hcrof
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
Awsome stuff! I cant wait to roll back NK from the border!
-
I don't want to sound like I am doing anything in the same league as CMC but I have something similar in the works that doesn't require coding. Right now it is pretty crippled by the very big map bug but I can hope I can announce it and continue work after the release of the Brits module.
Like Steve said - it turned into a much bigger project than I anticipated and even if I can finish it I can't implement all of my ideas!
-
Looks awsome! I really want to get my hands on the lighter British forces.
I am going on holiday for a week - when I get back that module had better be released m'kay?
-
All done - I have sent Meach an e mail as your account seems to not allow them. It has a couple of diagrams and stuff. If you have any questions just ask, I love the Soviet way of war!
Apologies for the amateur style graphics - I was in a hurry and just pulled them out of a couple of places without cleanups.
-
Well, I dug up a field manual for a stryker company and it seems that there are no hard and fast rules for vehicle placement - it all depends on the commanders plan (The company comander may have to integrate his defences with other companies or may be separate). I had never heard of the 'Y' formation before though but I have just skimmed it though as it is a lot of information!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-11/c05.htm
I'll prepare something on a Soviet style defence now, it doesn't matter if it is a BMP or BTR defence, the principles are the same.
-
Are you talking about a US company or a Syrian one?
In general the transports will be with the squad in a prepared fighting position and often a secondary one as well (Trucks etc will obviously be left well behind the lines). If you want a detailed picture of a Soviet company strongpoint from the late 80's I can give you one but I am sure there are others who are much better at US defensive preparations!
-
I think that when a vehicle is 'bogged' it is possible to recover it (the process is abstracted so you don't see the methods used to extract the vehicle). When a vehicle becomes 'immobilised' something has gone very wrong and the recovery process has got to the point where special equipment has to be set up.
I might be wrong, i don't get enough vehicles stuck in CMSF to be able to say for sure!
-
...and the 'very big map bug'. Could Charles stop the game crashing when the map is very large? It is really screwing up my map making
. If there was one issue that I would say has to be addressed it is that one because it throws the minimum computer requirements out of the window. Slowdown is OK, crash to desktop is not. -
Well since you asked!
I think that after 1.11 the game doesn't need any major changes as it runs very nicely as it is. For what it's worth however, here is a list of things I'd love to see in the future:
1. Vehicle based ATGM behaviour needs a good look at for all light ATGM vehicles (BRDM's, Humvees, LAV-AT). Not being able to find hull down and then having the vehicles retreat rather than fire at very long ranges (when the tank can't respond) makes these vehicles a little bit useless.
2. On a similar note it would be very nice to see a 'turret down' feature to allow tank commanders etc to take a peek over a ridge. Right now you can dismount and have a look but this is far from ideal.
3. Especially with the British module coming out, defensive smoke from the engines should be made the 'default' smoke source. When the Tac AI pops smoke, it should be from the engine. The smoke mortars should be player controlled and directional.
4. Syrians should be able to aquire MG ammo from vehicles. I don't know if it is realistic but adding RPO's too would be very cool.
5. Static Syrians should be given a 'spread out' command which allows them to occupy 2 floors of a house or a little longer stretch of trench or treeline. This is canceled when they move off but would add to survivorbility. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86345&highlight=spread+out
6. Syrian FO's are cancelling fire missions, I don't know why. More info at http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1138361#post1138361
As you can see, I play with the Syrians a lot
. I think like some others, the game was made from an American point of view (understandable given that BFC is an American Company) so some aspects of the Syrian force may be overlooked. Still, as said before, none of these features are vital. They would just add to the game and create a richer playing experience for REDFOR lovers like myself! -
Could it be something to do with having casualties in the impact zone? Although a few dead bodies shouldn't cancel the artillery strike could it? Especially if the FO can't see them
-
Does anyone know what causes Syrian FO's to cancel fire missions after the first few rounds have landed? I wait for 15 munutes to launch a devistating barrage at the enemy that turns into a bit of a wimper when it ends after 2 impacts.
Is there some sort of behavior issue that I have to be aware of? Because it has lost me a game before and it is now happening to one of my PBEM opponents (Not that I should be complaining of course
) -
Nice! There are loads of little features that work really well to add a bit of flavour to the map. I am looking forward to scenarios based on it - I might even do one myself if I have the time
-
I am replacing the highway actually as it is less commonly used and has more 'slots' for textures. It would be no effort to make a second version replacing gravel roads if people wanted it though.
So far I have textured the rails themselves and made a straight length of track that tiles correctly. It doesn't look perfect because it isn't be 3D but I can live with that. This evening I will try and make a diagonal section line up properly when tiled.
In fact, I have 3 spare slots if people wanted to suggest an unusual feature I could add. Right now they are assigned to moving the track to the edge of the tile rather than through the middle (for some kind of station platform or something) but I am open to suggestions if anyone can think of something cool
-
But my experience with you gamers is that you think the best time to reposition is AFTER incoming fire starts
Erm, I'd like to take issue with that one there - I regularly move ATGM's after one shot if I feel like it is a high threat environment for them. I find it very satisfying to have concentrated mortar fire aimed at a spot that I vacated seconds earlier
A pair of ATGM's can cover each other as they move around and effectively deny the enemy large areas of the mapMy opponants have begun to do the same thing much to my annoyance...
Edit: Very interesting Secondbrooks, I love to learn about the practicalities of using weapons. I should join the Army or something
-
I second that - those screenshots look amazing!
-
Well I tried to import CMx1 textures but they looked terrible so I have started from scratch. I have a couple of maps on the go right now with a railroad through them so I thought I'd give it a go
-
I can confirm what Pandur said, I have seen Red tank commanders stay out of the hatch, even when under quite a lot of small arms fire!
-
For what its worth, I'm doing a railroad mod for CMSF! There will be very wide bends but obviously I can't increase the chance of an immobilisation on them or anything.
-
True about poorly trained user and batllefield conditions but don't the airborne divisions use SPG-9? Well trained troops should be able to assemble the thing pretty quickly
-
Well I dug out a source to confirm it:
The SPG-9 can be transported on its removable two-wheel carriage or carried in an APC. It takes about 1min to set it up for firing.
Isby, D. Weapons and tactics of the Soviet army. London: Janes Publishing Company ltd. 1988
Wel there you have it! I can see why it takes longer to deploy the Sagger though, the deployment sequence seems to involve a bit of assembly (At least 5-9 parts).
-
In the game the Syrian SPG-9 takes 5 minutes to set up and 1 minute to pack up. This is exactly the same amount of time it takes to set up/pack up the Saggers they accompany.
Is this accurate? The SPG-9 is a tripod mounted weapon which shouldn't take much time at all to set up and even less to move off again. IIRC the 'official' set up time was 1 minute which seems more accurate to me.
Any thoughts? There might be a very good reason why they take so long to set up
-
Have you made the file into .zip format? That one always gets me
-
First of all, in that mission all of the Syrian Special forces are wearing body armour which would help protect them. Secondly, although roofs in CMSF appear flat, they are abstactly covered in 'stuff' that provides some cover.
I don't want to say that it is likely, just that it is possible that a 2 man team could take only 1 casualty from 3 javelin hits in that situation. I imagine that in real life that the survivor would be pretty shook up and definately injured (hearing at least!) but might still be able to walk away. I would conduct some tests before calling it a problem in the game.
-
I find that when the enemy is in the building, a javelin is absolutely devistating but units in the open get off with far fewer casualties. I think this is because the warhead doesn't produce much shrapnel (because it has a light casing). When it hits a building, the blast causes the building wall to create the lethal fragments.
In other words, what you are seeing is realistic in my book!
. If there was one issue that I would say has to be addressed it is that one because it throws the minimum computer requirements out of the window. Slowdown is OK, crash to desktop is not.
)
red, yellow, and green squares.
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
They show where the fireteams will end up at the end of the move order. I think the yellow one is the 'A' team and red the 'B' team. It is a visual aid so the squad ends up where you expect them to be.