hcrof
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
I like that idea - a bit more of an effort for the designers but it would add interest to the loading time and actualy get people to read mission briefings!
-
It has to be pointed out that a Bradley is over twice the weight, 6 times the cost (or more) and can't carry as many troops as a BMP. On top of that, it was deliberately designed to be able to take out the 50 year old vehicle known as the BMP-1.
So its not very surprising that the Bradley comes out on top.
It also must be said that in Soviet doctrine that BMP's are always accompanied by organic tank assets which can deal with the Bradleys.
I am not trying to say that the BMP is a very good vehicle. I hate the way that it brews up so easily but it does exactly what it was designed to do and therefore cannot be written off.
-
As a piece of complete speculation I would say that it is just that there isn't a requirement for it so making the vehicles heavier and more expensive is a waste. If a second cold war started I suspect that vehicles like the warrior would get it.
I think that historically, because IFV's such as warrior where supposed to work with tank and helicopter support they didn't need an ATGM too badly. Back in those days Britain didn't have a lot of money so couldn't afford to be too lavish with their spending. This is made worse by the fact that I am not sure that britain had a TOW equivilent back when they designed the warrior. Now we can afford it but you don't need TOW launchers in Afghanistan so they put cage armour on instead.
The LAV-25 is a recon vehicle - not designed to engage armour. Putting a TOW on it would probably increase weight enough to make it less mobile - compromising its main defense.
-
Moral was normal throughout the test on green experience.
I tested it again with green, veteran and elite troops and the Elite crews would sometimes take the shot if they saw one tank but would always bug out if they saw 2. All other experiance levels bugged out within seconds of seeing a single tank.
Thanks for having a look!
-
Its been a while since we had one of these threads but could someone have a look at the bug out behaviour with BRDM-2s?
IIRC there was an issue with TOW Humvees bugging out when spotting armour and therefore being unable to destroy it. The same is happening with me with the BRDM-2-AT vehicles. I put them in overwatch in a hull down position and they spot a T-62 3000m away. This is out of range for the tank but the BRDM should be able to take the shot (Armed with an AT-5) and destroy the tank no problem. I can understand if they bug out at less than 1000m and the tank is facing them but they should be shooting, not running at 3000m!
Just wondering if the issue will be fixed for v1.2?
-
nice! Very interesting stuff, Thanks!
-
It will only happen when the unit feels threatened. If it can't respond effectively to enemy fire or is outnumbered and taking casualties they will 'bug out'. You can't use the feature to shoot and scoot.
-
Thanks guys, I'll try that out now!
-
just out of interest, how do you force the cpu affinities to use both cores? I am using vista 32
-
And that is why I am mapping out a 10x11km area of Syrian countryside!
-
afreu - I want to be able to replicate maneuvre warfare - soviet style
to do that you need some pretty big maps even though total forces per map would only be a reinforced motor rifle battalion for the attacker.Besides, when an AT-3 sagger has a range of 3000m it is doing the weapon an injustice by using small maps!
-
So its a hardware issue? I had the impression that CMSF didn't handle big maps well. I'd hate to upgrade my computer for nothing.
-
I just found something very interesting about the RPG-7 which might explain why US and British forces seem so invlunerable to RPG's in urban areas. It was just one line in a reference book but apparently the penetration of an RPG-7 round decreases at short range because the warhead is moving too fast. Presumably it doesn't have the correct stand off so the molten slug cannot form properly.
Has anyone else heard of this?
-
Personally, I find using google earth without the maps most usefull. The maps on poehali (sp?) are very low resolution. I make a 150m grid using the 'draw lines' function then copy the height data already in GE onto where th lines intersect. Any funny heights and corrections are made next. Finally I add all the roads from the GE image and then everything else.
Its resonably accurate and gives a great 'feel' for the terrain but quite slow and my Alt-Tab buttons are pretty much destroyed
. I havn't released anything in a while but that is only because I am mapping an 10x11km area of the Syrian countryside right now!The only problem is that CMSF doesn't cope with big maps well. Several of my maps are 4x4km and the game crashes every time I load them. :mad: My only hope is that the Brits module will fix that otherwise I will have lost months worth of work.
There is another map site which does high resolution images of some of Syria but at $90 a map I am going to hold off that one for now!
-
Just to be clear on what is happening, The first blasts in the top left hand side of the screen where rockets being fired by insurgents and the reply was 155mm guns right?
-
Very good stuff there - even my Brother who hates military stuff sat through most of it! Seriously though it was interesting to get an insight as to how textbook COIN ops are put into practice and the challenges facing the commanders on the ground.
I just wonder who thought that sending a single battlegroup into Basra was a good idea?
-
I don't get it, if the poster is talking about CM:SF, how can he compare it to a fantasy/action movie?
I don't see how CMSF is any less deep or realistic than CMBB. Some of the armour values might still be unknown on modern tanks but with 1:1 modeling, full C2, different optics systems, better penetration modeling including subsystems and an improved air/arty model I would say that CMBB etc looks a bit gamey by comparison.
In the next game there will be a new quick battle system and better modeling for fortifications so by the time Normandy comes out, people will be able to compare the 2 systems directly and will find CMx2 distinctly superior in almost every aspect. (Assuming no F***ups
) -
I am suprised that dud warheads arn't included!
For those who are interested, here is the US army analysis of the RPG-7 I mentioned, it goes into quite a lot of detail about hit probabilities about halfway through. I follow its guidelines and the weapon feels right for me in the game. I havn't tried hitting targets at long range enough to comment on accuracy above 300m though.
-
I have hit the 'out of memory' bug several times now when making two scenarios. Admittedly I knew from the start that they were going to push the editor hard - they are BIG.
It seems to be related to the number of houses or trees for me.
Is there a hardware solution (buy a better graphics card) or will I have to wait untill the next patch in order to play my maps?
-
To honest, I think conscript level troops come close to untrained in terms of effectiveness. You get a massive burst of unaimed fire and the squad is wiped out when they all have to reload. Combine with the fact that they will be suppressed at the least bit of fire and in my mind you have pretty much untrained troops.
Green troops better reflects conscripts who have gone through at least some kind of training program. To make them reservists conscripted at very short notice the leadership and morale values should go down.
-
Perhaps because it's relatively cheap and plentiful?
Yeah but the engagement suggests a 2% hit probability which just isn't worth it. How often do you get 50 RPG's firing at 1 target?
Combined with the face that an anti armour weapon with over 200mm penetration failed to cause injury in a very lightly armoured vehicle would suggest that those US troops were very lucky.
I am not promoting the RPG-7 as some sort of wonder weapon, I am just pointing out that many experts still regard it as effective on the modern(ish) battlefield. If I had all the money in the world I would get a Charles Gustav but the RPG is a good substitute.
You are right about the poor mans artillery bit - the round has a self destruct mechanism that activates at around 900m. If you are very good you can get an airburst effect at that range. I highly doubt its effectiveness though it has been recorded in Afghanistan back in the 80's.
-
Ken - I completely agree. Thank you for summing up what I should have been saying in the first place
-
I try to follow the guidelines that I gave above and even then it it frustrating to see my RPG operators miss. Green RPG guys literally cant even hit a building at 200m let alone a tank!
I have to say though that in my experience AT-4's are even worse - if there ever was a panzerfaust equivilent it would be an AT-4. It probably won't hit above 100m and even then it won't do any damage. The last time I used one it failed to take out a BMP-2, I had to use a grenade launcher in the end!
-
The US Army did some tests a while back on the RPG and the results are published somewhere - I think you can find it as a link on Wikipedia. With a skilled operator, the RPG will hit a static target at 300m 50% of the time, to get that result with an unskilled operator the target needs to be at 150m. Likewise if the target is moving or if there is a crosswind, a skilled RPG operator has an effective range of 150m, the unskilled operator can forget about it. That information just came off the top of my head BTW - it might be wrong.
I suspect that those Humvees were at longer ranges than 150m and they were taking serious evasive action.
I think I might have had a debate before over that engagement - I can't remember who it was with though. AFAIK the conclusion was that on a hit the focussed jet of the warhead would just pass straight through the humvee without harming anyone. I would still argue though that a hit against an AFV would be more effective due to the more compact layout. You would be more likely to hit a critical system.
At the end of the day, if the RPG-7 was as ineffective as that engagement suggested, why would armies across the world still be using the things? Not just third world armies either - I think the Russian airborne use them!
to do that you need some pretty big maps even though total forces per map would only be a reinforced motor rifle battalion for the attacker.
)
Request for modders
in CMSF Scenario and Mod Design Forum
Posted
Can I make a request for some kind hearted modder?
The long grass never shows up in the game for me with my PC. Could someone perhaps replace the long grass vegitation with the swamp vegitation while keeping the base the same? I can garuntee that it will look like grass because of the different coloured base however it will be more obviously long.
I am assuming it can be done because the water mods change the terrain and you can kind of get the effect when you checkerboard marsh and long grass tiles. You just cant move on it. I can post a screenshot of what I am after if you like.
I am in the middle of building an African scenario very loosely based on the Angolan Civil war and want to get that feeling of the wide expanses of long grass found in central Angola around Huambo.
Thanks!