Kieme(ITA)

At the same time though, Russian T-72BM3 and T-90AM with APS are also on the same line of stretching, even though the Russians do have more experience when it comes to evaluating active protection systems, only few variations of the arena we got in game were created, one based on a T-80 and one on the BMP-3 (which was intended for export) - not a case the only APS vehicle correctly represented in 3d is that BMP-3 Arena, same goes with UA T-84 Oplot. So, I'd say APS for all or nobody.

Wish I could, posts and threads can be modified only for 15 minutes or so, after only a moderator I assume could do something.

With the same concept look at assassin's creed. They pump out a new title that has the same game mechanics, very few improvements (mainly graphical), a different setting but it's the very same game over and over again. So the idea is pretty basic in the gaming industry.

I have the sensation that all T-64/72/90 hulls come from the original T-72s from Shock Force.

Thanks. The vehicle mods are all of the very same size of the original ones (but for a few of some US army vehicles roadwheels iirc). Anyway, this means that they have no impact on the game performance. Same goes with all the other standard mods. The mods labelled "HD" are two times (in terrain and highway mods some are 4x) the size of original textures, and those do have an impact on performance, depending on your setup you might notice a few frames drop, a huge frame drop and/or longer loading times. Finally, also the buildings add-ons, which add 8 more building types could cause a slow down if all 16 building types are used in a given scenario (but that's not the case of all the vanilla contents). If I am not mistaken, when loading any map/scenario etc. the last part of the % is dedicated to loading the units (troops/vehicles etc.). Therefore if you wait longer at 97-100% you are waiting longer for the load of units, what comes before that is probably map/terrain and game engine.

It's normal and characteristic of Russian vehicles, which have a different view of smoke screen from the western counterparts, as the former use vehicle smoke also as an offensive concept while the latters use smoke only as a defensive solution.

With 11210 rarity points and 2242 points of value you won't use that asset in PBEM unless you play a Btn+ size battle, and even in that case it takes 20% of your available points (large battle size) and leaves you with too few rarity points that you won't be able to afford a single APS Abrams... To give you a comparison, a Russian player can invest the same points (roughly) but only half the rarity to get: 2x6 152mm 2s19M2 and a Zala drone, that's 36 krasnpol rounds and 360 152mm stupid shells...

I am fielding a solution that consists in an extensive use of the Fast command (proven there's enough room), a lased Abrams can pop out smoke but still move forward, enough to force the enemy gunner to break contact and, as soon as the smoke is passed through, the Abrams engages again. No stops full throttle ahead.

Hmm, let's see some map Waltz, maybe some more ideas of what to do could come out of it.

Almost perfect hull down, almost...

Not sure the US use much UAVs... you'd better always pick a tunguska with your Rus forces, the only UAV capable of evading AAA fire is extremely expensive (rarity) and the others are vulnerable to ground fire. As regarding artillery make sure your units are in as much cover as possible (Always use the terrain shape as major cover against artillery -when there are no buildings available-, sometimes a little ridge can save your troops from very close explosions).

The problem is that the three ERA plates at the side of the tank don't show up the external face as they did (should) but the lower part. What you see in the screenshot above is what you'd see as a result of the block being hit, (the surface plate blown up). For some reason, after the last patch, the side panels (the surface panels) don'' show up, they are transparent. It's a bug.

There's a lack of bones comparable only to amoebas.

Well, there are also other assets that can be used. For example, precision artillery. If enemy abrams are used to cover certain key positions they will also be static enough to get hit by precision arty; if they keep moving a lot they will most likely expose their flanks. Regarding the Khriza, never try to use it in a direct attack. Make sure the enemy Abrams are kept busy (blow up) by other units (ATGMs, tanks, infantry) then move the Khriza to contact. If the map doesn't allow manouvering on your side, try to hide behind Hills, force the enemy to expose. Don't give targets, nobody forces you to make contact in the first half of the battle, you can also adopt a passive behaviour, although be careful, that might cause you to lose too much ground. In the end, the map is essential. If you happen to land on a full urban scenario the Arty wouldn't even be much of a use, and even a single RPG could destroy any Abrams by shooting from upper floors.

Mostly by uploading them on an external free site, then you can post here the link and/or click on the interface icon of the message compositor to post the image directly.

Yes it's a gamble with air assets, although the risk against US is less than against russians or ukrainians.

I agree, seems to me the US prices are fair. If nothing, I'd lower even more the prices of some outdated russian and ukrainian equipment, such as the T-64BV, hell, even the T-72BM3, while being a very good Platform, is still a bit expensive in my opinion. Right now a "plain" M1 costs 579 points (regular/normal motivation etc.), a Bradley 299. A T-90AM 458, a T-90A 424, 380 for the T-72BM3, 262 for a BMP-3M. There's still too little difference between the T-90AM and the A, given the fact that there's a Whole lots of difference in terms of armor protection (all around) and spotting ability. The UA T-64BV costs 293. 4 M1 will cost 2316 points, with those you can have 6 T-72BM3. I'd be happier with 8... 4 T-72BM3 will cost 1520 points, enough for 5 T-64BV, even worse, too close in my opinion, given how different the two assets are (difference in armor, weaponry, fire control). I'd expect at least 6 T-64BVs for 4 T-72BM3, if not even 8, just like a personally ideal M1 - T-72 ratio.

I agree that clusters or lines of soldiers aren't a good thing, personally, any new CM engine should allow for infantry and vehicles formations. Anyway, try to use split commands to keep more spacing among your troops, modern weapons tend to have a much stronger lethality (air burst HE rounds are very common), as regarding bad pathfinding try not to rely too much on long movement commands, keep the waypoints closer, less chances for the tacAI to screw up, also, be careful with short walls, hedges, low bocages etc.

Well, it's a big of an exageration. AT-14 - use buildings, they offer more cover and concealment. - do not expose the AT-14 directly, let some other associated unit spot for him first - try to place AT-14 at distance (more than 1000m from the targets) and in a flanking position (not directly ahead), alternatively, use it at the closest possible functional distance, but be sure to set up ambushes. Khrizantema - use good crew (Crack +) - keep at distance (1000m +) - use hull down as much as possible - use smoke cover from other vehicles to protect it while it can shoot through using radar, or force the M1 to pop out smoke and then expose the Khriza. US vehicles rarely use APS (due to the extreme costs in rarity) and ERA shouldn't be much of a problem against the 150mm warhead.

The ERA kit doens't give that much protection anyway, the fitting is sparse and decent only on the sides.

But what rarity would you increase? At the moment US Army only has 1 type of MBT and 1 type o IFV (the APS versions already has higher rarity costs). Increasing rarity on these vehicle would limit any force composition to infantry and very few vehicles (you couldn't be able to field a company).

Nice duo!

Well, first thing is that there's no such thing, we have seen BMP-3 featuring various packages (mainly for export pourposes), such as the ERA package or the Arena (APS) setup. There's simply no record of a BMP-3 fitted with all the systems mentioned. From a technical point of view I see just a few constraints because of sensor/munitions positioning. The ERA around the turret doesn't fit well with an APS such as the Arena, which requires a sorrounding ring of munitions. The Shtora and its sensors have little space on top of the turret, and the turret sides with an ERA package or APS (again) don't give much room for them. Maybe something like this will come in a future module, but I wouldn't hold my breath for this.

Beaten up Rocky IV!

I wouldn't say that CM games require a constant manual checking, but some from time to time in my opinion is what makes a game more interesting than another. Besides, there is so much information that is required to knowledge the game that filling the actual interface would not be sufficient anyway (try to explain what's what with the T-90AM armor arrangement, where there's ERA and bar armor toghether, for example). Work in progress on the silhouettes, while in-game vehicles will have a picture taken directly from the game, the support units will have silhouettes based on real photographs, example of russian air supports: