Denis1973
-
Posts
115 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Denis1973
-
-
Just suddenly found this one on my hard drive.
H2H only, Afghanistan - Kyrgyzstan border, 1993
Here is the link
-
The question is quite simple. What Time Zone is used in game? Especially interesting in CMRT, CMBS and CMA.
The difficult part is for CMRT: there are at least 3 time zones in operational area.
So what time should I set in scenario if, for example, German advance at Minsk area according to docs started at 0500? Wehrmacht have used Berlin (or CET=UTC+1) Time. So in Minsk area (CET+2) it will be 0600. The Game TZ is ....?
-
Have you seen any American squads that have them? I'm asking about vanilla infantry and even armored infantry
My in-game experience told that every US-squad can execute "smoke" command at least once. If it divided to fireteams, only that with squad commander can use smoke.
It's about usage. If the troops didn't use them often, then their presence can be somewhat discounted in this approximation.
Just an example. US troops rarely seen riding tanks. But they allowed to do so in Final Blitzkrieg. This is for tactic flexibility purposes, I believe. So why don't do this (I mean smoke) for russians?
Smoke grenades goes to sappers - this is 100%. And they used it. And a tank crews too. Line infantry doesn't have a lot of them, but regulations (look my link) and battle examples prove that this happened. Especially in 1944-45, with grooving experience of soviet troops.
-
1. Soviet doctrine is not based on drunk human waves advancing without any cover. Just like all other armies.
2. I can provide some examples of using smoke to cover the advance, but you always can say "this is unusual thing" and deny it.
3. Not all units, of course, must own smoke grenades. Tankodesantniki is one of examples. But sappers was equipped with smoke. So the case for "line infantry".
4. In 1941-45 soviet industry have produced 6,870,000 smoke grenades.
For Germany, from http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/handgranaten.htm , figure is about 9,150,000. Not a very big difference.
5
Infantry smoke grenades overall didn't see much use in WWII. .
But both side have used it. And no reason to take it away from soviet troops only.
-
Sorry, but I can't catch the purpose of research. German infantry have smoke grenades IRL - they have it in game. Same case for American and British infantry. Soviet infantry have smoke grenades IRL but not have it in the game. This must be corrected, isn't it?
-
I'm speak about the very same thing - the simulation. If it supposed to be close to real life, the russian smoke grenades did exist and was used by soviet infantry. So available documents are proofs that it was the case IRL. But not the game.
-
I wouldn't know as I only play German units, but I think every unit can pop smoke.
Unfortunately NOT A SINGLE soviet infantry unit can use smoke
. This is not right even in terms of fair play, not speak about reality. At least soviet sappers (and HQ units) have and used smoke grenades to blind the enemy. -
Are you claiming that the Soviets used them for tactical obscuration as a standard operating procedure?
Definitely yes. From late 1942 onwards.
RDG was used to blind enemy fireslits, to obscure bailed-off crews and during river crossing because RDG was float-able. RDG can provide a small (8-10 m) cloud for 1-1,5 minutes.
Here is:
https://yadi.sk/i/yEU6-Ogqpw23r
instruction of November 1942 of using smoke by infantry (of course, in Russian).
So this is not target marker, or signalling device.
-
To be short - soviet infantry must own it. Battlefront, I hope this can happen in earliest patch
Here is link to proof it existence and availability to frontline troops:
http://weaponland.ru/board/ruchnaja_dymovaja_granata_rdg/24-1-0-142
While picture at English, Russian text states that RDG (hand smoke grenade) was created in 1942 and produced in schedule:
1942 - 959.000 grenades
1943 - 1.520.000
1944 - 3.380.000
1945 - 1.012.000 (think this figure before 1st May)
-
As far as I understand, the outlook of building have nothing similar with it solidity. So, I know how to to "brick" or "wooden" house. But it is just a picture. I talk about solidity - how many rounds can withstand house. And I want the wooden house that collapse after, for example, 6x76mm shells and the stone house that can take at least 15x76mm shells before collapse.
-
I suppose that main problem is in creating of correct TOE. Skins, weapons and vehicles are more easy to insert in ready-to-use TOE...
-
Sorry if this was already discussed before, but I can't find it at forum/
In CMBB we have several types of buildings according to solidity - shack, light, heavy and factory. So what is in CMRT? What I must do if I want to create a village with several stone, several brick-made houses and the rest wood-made?
-
It is hard to obtain real figures because in most soviet docs T-34 tanks are not listed separately for 76 and 85 mm guns. But, some numbers prior to Bagration exist:
1st TC (1st Baltic front): 120 Т-34-85, 60 Т-34-76
2nd GuardTC: 180 Т-34-85
3rd Guard MechC: 170 Shermans and Valentines, 20 Т-34-76
3rd GuardsTC: 120 Т-34-76, 60 Shermans and Valentines
29th TC: 120 Т-34-76, 60 Т-34-85
9th TC: 180 Т-34-76
1st GTC: 180 Т-34-85 (maybe 60 of them are T-34-76 model)
1st MC: 180 Shermans and Valentines
11th TC: 120 Т-34-85, 60 Т-34-76
3rd TC: 160 Т-34-85, 20 Т-34-76
16th TC: 160 Т-34-85, 20 Т-34-76
8th GTC: 120 Sherman, 60 Т-34-85
separate tank regiments of cavalry corps: 240 Shermans and Valentines
119th engineering tank regiment (mineclearing tanks): 18 Т-34-76, 4 Т-34-85
-
Yea, US player was extremely cautious with his decisions, so lost some opportunities. His XO was more aggressive but he is not in charge
German player just... have no plan for battle, I suppose. So after first stunning defeat he just reacted on situation.
Despite this US side have achieved more success than in reality.
-
Yea, I understand this. But... It is something in it that I can't catch. Look. If LOS on ground where enemy tank positioned is blue, then in most cases my tank will spot and fired on rival. If LOS is gray/red the chance of spotting (and firing) significantly reduced. So something wrong with how game engine works with target's height. For example, in the same game T-70 have traversed clear field of view from my PzIV. Pz not spotted it. I make a check in editor - if I put a T-70 in this position, LOS from Pz became blue on hull, but gray or red on empty ground beneath T-70. So in game T-70 travel without being spotted.
There is something wrong...
-
You say the Panther "newer sow" the T-34, but if you watch the replay with the Panther selected it clearly does spot the T-34. You say the LOS tool is red (I assume you mean from the Panther to the T-34), but it is actually grey and I can plot a Target command on the T-34.
You are correct. Panter does spot T-34 as a tank and fired HE shot after 15 sec of "deep thinking". And yes, LOS now is grey, but next turn T-34 disappeared and LOS on it's former place became red.
but this is a very different situation than what is being discussed in this thread.
Sorry about this, I think that this tread is about spotting issues...
-
wrong post
-
And again, I encountered the very same problem
Here is the save file
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/2wWWhivgJVLW/Baranovichi%20mod%20075.ema
password: mirai
Look at the T-34 at the edge of wood in the center of the map. Panter fires on it in last 10 sec of turn. It fires a HE round to tank commander and newer sow the t-34 itself. WHY???? It it clear view on it - check the camera. But LOS tool is red. I suppose, this is the BUG!!!
-
Dismounted vehicles don't show its ammo storages in UI. You must board it to explore.
-
Nobody interested in? Or don't encountered this problem?
I have another one bug report. In editor Mission-Data the last string is Axis Electronic Warfare Strength. How long is it is there?
-
Denis1973-
Looking at the .ru website now. There still isn't a Russian language version, is there?
We have now removing from old site engine to new one. The new site is at new.combat-mission.ru domen temporarily. And yes, it is only russian version 'cos it dedicated for russian-speak players. There are a lot of english websites all around
-
Thanks. That what BF must include in manual, but don't do it.
-
During playing I've discovered a strange issue with the vehicle behavior with target arc command. Some times tanks didn't point the main gun at the center of circular sector, as was in CMBN and even CMx1 times. And, some times, they rejected to turn in ordered direction!
I've create a small testbed scenario and received an interesting results.
Step 1. I give an target arc order for all armors on picture below:
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/0d2cd6fc97a3/1not%20turn%20ger%20tark.jpgAs we can see, only tanks had turned their turrets at ordered direction, not turretless StuGs, Nashorn, etc.
More interesting, Hetzer turned it's MG, not the main gun!!!!
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/eab289160d2b/2hetzer%20mg%20only.jpgI wait for several minutes but nothing changed in position...
Step 2. I give an target armor arc command. Nobody even bored to turn turrets. Except sole "Marder"...
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/856179626825/3not%20respond.jpgStep 3. I give to Hetzer move command and after "target armor arc"
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/ed6020b249fb/hetzer%20mg%20only%20tarm.jpg
Again only MG turned to desired direction, not main gun.What happens??
Something wrong with pictures
-
2All, thanks for responses and advices
.Regarding Few Good Men – already done. Pavel have sent a message there. And received some posts.
2kipanderson
In short, The Rules are consist of several blocks:
1. The transitional tables from/to CM/TOAW to depict experience, ammo loads, readiness, etc. of the troops and quantity of entrenchments in both games.
2. Set of rules to restrict possibilities provided by TOAW because of:
- it is sometime hard to GM to work with
- we need to restrict quantity of forces on CM battle map
3. Some administrative rules for:
- whole campaign
- playing the battles in CM
Most of the events are tracked by TOAW engine so it no needs to be mentioned in Rules. Both sides makes moves in-turn, like in TOAW or PzC.
Peoples involved are GameMasters (one or two), Head of Staff with XO (for each side) and Field Commanders.
GMs are responsible for making a CM scenarios, operational map, reports and so on. GM is the final judge if any issues evolved. Maps making doing by all people involved.
HoS&XO issued orders on operational level and basic plans for CM battles. They decided what battle should be played in CM, what – in TOAW.
FC are played battles in CM. One of important moment – they are not assigned for exact forces on whole campaign. All my experience shows that strict assignment isn't lead to "careful behavior" while some of players became bored with "nothing happened here" or "tenth attack on the same village (with same results)". My system provide player with different forces, tasks and terrain during campaign. This keeps player involved. Care on forces – work of Head of Staff, he must be in close contact with his fellow commanders.
. This is not right 
[SCENARIO] Frontier post #11 'Bug'
in Combat Mission Afghanistan
Posted · Edited by Denis1973
And one unfinished, but almost completed. Same region, same year
Bloody 13th for 12th
https://cloud.mail.ru/public/XgnU/5JVkNWPeQ