Skwabie
-
Posts
603 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Skwabie
-
-
Looking forward to it clubfoot, love some infantry action!
-
4 platoons of 5.56MMs!!
... -
yup, plus i'm sure the pattern he flew was great!
-
There's still the canucks. One more to go.
-
Anyways, i cant wait to slug it out with russian tanks as soon as Black Sea is released! It is the battlefront game i am currentl waiting for most.
"Contact! Tank! 12 o'clock!"
"UP!"
"On the wayyyy....."
"Targettt!"
-
Tricky to land, F4U!
-
And just because the manual says it, doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Haven't checked whether it still has the error about the triangle and sphere markers for waypoints. That was in BN and, IIRC, FI.
Hmmm what is the difference? Never knew about that! Or should I just RTFM?...
-
Womble, I've played BN scenarios where AI has "0 Men OK". Pity didn't take screenies at that time...
-
Played this the second time just for test. Enemy on the map have all been killed, the "8 Men OK" left were the 3 hour exiled reinforcements. AI never surrendered!
-
ok thx for the info, i hope i can create a new campaign
Actually no need to
as biting my own tongue I've finished editing blunting the spear battle one with a new core file. It is meticulous but with fraps taking screenshots, turns out it's possible. Redfor using core units is quite interesting because, the losses inflicted on enemy in current battle will have direct influence on later ones! -
FG ODIN from what I understand you're trying to pack a campaign without the core units file which is not possible... That one file is not included in the unpacked scenarios by Mad Mike's tool and needs to be made by oneself. In the case of Blunting the Spear it is quite a task.:eek: But... I'll save my poor explanation skills and just paste the campaign section from the CMSF manual.... hope it helps you figure it out!
Making Campaigns
New Campaigns for Combat Mission are technically quite easy to
make, however since they require many custom made battles
it can be somewhat time consuming to put together because
each battle takes a fair amount of effort to make.
A Campaign is a semi-dynamic string of individual battles linked
together. Each battle for a Campaign is just like every other
scenario made in the Editor, save one major feature; a common
pool of units imported from a central “core units” file.
This allows Combat Mission to track individual units from battle
to battle, which in turn allows the results of a previous battle
to have a direct effect on those that come later.
At the heart of a Campaign are two sorts of battles; primary and
branches. Primary battles are those that represent the optimal
path from start to finish. If a player wins each battle these
are the only ones that are played. Branches are those battles
that the player is diverted to after failing to win the previous
battle. There is a great deal of flexibility as to how these features
are used, enabling campaign designers to customize the
structure of a Campaign to conform to a particular “plot”. In
fact, the campaign doesn’t have to branch at all if that is what
the designer wishes to do.
Note: in theory you can create loops in the branching structure, by
directing the player to a scenario he played previously, e.g. after
a loss. While this is possible, please keep in mind that any
damages and changes to the map from the previous fight are not
saved. This means destroyed buildings from the first time through
are magically rebuilt, craters filled in, burning vehicles removed,
etc. Therefore it might be a good idea to avoid such loops for the
most part.
It is possible to have units tracked from battle to battle on both
sides. However, this is not recommended in general since it
means the same two forces face each other battle after battle.
That’s not very interesting! Plus, with the high casualty rate
for the Syrian side, it is unlikely that a significant portion of the
Core Units would survive more than a few battles. Still, it’s a
feature and players are welcome to experiment with it if they
want.
144 Combat Mission
It is also possible to have a Campaign played from the Red player’s
perspective. Again, there is a problem with high casualty rates,
even for good troops, and the lack of realism since it is likely
that once engaged a Syrian unit would be hit where it was until
destroyed. In other words, Blue forces make excellent subjects
for a realistic Campaign, Red forces much less so. Again,
the tool is there to be used as the player sees fit. There is no
rule that says a Campaign has to be realistic, after all!
Core Units File
This is a scenario file, just like any other, that does nothing more
than provide a common pool of units to draw from and certain
elements needed to present the Campaign to the player. It’s
as simple as purchasing some units and setting up the mission
information (briefings, title, etc.). Combat Mission ignores
everything else so don’t worry about the map, unit placement,
etc.
Battles within a Campaign can use units that are not in the Core
Units File, therefore it is only important to put units in here
that are central to the story. For example, if the Campaign
revolves around a single Rifle Company and a Tank Platoon,
you don’t need to put in an Engineer Platoon or a Scout Platoon
that are only used once. Such auxiliary units which don’t
make an appearance in more than one battle can be added
into any scenario normally using the Unit Editor as one would
for a stand alone battle.
One very important thing to keep in mind is how CM tracks units
from battle to battle. When a formation is put into the Activated
Units column of the Unit Editor (i.e. purchased) unique
identification numbers are assigned to all the units within it.
This allows CM to know that Tank 1234 in Battle #1 is the
same Tank 1234 in Battle #2. After a units appear in the
Activated Units column it can be manipulated, such as having
a unit’s Experience changed or deleting a formation so it isn’t
available, just like in a normal scenario. These changes can be
undone or redone as often as desired. However, these changes
are not automatically incorporated into existing battles for the
Campaign. To have such changes registered each existing scenario
file must be “synchronized” with the Core Units File in
order to bring those changes into existing battles (see below).
Shock Force 145
Scenarios (Battles)
There is nothing inherently different between scenarios made for
a Campaign and those made for stand alone use. Maps, AIs,
Mission Parameters, etc. all have to be created just like any
other stand alone battle. The only significant difference is that
some (or all) of the units from one (or both) sides can be
imported into a scenario so that they carry through from battle
to battle. Also, it isn’t necessary to make the small 170x170
picture that represents the scenario in the Battle selection dialog
because it is ignored.
Importing units is quite easy. Create a new scenario in the Editor,
choose the Units Editor, and then select the “Import Campaign
Units” option. An open dialog appears so the Core Units File
can be located and selected. Once confirmed all the units in
the Core Units File are imported into the current scenario file.
The next step is to whittle down the Core Units to those needed
for the current battle only. Often this is a small subset of the
total units found in the Core Units File. Select the Purchase
Units option and look in the Activated Units column. All Core
Units are there with a notation that they are, indeed, Core
Units. To remove unwanted units simply do what is done for
any other scenario; select the unit, or formation, and select
the Delete button in the lower left corner. This toggles the unit
“off” so it won’t appear in the battle at all. It can be toggled
back “on” at any time, like a normal scenario, by repeating
these steps. Additional, non-core, units can be purchases at
any time as in any other scenario.
From time to time changes may be made to the Core Units File
that require synchronization with existing Campaign battles.
This is generally an extremely easy and painless thing to do.
Just open up the scenario file and Import Campaign Units again.
Core Units already in the scenario retain almost all of their
customization, such as placement, Group assignments, Orders,
etc. Therefore, synchronizing with the Core Units File does not
wipe out hard work! What it does do is remove units no longer
in the Core Units File, imports newly added units, and updates
attributes (such as names, experience, etc.). The latter is
probably the only potential drawback of synchronizing since
customized settings like that must be redone.
Note: any formations completely removed from the Activated Troops list
in the scenario will reappear and must be deleted again (if that is
146 Combat Mission
still desired). This is to make sure deleted formations can be
brought back in if the designer changes his mind after removing
them. It’s very important to know this since reintroduced
formations appear in default positions in the 3D environment
automatically, which can create a rather interesting game
experience until it is fixed in the Editor.
Campaign Script File
A group of completed scenarios are just that until you use the
Compile Campaign feature. In order to do that, though, a
Campaign Script File must exist. This is a TXT file which Combat
Mission uses to understand which battles are fought when,
what the conditions are for going to the next one, and how
much the units should be refreshed between battles.
The script is quite simple. The first part is the Campaign Header
to help CM set up the Campaign as a whole. The first variable
specifies which side the Campaign is played from (Blue or Red),
if a Human Opponent is allowed (No or Yes), the text shown to
the Blue player after the last battle (Victory and Defeat), and
the text shown to the Red player after the last battle (Victory
and Defeat).
What follows are a variable number of Battle Entries, one for each
Battle in the Campaign. Within the first section of the Battle
Entry is the scenario file name, the minimum victory level
needed to win, the scenario file name to go to after a win
(blank signals end of Campaign), and the scenario file name to
go to after a loss (blank signals end of Campaign). The next
section in the Battle Entry percentage chance an individual
unit has of being completely replaced if lost, repaired if damaged
(vehicle only), topped off with full ammo, and brought
back to a fully rested sate. If the Campaign contains no Core
Units for a particular side, there is no need to fill in that side’s
variables.
Note: the very beginning of a Campaign starts out with a special one
time Campaign Briefing. This is identical to a normal battle’s
briefing, complete with Operational Order (OPORD) and maps.
CM looks for this information in the Core Units File, which should
be loaded when the Campaign is compiled (see next section).
Here is a sample of a two battle Campaign Script with dummy
values inserted:
Shock Force 147
/*
Note the characters before and after this text. They allow designer to put in comments,
or notes, such as why something was done a certain way. Anything between these
characters is ignored by Combat Mission. Otherwise an error will occur when the
Campaign is compiled.
*/
// Alternatively two back slashes can be entered to create a comment. There’s no
functional difference between this method and the previous mentioned method.
/* Campaign Header*/
[PLAYER FORCE] blue // options are: blue/red
[HUMAN OPPONENT ALLOWED] no // no/yes
[bLUE VICTORY TEXT] You won!
[bLUE DEFEAT TEXT] You lost!
[RED VICTORY TEXT] You won!
[RED DEFEAT TEXT] You lost!
/*Battle #1*/
[bATTLE NAME] My First Little Battle // note, do not include “.btt”, just the
file name
[WIN THRESHOLD] tactical victory // total defeat, major defeat, tactical
defeat, minor defeat, draw, minor victory,
tactical victory, major victory, total
victory
[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] My Second Little Battle
[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE] // a blank signals an end of the campaign
[bLUE REFIT %] 20 //always express this a number between
0 and 100
[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %] 40
[bLUE RESUPPLY %] 70
[bLUE REST %] 80
[RED REFIT %] 10
[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %] 10
[RED RESUPPLY %] 50
[RED REST %] 60
/*Battle #2*/
[bATTLE NAME] My Second Little Battle
[WIN THRESHOLD] minor defeat
[NEXT BATTLE IF WIN] // end campaign
[NEXT BATTLE IF LOSE] // end campaign
[bLUE REFIT %] 20
[bLUE REPAIR VEHICLE %] 40
[bLUE RESUPPLY %] 70
[bLUE REST %] 80
[RED REFIT %] 10
[RED REPAIR VEHICLE %] 10
[RED RESUPPLY %] 50
[RED REST %] 60
148 Combat Mission
Compiling a Campaign
Unlike some games, a Combat Mission Campaign consists of a
single file (with the extension .CAM) that contains all the information
the game needs to play a Campaign from start to finish.
The single file format ensures that it can be transported from
person to person without missing pieces. It also ensures that
players can’t cheat by opening up individual battles in the Editor
to peek or alter elements to make it easier to win. This
means the person making the Campaign must keep the individual
battles or forever lose the ability to make changes to
the Campaign.
Compiling a Campaign is technically quite easy, however mistakes
made in the Script File are easy to make and that probably
means a couple of failed attempts are likely. Not to worry,
though, since Combat Mission gives useful feedback about what
the mistake is that is preventing a compile from happening.
Before starting, put all the files for the Campaign into a single
directory. The Core Units File doesn’t have to be in the same
directory, though it does help keep things tidy. Once this is
done, do the following things in this order:
1. Enter the Editor
2. Load the Core Units File
3. Click on the Editor selection popup menu and choose “Make
Campaign”, which is the last option
4. A dialog comes up that gives some reminders of what is about
to happen.
5. When you click on Make Campaign an Open Dialog comes up
and asks for the Campaign Script File
6. Select the Campaign Script File and click “Open”.
7. If the Script File contains no errors a new file, with the .CAM,
extension appears in the Campaigns directory. The file name
is taken from the currently open scenario, which should be the
Core Units File.
Note: if there are errors a dialog pops up and says what the problem is.
Simply make the correction needed and repeat the steps above.
Since CM stops and reports the very first error it detects, each
error requires a fix and another compile attempt.
Shock Force 149
Once a Campaign is successfully compiled it must be located in
the Campaign directory, in the Game Files folder, in order for
Combat Mission to offer it as a choice in the Campaign option
within the game. Campaign files received from other people
also need to go into the Campaign directory in order to be
available for play. The size of a Campaign file is directly related
to the size of the combined scenario files that are compiled.
Therefore, Campaigns tend to be several megabytes in size.
-
/--OT
I'm not restricting myself to US/NATO or history, I'm including every serious air war fought post WW2 (Iran-Iraq War, Arab-Israeli Wars, Indo-Pakistan Wars, Ethiopia-Eritrea, etc.) and looking at the order of battle of other nations we could plausibly fight today or in the near-term. All of them feature preferential focus on long-range and mobile SAMs, numerous AAA systems, etc. with some of them spending on the order of three or four times their expenditures into fighters.
SAMs without air cover is from the start at a disadvantage, because they're defensive and do not dictate when and where to fight. Their superior numbers pose a threat in attrition, but the fight is still on our terms I can leave it alone bypass it or bait it or kill it. Modern day SEAD tactics and technology have the single digit SAMs down pat bar operational **** ups for sensor fusion and data link has advanced way beyond what is widely recognized. A known SAM location during a strike package ingress will be suppressed by PET shots and not given a chance to breath. A ambush SAM site once it starts illuminating will get bounced by HARMCAPs and follow on DEAD strikes. An example: the SA-2, from turning on it's fire control radar to achieving a lock requires say 20 seconds. The strike package traveling at 480kts ground speed will trespass its WEZ for 8nm, which translates to 1 minute. At T+0 the strike package arrive at the SA-2's WEZ the SEAD escort flight will place the first PET shot on target. T+20 the 2nd HARM on target and T+40 the 3rd. This way ensures the strikers' safe passage. Simply put the SA-2 either opens up and face destruction, or stay dormant but risk losing vital objectives assigned it to protect. Meanwhile at least 1 sead aircraft is not assigned any PET duty but in sniff mode to react to any pop up threat. Once a new threat is detected, it's location is pinpointed and the data shared among the net. And this is the tactic before the HDAM module is installed, since with GPS it provides the HARM with DEAD ability.
Double digit SAMs otoh can be considered as land based Aegis systems and pose a problem for legacy fighters, it is still possible to kill but like an Aegis it needs to be overloaded with smart munitions from multiple aspects, which isn't very cost effective hence the need for stealth aircrafts like F-22 and 35s.
In Falcon? I'd just fire my AMRAAM and keep the HARMs or ignore them totally by pushing up AB. Not like I'm going to die if I get caught.HARMs on a F-16 limits: +6G/-2G, speed 600Kts/Mach1.2 CATIII. So by choice 1 you're aborting your mission at the least most likely damaging your airframe as carrying heavy and draggy AG munitions while trying to win the upper hand in a BVR energy joust is dream talk, and by choice 2 you're running straight into enemy missile's WEZ.
Primary purpose of a2a is not to achieve "one shot one kill" like that depicted against the AI, for if both sides are smart enough and do not trespass Minimum Abort Range (basically the range to enemy when you execute an down slice maneuver and still can out run the missile) there will be no kills. However, the side that eventually gains the upper hand will have achieved the objective: to push back enemy a2a assets so that friendly strike package can go through, or friendly intercepts can acquire inbound strikers. As we are usually the attacker, what if enemy gains the upper hand? We try a "kick" lateral to the strikers ingress direction, which means drawing enemy air to the side allowing the strikers to pass.
This though, inevitably takes more time and requires more airspace so as a commander, having known the tactical side of things like above, need to decide based on current desired objective, threat analysis and your own platforms capabilities, how many aircraft you need, where can they get to, what role they'll perform, when do they do it, what support asset is required, down to details like waypoint location/altitude/timings, fuel state, weapons loadout, comms plan, mission codewords and callsigns, divert airfields and secondary/tertiary targets etc. This involves many factors too long to discuss. In the example above, anticipating stiff opfor air resistance, the commander can assign a flight of 4 detached escorts in addition to current attached ones. Detached escorts is usually placed 15 minutes ahead of the main package, so that they have the space and time to perform BVR engagements against about 3 bandit groups. If there is not enough airframes for the job, that objective goes off the list.
TLDR, the sim is there but because of its vastness how much "simulation" gets outta it is the user's choice, some go the whole 9 yards while others just play the game, fine with both. However when going the whole way I will be very much surprised that "this is not a real air war". It's not perfect but what is? The ton of stuff one can learn about how modern air power operates thru it is amazing it's like drinking from a fire hose because you are not only shown the how, but also why. And nope the campaign engine doesn't quite tell one that, I can understand why you have problems with it coz all you see there is the tip of the iceburg.
OT--/
I can't remember whether P-47s out-performed FW-190s in terms of roll-rate, but the Jug certainly wasn't an agile machine in any other dimension and so in that sense, yes, it was 'clumsy'. As I'm sure you know, though, well-trained Thunderbolt pilots wouldn't get dragged into a turning fight when they had superior altitude and dive performance to rely on in a 'vertical' battle, instead.IIRC the 190s out rolled anything around 250mph it approached the 180deg/sec mark. However with the increase in air speed that advantage drops quickly.
-
Good to have a flashback to frugalsworld!
Uh no, enemy air has not presented a comparable threat to aircraft in something like sixty years with outliers centered exclusively around the Arab-Israeli wars. Ground-based air defense are a tougher, more numerous and more persistent threat to aircraft than other aircraft.Because the war in the last 60 years has not presented an "air worthy" enemy to the Unites States/NATO forces. I say this again, you're a history grog. I'm a, heck, virtual pilot if that is good enough for you. Different point of view. Since you've flown falcon imagine this. You're on the way for a sead strike and a pair of migs appears. Do you continue on to the SAM site or jett your harms and deal with the migs?
Positive. Shoot down all of North Korea's MiG-29s or annihilate air defenses west of Pyongyang and seven? ten? in-game days later the forces lost respawn.That is to simulate war production. Lost airframes get replenished over time, lost SAM FCR occasionally get replaced, under-strengthed battalions get refit. Abstract? Yes. Reasonable? yes too just like CM's campaigns where you have refits between scenarios. But nope shooting down all the red ACs are not the way to air dominance. Shutting down all the airbases are.
Edit: if you're saying a battalion that surrendered before (0% strength) respawned some days later, that's gotta be a bug...
Each airframe pushes three or four sorties per in-game day instead of the historically accurate 0.6 to 1.2 sorties.Firstly, there're values in the config files you can set to change this. Secondly, not sure multiple sorties a day is unacceptable in a cold war gone hot scenario as it is for Falcon4's campaign setting. And thirdly, maybe these fast paced replacement and activity levels are there to liven up game play. Not fun staring at a map when nothing's happening.
There is no SIGINT/ELINT functionality in-game: detection and tracking of radar-based air defense is based upon either their firing on aircraft or proximity to friendly ground forces.False. Detection of AWACS, JSTARS and GCI is simulated. That of course and friendly units proximity detection you say here.
Unless the FreeFalcon team screwed that up. The FF team were a group of 3D artists mostly, they lacked coders hence their ability to produce quality software. The RV guys were pulled in to fill that role but as you prolly know their stay was swift, reason for that isn't hard to deduct. The dynamic campaign engine is the deepest and least well known aspect of Falcon4 I wouldn't be surprised if something went wrong. Not surprisingly FF is now defunct.
Higher than accurate (or even reasonable) weapon effectiveness is something that plagues the flight sim genre, but its made especially egregious when the player can reliably kill a platoon or two of tanks every sortie and this snowballs into the extreme influence of single aircraft (player-flown, naturally) on the campaign.No one prevents you from flying realistic sorties. If you carry 8 JSOW mininukes on every interdiction flight it's your own business hell some just wanna have fun, but you can also choose a 4 mavs/gbu-12s/gbu-38s, 2 bags, 1 jammer and a 3-0-1 loadout. You kill no more than 4 vehicles per flight, unless you go for guns. If you use CBUs on anti-tank missions set their release altitude below 1000 and a long arming delay, drop in pairs instead of single. Those are realistic settings. If you've read Vipers in the Storm, Rosen did destroy 3 Tanks on one CBU pass so it's not at all unrealistic. For the RV version you flew, their weapon damage code was still inherited from BMS2.0 which was indeed very exaggerated. That was long corrected in OpenFalcon hence BMS4, and Lead Pursuit's Allied Force. Why FF/RV did not do it see the part about lacking coders also their interest in a survey sim with little regard for realism which is what Falcon always emphasized. The ground formation code also was old for even a threatened/engaged vehicle battalion stayed in column, making it an easy target for bomb ripple releases. That was long corrected in other versions too. Heck, with F4browse you can directly change weapons effectiveness yourself if not happy about it.
You're right, I'm generalizing based on Red Viper circa 2007 or so, when I last played the game, but given that I can't find mention of any kind of improved SIGINT/ELINT or other electronic warfare improvements in BMS, nor dialing down weapon effectiveness to match empirical norms or even added decoy targets so I doubt they've shifted gears to make the campaign a realistic simulation of air campaign instead of a very good mission generator.see above. but you're also right that BMS is more geared towards the F-16's systems and flight model, actually it's the fun version of an air force flight simulator even I saw the boredom in that later on, as a history/strategic hobbyist ('cuse me for lack of a better word) you won't find BMS that attractive. Still it did rework stand-off jamming and active radar missile guidance mechanisms. (Beware though much of the modern day EW is considered classified you wouldn't see em in civilian software.) Campaign related stuff was being worked on slowly but from what I see more damage was being done than improvements. The Lead Pursuit guys had the most in-depth dynamic campaign knowledge so with their commercial endeavor... that talent is now lost forever to the community, still F4 Allied Force is considered to have the best campaigns by many today. However, following on:
Modern? Harpoon 3.0, Command: Modern Air/Naval Ops. For WW2 air campaign, TalonSoft's Battle of Britain from 1999.Geez, those games are so abstracted, when put in CM terms you don't even see the tank, or you see a paper model of the tank!, on a small window of your screen doing something. It is boring on an exponential scale I need another 20 years on my age to appreciate it. Perhaps it does have some appeal on ya old timers or ppl with classical tastes or summin'. Does the 1999 BOB has anything to do with Rowan's BOB and BOBII? Those 2 are actually pretty decent with dynamic campaigns and epic, well, three dimensional, air battles, although the dynamics are less so compared to Falcon.
Jokes aside it just shows again that war-gaming interests are different. You like being in front of a map playing commander and I need to actually witness it happening. If I venture a guess you were using falcon for something it's not designed for which no doubt there'll be disappointment.
-
Meant to say FHA...
Was confused there for a while thinking some hidden calculation rule I didn't know about!...
-
No, the biggest threat is ground defenses. Killed more aircraft than opposing air in both absolute and value comparison terms, currently occupies about two-thirds of the thinking behind modern air campaigns.
Yah ofc, from a historian's perspective it's absolutely correct strategically. From my tactical pov enemy air will always pose a greater threat to a blufor flight because they're mobile at 500kts.
edit (off-topic):F4's campaign has the same relation to the conduct of a real air campaign as Call of Duty does to real infantry combat. Its a good tool for setting up interesting situations for the flight simulator portion, but the lack of sortie rate limitations, simplified target sets, completely hand-waved BDA, near-irrelevance of intelligence/surveillance/target acquisition systems thanks to perfect intel capabilities from the ether, frequent "respawns", dumbed-down EW and communications modeling and weapons modeling easily two times (and sometimes five or ten times) higher than empirically established norms, etc. all make it clear its not meant to be air campaign simulator so much as a flight sim mission generator.
Man... I read this section multiple times but can't make heads or tails with most of them, lack of sortie rate limitation, respawns, intel from the nether??? Are you sure it's falcon4 we're talking about here... Also falcon's gone thru many iterations over the years so you can't generalize the pro/cons in short as different versions are quite distinct in their features. For sure some aspects are abstracted especially SEAD stuff but find me one better in the civilian world. If you're just looking for air warfare results summarized on a piece of spreadsheet displayed on the user interface this is certainly not that cuppa tea....
As for CM's air strike precision, I leave that to you guys capable hands. So far I see a lotta forum loud mouthing and nobody bothers to make any test it becomes a bit meaningless. For myself it doesn't really matter that much, if I really want to speculate tank hits percentage with dive bombers there're well, flight sims instead of land sims. Perhaps when this thread runs enough pages it'll attract Steve's attention, that is another way I suppose..
-
AI's timely surrender it looks like!
-
I was never very into flight sims, but I'd love a good new operational-level game that treated the air battle with the same attention to realism and detail as CM.
Well I was a die hard flyer of Falcon4.0, it's considered the most hi-fidelity combat sim far as aircraft system and performance go while it has a "operational layer" as you call it at the same time. So it's the best damn good one out there.
Problem is once you join a virtual squadron going thru all the hard training and talk to real F-16 pilots etc and practice all the things the real guys do and whatnot it got so immersive that.. well let's just say there were down sides to that for quite a few of us.
Atm I'd say yep sticking with CM is a solid good choice. It's got realism and fun packed all in one, yet doesn't make you forget where ya live:D
-
snip
YankeeDog, as it appears is all that we've got a difference in interest. To quote something from someone famous (SunTzu?..) "the result of war is decided before it's fought", and my personal view is the Nazis lost the war the moment they started it they could have failed left and right and up and down. Operation bodenplatte is just another one of those. I'm more interested in equipment and the technical/tactical aspects of it, like the Bf109's supreme climb performance or the Fw190's astonishing roll rate. Or the 109's poor high speed handling and the 190's sub-par performance at altitude and as a pilot, how you would use those in a tactical situation. Or today my wingman is Hans and how does he re-act when contact is made and in which formation do I place him?
So how the Germans failed strategically is just the same old story for me but its armed forces remained formidable and short lived as they were is quite fascinating to some. And the majority of those served would agree I'm sure that once on the battlefield when the balloon goes up, the political ideals go out the window but your loyalties lie with your armed forces and those beside.
Handing it off to you historian grogs now....
-
I guess, if by "pulled off" you mean "failed to accomplish any of their objectives and lost most of their remaining fighter strength."
bah I think we've established that i'm not the best master of the english language.
As for failures and the losses, yep the Nazis were pretty stupid to launch an all out offensive against all the big powers in the first place. ok yes yes they're nazis, evil as they were, that's what they do, pretty sure everybody knows that. However doesn't mean the bf109, fw190 and their descendents are not fine fighter aircrafts for their time.
-
However, though the Soviets had not gained air dominance even at this point they could do so locally. Having said that the Luftwaffe were still quite capable of mounting their own strikes and did so certainly until the end of 1944
Gotta love the strategic strikes. The toll on resources comes from many aspects come to think of it. The homefront defense forced germans to produce fighters geared towards high altitude performance while the russians could comfortably continue those LAs and Yaks that don't have to worry at all about how they floated above 20k feet. Meanwhile the jerries could never master turbo chargers even at wars end... they're the complete underdog in this fight, it's a feat they lasted to 45 and pulled off stuff like operation bodenplatte as I see.
-
I'll just say air power is a formidable force on a mechanized battlefield there's no doubt about it. With its speed and firepower it decimates equipment and infrastructure hence crippling a fighting force on all aspects. AFVs and other land crawlers are hapless facing air threats, they are in a way... lower on the battlefield food chain. Even after the invention of SAMs, the biggest threat air power faces is still enemy air. So once the sky is controlled the opponent is at a major disadvantage.
Eastern front is a bit different it seems for neither side put the fight for air dominance on top of their list... But for you rusky lovers you should take comfort in the fact that the Il-2 is a much more efficient CAS platform than stukas and whatnot once the sky is controlled. The reds love their flying tanks. Whether emphasizing on CAS is the best way to utilize air power is another matter:rolleyes:
-
Yep those chosen to fly combat sorties are damn few, and good eyesight is always a must. Also to fly good CAS must require a different mindset, the situation awareness is more geared towards the ground than air for the fighter jocks. So there's still the straight winged hog for the dirty work flying low and slow. But then again its old ways of doing CAS really doesn't stand a chance against anything that shoots skyward nowadays, it's the wild jungle below 10k feet. Compare that to the ww2 tree hoppers, much has changed!
-
You play too many flight sims.
That is a huge understatement.
Well, was. -
And I'm starting to think Black Sea is too moderate a name. How about Back to the Future: Red Thunder II?
...
Well, was.
Clearing forest full of infantry
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted
Somehow reminds me of Vietnam... maybe it won't be that much enjoyable if BFC venture into that:eek: