Ivanov
-
Posts
1,048 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Ivanov
-
-
Yes, the radio operator became a casualty after nearby impacting round. There're no trees between the spotters and the target area, which is about 260 meters away. You can see that the rounds land directly on the spotting team. The mission type is: area, heavy, long, general, immediate.
-
The spotter has direct LOS on the target and it got pinned by the impact of the mortars that it was directing. The radio panel disappeared after it become pinned.
-
I'm not sure how the potential bugs should be reported, so I'm just going to post here. The mortar fire mission in my CMFI game is completely off target. To the point that I'm thinking, it could be a bug. The spotter for the mortars is a HQ unit. The spotting rounds were falling very close to my units, but I though it wold be corrected. Is it a intentional simulation of military SNAFU or could that be a bug?
-
Actually, I don't think that Belarusian army is so bad. It's for sure in a better state, than the Ukrainian armed forces in 2014. Recently they got some new toys in a cooperation with China. It's supposed to have 300 km range, so it can hit Warsaw from well within their territory.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/polonez.htm
The Belarusians are not afraid of Moscow. It's a very russified society, with weak national identity. Most of them probably wouldn't mind if the country was swallowed by Russia. Think of Austria in 1938. -
Belarusian army trains on the regular basis with Russian army, not with NATO.
-
Belarusian soldiers are getting Acquainted with their potential enemies. Left to right: general Abrams, general Bradley and private Stryker.
-
-
First of all, Strykers are probably too small for 120 mm guns. There were enough problems with the 105 mm. Secondly, if you need more firepower, then you have already heavy units equipped with Bradleys and Abrams. Strykers are not designed to conduct heavy, set piece combat. Even if they packed more fire power, then they are not protected well enough. In a regular combat, they would be conducting screening missions and disengage, if heavy enemy force was encountered.
-
I love when people start comparing Bradleys and Strykers based on their gaming experience
The games like CM focus on the actual combat and don't consider issues like logistics and operational or strategic mobility. And those were the two main issues considered, when Stryker brigades were designed. They can be deployed anywhere in the world faster than any other type of unit. They have also were high operational mobility, which was demonstrated during the recent deployments to Baltic States, Poland and Romania. So yeah, keep comparing the armour and weapons of Bradleys and Strykers because it's relevant
-
10 hours ago, user1000 said:
At a distance this Jumbo was hull down in a battle and had no problem deflecting 16 shots from a Panther G Mid.
Whaaat?
How far was the Panther? Somethings wrong here...
-
I prefer small to medium scenarios but large maps. Small maps are fine for infantry combat but if there're some armoured vehicles, they need more space for maneuvering. But yes, in general I prefer to have less units on the map, because with the level of micromanagement of CM, commanding a large force, would become too tedious and would also distract me from the tactical aspects of the combat.
-
-
PM sent
-
That sounds really good. Let me play a little solo first, to get the feel of Ardennes front and I'll PM you when I'm ready. Would that be ok?
-
17 minutes ago, JoMc67 said:
Yes, all those games are at v4.0 and fully patched, etc.
Thanks for the info gentlemen. I guess soon, I'll see some of you on the battlefield.
-
9 minutes ago, sburke said:
All games (CMBN, CMFI, CMRT, CMFB) are at 4.0 if bought new.
OK, I can live with that
In terms of versions, patches, etc are they also up to date?
-
I'm a little late to the show, I still don't have the FB but I'm planning to purchase it soon. So my question is, if I buy the game, will it be already updated to the latest versions or will I need to look for the patches after I install it? I suppose the game will be using the previous 3.0 engine but that would be ok for me since there are some issues with the 4.0.
-
8 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Looks like Polish team hasn't experience in usage of Leopard. I have read somewhere, that exploitation of Leopards was too expensive fopr Poland and its was moved in reserve. Possibly this is a reason of sixth place and result would be better if they came on PT-91.
Not true. Leopards are used extensively by the Polish army and they are in much better technical state, than the PT-91's. They are also not really more expensive to operate. The main problem right now, is that half of the Leopards are undergoing a modernisation process to the 2PL standard. Also, thanks to a idiotic decision of our psycho minister of the defence, one of the battalions from the 34th Brigade will be given up to the 1st Brigade near Warsaw, away from the logistics chain and the training facilities.
-
8 hours ago, Haiduk said:
Looks like you have seen a photo of PDA with preliminary results, where Ukrainian team had 750 points, but final results next: Austria, Germany, USA, France, Ukraine, Poland
I have an info directly from the 34th Brigade, that they were not last but they wouldn't say which place exactly they scored, due to a gentleman's agreement, that only the first three places would be disclosed. If you look at the preliminary results, Poles still don't have points for the offensive ops - they scored 430 points with three tanks instead of four because one tank was out of the competition.
-
3 hours ago, Armorgunner said:
Thanks, but the most interesting question. How did the Ukrainian team with the T-64 do. There was no answer to that in the article.
Verygood information though. I just want more info
The French came fourth, Poles fifth ( one of their tanks broke down ), the Ukrainians were last.
There's a rumour that the Austrians were practising for months before the competition. -
I'm pretty sure that all of the negative comments come from bots and fake users. However you may be surprised, that whenever CM is mentioned on the Mius Front forum, people usually hold in high a regard. Even more surprisingly, there're apparently people who seem to like both games. Life's a mistery indeed...
-
9 hours ago, Macisle said:
One player's "tedious" is another player's gold. Being able to give orders to every vehicle and team is not inherently unrealistic. The player is simply filling in for the actual person in that position in the real world. Yes, it usually provides better coordination between units than exists in real life, but that can be rationalized as part of the "time compression" necessary to make a wargame enjoyable. GTOS is not in any way more realistic simply because you are limiting the available decision-making roles for the player. The game still gives you a lot more information and force coordination tools than you would have in real life. Making juicy tactical decisions is the whole point of playing a tactical wargame.
Which is more realistic, A or B?
A: Like a real-world company commander, you only give general movement and fire orders, but your squads use very unreastic micro-tactics (no LMG suppression fire to cover advancing assault teams, etc.) and take much higher casualties than necessary.
B: You are able to "jump into the body" of each team leader, but your units use real world tactics at casualty rates more in line with reality.
I'd say B, by a mile. Also, GTOS still iets you tell units where to go and what to shoot at. So, it's already giving you way more control than you should have if you're using level of control as a metric for realism.
That's the problem for me with RTS games in general. Because the tac AI can perform only basic tasks, like returning fire or taking cover, the players have to be a squad, company and battalion commanders at the same time, or rather many squad leaders at the same time. There are people who love it, I find it tedious. The RTS gameplay that I enjoyed most was Red Storm. The smallest unit is platoon/company, so there are not so many playing pieces as in CM. However the UI there is incredibly clunky and the game suffers from many bugs and technical issues. I also don't claim that Graviteam games are superior to CM, I haven't tried them yet. What I appreciate about what they do, is that it seems with every new release they are willing to learn and implement vast improvements to the system.
-
18 hours ago, Pericles said:
Judging from this thread, there is near universal opinion that the AI's current cut-and-run into the open behavior is crap and needs to be fixed. Emrys, Xorg, Rinaldi, Liderkranz, Kraze, and Holman all agree with this. The only one who has implied that it's not a problem is IanL. He seems to believe that the AI has always been like this and that it isn't the result of changes made in v.4.
I can confirm that under v.4 the infantry is running away like hell
Often times this behaviour seems like a suicidal flight rather than a rational shoot and scoot tactics.
-
45 minutes ago, niall78 said:
Graviteam games are more 'realistic' Company of Heroes style RTS games. CM is a simulation type game.
Experienced Graviteam fans say, that their games are a simulation when they compare for example Mius Front to Steel Division or Wargame
I don't think that CM is a particularly difficult game but it's tedious, especially when you have to manage a large force. Well it's when it becomes unplayable for me. IMO CM shines best in small size infantry combat. For larger mechanized engagements the maps are just too small. Graviteam players claim that you shouldn't micromanage your force to death and that sounds good to me. How realistic is giving orders to every single vehicle or a squad when you command a battalion size force? I'll probably buy Mius Front when it goes on sale after Tunisia is released. For now I'm CM burned out.
How far was the Panther? Somethings wrong here...
Fire mission off target
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Ivanov
The spotter become rattled and under fire, only after he directed the fire mission on himself. The spotting rounds were falling consistently in one area ( completely off target ).
So does it mean, that a green spotter is completely unable to correct the fire mission, even after a long spotting ( it took him about 10 minutes )?