DougPhresh
-
Posts
769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by DougPhresh
-
-
I should get around to re-uploading that...
I never could manage converting CMBN maps, if someone wants to take a crack.
-
People said the same about Georgia.
Nevertheless, Oplot could use some love.
-
I do wonder if Gary Grigsby has saved that kind of wargame. Can you imagine playing WITE and having to lay out that map and roll dice!
Similarly, I can't imagine playing even a small-ish CMx2 scenario with Advanced Squad Leader rules!
-
2 hours ago, BTR said:
Shouldn't really be any difference in terms of camo unless they'll add 6Sh122 officially.
What about Partisan or Gorka? I thought those units used some of the more esoteric kit?
-
Could you be referring to this 1500 hour monstrosity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Campaign_for_North_Africa
There are some though who still do want separate logistics rules for the Italians boiling pasta in their field rations...
-
I'm guessing when (if?) VDV and MP uniforms are added in a future module, there will be a drop down for Russian uniforms.
-
Many a time have I had a BMP start taking hits and scrambled to get everyone out while watching more and more casualties add up. Maybe Bail Out could use more hatches than just the main one for AFVs?
-
3 hours ago, c3k said:
Setting nets: hours of monotonous crystal tuning, all to be undone when the first HE round detonates nearby and shuts down the net...
Of course, that's WWII.
That did not come up on my Artillery Signals course (in 2011). Carry on then!
3 hours ago, Combatintman said:That's all very well but how accessible is that feature going to be to any player who has no military experience? This thread and its antecedent is the result of some pretty extensive research on the part of @MOS:96B2Pand it has provoked a lot of questions. That says to me that it seems quite clear that the way in which what could be termed by military professionals as 'dumbed down'' C2 in game is not readily understood by people with and without service under their belts. So to add the complexity you are advocating risks confusion and would possibly alienate a lot of potential players.
Additionally, the information presented is based on a battalion group, how would having multiple nets work with platoon or company-sized scenarios and how would you convey the mechanics in the manual? Your earlier recce conundrum has two pretty simple solutions:
- Pick single vehicles as attachments to bigger units.
- Pick the higher HQs.
WRT gunner nets, the current abstracted indirect fire system continues to trigger forum threads like 'why can't I call in fire?' To make this more difficult by introducing an artillery net would not be helpful. Given that in the Commonwealth Armies of WW2 guns and recce were divisional assets, how far do we go here ... does it become a must have to include the Divisional HQ in game to historically replicate proper gunner and recce nets?
This smacks of the numerous 'mega iron' or enhanced reality type threads that have done the rounds over the years. It is fine if you want it but for the game to sell it is in all likelihood not something that is going to be a feature that has people queuing round the block for. The separate gunner nets thing is sort of replicated in the WW2 titles by the increased delays or inabilities of certain FOOs to call in fire which to my Acorn rather than a Shelldrake/Ironside view is a pretty workable compromise of reflecting reality without making it inaccessible.
Like most things in life ....
How much do you really want it?
When things aren't perfect, compromise is always good.
You bring up a lot of good points. Sometimes I need to remember the military professionals point and stop focusing on a study-sim. I'm sure like with Steel Beasts Pro or DCS there are people who would be into the Indirect Fire Trainer with better graphics, but you're right - sigs, artillery and arty sigs are separate months long courses even working in the trade and it's asking quite a bit for the average person to parcel out assets as direct and general support and to plug them into a radio net.
To address your point on granularity I think field telephones are a great example.Is there historical usage on the game scale? Yes. Even OPs would have wires strung in some cases and depending on the conditions Company and Battalion CPs would be connected by field telephone.
Would it make a difference in gameplay? Sometimes. I think the Italians in CMFI would benefit as their lack of radios presently leaves their C2 hobbled.
Is it worth the technical problems? Probably not. You would either have to have linesmen laying wire as you advanced or drop from the field telephone net as soon as you moved even an action square or two. You would somehow need to show on the map what is linked by field telephone. Above ground wires were often cut by shellfire, do you show that or not, etc.
-
I'm just waiting for a full Canadian module so I can add myself to the names list
I don't work with the HSLD guys, but they wear different helmets than the Spectra us grunts have and wear multicam. A PPCLI guy would be pretty by-the-book except for scrim on his helmet. We're not very exciting in line battalions! -
On 11/20/2017 at 2:14 PM, Oleksandr said:
CMBS: Reworked Binoculars For All Nations By Oleksandr
This little mod will replace binoculars fro all nations and all mods in the game. I’ve decided to do this because all sides of the conflict are already pretty far from standard equipment.
All armies are using advanced optics at this moment so I’ve decided to bring them to this game as well.
This mod will provide all sides with olive color binoculars. Lenses are dark just like in modern military binoculars. Enjoy!
Link to Download: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=5453
A little late to the party, but:
1) Cadpat pixels are much, much smaller
2) The new combats have a much larger flag patch, and deployed units wear subdued colour versions
3) Good luck wearing a giant, full colour regimental patch without your RSM jacking you up, even in garrison
4) I've never seen anyone with a flag on the back of their helmet, helmet bands do have cats eyes though
5) The new combat boots are coyote brown
-
I wish we could set our own nets, especially for artillery and recce. Having artillery units in Battalion Tactical Groups is an amazing addition to CMBS, not being able to assign artillery to direct support for other formations is frustrating. There are times where I want off map mortars closely linked with say a recce unit, and it would be realistic to have them operate on the same comms.
-
21 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
Not saying CM gets anything wrong. Not doubting artillery was the major killer. But I think comparing artillery kill rates over the entire war to small arms kill rates on any given day where a soldier goes into direct combat is making an apple to oranges comparison
I mean more that you would never (I hope) set up an OOB without some artillery support. This is fairly consistent between all the titles.
The combined arms team gets their due in CM, you wouldn't leave behind engineers and artillery whereas most games focus on infantry and armour.
-
Very workable solutions, my problem is that I would prefer:
1) Deploy all troop recce vehicles, they radio on the Battalion net of the largest unit in the scenario.
2) Deploy troop recce vehicles, they radio to their squadron HQ, which is sitting in the same CP as the Battalion. (Less ideal)3) Deploy some recce vehicles, but leave the troop HQ vehicle behind. (Least ideal)
I'd rather not leave a perfectly good AFV behind just to be a radio relay.
-
On 10/25/2017 at 9:50 PM, Erwin said:
As with all light vehicles in CM2 one needs to use em at long range, or as mere transports, or dismount and use the crew as inf/recon. Allowing light vehicles to come within small arms range is usually suicidal. The typical CM2 map size is the issue here.
I keep hoping that that will change!
Especially with the Dutch OOB in CMSF, if they're coming to SF2, that will need to be looked at, lest the Syrian desert resemble The Somme.
-
I think it was humorous, and wildly optimistic to give Ukraine all of these newer weapons systems such as the Oplot and BTR-4 when really T-72s and BMP-1s would better reflect how things have played out in actuality.
8 hours ago, kraze said:Battlefront did a well-informed guesstimate but even then, with Oplots, depicted Ukrainian army to be weaker than it should be given improvements in the past 3 years. And that's with a real-life conflict getting localized instead of a bigger invasion which would most likely hurry up things even further.
I know this comes up in every thread, but the conflict in Ukraine is frozen because of decisions made in Moscow not Kiev. The state of the Ukrainian Army in 2017 is illusory as they could be put to flight as easily in 2017 as 2014. I know that technology is great for public consumption, but the Russian Army could be in Kiev in days, with or without UAVs or thermals at the platoon-company level. That has not come to pass for strictly political reasons, and Ukraine should know that they are in effect not much different than Brave Little Belgium in 1914 or Poland in 1939. Valiant, but ultimately irrelevant in the larger political theatre. -
On 11/20/2017 at 11:39 PM, c3k said:
Very little shrapnel goes to the point of the shell. It (the shell) is -designed- for shrapnel to explode radially along the long axis. Hence, the target which gets directly hit does get the kinetic energy of the round (in the milliseconds before the fuse train detonates the HE mass). The energetic particles (shrapnel) expand to the side. Directly under the shell is relatively "safer".
I wish I could remember the illustration from artillery school, but if you can imagine two cones starting at the fuse and base of the shell, those have dramatically fewer fragments.
E: Not exactly, but close enough!
-
So to have a recce troop working as recce, I need to bring along the squadron HQ?
-
5 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:
But in Dough Phresh example above._.
What if you have an infantry battalion with a single squadron\ platoon of armoured cars from another formation (recon battalion ) in support to provide some mobile recon._.
Who would they report to ? They have no higher hq on the map._.
They would need to be in voice\los of some member of the main infantry battalion to be able to share their info.._no ?
Making their mobility and radios pretty useless\limitid.._
That's exactly what I was thinking! I almost always bring along some armoured cars on Battalion level engagements but never include the recce Company or Battalion HQ. I assumed that they would be on the same radio net as the infantry Battalion, but if that's not the case I'm not sure how to use them.
-
Just musing but does that mean recce has to be integrated vertically? That is to say, organic recce teams will always be better than specialized recce from one of the recce formations?
I.E is it better to have three grunts and a pair of binoculars than a squadron of armoured cars with radios, as far as Battalion HQ is concerned?
-
Speaking as an artilleryman, games overemphasize small arms. In the 20th century crew-served weapons accounted for 90% of casualties.
CM gets this right. Machine guns, mortars and artillery are the big killers.
-
On 11/15/2017 at 11:59 AM, MikeyD said:
I believe Canada has retired its TUA anti-tank LAV-3 and converted the chassis into troop transports. One would assume because a schoolbus-size vehicle being even nominally within LOF an MBT is very problematic. Especially when a dude with a Javelin can do the job while hiding behind a bush.
Ehh, part of it was the switch to the LAV 6.0 program, part of it is anti-tank doctrine being in flux with Eryx retired leaving the just Carl G and M72. Much like the TLAV (M113), there isn't the budget or the manning for true mech brigades right now, so the switch to Battle Groups with only mech elements allowed many of the supporting elements to be dropped.
-
Unbuttoned tank crews also suffer from this issue, even in the modern titles.
-
It would certainly make that Italian SP 90mm more useful!
-
This is all very reassuring.
Partisans and expanded Italian OOB for CMFI on the horizon?
Would love to see Mraps:)
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
My brigade has ditched all the RGs for LAVs. They were an emergency procurement for Afghanistan and not part of the regular battlegroup.