AttorneyAtWar
-
Posts
1,490 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by AttorneyAtWar
-
-
Fantastic!
-
2 hours ago, Erwin said:
Having had opportunity to fire AK47, it was clear that shooting while moving was very inaccurate and a complete waste of ammo - but perhaps it was supposed to boost morale and help psychologically(?)
No Erwin, you just don't know how to handle a firearm and no one is surprised.
-
On 7/8/2021 at 6:42 PM, Erwin said:
You already deliberately involved yourself when you ruined a perfectly good, innocent and well-intentioned thread in General Discussion.
For your perusal:
Here's a good example of the kind of disgusting person Erwin is.
-
Breach kits are designed to be placed on doors/walls, not C-wire.
-
15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Well I would argue it means something as far as CMCW is concerned and we won't be seeing it in that title or that era because it simply was not, nor is not realistic in that timeframe. Was not "talking down" to be honest...was trying to educate but like most in the younger generation I am sure you guys have it all figured out and history offers you little (ok, that last part was talking down a bit).
I had a boss a long time ago that said, "there is nothing more dangerous than a one war military"...he noted France after WWI as the prime example. The problem was (and is) that once a military becomes enamored with one type of fighting for too long they tend to only see the world through that lens; history shows repeatedly how this never ends well. Good hard won lessons become doctrine, repeated utility of that doctrine leads heavy investment and lost corporate memory of anything else...and then it all becomes dogma if things go on long enough.
I suggest that you read up on the recent Ukrainian conflict or the very recent Azer-Armenian conflict. Both demonstrate that the speed and lethality of the modern battlefield has accelerated once again and I am not sure where that leaves our current tools but I am sure that it looks nothing like the wars we have been fighting since the end of the Cold War.
I think this is a major overreaction to a very basic fires principle. By your logic CW shouldn't have fires that can be told to wait 25 minutes because within those 25 minutes they could be needed elsewhere. This isn't some hard coded doctrinal thing that we all follow to a "T", its a modifier to allow precise timing for fire missions. Its just a tool that we can bring out if a situation dictates.
-
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Do not take this completely the wrong way but you are a product of your time. Do not feel bad as I have to continually remind the current crop of officers at a staff college that they are as well. It is also my fault for not qualifying the context. You quote above speaks to where we are as modern militaries, completely overwhelming the current battlefields so that we can "hold a battery for 20 mins". Our current way of warfare, which is about 30 years old has now become doctrine...it is also very dangerous to assume all warfare will nicely line up with it.
In a high intensity peer fight, I am afraid we are going to have to re-learn a lot of lessons the hard way and this would be one of them. In this case that battery of howitzers might be dead in 20 mins and any ideas of hold fire "on my command" will likely go out the window extremely fast once we are at parity or worse.
So in context of the original posting, we are talking in CM (which you are correct has abstractions), so WW2, Cold War, fictional Syria (which is probably as close to the current thinking aligns), CMBS (to which we are not well aligned at all). In all but Syria any idea of bottlenecking calls for fire when they are 1) likely to be quickly overwhelmed and 2) at threat of being knocked out, is simply not realistic nor historical.
Don't worry, there will be hard lessons for everyone (e.g. Air Supremacy), or maybe we will get lucky and it will be small asymmetrical wars for awhile longer.
Ok, I'm going to ignore all the talking down you did to me and simply say that your opinion on whether or not a command like AMC is a good idea in a peer-peer conflict means nothing. The reality is is that its a tool we use in the modern US Army for fires and I think it would be a good idea to include in CM to increase artillery flexibility in the modern titles.
-
22 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:
There may very well be instances within the context of an overall pre registered fire plan where the 'At My Command' order / mission might be appropriate (assuming a battle goes to plan). However, CM doesn't have any pre registered fire plans in the game and the game has no context for any sort of 'At My Command' set of orders so if you just added that order without the context of a pre registered fire plan you would be adding something to every fire mission that isn't going to be representative of reality under all circumstances.
Its also extremely unrealistic for a spotter to have to constantly correct a fire mission they just fired at a position, infact you shouldn't even have a spotting phase in most modern CM titles. CM has many abstractions relating to artillery that aren't completely accurate. And every time you delay a fire mission for a certain amount of time you are pre-registering a fire plan, especially if you use multiple batteries that you have available.
-
4 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Just to add to this, ASL V is correct, this is not how fire support works. Perhaps Coy mortars and maybe even Bn organic fire support (but that is a stretch), everything above that gets fed into a Fire Support Coord Centre (different countries call it variations on this) where call for fire are coming in continuously and are prioritized and executed as quickly as possible. The only exception would be for SOF but we are talking exceptional strategic missions.
Now in the future, I have heard talk of completely automating fire support (in all its forms) and having something like this is much more possible, particularly when we are talking an entirely all-PGM inventory. In CM context this sort of thing would be beyond CMBS and probably into the 15-20 years from now timeframe (but there are differing opinions). Next step after that are accurate predictive models (so AI based C4ISR) that basically plots the fire before the tactical commander even knows he/she needs it.
I work in a brigade level TOC as a fire control specialist and I can assure you that "At My Command" is absolutely something we train with, one of the battle drills I did a few months ago involved it. Also "waiting for Fred" is extremely common for any fire mission, an FCO will always give the order to fire as far as I know, fire missions do not just go off whenever the guns are ready unless its an immediate suppression/immediate smoke mission. I understand that on a fluid battlefield you want your batteries to be flexible, but if we are talking main effort here holding a platoon of howitzers for 20 minutes is not crazy or unreasonable if the situation dictates it.
-
In the artillery world we have many different "modifiers" we can add on to a fire mission to tweak it for whatever the situation requires. One of the most common is "at my command" which is exactly how it sounds. The guns will range in on a certain spot (adjust if necessary from a spotter, if TRP or known point this shouldn't be required) and wait for the FDC's fire control officer to give the order to fire the mission. Right now in CM all we can do is add a certain amount of time until a mission starts which isn't always desirable. I figured this might be a reasonably simple change that would be a major improvement for artillery.
-
The A-10 is a sitting duck on the battlefield, the F-35 can fight its way in, jam, and engage targets extremely accurately at range.
-
14 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Ok, we also need a voice option that is campy...
And wot about the tranny's that are now in the army?
What about them Erwin?
They're human beings and they deserve to be able to do what anyone else can in the US military.
The only thing your good for is sitting in your chair and bitching about people taking jobs or something, luckily your backwards disgusting opinions are all very unpopular with most of the country. Keep your bigoted views to yourself or find some obscure dirty hole on the internet where you can whine.
-
I'd much rather see other countries in the time period that CMCW is about rather than backtracking all the way to WW2 again. It seems like a huge waste of potential doing that.
-
No. They can be created by messing with the terrain in the editor but there are no place-able fortifications for AFV's.
-
-
Are you running any mods?
-
12 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:
I can dig exactly what you're saying. I had come to determine that some things that I saw were bad decisions that I'd made in a battle (most probably were). The FR AAR would have played out differently with the current build. The end result may still have been @Ithikial_AUwinning but it would have played out differently.
Also, we're very close to releasing the module.
He said the thing!
-
-
Music to our ears Elvis
-
-
10 minutes ago, c3k said:
I know what you mean.
But, here's some inside ball: you've heard all the "gotta test to make sure a 'fix' doesn't break something else", right?
My contribution to CW is very small compared to the incredible work that others have done. But, here's a sample of what I put into this. There was a question about spotting. (This is the type of observed behavior followed by rigorous testing that discovered the infamous Tiger gunner sitting sideways issue.) In order to dig into the particular issue in CW, I created some tests. In the course of these, I entered, individually and by hand, 13,500 data points. Pause, look, type, tab: repeat thirteen thousand and five hundred times.
Let me repeat that: 13,500 individually entered data points. Painful? Oh, yes.
The result? The game rocks.
Now, if there were patches released each week, they would NOT get this type of detailed testing.
(There's a game, not naming it, but has to do with Commanding air and naval stuff, in a Modern setting, at an Operational scale, that releases patches (and beta patches) pretty frequently. You can pretty much bet that each one breaks something. A sonar fidelity increase means ballistic missiles don't get intercepted.)
I'm a gamer, like you. We all would like a perfect game. Or, a better game sooner.
This is how it is, and it works pretty darn well...
Ken
I agree with you and understand where you're coming from.
I definitely wasn't trying to say that you guys don't work hard at fixing stuff...just that it takes a while and it isn't surprising you will see comparisons to other companies. And yes that anecdote is something I'm very familiar with
.
-
Proud was probably the wrong term but it was more directed at other commenters not Steve.
-
The frequency of patches is way higher at other game companies (at least one a week at a lot of them) with similar amounts of developers. In comparison you can expect 1 patch a year with BFC games, I'm not sure I understand how that's something to be proud of.
Now Combat Mission doesn't have anything game breaking really (which is absolutely something to be proud of) so I don't expect a patch a week but its always a surprise when something small takes a year or more for a CM game.
-
Cold War isn't coming out this week/weekend so I wouldn't get your hopes up for F and R either.
-
15 minutes ago, markh said:
Regarding an Afghan Module for CMSF2, I have seen requests for this type of module but cannot understand the need for it. Can anyone tell me how this would be different to the current CMSF2 game and modules apart from having the Red Unconventional infantry shown in different clothing? The current scenario editor allows me to create steep hilly maps with the appropriate vegitation and buildings and the Marine, British and NATO modules offer the opportunity to model ISAF v insurgent fights.
What would you see as being different?
Instead, it would be great to see NATO modules for the proposed Cold War release.
They mean a Soviet-Afghan wargame, not a modern one.
Cold War: The (Massive) Narrative AAR
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
This is fantastic Rinaldi, great job!