Alan8325
-
Posts
583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alan8325
-
-
It would be fun to have special forces in the game for their unique units and maybe a few unique new weapons. It would also probably be necessary to allow a little more flexibility with splitting small teams, like splitting a 4-man team into two 2-man fire teams. Other than that we already have everything we need, including 'elite' experience and 'fanatic' motivation, which together basically make a unit a fearless, sharpshooting squad of terminator robots.
-
The manual says .. Dual layer of era on thé Hull.. Single on te turret side.. It probable hit the Hull then .. A turret hit would have been more dangerous . Thé precursor detonated thé first layer ettge actual warhead was stopped by the second
The gif in Bill's post shows the same ERA tiles on the turret sides as on the hull, at least graphically. Perhaps the turret also gets the double-layered ERA on the 'excellent' equipment setting?
-
The krizanthema were almost simply targets on such a small map .. I hoped they would be lucky but I expected it and anyway even at long range they would have killed two or three M1s and bradleys .. Putting an inconsequential small dent in such a massive force.
It's also impossible to employ Khriz correctly with only the launcher and sensor exposed. I think a pair of dismounted Kornet teams would be a better approximation, at this range, of a well concealed Khriz with only sensors and launcher exposed.
-
Any time someone asks why we should believe the U.S. equipment is superior to the Russian counterpart, look at the U.S. defense budget compared to Russia's. Something would be really wrong if quality was equal between the two forces.
-
Uncons! They are currently the most relevant and you can use your imagination to make them pretty much any non-state actor you want and see how they would fare against a real army.
-
There are many aspects and pieces of equipment of warfare that aren't simulated on the CM battlefield yet, including medevac equipment, logistics vehicles, engineering vehicles, bridge laying, aerial warfare, NBC, etc. Not that these things could never be added, but development resources are limited. That said, if you really wanted to simulate a post-nuclear battlefield you could place lots of leveled buildings, stripped trees and units with fitness set to -1 or -2 to simulate cumbersome NBC equipment and hostile environmental conditions.
-
No defense contractor has ever sold anyone clunker, surely not! I am sure someones new villa is spectacular.
Well I assume that BFC must have some info that Khrizantema is unable to deal with the Abrams because otherwise it makes more sense for gameplay reasons to assume the system has some ability to defeat the Abrams at least at long range.
-
I have a 4100m kill already in beta testing "Bridgehead at Kharylyk" - a soon-to-be-favorite scenario for all you guys, by our high-climbing Scottish Mountaineer, George MC. Got a pair of Abrams into a dual with two Krizentema at ~ 4100m. They merrily pounded us with missiles, and we merrily sent Sabot rounds back (I hope, more accurate at that range, though the AI may have selected HEAT or AMP for light skinned). I think we took two or three hits in the exchange, which had me very nervous, but they managed to shrug them off with moderate damage. Took I think nearly a dozen rounds between the two tanks to finally get a hit. But it was lethal. Game does model long range engagements, and oh yes, the Abrams can hit at that range in real life.
Isn't this before the Abrams' armor was reduced down in some frontal areas? The Kriz was designed to deal with Abrams at long range. Seems funny that it is totally ineffective.
-
I just checked on the status of this, and the answer is the same as before. Adding higher sources of LOS than the general system what we have right now isn't going to happen, because it requires greatly complicating what is already the most complex system in a complex game engine. Basically it's a firm "not gonna happen".
Thanks for the info! CM still has the best LOS system in any game with as many AI-controlled units on map as it has. Looking forward to all future improvements.
-
It will be fun to play with the units to see how noticeable the problem really is, especially the double-firing ATGMs. Maybe these units will actually be the best way to deal with APS-protected tanks and AFVs. We'll see. I have a feeling I'd rather have many dismounted ATGMs though. That raises another question. Will the TAC AI have the ability to coordinate multiple nearby launchers, for example multiple AT-14 teams within communications, to launch missiles simultaneously or within quick succession against the same target suspected of having APS? pnzrldr, do you know?
-
All - yes, there is currently no 'optics/remotes up' position in CM. Best you can do is 'hull down' which is extremely hard to get and very perspective relative. 'Partial hull down' mitigates a little bit, but not enough. I've brought the magnitude of this problem up to the powers that be, but until we can get to a true new engine, it is unlikely to change. I will reference your comments for further support in my reports though. Thanks again for the encouragement on the writing. When this thing is all done, I'll package it up and post as a stand-alone. You can all snag it and say you were reading my stuff before I hit the NY Times best seller list! ;-)
Thanks for the update. So we should consider ATGM vehicles in CM 'broken' for a while as far as their ability to be realistically positioned is concerned, correct? It's definitely not a major problem for the simulation as a whole yet because CM map sizes are still small enough that one would probably prefer dismounted and easier to conceal ATGMs at these ranges anyway, but it definitely needs to be fixed at some point. For vanilla Black Sea, at least, I'll avoid ATGM vehicles in quick battles and avoid placing them in any scenarios I make.
-
We've been talking about US aircraft in the game. Russian aircraft types go up to SU-34 Fullback. Not too shabby, a far cry from the old Syrian MIG-21s in CMSF!
One thing I don't understand very well about modern combat is why, low observability aside, we even need planes as advanced as F-22 rather than just more advanced weapons and equipment on older platforms. If there was hypothetically a new air-to-air missile with a range of 100 miles and advanced tracking and maneuvering ability, wouldn't it be just as useful launched from a MIG-21 as from a PAK FA or F-22 or any other next gen plane? Heck, just add a computer and turn the MIG-21 into a drone to keep the humans out of danger as well.
Israel recently launched an attack, using F-15s equipped with advanced ECM and standoff air-to-ground missiles, on multiple Syrian targets deep into the area around Damascus, the most heavily guarded by AA defenses, and didn't lose a single plane. Syria even took some shots but got no hits. The F-15 is not by any means a low observable aircraft but carrying modern ECM equipment can make it very difficult to hit even by relatively advanced missile systems such as Buk, which was one of the systems fired against the Israeli planes. I guess to me the plane is just a fast, high flying delivery platform for advanced weapons but doesn't necessarily have to be that advanced itself anymore.
-
Once they actually play the game they'll learn not to waste ATGMs and SPG rounds using them as harassing artillery.
-
Who is the culprit?:confused:
Since F-15s fly higher than the maximum altitude of the on-map AA elements we are getting, I'm assuming we are also getting an abstracted chance of either off-map longer range SAM systems hitting CAS assets (possibly via a SAM threat setting for the map similar to Electronic warfare), or an abstracted chance of air-to-air duels between the CAS assets of each side if they are both present. Pretty cool either way.
Edit: There is also the possibility that we can buy long-range AA assets as off-map units. That would be REALLY cool and make for some tough choices on spending during quick battles! Do I buy another Abrams or does my opponent have a squadron of SU-25s?
-
Yeah, it came in on a flat trajectory.
I wonder if the Tac AI chooses the flat trajectory if the target is near trees that could prematurely detonate a munition coming down through the canopy. It's hard to tell from the screenshot whether the [8] bmp is protected by trees. In any case that's one less uber weapon that could KO your t-90s from across the map and $87k out of the US taxpayer pockets.
-
That Bastion missile needs it's model updated so it doesn't look so much like 9k111.
Great writeup and the addition of the story is awesome. Do you think your Ukrainians would have performed better if you kept them in the urban environment of the pocket? That way the superior sensors on the Russian vehicles would be negated to some degree, and it looks like your units in the pocket aren't taking casualties from the heavy artillery. The downside is that Bil would have almost free passage to your US forces arrival areas. I guess we have yet to see how your Ukrainians perform in urban combat once the battle shifts to the pocket later on. -
A hypothetical NATO vs Russia air war over Ukraine wouldn't result in Russia's air force being wiped out because that would require deep strikes into the Russian Motherland to eliminate airfields, SAM sites, industry producing aircraft and weapons, etc. Good luck doing that without starting nuclear WWIII.
Some Russian planes would get shot down over Ukraine and then more planes would come across the border to replace them.
-
Bil, why is the delivery time for a hand-launched drone 9 to 15 minutes? Aren't these the type that would be on site and ready to throw up into the air and over the hill?
-
In the Black Sea AAR thread there is a mention of a bug that results in HE being too ineffective, and it was subsequently fixed. I notice that large HE in Red Thunder is very ineffective as well. Is the bug manifest here as well?
-
The balance used to be too far in the other direction with tanks being able to stroll into dense urban areas and clean out all the hidden defenders. They were able to quickly spot infantry even in buildings and shoot even below gun declination limits. They've been balanced now to be much weaker against nearby infantry and it seems to me to be the right balance for WWII titles.
Once we get back to modern combat with CMBS we should see the fancy sensors on AFVs provide much better situational awareness. It would be fun if one could detonate an Arena or Trophy charge in the direction of close assaulting infantry.
-
Do you have a running total of AFV losses on both sides?
So far I believe Bil has lost 4 BMP3s (2 to ATGMS from the 'pocket' in the beginning and 2 to the Tunguska) and one MTLB. There was also a T-90 stripped of all its fancy stuff, including the APS, by 30mm bursts from the Tunguska. I guess it's basically a T-55 now.
I can only mention Scott's losses that have been confirmed in this thread, but judging from what I've seen here he's lost lots of BMP2s and dismounted infantry. It's probably easier to count the AFVs he has left rather than the ones he's lost.
-
There was a bug in the modelling of Black Sea HE explosions (which manifested the most in airbursts) which was just fixed today.
I won't throw out my xm-25s then. Good to hear!
-
Troops seem remarkably resilient to 100mm airbursts directly overhead, especially that one in the beginning that still successfully guided a missile as shrapnel was still falling. Everything OK with the modeling of airbursts? Are we better off using point detonation with the modern protective gear soldiers wear these days?
-
That would be scary doom times for air-travel.
It would mean extra security in a large perimeter around airports for sure, but hitting a plane at 30,000ft requires a BIG rocket motor and also a big sensor to even see it. That will be a problem for DIY missile manufacturers for a while.
Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
So, separatist faction confirmed for first CMBS module?