TempV
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TempV
-
-
My only real concern is that the Russians would be cast as the 'bad guys' in the background story. I like the Russians and I'd really like to do a proper Russian v NATO campaign played as RED.
Thanks buddy.
We are sort of get used to be "bad" in the games. 
CoD: Modern warfare, Arma 2, World in Conflict... Even speaking of WW2 Eastern front there are far less games comparing to Western front and most of them depict Red Army as mass hordes taking individually superior Germans only by great numbers.Maybe the cause is western culture feeling about west countries being Elf-like (good) and East countries being Orkish (evil). By the way I like Warhammer Orcs. Dis iz great pleazure to smash 'umanz with our choppas.
Sorry about off-topic, can't restrain from comment. -
The '80s is good, but old stuff... No BMP3. no T90, no BTR-90, no BMP-T, no Mi28 and more, more else...
Honestly, I don't think there would be "more more else" esply if BFC is going to replicate real modern Russian Army, not superficial one as our TV tries to convince us. Besides you have your T-90 and BMP-3 in CMSF1.
What CMSF doesn't have it is balanced opposition. I don't try to say there'd be absolutely balanced Red vs Blue tactical situation but it was more balanced during 1980's than it will be in 2010's mostly due to Blue equipment wasn't superior to Red one. If we take a look at, let's say 1985 there were Abramses equipped with only 105 mm gun, and Leos 2 wasn't big part of West Germany armoured force. Also Warsaw Pact had a good numerical superiority with ground forces to compensate some training and CnC drawbacks. BTW speaking about training most West countries which keep professional armies nowadays had to raise conscript armies in 80's (think about West Germany, France etc.).
-
2 Battlefront.com team
If you are going to make East vs West modern warfare game don't do it in near future. Instead just make it in near past. You know: 1980's, NATO vs Warsaw Pact total war, plenty of nations from both sides (plenty of modules
). This solution would be money-wise too, I think.If you do CMSF2 in 2010's there'll be mostly the same hardware as CMSF1 has. Same Abramses and Challies 2 vs same T-90's and T-72's. Oh yeah, there'll be T-80, it's very big addition of course:) but it was in 80's too and moreover the tank was on its peak during the era (T-80U vs M1A1 is a good match to my opinion).
In Fulda Gap scenario would be much more other hardware - M60's, Challengers, Leo's 1 etc. There won't be super-accurate thermal sights with 5+ km range and tanks would have a good survival rate versus contemporary APDS and HEAT ammo. There would be most balanced conflict the modern history could have. I don't think Russia or China will present in 2010's such adversaries to NATO as Sovier Union did.
So please, make CMSF2 in 1980's. I'm sure I'm definitely not alone in my wishes.
Oh, another point. Since the game would be about war never took place nobody's feeling would be hurt.
-
Again, I'm not trying to say that 5 minutes for a particular Syrian system is accurate. What I'm trying to do is get a better understanding of what a typical setup time would be for these systems.
Steve
Steve, how about my proposal to decrease deploy time of SPG-9, AT-7 and AT-13 to 1 min? It won't be "ideal" as manuals state (25-35 sec, 12-20 sec, 12-20 sec respectively) and it won't be rediculosly slow as it's now eighter (5 min, 3 min, 3 min). And I should note these times have game significance because a player sometimes have to redeploy ATGMs. I often do that in H2H games because after the first missile fired you can expect fast and furious Blue Arty.
-
Many things (the underlined ones) you mention in that list don't have anything to do with deploying times of the system, they do take time but they are not part of deploying (they are part of "preparing for battle"). Riflesquad (with Javelin or not) doesn't need to "deploy" in game when it goes to positions ready to engage enemy and neither do tanks.
I second that. Concerning the game itself we speak mainly about redeploying during the battle. There is no need to reattach sights on Fagot or Metis launchers if you are changing position.
What I will say however is, what in that whole list of points is fundimentally different from a HMG? The only AT weapon that comes in more than 2 pieces is an AT-3 and they do not need to deal with any recoil which means you can get away with a sloppy job setting out the tripod.Very good point too. The tripod of SPG-9 is such simple as anyone of modern HMG.
My proposal to leave "heavy" ATGM as the are, but decrease deploy time for SPG-9, AT-7, AT-13 to no more than 1 min.
-
SPG-9, extraction from the field manual:
As you can see, a deploy time for SPG-9 is 25-35 sec, redeploy time is the same. I don't think Syrians are such physically or mentally inferior people that they would require much more time than Russians to operate that simple weapon system.
-
There is a very serious exaggeration of deploy time of Syrian (i.e. Soviet) infantry ATGM launchers in game compairing to real figures.
Here we are:
ATGM In-game deploy time Real life normative time
AT-3 (Malutka) 5 min 1 min 40 sec
AT-4 (Fagot) 3 min less than 1 min
AT-7 (Metis) 3 min 12-20 sec
AT-13 (Metis-M) 3 min 12-20 sec
AT-14 (Kornet-E) 3 min less than 1 min
Sources:
"Domestic ATGM missiles" by R.D. Angelski (in Russian, of course)
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/malutka/malutka.shtml
http://btvt.narod.ru/4/fagot.htm
http://oruzie.su/raketnie-kompleksi/138-prk-russia/107-metis-m
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/cornet/cornet.shtml
I think somebody knows few Russian words to read these facts. At least "время перевода из походного положения в боевое" means "combat deploy time".
English Wiki gives 15-20 sec about deploy time of AT-13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-13_Metis-M
It would be nice if BFC team explain why they increased deploy time of the Soviet ATGMs bu a such large margin, especially for Metis/Metis-M launchers, wich were designed to be a lightweight easy-to-deploy infantry AT assets.
-
Blue vs Blue is quite fun now with British, however they are outclassed by US in firepower terms. I found 2 perfect matches: Mech Brits vs Marines and Arm Brit Inf vs SBCT, thought in the latter case AI doesn't use Javelins but human opponent surely will. Also I've found with equal settings Stryker Infantry gets much more troops in QB. Of course they have 9-man squads compairing 7-man Britsish, but they also have MGS which are Warrior killers. So I think -20% to US force will do a fair compensation.
Indeed. I also find the Brits make better attackers than defenders, given their wide range of mobility options etc. When they remain static they tend to get chewed up pretty bad by U.S. forces.I think any static force in this game is in bad position. Artillery (even Red Arty) is an overkill against infantry. Meeting engagement is the best option for Blue vs Blue to my opinion.
-
Hmm, are the Osprey titles (Falaise Pocket, Caen etc.) good for reading concerning subject of the topic?
-
Oh, that post shows capitalist surfeit.
You guys really should try Russian "service". We have every Shock Force title in above-mentioned jewels. However I don't mind it, it's not the worst thing. All Russian SF players still sit on 1.10 and all our complains are simply ignored on the forums of 1C company or by their tech support. And nobody speaks any word about refunding. -
I tried to get balanced H2H Red vs Blue battle. I can assume from my experience than in urban terrain Syrian Resp. Guards mechanized company or Special forces Light Inf can provide a determined defence against Stryker company with -20% correction to Blue force or maybe even Bradley company (althought I didn't try that QB against human opponent). In open, village or similar semi-open terrain correction to the Blue force should be no less than 40% because Javelins rules the day.
Also I tried to get a tank QB but never succeded because I never got pure Red tank force. Every time I started I had 1-2 tank platoons and some infantry assets against full Abrams company.
-
its 7.62x18 for the syrian pistols
guess its a Makarov, no western 9mm Para weapon.PM (Pistolet Makarova) shoots 9x18 mm rounds. They are similar but not identical to Western 9x18 Police. Sometimes these cartriges are called 9 mm Makarov.
-
Am I the only one who noticed the "...will be released in July" part?
No, you're not alone.
That probably means CMSF:BF will be released on the next week.BTW, good job producing demo before the release date.
-
Campaign players now have an option to switch between RealTime and WeGo Modes in between battles.
This is a very, VERY GOOD feature!
-
The solution we have combines the ability to Cherry Pick with the ability to still have structured forces. It should address most of the concerns anti-Cherry Pickers have while at the same time allowing for a similar degree of historically impossible forces as was possible in CMx1. At the same time it will work with the underlying C2 model and historical plausible forces.
That's very good intention. I recall Flames of War (tabletop wargame) system where a player must have some "core" troops in points-based limit and he has some freedom choosing support troops. For example, a player fielding Infantry company has to place Company HQ and 2 rifle platoons. Then he may add another rifle platoon or have some weapon platoons (heavy MGs, mortars) and division support troops (tank platoon, assault gun platoon, field gun battery, air support etc.) provided he fits the point limit. It usually equals 1500 or 1750 points which mean core troops plus 2-3 weapon and support platoons.
What we are instead doing is combining CMx2's existing ability to use premade maps with a new system which allows smaller premade "Mega Tiles" to be assembled on the fly into new maps. This is a system which borrows from board and miniature wargames. User made Mega Tiles will increase variety even more.This is good feature too, I'd like to see it in computer game.
Personally, I don't consider CMSF QB system as bad as it's often spoken about althought it has some obvious limits. With some tuning (and luck
) one can get pretty balanced battle. For example, putting SBCT vs Respublican Guard or SF with minus 20-30% correction to Blue side or +25-40% to Red one in the case they are attackers, will produce a very challenging battle for Americans. I recall you've said about minor fixes for current QB system planned in 1.20. Will they see the light and deal with some strange selection issues (for example, only AT assets), esply for tiny and small battles? -
Actually there is a whole bunch of new additional animations that come with the British Module, not just the wall jumping.
I guess those animations will apply to all infantry units, not only British.
-
Thx for info. But are there any good blue vs red PBEM scenarios?
-
BTW, can anybody advice good H2H scenarios from Repository for basic game (without modules)? I want to play a game with friend of mine who doesn't own marines. By the word "good" I mean battles which are really playable for both sides, US and Syrians alike.
-
The game is as unbalanced as the scenario designer make it.
Smart thought. I've always said there's no unbalanced "races" in wargames as RTS crowd thinks. Only scenario designer's skill counts. You can clearly see the difference between vanilla CMSF scenarios and Marines' ones, the latter being more difficult and suitable for H2H. I hope British forces will include dedicated multiplayer scenarios.
-
Thank you for advices
-
Are there any open sources in the web containing British Army field manuals like US FMs? I'm especially interested in organization, tactics and equipment. There are plenty sources with US Army and USMC FM's but I couldn't find any British ones. Your help will be appreciated.
-
It would be nice if BFC team will announce WW2 title on D-day.
Maybe just a name and few screens. -
Firstly, the original post was about Soviet Cold War era tanks, and test were conducted with NATO Cold War era ammo. It doesn't matter when they were tested but it does matter what APFSDS was used. Similar tests were conducted in 90's by British then Americans with T-80U which they aquired with the help of third party IIRC, and this tests also proved NATO AP ammo having troubles penetrating Kontakt-5. In fact, it was M829A1, the "silver bullet". So if instead of Perestroika a conventional war would occur between NATO and Warsaw Pact, the NATO tank wouldn't be so succesfull as it supposed basing on Gulf War results. Actually a development of M829A2/A3 was caused by Kontakt-5. In contrast, British and Germans began to equip their newer tanks with longer guns.
Secondly, there is exaggeration about "fake". That discussion isn't about fake source, but mostly about effectiveness of heavy ERA.
-
A new company/battalion level wargame is under developement now: [commercial link deleted]
Developers are Graviteam who did T-72: Balkans in Fire and Steel Fury: Kharkov 1942. Personally I liked Steel Fury very much (it's really authenic tank sim which is rare thing nowadays and it's one of best sims ever made) so I'll look for their new project. Pity it seems there won't be multiplayer mode for the first release of Kharkov 1943.
We are sort of get used to be "bad" in the games. 
CoD: Modern warfare, Arma 2, World in Conflict... Even speaking of WW2 Eastern front there are far less games comparing to Western front and most of them depict Red Army as mass hordes taking individually superior Germans only by great numbers.
). This solution would be money-wise too, I think.
Abrams vs. Ural
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I didn't read "Abrams vs T-72" book but I very disliked another Zaloga's title also published by Osprey. This time it was "Tank War central front" from "Elite" series. In that book Zaloga write in very populistic manner - to the western reader of course, and his fictional battle described in the first part of the book is a total bullsh*t. A Soviet Guards tank unit ride in newest T-80 (for that era) led by Afgan-experienced officer and stupidly run into the ambush organized by few US troops. Almost entire Soviet force is wiped out (surprise, surprise
). So we can see even elite Red units are no match to common Blue ones. BULL-****. This is what I call LOTR-style (and yes, I wrote that on this forum, I know) You see, few elite Elven warriors from the Free West defeat Orkish hordes from the East.
Reality is more prosaic. People are same over the world and Russians aren't stupid compare to Americans (in fact, in my country people think quite contrary
) Yes, Soviet doctrine put less emphasis on the individual level, but this doesn't mean that every Blue unit is superior to every Red one. And Soviet doctrine had its own advantages "conviniently" forgotten by Zaloga.
So maybe in the West Zaloga is considered an "expert" of Russian weaponry. Here he's considered to be just a typical populist.
Back to the topic. I read one title from "Duel" series, it was "T-34 vs Panther" by Robert Forzcyk and I very liked the book and ist author. It's written in very professional manner and it shows advantages and drawbacks of both tanks and how they influenced tactics and battle outcomes. I liked the series (thought it's very expensive to the townsman of Russian glubinka) and I'd buy other titles from it. I'll pass on "Abrams vs T-72" however.