Dietrich
-
Posts
1,267 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dietrich
-
-
Tanks and AFVs should be able to run over trees or at least bushes. It's nerv-killing to look how long a tank needs to find a way through a small forest. And it would be amazing to surprise the enemy who hides in the forest by running over trees and appaering in front of him in an M1.
What would be even more amazing would be the M1 getting immobilized because a tree branch got lodged in its running gear. =P Besides, why drive your tank into the forest, thus running the risk of getting it immobilized, when you can just pulverize the forest (in the game, even .50-cal MG fire shreds folaige) with fire from your 120mm cannon?
Tanks driving through buildings or crashing through forests, knocking down most any tree in its path, is the stuff of movies, not reality. There are a number of reasons why a tank would not be driven through a building or a forest, but I won't bore you with them.
Some screaming and losing nerves in combat, seriously wounded soldiers crying for help. That would add to the atmosphere, but could also be done as a mod
.I agree, it would add to the atmosphere. I think this could be done as a mod. Instead of a 2 or 3 second .wav file for when a soldier gets wounded, it could be much longer file (30 seconds to a couple minutes or so) with the initial 'wounding' sound, then a period of silence, then hoarse (or not) cries for help.
It sounds to me like many, if not most, of the Blue voice files were carried over from CMx1. A greater variety of voice files for any given trigger would be nice.
-
...we've largely outsourced the creation of the last two CM:SF Modules...
"Last two CM:SF modules"? Would that be British Forces and [insert name of post-British Forces module here]?
-
I've wondered about this too. A couple times I've had a FO calling in two fire missions at once when one guy or the other gets wounded, so that the remaining man has to spot two sometimes widely separated targets. Then it becomes like a squad-commanding sergeant calling in a JDAM or two: "Fire on...uh...[peers at dust-covered RPDA screen]...square...[squints through binoculars]...um...." (Honestly, though, I have no idea of the terminology used in fire mission requests. hehe)
Would it be too strict to limit a FO team to just one fire mission request at a time? Is there a way to make it so that an FO can target just one thing or area but can call for fire of multiple assets on that one target?
-
The concept of "recoil buffer" seems not to have made it to the German army.
How so? I know even less about modern German military technology than I do about modern American (or Syrian/Russian) military technology, so I'm curious. =)
-
The kick on that rifle must be one nasty sum'b*tch.
No joke: the muzzle blast of a .50BMG sniper rifle without a muzzle brake is about 175 dB -- equal to a quarter stick of dynamite at a distance of 1 m. Recoil without a muzzle brake is terrible, but with a muzzle brake, the rifle is 5 to 7 dB louder at the shooter's position because the brake directs more of the blast back at the shooter. The muzzle blast of the Accuracy International AW50 sniper rifle is 180 dB at a meter. The muzzle blast of a 105mm howitzer is only 3 dB louder at the same distance. Without a suppressor, the McMillan TAC-50 rifle is louder than 1 lb of TNT just two arm-spams away. Such blast overpressure has complex physiological effects: with continued exposure, the shooter's vision blurs, he starts to feel nauseous and dizzy, muscle tremors begin and then worse, and eventually its starts to degrade his central nervous system until he can no longer think clearly. According to Special Weapons for Military & Police magazine (April 2008), the US SpecOps community limits training with .50BMG weapons to no more than 50 rounds per day.
The author of that article in Special Weapons for Military & Police, a certain Al Paulson, wrote (italics added): "The first time I fired a .50BMG in the desert, the muzzle brake produced a substantial dust cloud for 26 feet on either side of the rifle that swirled about 12 feet high. Even if one discounts the substantial muzzle flash and severe gunshot noise, here was a 12x52-foot dust plume that said 'Here I am!'" (This was an article regarding Advanced Armament Corporation's Cyclops suppressor, which reduces the blast overpressure to less than 1/1000 and the muzzle blast to 137 dB (hearing safe = less than 140 dB).
Ofcourse, GBS meant .50 or 12.7mm rifle, in case he was unaware of his error and the cause of hilarity. Don't feel bad. Plenty of discovery channel translators mention planes with 20cm cannon, thus giving them the armament of a heavy cruiser.
Whenever I'm talking about anything related to WW2 military technology with this friend of mine, he always takes issue with the facts I recount because he has watched more History Channel and Military Channel than I ever have and thus evidently thinks he knows more about the subject than I do. But, the way I see it, he can't possibly know more than I do about WW2-era military technology, not only because he never actually researaches anything (whereas I have spent almost five years reading countless books, scouring the internet, and researching via other means) but because TV documentaries not infrequently make inaccurate or untrue statements. I recall watching a documentary about Operation Barbarossa which stated that the T-34 had a 75mm gun. This might seem a trifling error, since the difference between the gun's stated caliber and the actual caliber is only 1.62mm. But (as many of you will attest) this is actually a more glaring difference than meets the eye. Two contemporaneous high-velocity cannon, namely the American M1 and the British QF 17-pounder, had distinctly different performance characteristics though they were the same caliber, 76.2mm. The M1's armor-piercing performance was comparable to that of the Soviet 85mm cannon (as mounted on the T-34/85), while the 17-pounder's performance was superior even to that of the remarkable 75mm KwK 42 L/70.
-
I see. Thanks for the clarification, Steven, and Sergei too. Contrary to my seeming ignorance a moment ago, I do understand (in layman's terms) the difference between CMx1's simulation versus CMx2's. Pardon my not thinking about it long enough to realize that "abstract" basically means "not 1-to-1 simulation". =)
-
Hmmm........interesting, I wonder how old the average CM player actually is.
From what I've observed, guys my age and younger are playing games like Company of Heroes (which I also play; a number of good mods for that one) and Call of Duty 4; guys my age and younger tend to be rather less grog-esque.
The impression I've gotten, both from reading forum threads and Battlefront game manuals, is that the players of Battlefront's games are the guys that had been playing tabletop wargames and then SL/ASL and Close Combat before transitioning to CM and such. Guys my age haven't even heard of ASL or Close Combat. =P
Heh. I've got you beat.
Sure, but by how much? =P
Like I said, I figured I'm among the youngest CM players.
-
abstract CMx1 type units
Abstract? The units in CMBB and CMAK (which I've been playing for nearly four years now; I've only ever played the CMBO demo) never seemed abstract to me. In fact, they seemed very particular and well-modeled, even with ocassional variations in armament. =)
-
Grenades (hand-thrown frags, not 40mm HE/HEDP): they always explode on impact -- why? No more delay fuses? No more "you have less than six seconds to throw"? No chance for delayed-throw airbursts?
-
I have no wife, nor in-laws, nor holiday shenanigans to worry about. But I am (so I infer) among the youngest CM players (I'm "only" 26). *shrug*
-
Do any other AT iconed units have more than three men in them?
Don't infantry ATGM units have three men?
-
*resigned sigh* Wouldn't any sort of bra be deemed too Western by a typical Syrian sniperette?
-
While it's reasonable to figure that a company or batallion commander wouldn't tell a squad leader or HMG team leader how to fire and for how long, platoon commanders sometimes do, and (so far as I understand) squad leaders often give select-fire orders such as "Barrett! [the man in fire team A with the M249] Fire half a belt on the second-floor balcony of the building on the far left". Since the player acts as both the company/batallion commander for his side's force in a given scenario as well as the commanders of the force's component platoons and squads, it's not "out of focus" for the player to be able to specify "I want 15 seconds of fire on the third floor of the second building from the right" or "put an HE shell into that knot of trees at 11 o'clock", etc.
-
I wish BFC would tell us if buddy aid makes any difference to the overall result now or in v1.11. I know for a while they admitted it was more a "feel good factor" thing than anything else, as a wounded man and a dead man are treated as identical for victory point purposes.
Depends on what you mean by "any difference". Are wounded casualties treated the same as dead casualties in terms of points? My experience has been that buddy aid means that fewer of your WIAs will, by scenario's end, become KIAs.
-
Speaking of vehicle pathfinding, I have discovered something which, if not a solution, closely resembles one: Add two or three extra-short waypoints to a vehicle's movement order at a road bend whenever the bend is more than 25 degrees or so -- this way the vehicle plots the course correction more smoothly.
-
That being said, the Red forces fight a different type of war. They are obligated to do so by the massive technological and training benefits that the American military provides. That type of war is an up-close and personal, short ranged ambush strategy.All the American technological benefits go flying out the window as soon as they close with your forces. So playing smart, the Red forces are just as effective at killing as the US.
At minimum range, virtually nothing in the US arsenal is safe from Red forces.
At 200 meters, that 4 million dollar M1 Abrams isn't that much different than a T-62.Even more so: M1 cruises down a side street, passes 20 meters in front of a T-55 parked in an alley...
about morale: The game is supposed to be realistic, not fair. Many of the Red troops are conscripts or troops levied from their homes against their will. Plus they also know what i said in my first paragraph: that they are facing the military that is best at killing them. This, understandably makes them frightened, before the shooting even starts.Conversely, among the Red forces there are those who are much less frightened than any Blue forces -- i.e., they're fanatical. The conscript factor would, I think, be at least partially offset by the Syrians' imperative to defend their homes and such.
many of us who are not trained soldiers, if conscripted, would be crawling on the ground if 40mm grenades were whizzing over our heads too.The Syrians do have automatic grenade launchers, after all. =P
I hope we see Russians. I think we would have a much better fight on our hands. Our luck it will be Somali pirates.However implausible or similar to the first mission in Call of Duty 4 it might seem, I'd dig sending a dozen or so Deltas to stick it to a Somali pirate gang aboard their own ship. Or sending a hundred or so Blackwater mercenaries to raid a Somali pirate base (which is at least somewhat less implausible, since Blackwater already has a ship outfitted to fight pirates in the Indian Ocean....)
-
(I'm not sure if this is a matter of equipment per se or of unit behavior, but here goes.)
On Normal Dude's 2,000m firing range (Firing Range 55 Infantry), I ran several tests with different infantry units (including a couple heavy-weapons teams) to see what was the typical range at which only soldiers with certain weapons (sniper rifle, M249, etc.) would fire when given Target area fire command. (Will do Target Light tests next.)
USMC Sniper team (M110, M16A4x2): M110 fires solo beyond 500 meters; within 500 meters M16s fire also
Army Rifle team (M249, M4A1x3): M249 fires solo beyond 450 meters; within 450 meters M4s fire also
Oftentimes, at medium range and beyond, I want just one weapon in a team or squad (such as the sniper rifle or LMG) to fire, with the M4-/M16-equipped guys holding fire in case of targets appearing suddenly at relatively close range. Evidently, though, only at extreme ranges (500+ meters) is fire from a team/squad limited to certain key weapons.
To put it in clearer context: M107-equipped sniper team in position on elevation, providing overwatch; sniper team spots three technicals at 350 meters in valley below; instead of just the M107-equipped sniper opening fire to knock out the technicals, the two soldiers with M4s also open fire (one with relatively inaccurate grenades from his M203), thus drawing fire from the technicals which wounds or kills all three of them. I think I'll be running a series of tests with sniper teams (both M110- and M82-equipped) versus technicals at various ranges, both with and without direct targeting orders (though I fear said tests will just confirm that infantry units tend to open fire inordinately).
Thanks, Normal Dude, for creating those firing-range maps and enabling us grogs to pit our grog-ness against CM:SF's simulation. =)
-
("Bones"?)
Is this new buggering-off like the CMx1 Withdraw command, or is it handled by the TacAI?
All said, I'm definitely looking forward to v1.11!
-
...Are they kidding?!
Even if you aren't a Nazi (or Nazi sympathizer), even if you don't dislike non-white people, even if your home isn't festooned with swasticality, even if [insert rationalization here], naming your child Adolf Hitler (even if "Hitler" is actually his middle name) is...is...stupid!
No amount of rationalizing, explaining, claiming that 'a name is just a name', screaming about freedom of speech, etc., ad libitum and ad nauseum, is going to keep that kid from getting beat up or even killed later in life because of the curse-worthy heartlessness and thoughtlessness of his parent(s).
In talking about how the British singer Gerry Dorsey adopted the stage name Englebert Humperdink (after the eponymous late-19th-/early-20th-century German composer), Eddie Izzard said: "'What shall we name our son so he does not get the @#$! kicked out of him at school?' . . . 'We shall call him Englebert!' . . . Good, that'll work."
It makes me think, too, of the bikers throughout the US who wear 'Nazi'-style helmets (i.e., styled after the German M1935 helmet), when their fathers and grandfathers may well have fought in WW2 and risked their lives and even died fighting actual 'Nazis'.
-
It seems odd to me that when you have a squad/team Blast through a wall, there's no cry of "fire in the hole!" or any sort of warning that an explosion is about the happen nearby (or, in the case of the squad/team doing the demo, right in front of them).
I agree that a clearer indication (if only approximate) of when the Blast command will be carried through would be better.
-
the CM:SF manual, on page 75 (of the PDF) under "Acquire", states (italics mine): "After nearly an hour of continuous combat, the infantry platoon is running out of ammo. We split the squads into teams and order them into the Strykers one by one to grab fresh ammo."
On further pondering, I think I understand what this actually means: Split the squads into teams (so that there isn't a sudden gap in your line), send each and all of the teams back one at a time to replenish ammo.
Regarding the display of ammo supply as colored bars: Is this proportional or absolute? I agree that a more exact display of ammo supply (if only in terms of magazines/belts) would be better.
The useful of grenades (especially in MOUT) makes me wish the supply of such was not limited to whatever your troops have at the start of a scenario.
-
Fleatick you may as well ask who is Fire ... for they are both elements of nature. You may as well seek Peng as you seek enlightenment for both expand your mind (and in your case I suspect it's desperately needed). You may as well aspire to BE Peng as you would aspire to be ... well, in YOUR case human.
Peng is MrPeng and so far above your miserable station in life as to appear Olympian ... of course that's comparing him to you ... to us he is simply ... Peng.
You may have noticed that my explanation was not, perhaps, as complete as you might like ... tough ... you are an SSN, a Scum Sucking Newbie and you should be pathetically grateful to receive so much as a curled lip snarl and the back of our hand.
If you were looking for the Welcome Wagon you've come to the wrong place. Read the first post in this thread, despite that fact that it was written by Leeo and is therefore, by definition, substandard, it may suffice to acquaint you with the groundrules here.
If not ... TOUGH ...
Joe
Mr. Shaw,
Your explanation is more complete than I expected. I was not looking for the Welcome Wagon, nor was I looking to be deluged with rhetoric. I do not seek Mr. Peng, only an insight into who he is (which explanation I have already received). I need not aspire to be human, for I already am . . . and am evidently thus a dozen or three rungs down the evolutionary ladder from the contributors to this thread.
Thank goodness I'm not Australian; then I really would have gotten flamed. =P
Sincerely and repsectfully,
Dietrich
if you left, don't leave in a huff. Leave in a minute and a huff.Mr. Radley,
You are wise to quote Groucho Marx. He is ingeniously funny and ever will be.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Dietrich
-
...Who, praytell, is Peng?
-
This issue of ammo non-redistribution seems all the more odd to me because the CM:SF manual, on page 75 (of the PDF) under "Acquire", states (italics mine): "After nearly an hour of continuous combat, the infantry platoon is running out of ammo. We split the squads into teams and order them into the Strykers one by one to grab fresh ammo." I've tried this send-a-couple-guys-back-to-the-nearest-Stryker-or-Humvee-to-get-more-ammo thing and likewise found that it's as if only the guys who grab the additional ammo get to use it.
.
Just wanna say so long
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Was this from a poem in Finnish? If so, I'd dig seeing the original. (I'm in the process of teaching myself Finnish. lol) If not, I'd still dig seeing the original. =)