Kieme(ITA)

I am conducting some tests. Now, this is only a very first result, and I'd like to try more tests, but indeed there seems to be something wrong here: Russian 120mm precision strike with 120mm mortars (6 tubes) 152mm precision arty: Second test with 152mm:

I suspect the weapon choice behaviour of units is still to be corrected properly. It has changed more than once since release, and maybe there are still tweaks to be done.

Sure thing, I have some troubles now to keep up with pbem, the moment I can I'll tell you.

If I am not mistaken same goes for the tanks engine sounds.

Effectively, I thought that ChrisND coverage of Black Sea was a new way to convey information on work in progress titles by BFC, maybe it was not, or it was an experiment. Either way I really enjoyed those videos and they created a positive anticipation for me with regards to the release of CMBS.

Remember that in a world of Thermal vision devices a tree line is not any kind of concealment. Besides, there are all the soft factors to be taken into account, such as conditions, crew experience etc. and in that "example" I don't see any real information.

Agreed, when I'll finish the silhouettes I'll get up a pack with all the little modifications to the UI. The text is a problem, because there are White text lines and black text lines. I've found them in the description of some weapons (such as ATGMs), I did try to keep the black text visible but a grey box was all I could do, because the White dots for troops will have to share that background, and on the other hand these dots appear on a black background too...

The russian armor models are the most difficult to make, they have a lot of exterior attachments, the real shape underneath is anything but obvious and the rounded cast parts are extremely hard to render in 3d. The old T-72s in CMSF did a fine job but in CMBS some tricks didn't work out (like reusing old hulls).

The M1 model is a good example of how a good model can be used with an update on exterior features (SEPV2) and damage model. Sure, the M1 could feature more plygons, but you'd need a lot of them to make something visually better than the one we have in game, not to mention the necessity to improve texture quality, effects etc. All of this wouldn't be much of a good effort if not put in a specific brand new game engine. Therefore I'm fine with model porting, as long as they are updated and bug free. The problem is that the new T-90 and 64 are quite different from the T-72 family and would require some more attention.

If I am not mistaken scimitars and scorpions have been out on sale for many years now. They are quite popular among UK collectors, and it is even possible to register them for road driving there.

The total time of the play was more or less 15 minutes, against human opponent. Elite setting. More than anything shows up the power of M1 Abrams tanks used in numbers.

ù

A series of screenshots to describe a battle: More to come soon.

It's interesting to see if those top hit achieved some sub-system damage. It is possible that outside elements (such as a Tow launcher, for example) will "absorb" the damage of an incoming arty shell.

Remember that wheeled APC will take longer to reach any given point compared to tracked APC as long as mixed terrain is concerned. Wheeled APC will shine if they are allowed to use paved roads. If a wheeled APC takes 3 minutes to cover some 1 km of rough terrain (fields and grass, in perfect conditions), a tracked APC will take 2. The idea of Lethaface of small RPGs as guerrilla elements is great. I remember a battle where I wanted a screen force in a forest, just to slow down any enemy advance, I took a normal Ukrainian mech. infantry platoon, removed all units but the commander, added two RPG, two RPK-74 and loaded them in a single APC. the force didn't had much success (I should have kept them deeper in the forest), but the concept was good.

Given the map I wouldn't invest in khrizantemas.

1) using UAV at the very beginning of the battle is very risky, but you are not forced to use them so soon, maybe during the battle the enemy AA assets will be destroyed and the UAV will be safe to be used, and can still be decisive. 2) SAM teams need time to spot sometimes just like a ground unit against another ground unit. The grey eagle particularly, can start an attack mission and only after it has started it becomes vulnerable. 3) no need to change difficulty, if you want to increase artillery reaction times invest in arty experience and loadership first, forward observer experience and leadership afterwards (although, FO experience accounts for precision of the strike rather than timing). Then, use TRPs, target reference points, these%

Oh, nice map, that village is going to be perfect for the russian player. This is my two cents, just my view: considering that infantry has a lot of cover and concealment there, I'd pick a very strong infantry force, something in the order of 3 platoons of mechanized infantry plus supports (if you play a medium size). At least a couple of them would be MTLB transported, to save points, main idea woul be to deliver to the urban area the troops as fast as possible, then the MTLBs could be retreated. A few BMP-3 wouldn't be bad, as they could be used as fire support. One tunguska to be sure, but I wouldn't mind even two of them, considering how useful can be in hitting enemy infantry. Artillery, nothing less than 120mm rounds (smaller arty is much less efficient against troops inside buildings), possibly 152mm. I'd keep the smoke rounds for potential missions after the battle has started. A set of TRPs is essential, because of how slow RU arty is. A Zala or two are also very important to point out where the enemy manouvers. Then, I'd pick as many T-72BM3 as possible and use them behind the infantry and in coordination with the Zala(s) to get around and behind the US units once I know exactly where they are and what they are doing (in coordination with smoke screens to create confusion). Oh, if your force is small, I'd invest on troops more than IFVs, that's why the APCs such as the MTLBs. Not the BTR because they would be much slower on mixed terrain, and will take 1 to 3 minutes more to reach the same spots. You should try to take as much ground as possible in order to take advantage of the cover houses give.

Work in progress on the silhouettes. This is the board for US air support: US units and supports are done, RU and UA supports are done, now I still need to make all those for the vehicles of RU and UA.

And don't forget "kieme's weeds"!

Set in the early '80s.

T-90AM platoon right after a tank vs tank dogfight.