDF, controversially of course. As for flechettes use in the U.S., I can't find any info on historical use of them more recently than Vietnam, but also nothing to indicate that the U.S. has foregone using them.
Munitions still in inventory and possibly use with the U.S. include M546 APERS-T 105mm and M255 70mm rocket.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m546.htm
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/hydra-70.htm
The above pages are relatively old (~1999-2000), so I found a more recent Navy document (~2007-2008) discussing the methods of modifying Army M255 flechette rockets to work with Navy launchers.
-
I've never seen either in all my time playing! I'll have to look for that... how do you get the GMG to do airbursts?
The GMG has to be dismounted to see the airburst (PPHE) in the ammo tab, and the crew only seems to use it once HEDP is depleted, even against personnel targets. Once they start using PPHE it looks just like small mortar airbursts with the dust kicked up underneath.
I've never seen flechette rockets used by any aircraft either.
-
Well I remember a few patches ago there used to be an error where a few weapons, such as the Mk19, would fire several projectiles at exactly the same time with sort of a shotgun-like effect. Maybe for cone weapons they can just bring that back in a way.
-
However, what I've read about the 35mm x 228 KETF ABM ammunition is that it is not very effective in these scenarios because it directs fragmentation in a cone forward rather than backwards, down and to the sides (designed as anti-aircraft/anti-missile munitions).
I would like to know if CMx2 can model "cone effect" weapons such as ABMs, flechette munitions and "canister" type rounds fired from large caliber guns.
-
Well all of the fire support you can get would be helpful. If there are no RPGs around or if you can get the BTR into a spot where it's sheltered from the surrounding areas where there may be RPGs but has LOF to the house, then by all means, spray it with some 14.5 and 7.62!
-
More, The 1 st Platoon HQ Lt. is hiding in its house and I don’t see how I shall be able to get him out of it without being shot down by the fighters next door.
He still has plenty of hand grenades left. Perhaps with a target order on the building next door he will throw a few in there. If you want to get him out while the enemy is still suppressed from the grenades, you may be able to do it with a pause of 30 sec or so and then a move out.
-
I don't know how that would work with CMSF's spotting and LOS system. How often is there a spotting check again? Would it even be possible to put a "spotter" in the missile?
-
I wonder how BFC will handle the Fire-and-Forget-Plus mode.
I'm guessing just a simple higher accuracy than Javelin to simulate the end result. If they really want to get into detail however, they can allow the Spike to switch targets in mid flight if a higher priority one becomes available. This is something that can be done due to the camera on board and available gunner input. For example, the first target may be a BRDM at the top of a hill, but as the missile climbs, the gunner may spot a T-72 on the back side of the hill and switch to that target.
This would come in very useful in urban or other complex areas where the enemy will probably have armored vehicles in keyhole positions.
-
Yeah I've looked at some web pages that compare the Javelin to the Spike and a few countries have deemed the Spike superior when determining which system to use. It's probably true that the tripod mount is just a minor detail in the deployment of the weapon in real life. In CMSF however, I think having to deploy it will make it inferior to the Javelin with the game mechanics involved. The use of Javelin is pretty much automatic, but deployment of any system requiring a tripod is not. This would especially make a difference in Wego mode where player input can only happen in 1-minute intervals.
Basically the concern I have is that the relative effectiveness of each system in CMSF will not match their true comparison in real life. I think that the CMSF Javelin will be superior.
-
I just noticed the update showing the new AT weapons coming with the NATO module. Curious about the Spike system as it is very similar to the Javelin, I did some searching and noticed that it is always deployed on a tripod or vehicle. Is it even possible to fire this weapon from the shoulder like the Javelin with no tripod? If it has to be deployed every time it is to be used it sounds as though it will be far inferior to Javelin in CMSF, mostly due to the hassle factor. In RL it maybe isn't that big of a deal.
-
Its more a case of when you have a large open stretch of wilderness to cross. Doesn't assault tire your men out aswell quite quickly?
Thats where I have difficulty in choosing the right move order.
It seems to me that assault is actually the second easiest on exhaustion levels, next to "move", which is easiest. With "assault", half the squad is "quick" moving while the other half is resting. With Army MOUT and Marine squads, 1/3 moves while 2/3rds rests .
-
+1 to more upgrades vs. keeping old scenarios. I do understand the the business aspect of it though. Remember that CMSF2, another modern title, is planned for the future and if it is exactly the same as CMSF technologically, then all we will really be getting is new units and terrain perhaps.
-
Yep, I remember reading about those Recon HUMVEE's with the LRAS3 devices on top of them picking out infantry in buildings with ease, before the battle of Fallujah. The soldiers absolutely loved them.
I know they've been improved recently with patches but they generally can't spot jack sh*t. Scenario designers should just give you some early intel (which they often do) instead of another vehicle to manage.
Here is an article on the LRAS3. Interesting to note about it being used for the majority of fire missions (and enabling one shot one kill accuracy) and that it can be dismounted:
The LRAS3 modeled in CMSF does a good job of significantly reducing arty and CAS call times, but as some above posters said, it really needs to provide a much bigger spotting bonus than it does now. As it stands now, you are better off using tanks or dismounts to spot and then, if needed, move the LRAS3 vehicle in a position to call arty or CAS on spotted enemy positions. I know we are generally dealing with distances under 1km, but it should still provide a noticeable spotting bonus at the relatively short ranges.
Perhaps being able to dismount it would also be helpful, due to the urban environments and short distances in CMSF, also mentioned in the above article about Operation Iraqi Freedom.
-
Yeah there's no info on specific ammo quality/models in CMSF, only general HEAT or APFSDS. Obviously, APFSDS in a T-72 should have different performance than APFSDS in an M1A2 SEP. Steve would have to say whether Army tanks have newer and/or better ammo than USMC modeled in CMSF.
-
In my most recent game I had two USMC M1A1 FEP (one with crack experience) set up in a forest ready to ambush two approaching M1A1HC SA's from flanking shots to the side (about 700m out). Not only did the Army M1A1HC SA's survive my flanking shots, they both turned around and destroyed both USMC tanks after a few minutes of pounding each other to death front on.
According to the descriptions, the USMC M1A1 FEP upgrades are along the same lines as the M1A1HC SA and M1A2 SEP upgrades. I believe M1A2 has some armor improvement but there shouldn't be any toughness difference between the different (non TUSK) M1A1 models.
Of course with the fairly realistic CMSF ballistics, damage modeling and spotting you can have 2 identical units face off against eachother multiple times and have wildly different outcomes each time. It's even possible for a BMP to take out an Abrams with a lucky rear shot.
Blue on Blue definitely has a different feel and so far the only scenario I've played is the stock one with the Brit module but I'd like to make and play more!
-
If CMx2 continues on a trend towards larger maps and less abstraction, I think some of the logistical issues of warfare should start leaving the realm of abstraction and be modeled. Afterall, once we are on maps that are 10km x 10km the frontline combat troops aren't the only ones in the picture anymore. I don't know what the distant future holds for CMx2 but spreading into the modeling of supporting operations is one path that can open up lots more tactical complexity.
-
As far as I know, no, but some British vehicles have IED jammers, which only work against radio and cell IEDs, and of course it's always possible to kill the trigger man. He normally opens up with his AK at some point giving away his position, especially in missions against the AI.
Another Aquire question
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I would like to see an acquire ability in the mission editor. Somehow attaching it to AI plans would be really cool too, not knowing if the enemy decided to load up with Javelins or not.