Jump to content

Pelican Pal

Members
  • Content Count

    499
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Pelican Pal last won the day on December 19 2020

Pelican Pal had the most liked content!

About Pelican Pal

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

738 profile views
  1. Bumping since I figure people might have missed this over the holidays. I'll be running some additional tests with direct fire over the weekend and likely more airburst. Once Black Sea hits Steam I'll also run some tests over there but @Lethafacedid a similar tests in BS and found similar results.
  2. Yes, I sorely miss that feature. Given that we only have rarity currently I am looking to it as the only real fix. We QBs have been languishing for more than a decade at this point and have yet to meet the features of CM1. My question was to ascertain whether it would in fact prevent you from buying armor. @Bulletpoint's response it appears that you currently could fill out an entire QB with armor even if all that armor had a rarity cost. This can be tested because a sufficient amount of armor does in-fact have a rarity cost. Actually I just realized I do have CMRT installed
  3. Assuming that all tanks have the common rarity cost you also could fill an entire list with tanks, correct? Assuming that none of them have zero rarity cost.
  4. Combat Mission 1 (CMBB and CMAK) had the ability to set QB point allotments. For example, if you had 1,000 points to spend you could do: Infantry 50% | Armor 20% | Support 30% 500 points | 200 points |__ 300 points These numbers were adjustable by the player making the QB and this allowed you to create a mixed force that leaned more heavily on infantry for both sides. In CM2 they did not do that and instead we got the very simple (too simple) infantry | armor | mixed. Which is really a rather unpleasant step back. ------------------------------------- As far as rarity goes i
  5. I ran a test again with an ungodly amount of artillery point targeting 3 T-72s. Again the vehicles have no damage beyond their tracks going to yellow after this amount of fire. I would expect, at minimum, that the top mount DSHK would be disabled by this weight of fire. I've not been able to test this in Black Sea but my guess is that you cannot use artillery to disable APS systems and that they are proof to shell fire. edit: And again I am testing airburst because I want to specifically test artillery efficacy against exposed portions of the tank. AA guns, ERA
  6. I've been running multiple tests with airburst 130mm against armor and what I am looking for any sub-system damage and I've yet to find a single instance of it. Further ERA blocks all also seem proof. The BMPs being included in the test I think helps point to the fact that airburst artillery is penetrating and able to cause damage to thinly armored vehicles. Yet somehow every turret mounted DSHK is unharmed while a Coy of BMPs are destroyed? Something fishy is going on. I was originally going to a more classic test but figured this absurd weight of fire showcased the issue rather dramatica
  7. I ran some tests of airburst artillery against armored vehicles. In particular T-72 AVs and BMP-1s. O:10 for artillery call in 2:25 artillery strikes 3:00 review of damaged/destroyed BMPs 8:10 review of vehicles What I found using a massive amount of artillery is that while it was possible for artillery to destroy the BMP-1s it was unable to do any damage to any subsystem except tracks furthermore no amount of artillery would detonate or disable an ERA block. This seems incorrect to me and likely to be a bug of some variety. Even BMPs that took penetrating hit
  8. To be clear I don't expect airbursting artillery to be knocking armor out but it seems odd that very exposed items like the pintle mounted DHSK and smoke launchers are in perfect working order. This sort of leads me to question how well artillery is modeled against armor more broadly
  9. Its too bad that point values aren't player editable. obviously Battlefront doesn't want to get into doing "balance passes" but it seems like something the community could do. Especially given that CM multiplayer is a niche of a niche and is already very community based.
  10. If you have enough forces maybe combine a long distance .30 cal with other suppressing fires that allow you to bring a .30 cal MMG in closer? I'm playing a QB currently and my men aren't leaving buildings but they are surrendering. I suspect often players use motivation/experience that is higher than it usually was creating these sort of "fight to the end" situations.
  11. I primarily play Red so I dodge that bullet but I picked into a pretty heavy Syrian Air lineup on the basis of the British Army having some sort of AA capability. Now I'm strafing the **** out of his things and it 1. feels weird that the Syrians can do that with no counter-play and 2. is annoying because it removes some of the play/counter-play that makes QBs so fun. Just throwing a U.S. Army Stinger team into the "specialist teams" option would resolve the issue and maintain any sort of TO&E "rules" that are wanted.
  12. I was mostly wondering about QBs. I'm playing a match currently where I'm doing some good damage with Syrian air power and it struck me as sort of bizarre that the game would allow the Syrians to use an imaginary force but not the Brits. Given that Syrian airpower is sort of an oxymoron in context of a NATO invasion of their country.
  13. When looking at my display size.txt the default is: 0 0 0 What should the third 0 be? if for example I am doing: 3840 2160 0
×
×
  • Create New...