DougPhresh
-
Posts
769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by DougPhresh
-
-
It's well worth it though.
I can only hope @Vein takes notice of Rome To Victory and the upcoming Red Thunder Module. Ditto @Aristoteles
-
I suppose this could rightly apply to all CM titles.
I really appreciate the equipment selection as well as the appearance selection in some titles.
As seen below, a British Mech Infantry Battalion in Shock Force 2 has a variety of options in Quick Battle:
However, as a quality of life improvement, it would be nice to know what the 4 APC options are for without exploding the OOB view and discovering through trial and error. I believe the ww2 titles do this already.
In this example:
- Sniper Team
- Platoon HQ
- APC (Includes Company and BN HQ vehicles)
- Javelin Detachment Vehicle
- Fire Support Section Vehicles
- Mortar
By comparison, below is a Russian BTR Motor Rifle Battalion in Black Sea:
The issue with Black Sea's selection is that there is not enough granularity.
A default option for the Russian Motor Rifle Battalion (or Tactical Group) BTR, is the assignment of BTR-82s to the infantry platoons in each company, but the cannon-armed BTR-82As to the weapons platoons. This makes sense and boosts organic firepower while preventing spending points on cannons that will not be fired. However the player cannot make that decision, only choosing all BTRs except for HQs. The BTRs in the weapons platoons can be deleted and replaced with single vehicle BTR-82As but they won't have the proper ammo for the support weapons as vehicle cargo.
With the variety of very expensive BMP-3Ms, I would also like to have more granular choices, like assigning APS only to valuable HQs, or to 1 company or platoon out of 3. This is similar to the Dutch assignment of CV 9035s to only a few units within a formation.
I think the best elements of both approaches should be combined. Shock Force 2 and Rome to Victory have impressed me especially with the change to how force selection works. Infantry units, while being infantry keep their organic vehicles. For example a USMC Infantry Battalion:
I believe that is how the editor has always worked, but it is a big step forward for QB. I'd like to see that standardized across the board. It is certainly better than Black Sea where a US Army Infantry Battalion appears twice. Once stripped of all vehicles under the infantry tab:
and again with all of the assigned vehicles under the mech tab:
In conclusion, the QB force selection in Shock Force 2 represents a step forward in how forces are split up into Infantry/Mech/Armour while retaining organic vehicles, but could use improvements in how labels are applied when selecting which vehicles be assigned to which sub-unit within a formation. Black Sea labels only HQ vehicles and "everybody else" and could use more categories. Moving forward, having QB selection mirror the editor, with more granularity in assigning particular vehicles to subunits and clearer labeling would be a quality of life improvement across all CM titles.
-
I can't really think of a situation in Red Thunder where I would want my Soviet Cavalry Troops to be mounted. Isn't the drill to dismount and send the horses to the rear upon either contact or when close to the suspected enemy forward positions?
ÂI can however, think of a million situations where I'd like their blue pants to be a uniform option a la panzergrenadiers rather than a mod tag.
-
17 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
Frankly, the ability of infantry to close assault still-mobile tanks without any anti-tank weaponry is not particularly realistic under any circumstance. It was hardly ever done in reality.
The Soviet troops do have anti-tank weaponry, their RPG AT grenades (and possibly molotovs?).
In the illustration on the previous page you can see it being thrown out of a window down onto the Panther and the caption mentions how the RPG-43 could easily defeat the roof and engine deck armour of the Panther.
"Attack from above was the optimum option"
-
On 12/30/2019 at 3:26 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
You are given two ATGM vehicles, which are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.....I wonder if they were meant to be 120mm mortar vehicles?
I suppose that could be the scenario designer confusing two models of Stryker, but there are plenty of times in military history equipment was taken out that was not needed. It would be interesting to play scenarios where you have assets that are not perfect for your given mission but find a way to make them work.
I know in Afghanistan we used our TOW for observation with the great optics, especially the thermals but never contemplated firing a missile. -
Thank you both!
9 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:Not worth the agony. That's why i never take my wife to such movies. She has also seen enough of war.
I appreciate your understanding. I'm sure she appreciates it too.
3 minutes ago, Erwin said:Do you have the same aversion to horror films btw? Most of their effect is through sudden, unexpected loud sounds.
I actually really like horror movies. It's more hearing machine guns rattle in movie theater surround sound puts me back in a mental place I don't want to linger in. It's hard to distance myself from the experience. When I saw Krampus and Crimson Peak back-to-back a few Christmases ago, it was a fun and scary movie theater experience but I always felt like I was watching a movie.
I remember reading that when Saving Private Ryan came out some well-meaning people arranged for groups of Normandy veterans to go see the movie. I can't imagine what that was like for them. Those first 20 minutes of the film must have been so painful for those guys.
-
Is that the turret of the Sprut? The Nona/Vena and Sprut are interesting weapons systems that I would love to see in CM.
.jpg/1280px-Russia_Arms_Expo_2013_(531-28).jpg)
-
Bringing this back from the dead for two reasons: 1) I had forgotten how to do this and Rome to Victory and Shock Force 2 have some outstanding maps and 2) I was hoping to find my own dropbox files only to see that the links were dead here as well.
Does anyone know the hex code for SF2? Those maps would be great in Black Sea and vice versa.
-
Yes it can be done! You need a hex editor, and there can't be objects on the map that don't appear in the title you are converting to (BN hedgerows, MG bridges, BS buildings).
Â
-
I've heard 1917 is amazing and I want to see it, but from the people who have seen it - do you think it is watchable for veterans?
I know we have some other vets on the forum, and I remember how seeing Dunkirk in IMAX was just about the worst thing I could have done for my PTSD.
-
To any Canucks, Rob Furlongs rifle is in the Canadian War Museum in the new Afghanistan gallery. I highly recommend making a visit. I was lucky enough to go before it opened with some other veterans and discovered the guy I was admiring the rifle with was Rob's spotter on his famous shot!
-
My battery was recently issued GMGs for "battery defense" and boy are they a pain in the ass to clean and maintain. Still, they could be modeled better in CM.
-
They were one of the most fun Syrian forces to take out in Quick Battle and BS has given me a new appreciation for the BMP-3. I'd like to see this fixed.
-
American military thinking is predicated on invincible hardware. It bleeds into pop culture too - War Thunder added the Abrams family recently and hoo boy are people angry that it can be killed, sometimes, by some weapons rather than being completely impervious.
e: And Americans talking about Monkey Models is pretty funny and ironic too.
-
That would be useful because I can't imagine Canada having enough CF-18s to provide credible air support versus calling the Americans, which was my experience in Afghanistan.
-
8 hours ago, domfluff said:
So, I have, but it's usually a consequence of incorrect use.
As a test, try setting up a quick battle with a US squad in a stryker against some uncons in a city, and just roll up the streets. If you're perhaps 100m away from an occupied building, the airguards will pop out and join in the fire. That's a terrible situation to be in, and the reaction is one of desperation - if any of those had an RPG, the squad would be killed, so I don't think it's unreasonable to put as much fire down as you can, right now.
Naturally, Strykers should maintain range (or indeed, not have LOS at all) with any potential or known enemies, disembarking one terrain feature away. Their power is in mobility and (importantly) C2 - with careful management of C2 structure and scouts, your squads can have a really good idea (contact markers) about what they're going to disembark into. If the Strykers are used for their firepower at all, it's for long ranged supporting fires, preferably hull down, and often after the infantry start the engagement.
Strykers are great. They're not Bradleys, BMPs or even BTRs, they're their own beast. Like a lot of things in Shock Force, they over-match a lot of the Syrian equipment significantly.
I don't know why the Americans didn't just buy (or license) the LAV III instead of going with Strykers and belatedly making a version with a cannon.
-
1 minute ago, SimpleSimon said:
Lots of people say that the Syrians seem hard to play...but that's only because they are usually on the defensive and they are not supported very well in most of their scenarios. The assumption that the Syrian Air Force would be irrelevant in any conflict is not only rather uninteresting, but as the Civil War has revealed, inaccurate. Saddam Hussein's useless air force should not be considered the norm by which all other powers in the Middle East are held to. I suppose much was unknown and unclear back in 2007 when Shock Force was released.Â
Crucially the Syrian Air Force occupies a role in Soviet Deep-Battle methodology without which the doctrine is really crippled. The Syrians do not seem to be a strictly Soviet-style military force...but they are equipped and organized like one. This means that for the most part it's really unfair to expect much of Syrian forces without more instances of things like the D-30 showing up, the Hind, the SU-25 etc.Â
Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan cemented so many impressions about enemy capabilities in the face of The American Way of War. What I have always feared is what would happen in a scenario like Yom Kippur when American forces come into contact with credible area denial, air defense and anti-armour capabilities. I don't know that Syria had the S-300, AT-14 or RPG-29 at the date Shock Force is set, but I can't imagine strolling to Damascus the way we did to Baghdad.
This goes a hundredfold for Tehran but I won't go into that here.
-
I'm also having problems with the Gill and CV90. I blame Raytheon.
-
It's funny to think back to The End Of History where the Soviet and Arab ability to fight was totally disregarded and then look to the past few years in Syria and Ukraine showing that when motivated, they can make it work. A Russian Brigade Group (Regiment?) in Syria or Ukraine would have been decisive, looking at what they've managed with Battalions. Imagine Syria receiving modern Russian weapons at the rate they did in '73.
-
Question about German paints - was the red primer supposed to be part of the camoflauge near the end of the war or was it the result of a supply chain breakdown?
-
4 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:
the only thing missing from that chart is Regimental frontage, which is probably missing because of the tendency of Regiment-size formations (and their often misunderstood sibling the "Brigade") to vary more extremely than the others.
It's funny that you should mention that because I served in a Commonwealth military and it seems totally reasonable to be a member of a Regiment and assigned to a Brigade. I have no idea what everyone else is doing. My Old Man was a LCol and had a member of the Royal Family present new colours to the Regiment with Battle Honours dating to 1885, I can't imagine the Brigade having that stature.
Brigade-Level Combat Mission would be incredible but without some kind of AI like Command Ops 2 and huge maps, totally unplayable. Maybe CM 3. -
3 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:
World War 2 is not about the better armies winning, but the bigger economies, hence bigger armies, winning. Same as in World War 1.
It's the same thing. If your economy produces more aircraft, more artillery and more tanks, than you have the better army.Your company commanders don't need tactical brilliance to take a position, they can call on artillery assets your enemy can only dream of, and those artillery batteries have enough ammunition they care fire harassment missions around the clock. The better army has good-enough tanks everywhere instead of perfect tanks somewhere (or broken down). The better army can make road moves in daylight instead of being bombed and strafed between sunrise and sunset.
-
49 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Many of us hope so as well. However, so long as the US is the largest market, the players tend to buy stuff with US forces. And as we know the US entered late (as usual). Â
Note that it was only about 25 years ago that one had to practically pay people to play the Russians or Western Allies as practically everyone wanted to play the Axis (German that is). How things have changed. So, perhaps there is hope...
I would guess in the time since the Cold War, our image of the Second World War is not as shaped by the "memoirs" of "rehabilitated" German officers.
Gone are the days of the Clean Wehrmacht, Unstoppable Slavic Hordes, hardware obsession over Superior German Panzers etc. etc.
You hardly ever see "Mein Oppa was just defending his Fatherland, and Following Orders, and Both Sides Were Bad." anymore and while there are still posts about "The Americans only won because of air superiority and artillery" and "Commonwealth Armour was useless, the Germans easy brushed them aside at Caen and Falaise (cue a dozen posts about Michael Wittmann)" and "The Russians only won because of human waves", I think any serious historian and even most people in wargamming or with an interest in the subject would say the better armies won, and credit them for their operational and tactical art.
-
I believe that 2 would be 6pdr and 1 17pdr.
I can never find good sources on the mix of M10s and M10 17pdrs though (Wolverine and Achilles).
The Year Ahead Bone Post
in Combat Mission Red Thunder
Posted · Edited by DougPhresh
@BFCElvis Strictly hypothetically, since Polish voice files exist in BN and FI, what would the devs need to do to add the LWP as a third Allied side?
You know... seeing as you're still tweaking Fire and Rubble.
Now if I were to really get carried away, I'd suggest that if the FB module brings Commonwealth forces through the end of the war, 1st Czech Armoured Brigade could be added. With the Czech voices files from that, should a future RT module bring in the fighting in Central and Southern Europe, the voices for 1st Czech Army Corps would already be in the game.
Of course I know people would rather see the Bulgarians, Romanians, Finns and Hungarians but a man can dream!