LUCASWILLEN05
-
Posts
1,591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by LUCASWILLEN05
-
-
52 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Aside from the Korean peninsular, it's hard to envisage US ground troops any other place - the logistics and dangers of supplying them would be mindblowing. However, due to current events it would be a timely game and I'd buy it. (But after we get an upgraded CMSF please.)
A great power conflict along the Pacific Rim against Russia and China could very well involve significant ground warfare from very early in the conflict, The first ground contacts would likely, as you say, be in Korea. However, this would be a conflict of World War proportions and would require a reintroduction of the draft. One can assume that the US would eventually win the war at sea and would then have to conduct large scale ground operations against China
While this game might concentrate on the Far East this would be a world war with likely theaters in the Middle East, Europe and possibly Africa. Perhaps an upgraded CMSF might be linked in to his future scenario history Particularly f game design went down a multi theater route there would be tremendous scope for expansion within the timeline
There are some interesting considerations here
-
The Russians could even get to use the Armata and then we would see plenty of Chinese equipment. not to mention South Korea. Japan and Taiwanese equipment. Als Indian tanks like the Arjun and the Pakistani Al Khalid.
Many different terrain/theater options as well such Kashmir, Korea, South East Asia Siberia and Mainland China. This is a conflict could easily last two or three years (assume the war leaders are too scared to go nuclear) so different seasons could be featured. As indicated earlier this CM game might cover smaller regional conflicts that might not otherwise be regarded as commercially viable on their own even with US intervention.
-
Wht about this for a future conflict scenario. This would pit the United States and her Pacific Region Allies such as Japan,Taiwan South Korea. Australia and maybe European allies such as the UK against the armies of he Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation in a widespread conflagration in the Pacific Rim region (essentially a WW3 scenario. Combat in this game might be in any area within the region during this lengthy conventional war including Taiwan. South Korea, and Siberia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation
It coud alo be potentially used to game wars such as a Sino-Indian conflict or an Indo-Pakistani conflict though, as always, the main focus must be on US ground forces. I think this would be a far better option than revisiting the Middle East. The Far East has much potential for a high tech modern conflict - and we have never had a Combat Mission game set in this region. Perhaps Korea or Taiwan might be the spark that sts the region (and the world) ablaze.
-
On 5/2/2017 at 8:53 PM, JoMc67 said:
Yes, a slide bar adjustment at beginning of game to represent either a Low or High intensity Combat for that Scenario, would be great...Maybe an adjustment if it's a Meeting vs .Probe vs. Attack/Defense.
Sounds more like a scenario designer's tool to me. Perhaps rather than a slide bar something like this should be implemented as a drop down menu. Perhaps placed in the description or data sections of the scenario editor. I do not feel that a player should be able to change the intensity of fighting as such but a scenario designer could
-
18 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:
Belarus is too valuable an ally for Russia, in this country there has never been a regime that threatens Russia's security.
As I described above that the invasion of the Baltic countries by Russia, will cause the NATO invasion of Kaliningrad to search for and destroy the INF systems in Kaliningrad. To invade the Baltic states simply because of political ambitions the Kremlin is not a fool.
So was Ukraine until there was a revolution.
If Belarus remains a Russian ally they might well allow passage through their territory for an invasion of the Baltic States and/or Ukraine. They might even commit their own army in support of Russia. Either way NATO would regard Belarus as a belligerent
Regarding the Baltic States, the best time for Russia to make that move is very early in a war - and there probably is not much NATO can do to stop them from being overrun
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/nato-cant-protect-baltics-from-russia-says-us-general/
Indeed the Baltic States could easily become a trap just as Belgium was a trap in 1940. That is not to say that Kaliningrad would not be a NATO objective later in the war, during a NATO counter offensive. It very likely would have to be taken as a pre -requisite for the liberation of he Baltic States. If Belarus were in the war on Russia's side NATO would have to occupy that territory in order to protect the right flank of forces advancing into the Baltic States (and for that matter the left flank of forces operating in Ukraine.
All of this should generate an interesting background for scenarios...
-
On 4/30/2017 at 1:56 AM, HerrTom said:
It's awful! I've lost 3 or 4 T-64s to brave BMP-3s firing ATGMs, and one of them was to a 30mm cannon on the front arc. Needless to say, that surprised me. At any rate, I can attest that they use ATGMs at ranges around 1 km.
Kaboom. They charge fearlessly, firing ATGMs while driving at high speed. It's like they're piloted by a crew of Arnold Schwarzeneggers and Sylvester Stallones.
Edit: I wish we had more modding control over the explosion graphic and how it scaled - sometimes it gets a little ridiculous (see above!)
They must think it is Prokorovka July 1943! Judging by all the smoke columns in the background it could be..... -)
-
14 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:
Belarus will try its best to be in neutrality, to give the maximum to the territory if the group of Russian troops is defeated in Kaliningrad, to allow the troops to retreat. Provision of secretly conducting radio technical reconnaissance. I do not think that Belarus will enter into a conflict unless it is threatened or the war moves to the territory of the Russian Federation.
Russian Campaign - SPOILERS
As a result, the Russian campaign came out of 4 missions. In the 4th last mission it was hard, mainly because of counter attacks by tank platoons and attacks by the enemy's artillery. My T-90s were like a fire brigade, they saved those, then others.
P.S. I did not pay attention, but where did the 1st company of the battalion go?
Even if Belarus attempts to stay neutral does not guarantee they would not be invaded. Once a war has started with NATO Putin might weld decide to attack Belarus States. While an escalation this would still keep the war relatively limited to the territories of the former Soviet Union.
Regarding Kaliningrad it may well be that Russia would invade the Baltic Sates in order to link up with the Oblast. However, if Article 5 is not in play at this point it would be pretty quickly following a Russian move of that sort. Militarily NATO might not be able to prevent the conquest of the Baltic States but, politically it could be a mistake for Putin Russia however would have to move swiftly to achieve all military objectives before NATO is fully mobilized and deployed to Eastern Europe
-
2 hours ago, John Kettler said:
LUCASWILLEN05,
Absolutely true, but sometimes, you just have to do things like that, especially if an opportunity presents itself and you're already under time pressure. There was also the matter of a lack of cover, generating a need for high speed dashes to such as there was. Rest assured that in the same game, in very close terrain I did the tank equivalent a bunch of times of walking on tippy toes as I stalked my prey while trying not to get eaten! Still, it's absolutely exhilarating to charge into battle. Would imagine it's a total rush, at least on good ground, to do it for real and in force.
Regards,
John Kettler
Short periods of high speed are, as you say, another matter. You might have to get across that open ground rapidly. We already have the fast and quick orders to do this and tanks do move fast enough when you use these orders. I do not think we need any changes there :-)
-
1 hour ago, John Kettler said:
Artkin,
The T-90AM is much faster than the Abrams. In Red vs Red, it was great for run and gun at either Quick or Fast, naturally with other tanks in overwatch. You really appreciate the speed and power of armor when you've got a bunch of them boring in on the enemy. They close range in great bounds, slashing into enemy positions, Unfortunately, they don't have infantry, which can make for potentially fatal excitement. I lost several to infantry right when I thought a VL was mine.
Regards,
John Kettler
You would not normally run your tank at sustained full speed though - for the same reson you would not do this with your car! :-)
-
12 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:
As an option, a short-term conflict in the Baltic. During the battles in Ukraine, Russia secretly transferred mobile installations of the INF to Kaliningrad, which became known by the end of hostilities. After refusal to withdraw missiles from the region and destroy them under UN supervision. The NATO alliance is launching a ground operation to search for and destroy mobile installations. In response, Russia begins an invasion of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, which would pierce the land corridor to Kaliningrad.
Yes, the idea is insane, but it's just a game.
Expanded war options would be interesting. Belorussia might also be invaded
hAttp://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Will-Belarus-Be-The-Next-Ukraine-For-Russia.html
And I believe they do use the T-80...
-
52 minutes ago, Artkin said:
This a very good idea Steve. I hope you will take this into consideration. Maybe a winter themed battlepack, I would love to have that snow option usable. And with global warming and all, who's to say it can't snow in August?
In fact extending the timeline to allow a winter variant (say September 2017 - March 2018 would be welcome :-) Either he war lasts for a few months or the same scenario as we have now occurs but. instead of war starting in June the conflict imitates in November and pauses when the Mud Season starts. As with the current scenario allows negotiations. If we had a continuation of the original scenario one might assume the war continues following a breakdown of the talks with the situation continuing o develop from he positions at the end of August with the war continuing during the winter - one or both sides initiate winter offensives in the hope of achieving a decisive victory
-
I am starting to like these battle packs despite some initial doubts. Maybe the CMBS packs could go for a theme. For instance the next one might examine he Russian attempt to take Kiev and the early phases of the NATO counteroffensive. I would like to see more night tank battles - both sides have good night vision capability and would be using it. An assault on Kiev would result in some of he most intense combat of the war and both sides would be going for broke at his point.
Perhaps the pack could be organised into the Russian and NATO victory timelines with some attention granted to a Russian exploitation of success in the Battle of Kiev
-
I would not expect tanks to travel at full speed on the battlefield. If you want them to travel at speed you need to issue the appropriate orders. In reality there are gong to be constraints such as fuel consumption (what happens if you drive your ca at maximum speed all the time? :-) ) and tactical concerns (if you move at full speed you won't be using the ground very effectively and accurate shooing becomes much better.
Usually I move my tanks at "Normal" speed.and "Slow" when I want to fire accurately on the move. "Fast" and "Quick" movement is probably best used when you wan to cover a short distance quickly
-
15 hours ago, slysniper said:
You are correct in the fact, that it takes proper testing and reporting to get any real results that BF is interested in. Along with the fact that you also have to show why something needs to change to be more correct to real life actions.
So instead of just saying troops will seek the closest cover when routing, they want me find a documented study that somewhat proves such statements.
I normally do just enough testing to help me play the game , I have no interest in proving anything to anyone. At times recently I do not notice the issue as I play, other times it seems pretty clear something does not seem right as to why the troops are breaking from cover anymore. So just in that observation, I figure it is going to be a challenge to prove when and how much this event is happening and then to somehow point out it is not realistic.
Or you can see that many here through simple observation can tell its not correct, but then the challenge is, what is correct.
So back to this statement
As for breaking from present cover and fortifications, I think it is pretty clear that has been a undesired effect in the latest changes.
But before, sometimes they were too determined to stay in place no matter the amount of fire they were receiving.
So how do you get to something in between, and then who is to say if it is correct and what correct is.
They could make it perfect for what I think it should be, but I can promise you there be plenty of players complaining it was still totally wrong because of their perception of what it should be.
I feel for BF every time a tread like this pops up.
( but I can at least say, My vote this time is their latest change lost as much ground as it did to improve aspects as to how the infantry acts - I am not saying my opinion is correct, even if I think it is with what knowledge I have on the subject)
Personally I have not noticed anything seriously wrong. Actually if a unit is out in the open and comes under heavy fire they probably should bug out if the fire is heavy and close range. Maybe if they are in good cover (trenches, buildings) they might stay where they are if they cannot reach better cover very quickly.
I do not see Battlefront making changes until they are convinced by video evidence of what you are saying. Personally I am far from convinced myself that there is an issue here. If you can provide evidence to the contrary such as videos of incidents combined with information regarding troop quality, motivation, levels of suppression which may affect the result that would generate solid data. So far nobody has provided any firm evidence
-
5 minutes ago, slysniper said:
OK , I'm back
I have to agree with different comments from both sides of the camp in this thread and other threads before.
When I view the infantry in the open and how they are acting, I see it as being somewhat more realistic.
But on the other hand , when infantry is in cover, and no I do not mean just fortifications, then their reaction many times seem very unrealistic.
I have no clue what BF can and cannot do in their programming.
But if I had to say what's correct and what's not, then presently, infantry in the open seems pretty good, when they break I wish they would head towards cover more than they seem to do, but that would depend if they are routing or withdrawing, which is hard to know at times which they are doing.
As for breaking from present cover and fortifications, I think it is pretty clear that has been a undesired effect in the latest changes.
But before, sometimes they were too determined to stay in place no matter the amount of fire they were receiving.
whatever programming that can be done, infantry should have a tendency to stay and use cover when it is working. The only time they should be breaking from it is when it seems clear that staying in such a place means death at some point.
If there is a way to get them to hold cover until a certain percentage die or are seriously wounded, that seems to make much better sense than the present. but How to program a unit to hold a position unless the location is being overwhelmed with firepower is only something BF can decide is possible or not.
From what I have seen so far with the current update (and I only purchased this a week ago) units in cover coming under heavy fire stay there most of the time rather than bugging out. Units in the open but in a bad situation (heavy close range fire causing casualties probably will bug out. Which is as it should be.
Perhaps the way forward on this is to document situations and responses taking into account tactical circumstances, type of cover. morale, leadership, amount of incoming fire etc. Videoing what happens and quantifying the ratings of the unit in question is necessary to assess what happens and why
-
16 hours ago, Oleksandr said:
First of all always Split Teams - so that each squad is devided into few parts - if one element of a squad will run, another element may stay under your control.
Always think where you are sending you infantry in? What do I mean by that? Try to keep your soldiers under cover, yet, if that is not possible look for landscape - hills and stuff. Sometimes it can be open but you always can find some hills for visual cover. That leads us to another important aspect - understanding of the trrain and general direction - meaning that you should always guess or better know from where those shots will be fired.
Another important moment is to always keep your armomor a not too close to your soldiers, because if your tank or APC will be recked - explosion can affect your infantry.
So keep the distance.
After you did that you need to check on buildings you holding. If you picking a building always rememeber that it is important to pick a right building. Dont take those buildings which are facing enemy directly (first line). It is always better to keep your soldiers deep in the town - so that when the enemy comes with a support of an armor the angle will be not comfortable and your infantry will have a chance to give some damage to attacking side.
Now another thing is important - while putting your soldiers into the building with few floors remember to split your squad! Some soldiers should go on the 3rd floor some on the 2nd some on the 1st. That will allow you to keep your soldiers effective even if an enemy will use nades or thermobaric weapons. Basically one element can get hit while nother element is keep on fighting.
Avoid using roofs if possible. Roofs are good for observation when its safe but most of the time your soldiers will get recked pretty damn fast.
So how would you place your soldiers in a 3 floor building?
AT guys are going on a 2nd floor, while mg goes on a first floor, the guy with optics goes on 3rd. Yet, this can vary depending on what situation you are in. Sometimes its better to stay low untill enemy is close enough and then take the 3rd floor.
Always remember that there should be other buildings infront of that one you taking. Unless its rural or Forest - the logic is simple - your soldiers are hiddent till the last moment - when they being spotted - it is already too late.
Now remember that retreating is important - how would you retreat? First of all you taking away those guys who are at the top level - MG should leave the building last.
How do you know when to retreat?
When the fire on your infantry gets concentrated.
Whats the difference between concentrated and chaotic?
Concentrated is when your enemy shooting you from different directions and different weapon systems from the long range. That means that your position is now on your enemy's list and he knows what he is doing. Chaotic is when your enemy walks into the town and then suddenly starts to shoot you coz u killing him - it can be intense but if you did everything right enemy squad will leave its teeth on a ground.
How do you survive an artillery strike?
First of all maintain control over the situation - do not skip your turns - when you see first few shells going down u already should know that in 3-4 minutes your forces will be in a big trouble. You should take mesaured right away - first of all evac your heavy guns (MG's, AT systems, and so on). Why in that order? because they will take time to pack up.
How do you evac?
Depends on what you have - if you have personal carriers you take use them, if you dont you seek for cover. Remember that building is your last resort - do not think that buildings will save your soldiers. It will simply minimize the damage. When planing you retreat turn look on what is surrounding you - ask yourself: is there a forest somewhere near by? is it safe to cross your feild? and mark for yourself one point - if arty is working on you that means that an enemy got clear eyes on you.
Another important aspect is to keep your forces physically ready to move - do not advance with "FAST and Quick" on a long distances - there is an old military saying "you can go fast or you can go far" use it.
If you will be careful, but in the same time dare, if you will know your enemy, if you will know yourself, if you will understand terrain, and if you will get an edge on buildings you might minimize your casualties.
FREE HINT ON USING AT TEAMS: split two squads - find a shooting position to 1 rpg(bazooka whatever) team. Spot a target - put one of your RPG teams at position - make a turn (ur rpg team will shoot 2-3 times) then - after turn ends order your RPG to move away on a short distance and at the same time order another RPG team to take its place. Why? Because your enemy will see an RPG team - will aim and then its gone - your enemy will take away the aim - and in the same moment another RPG team will shoot it from the very same place. Repeat that untill your enemy's apc/tank/whatever is burining. Such little trics on micro level will help you to raise your effectivity and minimize your casualties.
Remember those are core rules, while getting into more combat you will get your own tricks developed - and soon you will forget about - what its like to see your soldiers runing. But your enemy will run. Good luck!
Good advice there. I would add
1 Avoid sending units out into the open as much as possible
2 Use overwatch/covering fire Machine guns and tanks!
3 Soften up likely enemy positions with artillery/air
4 Use smoke!
5 Always remember the key is Combined Arms
-
Quite a few CMSF campaign games were made available as standalone games
-
Green or conscript units don't have to be low on morale (motivation in CM terminology) although they often will be. You might sometimes give them good morale and maybe good leadership which my help them to some extent
-
14 hours ago, exsonic01 said:6 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:
In fact, this goes back at least as far as the earliest days of sword and lance. As soon as infantry began to break and run, they were subject to slaughter. This is why a large part of the training of successful armies was to discipline the foot soldiers into holding their ranks. The side that broke first is the side that lost and most likely also the one that suffered the heaviest casualties.
Michael
Maybe the occasional individual may break and run. However If a squad were to be under very heavy, close range fire bugging out could be the best option particularly if cover is poor. This is why I want to know more about the circumstances exsonic01 observed. How close were the enemy? How much cover did his squad have? It may be that, if the enemy was quite close and/or their fire was heavy the squad leader sensibly decided to "bug out" Maybe that is what he actually observed.
-
1 hour ago, exsonic01 said:
It was very long time ago I served in army, but I can tell you that is not realistic at all. Running away from foxhole or trench or well fortification position, without clear and direct order, would earns court martial and good years of army prison, especially even more harsher if it was during the middle of firefight. Plus, it is not realistic at all, that soldiers running away across the open field or open street without any cover, in the middle of firefight, showing back to the enemy fire. That is just suicide. They will be pinned down and will dug in more deeply, but will not runaway immediately when the bullets are flying right before his or her ear, like that. Running away in the middle of firefight because 2~3 buddies are downed? I can't imagine such behavior from any of ppl I served with. More realistic response of well trained army would be, first, try to smoke and pull the fallen buddy, and second, pour a lot of fire to suppress enemy again, and third, try to find the retaliation with full of hate and anger. At least I learned in that way.
Same as artillery shelling situation. If they are in good cover, or in relativity better position, they should not give up their position. I'm not sure how many times I watched my pixeltruppens stupidly washed away by the mortar and artillery and following machine gun fire, in the middle of wide open street and field. They could live and fight back if they just stayed in the house and trench. And that is kinda 101 from the training school, that keep your head down and stay in your fox hole if the shelling begins, not running away like that. The only moment we need to run is when the chemical shells are falling. I tried everything during the command turn, but I was unable to stop their stupid 'ultimatum'. Current TACAI should be modified in a way to reduce such irrational behavior.
Sometimes people will do strange things when they panic.I am not saying what is happening is right but do you by any chance have a video of the circumstances? Was this squad in cover and of what kind? How close were they to the enemy? These factors could well make a difference
-
16 hours ago, Erwin said:
It's understandable that tanks are very nervous about being lased. What puzzles me is that the BMP's in CMBS are much more willing to stand and fight it out with tanks(!). I woulda thought IFV's would be even more skittish when facing tanks.
That one has aways bugged me as well :-)
-
21 hours ago, exsonic01 said:
I usually use infantry squad of veteran, high morale, fit, and +1 leadership conditions. Problem is, whenever they engaged against enemy infantry and get the 1~2 casualty, they get pinned down, and just run away to the other direction in the next turn. Even though I reordered them to get back to the line in the next turn, they anyway run away eventually, ignoring my command. It seems I can't prevent them when they decide to run away. The runaway situation occurs from the infantry engagement, not by the artillery shells.
How can I prevent this cowardly actions? (I really wish to have political officer when I play redfor
) Does the extreme or fanatic morale helps? Is it worth to invest the points to that amount of morale during QB?
Seems reasonable enough to me. In real life a squad will probably bug out when it comes under heavy fire as you describe. They have, as you say taken a couple of casualties and are pinned down. Even veterans might consider bugging out under these conditions particularly if their cover is not great where they are. In terms of game play maybe it is annoying.
Maybe look for tactical solutions like putting another squad on overwatch and attempting to suppress enemy fire which would at least give the targeted squad a better chance
-
I would like to see the next BP cover the US counter offensive or just its' early stages And some more night battles please! :-) A nice mix of heavy armour and infantry scenarios would be good
-
I am playing the second game of the US campaign Charge of the Stryker Brigade. While have disliked the Stryker as a combat vehicle ever since CMSF and while I have always found combat in built up areas tricky (which t is in real life as in Mosul) this is an interesting game. With only light forces and needing to keep casualties down I am playing this one cautiously. I have run into serious opposition at Objective Tomahawk and have established a line to the South West of that position while awaiting the arrival of my 3rd platoon and the helicopter gunships. Softening up the area with artillery and mortar fire for now.
) Does the extreme or fanatic morale helps? Is it worth to invest the points to that amount of morale during QB?
Combat Mission Shanghai Pact: Ring of Fire 2021
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Indeed. I think the Far East has at least as much potential for high tech armoured combat and we already have games for the Middle East and Eastern Europe. As you suggest paddy fields would be a significant terrain addition. I consider a Far East game would offer far more than a Middle East repeat. Possibly the game would open up a potential Far East market for Battlefront :-)
Regarding the year 2021 does seem like a reasonable plausible date for a conflict as well as allowing for gaming several other interesting regional conflicts, thus killing several birds with the same stone. I rather fancy gaming India v Pakistan, a Sino - Indian or a Second Korean War but I accept that these conflicts on their own might not be commercially viable as a game in the way that Ring of Fire could be given the variety of armies that might be available.
Battlefront has also shown an ability to model different terrains hence they ought to be able diverse terrains such as Northern India and Pakistan including Kashmir Nepal, Korea, Taiwan, Mainland China, Siberia and South East Asia where the main ground combat would most likely take place in this scenario.