agusto
-
Posts
2,165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by agusto
-
-
I havent read the changelog of the last patch, but what has always been a problem with vehicles that had their sensors and weapons mounted on a mast was that the vehicle didnt "see" from the position of the sensors but from the position of the crew. This problem was particularily obvious in the Marder IFV in CMSF; the Marder has its weapon and optics mounted in a small unmanned turret, which in reality makes it an excellent vehicle for shooting from hull down positions, but in CMSF the vehicle is practically useless in hull down positions because the crew, which is located in the hull of the vehicle, couldnt get LOS on anything. Maybe this issue is the one they adressed in the last patch, cool breeze. Of course, i could read the changelog, but speculating is more fun, isnt it?
-
You cant install the upgrade yet, afaik your can only reserve a copy. Release is planned for August IIRC, but if you want to check out the new Windows, you can download a free trial version here:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/preview-iso
If you want to do a service to the CM community, DL Windows 10, install CM and tell us how it runs
.In general you should expect software that was released when XP or an earlier Windows was the latest Windows version to be incompatible with Wndows 10 and software that was released when 7 & 8 were the latest Windows versions to work well with Win 10. Of course there might be exceptions or patches to get old software to work under Win 10, but IIRC that' s what i heard at a Microsoft presentation of Windows 10 i attended 2 weeks ago.
-
The new forum seems to be very attractive to Spambots. It' s really starting to get on my nerves. How about implementing some of the methods below, Battlefront?
-
Sounds like from a finish news site.
-
is this confirmed? units now are able to target specific parts instead of only center mass as has been since day one?
AFAIK units have always been aiming at the center of mass of the visible parts of the target.
-
Check out post #5 on this thread for one particularly good use of your XO. The thread itself is chockful of really good info.
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119474-c2-information-sharing/
Other than message-bearing:
- the XO unit contains your XO, who can take over C3 functions from the formation commander if he becomes a casualty. This function is limited to Sight and Voice ranges, and isn't active over radio comms or at "distant sight" level of contact.
- XO and HQ support units often have arty call privileges in formations where the standard squad does not.
- HQ support units often have radios where the standard squad does not, and can help maintain C3 links to indirect fire support assets on-map.
Ahh, so that' s what the XO is good for. I always thought XO stands for eXpendable Officer and so i used them for detecting minefields or drawing enemy fire.
- the XO unit contains your XO, who can take over C3 functions from the formation commander if he becomes a casualty. This function is limited to Sight and Voice ranges, and isn't active over radio comms or at "distant sight" level of contact.
-
As title says, what you gys think, how best Leopard model manages to penetrate Armata´s armor? One guy said, that Leo can´t penetrate it. I am little sceptical for that statement. What you guys think?
As far as i can remember we do not have sufficient information on the Armatas armour to really judge how effective the Leopard 2s gun would be against it. Still i suspect, given the weight of the Armata and the known capabilities of the 120mm L/55 gun, that the statement "One guy said, that Leo can´t penetrate it." is not true. The 120mm L/55s tungston sabots may not be able to penetrate the Armata at ranges as long as they would be able to penetrate, let' s say an early model T-72, but at a certain range, they are definately capable of penetrating the Armata.
-
Statistically speaking, WW2 was largest, most horrible, most gruesome war in the history of mankind. Sadistically speaking, that' s why love to read WW2 history.
-
Mein Gott does that man speak fast! Well, my German isn't good enough to understand nearly anything he's saying. I'd have to pause it every 5 seconds. Oh well
After a quick search of the web I can see that I probably am not missing anything important:I watched Vortragsabend der Waldorfschule Überlingen and it' s really bad. This man is badly informed and/or intentionally deceiving is audience. He argues against strawmen most of time and seems to have a love for inaccurate analogys and metaphores. In a nutshell, he says that the german government is conspiring with the mainstream media to control the people, that democracy doesnt work because it brings people to power who have an opinion different from his, that everybody is so evil and immoral, and in particular the US and Israel. On the german Wikipedia it says that he, in other media, claims that 9/11 was an inside job and that the world is controlled by a zionist conspiracy.
In german, there is a word for what i felt while i watched the video, it' s Fremdschämen. The english language lacks a compareable word, but the dictionary of my choice translates Fremdschämen as follows: The feeling of shame for someone else who has done something embarrassing.
-
I don't know, Baghdad bob was pretty special.
Baghdad Bob was great fun. My favorite quotes:
"We killed a number of their mercenaries and injured another number and the rest of the americans flew....like rats." (0:40 in the video below).
They must have awesome rats in Iraq.
"They (the americans) try to deceive the world, the audience, the viewers - this is not a double standard! - they try to deceive the public opinion at their home. They want to deceive their people. This is dispickable! Dispickable!" (5:28)
-
Since it's strictly imho, I don't expect nor desire you to adopt my point of view in this issue
Ok let' s drop the transponder issue - For whatever the reasons may be, we would never agree anyways.
He hasn't said what you state explicitly at all, if you have read your own quote. He said that danish ships would "become targets". Do I have to find links that show how american, british and french nuclear missiles are trained on russian objectives; and russian ones on western ones.
He said that Danish ships will "...become targets of Russian nuclear missiles". That means that in case of war between NATO and Russia, Russia would consider to use nuclear weapons on a nation that itself is not a nuclear threat. Furthermore Russia wouldnt only use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear capable nation, it would also be highly disproportional to use nuclear weapons in that given scenario. The Russian navy and airforce has numerous means available to destroy Danish ships without having to resort to nuclear weapons.
Why do you think he said sentence if not to threaten Denmark? I would really be interested in the answear to that question.
Do you accept that nuclear capable missiles have their targets pre-programmed into them?
Nuclear missiles do not necessarily have their targets pre-programmed into them and the list of nuclear capable anti-ship missiles is long. The Russian SS-N-19 for example is actively seeking anti-ship missile capable of delivering a 350-500 kT nuclear warhead. He certainly was talking about nuclear capable anti-ship missiles.
Since in this case Portugal is the intercepting party, I see no connection with the issue discussed in previous posts, where Portugal was the intercepted party.The article you posted talks about the Atlantic ocean. How does that pertain to Portuguese planes being intercepted by russian fighters over Baltic?
I misread what you said. But now we have something else to discuss: Russian nuclear capable bombers flying off the cost of Portugal.
Indeed that has not been discussed because various people keep trying to engage in "He hit me back first", or "your government is just as bad as my government" distraction techniques.
And this is the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is yes. It is that simple. The Russia government ordered the invasion of Ukraine on trumped up excuses trying to hide what it was doing the whole way and when other nations responded first with demands that such activity stop and then with sanctions the Russian government's response was retaliation in the form of sanctions and a stepping up of threatening and harassing fights of various kinds. To this day I have not seen one shred of credible facts or a logical argument that casts the events any other way.
You can see how some people here can get frustrated because instead of putting forth and argument for why invading Ukraine was justified all we keep hearing is distraction techniques, fake information and logical fallacies. Honestly I really would like to hear an actual coherent argument for why invading Ukraine is justified. And by an argument I mean an actual thought out set of reasoned and informed points. I do *not* consider "well country X does it too", "to stop <insert fake information here> form happening to Russian speakers", or "because some other foreign government took over Ukraine" etc. etc. as well reasoned. Bear in mind that it is the Russian government that invaded a neighbouring country so the burden of justifying that action is on them.
Well said.
-
Whitehot78: For what concerns the matter of the interceptions over the baltic and elsewhere, seems to me that we have cleared that the ATC controllers were perfectly able to pinpoint the location of the russian af planes on their screens, and therefore, to steer them away from them, or to alert their crews of their presence; while it seemed to me that there was a general tendency to believe that the russians were aggressively, and somehow "stealthily" maneuver to endanger the safety of civilian airliners.
Objectively the information and sources provided in this thread not at all suffice to make the statement you posted. At best, we can say that we dont know what exactely happened and how it affected the saftey of civillian air traffic.
And please dont reply with some more baseless speculation, provide sources.
Whitehot78: no sir, I posted the link to prove that american airplanes get intercepted too in the same airspace. As you may have noticed, I put a lol smiley near the sentence stating that the transponder on the US plane was off, it was in fact to underline that the matter (transponders) is rather silly and irrelevant but - some people here have to keep that issue of vital importance, because it gives "mass" to their arguments against Russia.
If it is irrelevant whether or not the transponder is on or off, why are planes equipped with one? If there was no benefit in using transponders, be it a saftey benefit or something else, there would be no rational reason to keep using them and putting them into aircraft would be a waste of money.
Whitehot78: "Portugal around the corner from Russia?" - Does in your opinion Russia send fighters to intercept portuguese planes flying over the atlantic, or is it more likely that Portuguese planes get intercepted over the baltic because they are deployed at NATO bases which are in-theater?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/31/uk-nato-portugal-russia-idUKKBN0IK1TD20141031
"Portugal scrambled F-16 jet fighters for the second time this week on Friday to intercept Russian bombers in the international air space along its coast in a new sign of an unusual burst of Russian activity next to NATO's southern borders."
Whitehot78: @Panzer - You talk about literacy, yet seem to keep citing the "Nuclear threats against Denmark", and I wonder if you need to read the statement from the russian MoD in regard again:
The article which has been posted in this same thread about the issue, reports that IF Denmark will participate into the ballistic missile shield, then, in the case of nuclear war, Russia will target the assets that Denmark has deployed to that international device.
Now since the "nuclear threats to Denmark" seem to be the forte argument to people who are suggesting that the west need to put Russia down, I don't expect you to drop it with any ease - yet I suggest folks to read the declaration I cited and decide by themselves if it is a nuclear threat. Denmark (and it is stated yet in the same article) has responded that it is not by any chance worried about that.
According to:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/22/us-denmark-russia-idUSKBN0MI0ML20150322
the Russian ambassador to Denmark Mikhail Vanin said the following in an interview in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten:
“I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence shield. If that happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles. Denmark would be part of the threat against Russia. It would be less peaceful and relations with Russia will suffer. It is, of course, your own decision - I just want to remind you that your finances and security will suffer. At the same time Russia has missiles that certainly can penetrate the future global missile defence system.”
The Russian ambassador explicitly said that Russia will use nuclear weapon against Danish ships that are part of NATOS missile defense. He did not say under which circumstances Russia would do that. What else is this if this if not a threat?
-
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that one doesn't need to use the Acquire command to retrieve missiles from the BMP?
You dont need to acquire missiles from a vehicle with your units are within 2 action spots of the vehicle. Only if you want your units to take the missiles "for a walk" they have to acquire them.
-
I have a question to all testers: how difficult would you rate this scenario on a scale from 1 to 10 where 10 is very difficult? Thanks!
-
On a related note, has anyone been able to confirm that the silencers on MK21 PSRs (as seen in game) are actually functional?
I dont know it for sure, but i trust in Battlefronts habit to model weapon systems as accurately as possible. If the silencer is not functional, it is probably a bug.
-
Im particularly thinking US snipers here. There are 3 calibers for the standard rifle. What difference if any do the calibers make in game turns? Other than only having 100 rounds , the 7.62 guys can at least replenish off other troops.
As for the 50 cal Barret. hows it modeled in game? is it worth shooting at tanks to destroy sensors? How good is it vs infantry? So pros and cons anyone?
The .50 cal rifle:
In my experience the .50 cal is very effective against personell targets at ranges up to 700-800 meters. I havent used it at longer ranges, but at that range, a crack sniper will only need a few shots to eliminate an entire infantry squad. The squad on the receiving end will most likely not be able to even spot shooter. I havent tested it vs. armored vehicles, but i suspect it' s AP capabilities are compareable to those of the M2 HMG. I dont recommend shoot it at tanks though. Most likely the tank will spot your sniper muzzle flash and kill him before the sniper can do any significant damage. .50 cal is just the wrong calibre to succesfully engage MBTs.
The 7,62 rifle:
Effective vs. infantry at ranges up to 500m. Snipers in CMBS can probably engage targets at longer ranges with the 7,62, but i havent observed it yet.
The 5,56 rifle:
I cant remember how effective this rifle was in my games. Probably though the 5,56 sniper rifle is not much more than an M16 with a bipod and a scope, so i' d say it' s effective range is somwhere between 300-400 meteres, depending on the skill of the shooter.
The best thing you can do, silent one, is to go to the scenario editor and make a little shooting range. This will get you the most accurate results on how effective the different sniper rifle in CMBS are.
-
A little time has passed - do they pass missiles down the chain. Well actually they do. Pretty cool!
Great job IanL! And really cool findings. This could be more tactically relevant than it looks at first. If this works with all troops capable of sharing ammo, this works with ATGMs too! Which means you could for example also setup a line of Javelin launchers directly connected to an ammo source.
-
I am not sure what you are talking about? Do you mean this:
-
The recon phase I didn't really like at all - it is too much time with too little going on to too little effect. Like other testers, I didn’t see much at all – maybe two BMPs and the observer team. Bearing in mind the size of the map and the need to capture four objectives in a total of two hours - I'd rather have everything from the get go.
It' s a pity the recon phase didnt work well for most testers. I liked the concept, but i setteled with an intermediate solution. See my last comment on grunt_gis and sburkes reviews.
The sequencing I think needs a bit of work as well. Blue's combat power does not arrive until 30 minutes into the scenario. Red's reserves arrive over the 40 minute to 45 minute timeframe. In my playthrough I had just got my snipers into positions where they were starting to see useful things at around the 30 minute point and was cueing offensive support onto those targets. At this point I'm thinking that there are quite a lot of BMP's out there and I know that I need to make sure that I've taken a few of those down before I start crossing the runway in any strength. So I keep engaging with offensive support and Javelins and all of these tanks and BMPs start rocking up. Given that the AAV's will be dead meat, I can't move them until I've sorted out the tanks and BMPs and so I standoff and basically plink tanks and BMPs using my artillery, Javelins and attack helicopters. This is a slow business which basically leaves me with about an hour to get on with clearing and securing four objectives.
Your options boil down to what you think the mission should be, or the sort of challenge you want to give the Blue player, however given your comments on the thread, your intent is to have the Syrian armoured force turn up while the Blue player is embroiled in the fight for the terrain objectives.
So the detail of that is, do a variation on the Recon phase by having the snipers further forward having 'gathered' some information which is conveyed in the briefing - something along the lines of 'Scout Sniper Platoon has been in overwatch of the Area of Operations and has identified a probable Mechanized Infantry Company with probable Platoon groupings as marked on the map. Sequence the arrival of the Blue main body a bit earlier - say after 15 minutes or my preference which is from the get go (the advantage of this is that you don’t have to change the Red reinforcement arrival time). Somewhere in the enemy part of the briefing you mention the arrival of the main body at the 40-45 minute point.
I implemented most of the things you mentioned in this paragraph or some varation of them.
You can be specific here – in reality Blue force ISR capabilities would track this reserve so it is not unrealistic to say something along the lines of 'Intel is tracking a Coy(+) armoured/mechanized grouping which is heading to reinforce Latakia Airport from the NW - current assessed arrival time is 0610-0615 hrs. The direction of arrival of this reserve is important information to convey to the player because it will frame their planning.
Thanks for the tip. I wasnt aware that Blue ISR capabilities are that good. This also solves the problem of keeping the player from accidentially maneuvering his units to the spawn positions of the Red reinforcements.
I think you ought to change the start position for the Blue Tank Platoon (-) and the Engineer Platoon (-). While it may not be in direct LOS of an enemy, it is pretty much impossible to move more than about 20m where observers and ATGM teams can bring fire down – from memory there are at least two ATGM teams in a position to fire straight down the throats of the tanks as soon as they move from their start point. Personally I would have everything arrive in the one place. The preferred option being where the majority of AAVs and the Infantry Platoons are set up. The area is out of LOS and it allows for a bit of sorting out and manoeuvre.
#done
While I have no issue with the VPs, I think you could possibly tweak the execution of them a bit. As an example the ‘Preserve’ objective covers a lot of ground, I think you can break this up into smaller chunks – as things stand you have four occupy objectives for Blue leaving four slots free. I would use the remaining four slots for your preserve objectives allocating one to the Hangar, One to the Radar Tower, One for the main building complex etc, and divvy the points out amongst them to add up to your 1000 VP total. By leaving it as it is I think you’ll find it pretty hard to cause enough damage to lose the points because of the size and dispersion of that objective.
Good idea. I havent tested yet how the preserve objectives translate to victory points. It simply never occured to me during my tests to intentionally order an artillery barrage on a building that i am supposed to capture intact
, that' s bit counterintuitive.You could also consider approaching your casualties objective differently. Currently this sits within parameters which is fine but it is a bit binary. For Blue for instance you make the AAVs and Abrams Red unit ‘destroy’ objectives with a suitable VP allocation, particularly as you make reference to this in your briefing.
I had that planned already. The version you played had in general just a quick and dirty VP allocation. The current version has specific destroy objective for high value units.
Ahhh, the ol' CAAT team...yes that might do the trick. Looking forward to trying this again.
Yeah, the CAAT is fun to play with. Those awkward moments when you see the TOW flying towards the T-72 and pray that the tank doesnt spot the Humvee...
Anyways, the new version is ready to be tested. I ll send it to you via PM ASAP.
"Without damaging any of the infrastructure"
I don't think I'm psychologically capable of that...
That' s the challenge of that scenario. Blowing everything up with arty is easy.
...but I could give this scenario a try.
Great! I will send you a PM soon.
-
Timetravel! ....aaaaaand we are in the 60s.
-
Realistically I think people are not drawn to this unless somebody from BFC shows or there is the unveiling of a new module or family or whatever.
The biggest problem for many is probably that you live sooooo far away. I simply cant afford a trip to the US this summer. But the event does sound tempting, i mean, let' s see what you have to offer: Texas BBQ, shooting semis in your backyard, rodeo (altough wasnt serious about that
), meeting some fellow CM fans and PBEM buddies...is there anything more you need for a good weekend? -
That was so horrible it could've actually been from the 80's. I love the dude's fake tan and the goofy looks into the camera.
Mord.
I can top Reiters post in terms of terribleness. Be careful though, you can't un-see (or in this case: un-hear) some things...
-
Maybe not, but none of the songs you are posting are from the 80s. Are you an anti 80-ist??!
He' s the OP and we hijacked his thread
.Here' s another off-topic song. It' s from 1970:
...and a german pop song from the 21st century:
-
One more
I am not sure if this song want to show the absurdity of the 3rd Reich or if it wants to glorify it.
.
After a quick search of the web I can see that I probably am not missing anything important:
), meeting some fellow CM fans and PBEM buddies...is there anything more you need for a good weekend?
Why do I need LOS to an area which I want helos to scout?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Or worse, we' ll drop him in Peng Thread.