Alan8325
-
Posts
583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alan8325
-
-
Cyber warfare is only going to increase in sophistication and frequency and many of its possible effects on a military force could already be added to a scenario by the designer. For example, disruptions to the command and control network could place troops in disadvantageous positions, drones could be disabled (and just not appear in the scenario), the side having conducted the cyber attack could have gained pre-battle intel, etc. If you want to get really creative you could give the 'Red' side access to a 'Blue' drone that was successfully hacked and fully commandeered by the geekiest element of the red forces.
In regard to new capabilities in the CM engine, it would be good for scenario designers to have the ability to selectively disable specific equipment in vehicles and selectively remove equipment from troops. This would apply to cyber warfare by allowing the simulation of an attack on communications or GPS equipment.
-
An improvised rocket propelled grenade? I doubt that the FSA would be able to manufacture one. It also doesnt look like a dud RPG round, maybe its just some piece of metal that flys away?
Well it was either explosive or heavy enough to blast some chunks and dust out of the debris pile, which leads me to believe that it was launched. I'm guessing it was some type of RPG round that was either a dud, improvised or deflected by an off-screen object, sending it on tumbling path.
-
I wonder if the problem is worse in the Sherman because it's so tall - i.e., there are more situations in which the commander can see something from 10' above ground level that the gunner can't see at 5' above GL than there would be if the commander were at 8' and the gunner at 5'.
Unless there was a major change to the LOS system between CMSF and CMBN, LOS is still drawn roughly from the center of vehicles and not from individual crew members or optics suites. This becomes painfully apparent when trying to use ATGM vehicles in CMSF. I believe LOF actually comes from the weapon itself whereas the LOS calculations have to be constantly done and having multiple points of LOS generation on a vehicle would drastically stress the CPU...or something.
Bil's tank had LOS on GaJ's tank but the LOF was probably just a hair lower. Not entirely unrealistic, but realistically the crew would make a hasty adjustment to the tank's position to get that line of fire.
-
I still haven't seen much artillery use from you, given all the medium mortars you have. Are you waiting until you see more of his troops bunched together? Have you thought about doing "harass" type artillery missions?
-
I remember a post by Steve saying that LOS and LOF for a unit are not the same. A unit may get LOS but not have LOF, which leads to the aiming-firing cycle without actually firing. Imagine how often this problem would crop up if we had gun elevation/depression limits.
-
Bummer when that happens. Hopefully your hull-down position pays off and he gets a miss or bounce off your hull.
-
Description as found at liveleak:
"FSA film two SAA T-72 tanks in action - I see 3 rpg hits on first tank: 0:32, 1:50, 4:46. Engine and hydraulic failure - second tank tows it back, and continues firing. Another close call at 6:10 on first tank. Note no reactive armor upgrade on these T-72. Excellent footage."
What is that thing that hits the rubble at 6:10? It looks like it's flying sideways or end-over-end. Dud RPG round or some kind of improvised grenade?
-
Since CMSF new animations have been slowly added over time. We'll get more animations eventually.
-
What explosion and smoke mods are those?
-
1.) CMSF2
2.) East Front WWII
I hope CM eventually realistically models jungle-type terrain which would open up Vietnam, Pacific WWII, Korea and modern hypothetical wars with China and Korea as possible future titles.
-
The MG Section HQ is performing medic durties on the fallen HMG team.. hopefully they will gather up some ammo and the gun.. not sure if they will take the gun, but its worth a shot.
I'm pretty sure that deployed HMGs that have had their crews killed count as "abandoned" heavy weapons and can't be reclaimed, but I could be wrong. I'd like to see some ability to re-man a heavy weapon in future iterations of CM for the purpose of moving away from an artillery strike or something like that, then moving back. Anyone know if this was done in real life?
-
Also, even if Assad is soundly defeated and the Alawites effectively surrender by discontinuing the fight, I predict widespread infighting between rebel factions. The more Islamist factions backed by Turkey and Qatar will be at odds with the more moderate ones backed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Europe and the United States. A united Sunni government would be ruled by either one or the other, but it will probably be Muslim Brotherhood dominated with Al Nusra as an ally. If the initial Sunni govenment were moderate, it would probably either be in all out combat with the Islamist factions until the Islamist prevail (again, unless the West steps in), or lose to the Islamists during later elections.
Once there is a Sunni Islamist government in Syria, Shiite-dominated Iraq will become a new rival as well.
-
Oh yes. I had all the trucks right there too, and they managed to take one or two out if I remember correctly. This was one instance where I didn't feel bad reloading a recent save and doing it over again, given the unrealistic circumstances.
Unfortunately there aren't many ways to have reinforcements come from a distance given the smallish maps. The reinforcements have to "spawn" in somewhere. That is one of the reasons why I'd very much like to see bigger maps in CMSF2, although I know that it would increase LOS calculations exponentially and hit the system very hard. -
I remember that mission and I went the same way along the left side.
I figured that I would have an advantage engaging the Syrian positions along the right side at longer range with my greater firepower, rather than plowing through it on the right getting in RPG range. -
But unlike Alan and some others here I simply don't see the Assads outlasting (or ha! coming to terms with) the resistance and holding the entire country, even if the war drags on for another year or more. But even if the Assads fled, they couldn't take 2 million non-Sunni Syrians along with them. I have simply lost faith in the ability of these populations to live together under a single regime at this point, given their respective leaderships. Even though they've lived together since the Prophet's Companions kicked out the Byzantines, the old social contract is broken -- by the stupidity and greed of the Assads, and the Sunni extremists they've empowered through their actions aren't inclined to put it back together. It's basically Yugoslavia redux. Only the US could reimpose an (unstable) single state solution, by basically repeating the Iraq counterinsurgency. And the chances of that happening are _______.
I also suspect that the IED (roadside bomb) war is well underway in the rural areas between the cities and that the Syrian army is rapidly losing its ability to resupply and shift large (and politically reliable) mech forces among hotspots. That same kind of hit and run war nearly paralyzed the vastly more capable US force in Anbar.
Guys, the rebels don't have to destroy the regime's tank divisions in head-to-head combat to win. They just need to keep bleeding them dry one IED or sniper shot at a time. Local regime outposts may already be reaching informal truces with the rebels -- if the Assads can't stop that happening that's the beginning of the end for them.
Nonetheless, the coastal area remains a relatively safe haven for them. And btw, I misnamed the Antitaurus mountains guarding the coast (they're in Turkey). It's the Nusariyah escarpment, an extension of the Anti-Lebanon range. And it is a hell of a lot more defensible from the west than from the east.
I didn't say that I think Assad will hold the entire country. His loyalists are far too spread out for that. I'm saying that I agree that he will pull back to the more Alawite areas and from there he will be much more difficult to dislodge because the Sunnis will NOT be able to easily use IEDs and snipers to bleed his forces dry in areas where there is more support for Assad's forces than for the insurgency. Maybe I'm overestimating Alawite support for Assad, but I tend to think that even long-term use of insurgent tactics by Sunnis won't force a large number of people, Alawites, Christians, Kurds, etc. to accept a perceived future of Sharia Law.
-
I'll bet they're happy to have those mg42s instead of Bredas.
-
Even if GaJ loses his tanks, Bil doesn't have artillery and could still be in a bind attacking the back sides of hills without exposing his tanks to shreck fire. GaJ in the mean time has plenty (i think) of medium mortars to attrite Bil's infantry. I wouldn't count GaJ out even if his tanks are lost. It would still be a huge blow though.
-
There is the possibility that over time Alawite morale will crumble to the point that they basically surrender all Syrian land to the new Sunni regime, but I believe that's not likely to happen because of the fear of reprisals and the unpalatable Sharia law.
The opposition is large and increasingly fanatical, but they are also poorly equipped and will not have as much local support to hide out and launch attacks and ambushes in the more Alawite and diverse areas to the west. Assad's army right now is very spread out, but if they gradually concentrate in the smaller Alawite areas they will be much harder for the lightly armed opposition to dislodge. That is as long as the opposition doesn't get a heavy weapons infusion from the West. Then things are harder to predict.
-
Is there a reverse slope where GaJ could possibly engage the Stuarts with his PzIVs without exposing them to the Shermans? If there is, he could put major pressure on Bils center and right (GaJ's left) forces and also force Bil to relocate at least one of his Shermans to respond.
-
Thanks for the tests! Looks like very heavy artillery indeed kills tanks with near misses. Once I have some time I will run a test with 155mm artillery.
-
Maybe some smaller scenarios have too much arty. I will agree there. I do however think that heavy arty 150mm+, and maybe even 105, should do even more damage to tanks than it does now.
-
I know that small HE effects against armor have been recently reduced in CM but I'm thinking that large HE may be less effective at at least immobilizing tanks than it should be. I was playing a scenario in the "Task Force Engel" campaign and using Nebelwerfer 42s when I saw that a Sherman took several near misses including one no more than a couple meters away, leaving a crater that went partially under the sherman. I saved the game and clicked "cease fire" because I was curious to see what damage that would do and saw that it took no damage to any system other than the tracks, which just went from green to light green. I'd like to do some tests but won't have time until after the weekend. In the mean time I found this supposed study on the effects of large HE versus armor and even near misses do a lot of damage.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Who+says+dumb+artillery+rounds+cant+kill+armor%3F-a097722805
-
With those hilltops as exposed as they are it looks like most infantry will be hanging out in reverse-slope defenses, especially where objective areas extend onto the reverse slopes. Heavy weapons will probably be aimed down the canyons.
-
1.) Multiple points of LOS generation from vehicles. This one is major because currently LOS comes from only from the center of vehicles now, resulting in ATGM vehicles and recon vehicles with mast-mounted sensors being nothing but cannon and ATGM fodder in CMSF1. Until this is fixed there will be a large number of modern systems that will be broken in the simulation.
2.) Larger maps. It would be nice to be able to have more room to maneuver around the maximum ranges of some modern weapons systems.
3.) A return of Unconventional forces. These were some of my favorites to play with in CMSF1 because they could represent any number of insurgent or militia groups anywhere in the world. I hope CMSF2 has some selection of unconventional forces even if they show up later in a pack. It would be especially cool if we have the option to give them some "Blue" equipment as well as "Red."
4.) Surface to air combat (already confirmed to be included in CMx2 v3.0, at least at a basic level).
5.) Damage modeling for vehicles.
6.) Real-time intelligence gathering from aircraft including UAVs. This could be in the form of aircraft having some form of LOS in the game and communicating that information through the Command and Control system.
Gustav Line QB AAR - Peanut Gallery: No GaJ, No Bil
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Being a meeting engagement on a open map, I think the biggest mistake GaJ made was trading some armor for artillery. Armor has such an advantage over infantry in open ground and it's tough to use artillery when everyone is moving. Having said that I believe that the amount of cover and concealment of the rocky terrain tile needs some major adjusting upwards.
After the battle started, Bil moved his troops in a more cautious way, did better recon, placed his tanks well, kept moving and adjusted strategy on the fly. GaJ ended up with his troops isolated in a couple of valleys. In a meeting engagement on an open map like this one, I think the best way of using GaJ's artillery would be as an area denial weapon on "harass" setting to block valleys and ridgelines from Bil's use while GaJ moves his forces. But again, artillery is hard to use while everyone is moving.