Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Lethaface

  1. Steam has slightly different path because everything is inside the steam install folder, while for BFC installs the userdata / mods / hotkeys etc go into \documents\battlefront\game by default.
  2. If I need to be conquered, wouldn't mind her to be the culprit ๐Ÿ˜‰
  3. I actually played that 2nd mission a while back and I guess you missed something. If you do terrain analysis you can see that the terrain isn't gradual but there are many 'steps' with reverse slopes, danger. You have infantry and APCs. So after securing the starting area, move some infantry forward wide to the next slope under tank cover. Recon it, perhaps use some of your support assets for fires and use the mountain for observation. Keep on it and clear the steps one by one, you'll push the enemy back. I took some losses from sneaky tanks far back, but that's all IIRC Perhaps it's difficult, but imo it's weak form to directly call 'difficult' as bad design without further argumentation, which you seem to do.
  4. One thing that could help is selecting your NVIDIA card under the OpenGL rendering GPU option. Or at least that makes sure it's actually using your 1070 for OpenGL. Also IIRC threaded optimization should be off for CM, while enabling triple buffering. And indeed it might be worthwile to try and disable VSYNC both ingame and in the Nvidia settings.
  5. ๐Ÿคฃ Recognizable. I too have learned that expecting the same qauality & quantity of others (who can't always deliver that) is bound to lead to friction and or disappointment. Although you should always slack off to be able to keep surpassing expectations when it matters ;-). On scenarios, for me it depends what I expect from the scenario / why I play it: * A casual playthrough of a scenario, or just for immersion (RealTime can be fun for this): just play it out in one go and don't mind too much about winning / losing. If I win I win, if I lose I lose and that's fine. * A determined play to beat the scenario with proper analysis, planning and tactics: Restart if necessary and or if I want to try out several approaches of a given problem, savescum. Another reason for save/load is when troops do things I didn't want them to do. I can't really remember much scenario's that required more than one restart to win, perhaps apart from some vignettes which are notoriously hard. * Campaign play: depending on the campaign (Modern vs WW2, type of army) I can become a bit obsessed minimizing casualties and or the optimal way to achieve victory. So probably like determined play but more savescum/restarts if I don't like how things played out. However, if I feel I gave good orders and the troops behaved accordingly I'l usually accept the outcome and not restart or reload; casualties are a factor and the immersion of having to use units with prior casualties in further battles can be very rewarding imo. However determined CM play requires a lot of thinking and energy (in my case), so that's not always an option after a busy workday / week.
  6. https://isgeschiedenis.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-krijgsmacht-als-hippieleger https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https://isgeschiedenis.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-krijgsmacht-als-hippieleger By the way there are still 'unions' for army, police, etc. Edit: it was all before I was born anyway (1982), so not an expert. However I think that perhaps there is a different appreciation for unions in different places. Most professional sectors have 'unions' in the Netherlands. These negotiate, among other things, salary 'thresholds', benefits and other stuff on behalf of the whole sector. They don't have anything to say on the workfloor, but can call up their members (voluntary) for a strike as part of negotiations. Not that strikes are common here the last decades. Also newer sectors like IT don't really have unions or sectoral salary houses etc. The long hair is just the result of a legal action filed by the union for drafted military personnel. This legal bit is still in affect although in the professional army nowadays long hairs aren't a thing really.
  7. I don't know, however I don't think any union had much to say when it came to showing up for appรจl or deploying to the field. Although long hair troops would be fun
  8. Just insert the sound in their earpiece PS Nice car! PS2 the Carrera GT comes with a race-spec factory howling v10. That's, imo, a different beast. I don't own one unfortunately. Some sound of the original without straight pipes, which ruin the sound ๐Ÿ˜‰ Edit: better vid
  9. Just put a couple of very big loudspeakers (lower range only) in the Co HQ vehicle, which can 'emulate' the sound of a A-10 gun run when a JDAM from a F-35 is gliding on it's way to the target. Problem solved ๐Ÿ˜œ Recently I heard parts of an interview with a departing Dutch general on the radio. He also stated that the troops don't want an F-35, but something loud and close to them which they and enemy can hear (although they could in theory also do a flyover with an F-35 on afterburner I guess). I guess the issue is more similar to electric cars and my perception of them; however fast an electric vehicle is, it's still not a Porsche Carrera GT with a howling atmospheric V10. That's a car.
  10. Firing a offmap US 107mm mortar maximum smoke mission not only uses up smoke but also HE. It also causes craters, so it seems that it is firing a 'dual smoke / HE' round. That seems to be a bug?
  11. FWIW I enjoy these variations. It's good to add these I think, gives some nice quick to play battles available in which the player can try out the various formations/hardware, without having to dive in the editor.
  12. Where you thinking of joining the separatists? ๐Ÿคฃ
  13. Some idyllic campfire scenery These held their own quite well. Enjoying the view
  14. The draw distance in CMCW seems very short indeed, I did notice with regard to ground textures mainly. But could just be the size of maps and forces.
  15. A-10s did a great job when on target as well! Cluster bombs, Mavericks and the 30mm.
  16. Didn't knew about the modelled abstraction regarding the FAC, so thanks for that. Anyway I'm not advocating for 'low risk to friendlies' especially. AFAIK the current areat targets aren't low risk to friendlies at all! In CMSF2 nor CMBS I never had any issue that I can remember regarding the size of the area I wanted targeted. Although I don't remember if the box sizes are the same. I guess that mainly due to the expanded combat areas in CMCW some larger size is warranted. I had info on a MRB moving along a road, but it turned out the bastiges moved slightly beyond my assigned 'kill zone' and the A-10 flying over looked at the procedures and told me 'computer says no' and the MRB happily proceeded along it's route while the A-10 either milled around or declared winchester. Maybe the type of strike could be differentiated for different loadouts or types of planes? Like a F-4D carrying (cluster)bombs or rockets can only be assigned a point target where it will drop ordnance (ideally using a vector/line), but not have the ability to scan for targets inside an area. While planes with ATGM / cannon loadout and ground attack capability (otherwise they wouldn't be in CM) can also can for targets in a limited zone but with high risk to friendlies , with helicopters being more free and but also more vulnerable to AA.
  17. Although I haven't had too much time with it yet, so far had a lot of fun with it! A lot of different kits, more on par RED/BLUE forces, interesting ERA (imo). There seems to be quite a lot of good quality content. I also like the various (doctrinal) training scenario's and campaign, a great way to test out the new forces in a more controlled environment. Bring on the modules! ๐Ÿ™‚
  18. But we are given A-10, F-16 and other planes which have precision optical guided munitions (Mavericks). I'm not arguing that a pilot from a Corsair going on a bomb run would be able to ID his targets, but CMCW also features planes with at least the ability to lock on a AFV sized target. Or more specifically, they are able to do that in CMCW. In CMCW AFAIK all US HQs are able to call in airstrikes, in 13 min. If the intent is to limit that capability, why not limit ingame ability to call in airstrikes to air controllers like for USSR? If it's not a 'strike box' / 'fire zone', than what is the 700m area target in CMCW representing? Inside those area's planes will strike random targets, including friendly troops. I'm not necessarily disagreeing on what would be historically accurate but the ingame implementation. I don't really get why the 'box' should max be 700m circle max vs for example a 1.5km rectangle. If such are considered outside of CM scope, I'd say the area targets shouldn't be in at all. But we are given tools like A-10 with Maverick missiles on free hunt in a 700m circle fire zone, in battles spanning several KMs of maneuver. So we can actually do the unrealistic stuff, although with a handicap. Sort of feels like being given a Ferrari (I imagine, never happened to me unfortunately) but not being allowed to go beyond 3.000 rpm in 2nd gear.
  19. I can believe that, not an expert myself but given the occurrences of friendly fire incidents I can fully 'grasp' why. However given the maps, missions and the fact we do have fixed wing available in game anyway, I'd say that keeping the area targets the current size isn't perse a better fit for realism and imo definitely not for playability. In CMSF IIRC helicopter area-targets used to be rather large and often could span the whole 'enemy zone' of the map. Not sure about fixed wing and whether area-targets for either have been adjusted between CMSF2 and CMCW. Given CMCW map sizes and more mobile and more full spectrum warfare, it can be difficult to effectuate the order on the lines of 'engage enemy forces behind hill X or moving along road Y, towards Z'. So I know where the enemy approximately is, or which direction they will move and where the friendly zone starts, but not really have the means to tell the planes what I want. Or more precise, I can only give them a very small area to target on the scale of the battle. Whereas if I was the pilot in the A-10 I imagine I'd be scanning for targets on the axis instructed and in the vicinity of the established coordinates (if given an area target instead of a fixed target). I'd be surprised if that zone could be as small as 500x500m or whatever the current max size is. Having larger target area's would perhaps not be ideal in all circumstances either. But IMO will, given the current compromise already established, allow for more meaningful player control of airstrikes which doesn't directly lead to much more unrealistic effects compared to the status quo. And indeed something like the linear strike for drones could be a way to do it, with the planes engaging stuff in the vicinity of that line so player control is still limited.
  20. Fair points regarding the quick adjust, although I agree with Stardekk that the 'attack area' could be be larger. Or perhaps having the option like a linear strike, as now it can be quite a challenge to choose the area especially for preplanned strikes or when targeting moving units along a road / axis.
  21. Maybe I'm blind, but I couldn't find any 'cluster' options for the USA artillery in QBs.
  22. nice song, but had you kept it to 4 o 5 times references the guy nobody would have said nuthin. So, there's 5 so let's now continue with CM youtube videos.
  • Create New...