Jump to content

DougPhresh

Members
  • Posts

    740
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by DougPhresh

  1. Having taken the CAF Machine Gun course, I do think tripod mounted GMGs and MGs should be able to fire indirect in some situations. Yes, you do have to go out and put out aiming posts and have the guns sited in, but a C6/FN MAG/ M240 can fire indirect, absolutely.
  2. Some shells have poor bursting and fragmentation characteristics. The Italian Brixia Model 35 for example, was known to sometimes break into only a few large fragments. For a weapon with a small blast effect that relies on fragmentation to kill, that was obviously not good. There have been some advancements in shell design to create an even burst pattern with fragments of the ideal size to cause the intended effect.
  3. In both Black Sea and Shock Force 2, unbuttoned BMP-3 passengers have their weapons on their backs and can no longer fire from the vehicle.
  4. To be honest, I would like if the map size could be increased enough for more battalion scale combat. There are lots of great small campaigns and scenarios, across all titles.
  5. The Canadians have the same problem. I don't think I was ever issued let alone deployed with uniform items that were their intended colour. Some of the CADPAT TW would turn into brown or olive, rather than simply fade. I imagine that is because of how different dyes break down, but the interesting thing was that it preserved the camouflaging qualities, and maybe even enhanced them since the helmet, vest, tunic and pants would have a variety of colour and brightness.
  6. Anything in a soft skin vehicle will definitely break from shell splinters. Subsystems on all vehicles that are not themselves protected by armour will also be damaged by splinters of sufficient size and energy. There is room for improvement here, but artillery is a complicated business and a lot of people are shocked by the lethality of crew served weapons generally. If revisions are being considered, I'd suggest that it's worth taking the time to go over of all aspects of artillery. For example, and this is nitpicky, including HE delay fusing, and separating WP and base ejecting smoke. Shock Force 2, might have HE delay if that is what "armor" is. I believe some smoke shells for some weapons systems are WP and some are base ejecting. The reason I think this is relevant is that in Shock Force 2, specifically when the campaign considers collateral damage and civilian casualties, WP should not be available during MOUT. It's a small thing but as an artilleryman, my brow wrinkles at NATO using WP in areas occupied by civilians. Additionally, if marines are coming to the Black Sea module, I would suggest adding dedicated naval guns like the 76mm OTO Melara. Preferably those could be added to Shock Force 2 as a patch. Having Marines land supported by fire from M777's is a little baffling, unless they are firing from landing craft, as the Canadians did at Normandy, or lashed to the decks of their amphibious assault ships. Crossposting from the Shock Force 2 Patch discussion
  7. In the campaign, Dutch engineers with grenade launchers also carry a second C7. e: Also about the Dutch, CV 90 air busting when firing at buildings is infuriating considering how much of their campaign is MOUT. The CV 90s could also probably using some tweaking to better conserve ammunition. I'm not sure if their crews doctrinally fire single shots or small bursts, but I feel like in SF2 they are firing like they have a 25mm bushmaster instead of their larger, more capable weapon. Finally, and someone could clarify Dutch doctrine for me, how are squads supposed to split to employ the FN MAG and AWSM-F? I ask because if they are supposed to peel off into two-man teams, that can't be done right now. I served as an artilleryman on 109's and 777's. 155mm shells will ruin your day, even under armour and I think subsystems like optics and radios should be more damaged, but there is a reason why battery anti-armour drills put most of the emphasis on the battery anti-tank weapons and not direct fire from the guns themselves. Direct fire with a howitzer is not easy. They're not dual purpose guns like the 25lbr, we don't have HEAT or sabot rounds, heck we have bagged charges. Direct fire on point targets is much more effective than in the days of Wellington, but the principle is the same, and since the Boer War, whatever we are directly fire on is much better at firing directly at us, which was the whole reason for the switch to indirect fire. All of that to say, there are a lot of things on a tank that will break from shell splinters. Many of those things like optics and radios probably should be more easily damaged in Combat Mission. Some of those things like pioneer tools, spare parts and jerry cans are not relevant to the time frame of a scenario. Some other effects like damage to electronics, crew stress, possibly damage to welds and seating of parts, I can't really speak to. For Shock Force 2, It would be nice if the legacy "Armor" fire mission was either clarified to be HE-delay, in which case all titles should have it, retooled to DPICM, or removed.
  8. I see that I had the wrong install location for the patch. Gill behaviour is much improved. My mistake. The BMP-3 behaviour is the same as reported upthread. Oh and at a certain distance, the smoke dischargers on the BMP-1P appear to be floating above the vehicle.
  9. So there is a way to have both HG infantry and Field Divisions on the mainland?
  10. It seems to be acting more like a bottom attack missile than a top attack. I'll take some screenshots if I catch it in the act again.
  11. BMP-3 seems to use airburst even against buildings and bunkers. Unbuttoned BMP-3 air guards have their weapons slung on their backs, cannot fire from vehicle. Gill behaviour is still extremely weird.
  12. Beautiful piece of kit. Still missing ADATs and Bisons though. 😉
  13. I guess as a career artilleryman I should chip in. What I would say is that our OP detachments always attempted to call for fire well away from our own position and that of friendly forces. Final Protective Fire is usually planned when a position is established, and danger close calls for fire do happen. Usually those calls come from the maneuver elements and not our own OPs. The preference is always to call for fire before the enemy is on top of you. Put another way, just as artillery conquers and infantry occupies, when I meet infantrymen from my tour who excitedly tell me about calling down 155mm fire 100m out from their own position, I always think that artillerymen would have placed fire on the enemy while they were 500m away. 😂
  14. I've loved playing CM on Mac, but now that Shadow exists and I can stream a gaming PC through my Mac, I'm less worried about Apple's strange design decisions and more worried about convincing my SO that I should repurchase all the CM titles and modules.
  15. I find Soviet Doctrine endlessly fascinating. There have been many great posts here over the years, dating back to CMBB that I wish were condensed into a PDF. The various Osprey Elite books on tactics are good reads as well. I wish I could contribute more to this thread but I'm a little tied up right now. What I will say is that the Soviet military in 1944 was a formidable fighting machine and there is a great satisfaction to learning and implementing their doctrine and tactics. I'm eagerly awaiting Fire and Rubble so I can conduct mass pre-planned fires, attack limited objectives in echelon and skillfully (I hope) use the battalion support weapons to execute the mission. There are many posters here that I could swear are professional military historians or went to staff college and I'm glad that they keep contributing.
  16. Sorry for the delay. I used the Concord publications on British Shermans and British Armour in Sicily and Italy.
  17. In Fortress Italy, the troops of the Herman Goering Division display the correct white Waffenfarben in Fortress Italy, but in Gustav Line and Rome to Victory bear the green Kragenspiegel of the Field Divisions. Simply, the tropical uniform in Sicily is correct for the HG Division, but the temperate uniform for Italy and Northern Italy is, I would venture to guess, ported from Battle for Normandy or Red Thunder unmodified. The cuff title is also present in FI but disappears in the later modules. This seems like a pretty quick fix - just a uniform option like Greatcoat/Camouflage/etc. that substitutes white collar badges for the green and adds cuff titles for Luftwaffe troops during the dates the HG was involved in the campaign. Call it "Herman Goering" or something in line with the Gebirgsjäger option added in Rome to Victory. I have included sources below. I think a simple swap of the collars would look a bit like this: Compared to a Field Division Troop: That's a quick fix and would be entirely satisfactory. However, if BF wants to go a step further, read on: Working from these sources I have quickly put together some HG troops in M43 with Luftwaffe/Heer Smocks, Italian Camouflage Pants and the SS Oakleaf Smock. Official support would obviously be easier to use, higher quality, and make sure that both Field Division and HG troops can be fielded. With Rome To Victory, the elements of these uniforms all exist in the files already. It's just a matter of a more talented artist and researcher putting together Appearance options for Herman Goering / Herman Goering Greatcoat / Herman Goering Mixed Camo (Luftwaffe and Heer Splinter with some Italian?) / Herman Goering Oakleaf / Herman Goering Winter or whatever the options end up being.
  18. Unlimited points would go a long way. The points aren't even calculated the same across titles! In some games, I can buy nearly a mechanized brigade, in others I can barely get a full tank battalion. A unified standard of Platoon/Company/Battalion/Brigade/Unlimited across titles would go a long way IMO.
  19. You know this has generally been a pretty good community over the years, albeit one with a fair bit of Clean Wehrmacht apologia. Sure, I can see the value Sicherungs units add, and while I disagree, I can see why some may want to see Feldgendarmerie. That inclusion has never extended to entertaining the idea that they were "just like" Commonwealth Provost Wing troops or American MPs. They weren't, and anyone who can open a book can see why. I do not have a single kind word to say about the Waffen SS historically, but this is a wargame and they were unmistakably a major combat force. I can play Battle For Normandy and see why they were such ferocious opponents in the fight for the Carpiquet Airfield. Their massacre of Canadian prisoners there and elsewhere, to say nothing of the countless crimes of the Waffen SS as a whole are outside the scope of the game, and reasonably outside of discussion. The idea of the Dirlewanger Brigade as "soldiers like any other" is absolutely sickening and reprehensible. There may not have been humanitarians on the Eastern Front, but one side waged an unprovoked genocidal war of extermination - and the other did not. I don't want to see this thread locked, but I also don't want to read excuses for the war the Germans waged, only to see how BF is choosing to model it. To their credit, they have done a fantastic job balancing sensitivity with historicity and I expect they will do the same here. They are not in the business of morally exculpating mass murderers, just getting the colour of their tanks right, and they do it well.
  20. I just picked up CMBN after having all the other titles and modules so I was curious since I wasn't following it during development.
  21. It would be really great to be able to get them all, especially since I'm not sure what iteration of CMmods I'm supposed to use and if everything made it over.
  22. I was wondering, if the Americans really only encountered Tigers 3 times in North-West Europe, why are they included in the base game? It seems like they could have been saved for the Commonwealth module.
  23. The Firefly was really better than it had any right to be considering how they managed to cram that gun and ammunition into the Sherman, and all of the compromises that entailed.
  24. I have to say I'm also a Battalion scale guy, with some qualms about the CM UI and would be Brigade scale, given some major changes. This could mean anything from being able to assign follow orders and still placing waypoints so a single vehicle drives down a road, but all others follow, to a way to automatically draw move orders along a road, to telling units to move and ticking a box so they take roads when appropriate. Having a "semi-automatic" system, halfway to graviteam would do a lot of good. Having the option like Graviteam or Command Ops to give orders to a HQ and for all of their subordinates to execute would reduce player workload at those larger scales. I like the granular control compared to Graviteam, I just don't need it at all times. I'd like to order a battalion to move to contact with a few clicks, but still manage a team during the firefight if it comes down to it. Quality of life changes and more TAC AI improvements could go a long way. I believe infantry on long distance move orders already drift towards columns and seem roughly to follow roads and paths along the route.
  25. When trenches are on uneven terrain I often wonder if the 2ft protruding above ground on a single side does any good. IIRC hits by small arms are modeled on a per-pixel scale and not abstracted, meaning that those trenches are not doing much if anything.
×
×
  • Create New...