agusto

Yeah, i do it that way too. And the fact that i have to do it this way is exactely the reason why you wont find more than a few flavour objects in my scenarios. On a side note, i have found that slight terrain elevations + rocky textures make for excellent rubble piles - much better than the flavour objects IMO. I always use such texture + elevation rubble piles for destroyed cities, buildings etc, when one side of a bulding ids shot out and you have a big pile of bricks and trash in front of it.

I was joking. Along the lines of 'pointy is scary, round is not':

Great idea.

I get an error when clicking the link: "The page you were looking for doesn't exist. You may have mistyped the address or the page may have moved."

Many US vehicles dont have suffeciently martial names IMO. They should have called the M1A2 'Armored Knight', ther M109 'Steel Rain' and the M2A3 something like 'Horse of the Horsemen of Apocalypse' (although that is a bit long). I mean why shoud the enemy be afraid of a tank called 'Abrams'? Just because it has a huge gun that can kill everything it sees and is almost impossiblke to destroy? A vehicles name should reflect its deadliness.

I have never understood why there is no flavour objects chart in the game manual. Unless they have changed way the placement of flavour objects works in CMBS, the current solution is at best suboptimal. Basically each time you make a scenario you either have to make your own chart or guess which objects you want when you place them in the editor (what is rubble type three? the one with the bricks or the one with the planks? I dont know!) A visual representation of flavour objects in the 2D editor view would also be a nice addendum. Anyways ww2steel thanks for your work, i am sure many will appreciate it.

My favorite is the T-90AM. It is reasonably cheap in QBs but still packs enough punch to deal with anything the Ukrainians have and, if used correctly, can even kill the M1A2. I rarely play a QB as Russians without buying a at least one platoon of T-90AMs. The Tunguska is cool, but it lacks the firepower to deal with heavier targets IMO. It is great though for shooting up infantry in buildings and lightly armoured vehicles.

The M1A2 is a monster. You beat it and beat it and beat it and it still goes on killing your dudes as if nothing had happened. Also very nice hit decals btw - those arent stock, arent they?

Haha...when you think you have watched all 726 episodes that exist of all the different versions of Star Trek (and i have, really!), someone just has to make a new one. Thanks for sharing, i will add this to my favorites and watch it when i have time. I watched the first 3 minutes of the first episode and it really looks like they caught the 60s Sci-Fi atmosphere quite well.

It may not be from Ukraine, but it is still some very intense footage: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6f3_1427473599 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b36_1427396322 You rarely find POV videos where you can actually see the guys shooting at each other.

Back to the desert! I still play CMSF because of its capability to simulate currently ongoing conflicts in the middle east. Or maybe something completely different, i think could get into Halo mod if it is well done.

I have Win 7 64 bit and every CM games works fine for me - i have never had any Windows related problems. I suspect that one of the following may cause your problems: a) your drivers are out of date or are not installed. your windows is not up to date. c) you did not install the patches and modules in the correct order. It is a bit complicated, but AFAIK you must follow it to the letter to get everything to work. d) your antivirus is causing a conflict - CMSF is known for beeing falsely recognized as threat by several anti virus programs. Try deactivating your AV-software. EDIT: Go to Control Panel->Adminstrative Tools->Event Viewer->Windows-Protocols->Applications and Control Panel->Adminstrative Tools->Event Viewer->Windows-Protocols->System and check for error messages that involve the Shock Force exe. There must be an accurate error message in the Event Viewer and once you have found it, you can fix it.

It is probably meaningful to connect the attribute "destroyed" with the level at which the units is supposed to be operating. If all men but one company of a division are physically destroyed, the division will not be be functioning within reasonable parameters on an operational scale, even if the last company is still capeable to operate on a tactical level. The rule is that units are getting destroyed top-down: strategic, operational, tactical, in that order. An army coprs might be destroyed on a strategic scale by physically destroying all of its comm equipment and killing the corps-level staff personnel, but its subordinate subunits may still be funtioning on the operational and tactical levels. But, on the other hand, if all of the army corps subordinate divisions are destroyed and only the corps-level staff survives, the corps may still be considered destroyed, hence the top-down rule. Thiose are, however, extreme examples. In reality units usually experience a mixed form of destruction, so determining at which level they are still able to operate is a more complex matter.

Brutal. Makes me think of this song: Gory, gory what a hell of a way to die! EDIT: also great shots Wiggum15.

Yeah. BTW have you noticed how troops in CMBS seem to be much more resistant against artillery than in normandy and CMSF? I ve seen men in CMBS walk away from shells airbursting over their heads walk away from it, something that almost never happened in in the other games. Must be the body armor that keeps them safe from the shrapnel.

That is interesting and i think, with some modding of the US Armys uniforms and faces, probably even feasible. According to Wikipedia the Saudi Army uses mostly US gear, inculding M1 MBTs, Bradley IFVs, M4 Assault Rifles, Javelins, HMMVVs etc. Can you get us a saudi TO&E, John? I dont know if it would be reaslitic to have saudi squads eqipped with M4s, but maybe we could swap the models for some of CMSFs AK-74 models. Saudi equipment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabian_Army#Small_Weapon

Yeah thanks for sharing.

Bombs, even laser or GPS guided bombs, are prone to ballistic flight paths which are a basically a function of speed, mass, altitude, air resistance and gravity, which forces the pilot to follow certain flight patterns to hit a target. Missiles are launched in the direction the aircraft flies and are often guided by the aircrafts forward looking sensor systems until they strike the target, so you cant just fire and turn away. Launching at stand-off range and then turning around before the enemy can fire back is simply not always an option.

Ok, i wasnt aware that micro UAVs can be shot down, i just hasnt happened to me yet. Still i disagree with you on the 3 other points you brought forward in your last post. Firstly, i do not think that this is a diversion from the topic. You suggested that aircraft should stay in the engagement area for prolonged periods of time or should loiter over the battlefield, waiting for someone to call an airstrike, and i am argueing why i do not think that this would be particularily feasable. IMO that is perfectly on topic. Secondly, to answear your question where the MiGs and S-300s are, let me quote page 14 of the CMBS manual: "Note: Cursory research will show that many of the fixed wing aircraft and UAVs present in Black Sea are easily capable of exceeding the maximum engagement altitude for the AA platforms currently present in the game, being able to essentially fly above their maximum range. For our simulation purposes we have assumed that the airspace is hotly contested on the frontlines, with the constant threat of fighter aircraft combat patrols and long range / high altitude SAM systems making high altitude attacks on ground targets an untenable proposition. Aircraft in Black Sea are assumed to be operating at lower altitudes in order to avoid the above mentioned threats, thus bringing them within range of the AA systems in the game. However, aircraft are only vulnerable to AA fire at certain moments in their mission when they are closest to the battlefield, typically just before and after attacking a target." Thridly, regarding the Reaper, it does not necessarily fly at high altitudes, for the same reason as jets and helicopters in CMBS dont do that, it just flies at the maximum distance to the target its sensors allow - which is horizontal and not vertical.

Actually in cant see why the Reaper beeing invulnerable to MANPADS and AAA contradicts the presence of MiGs or S-300s. But the inability to shoot down some drones is a problem. I think though the invulnerability of certain drones is rather a bug than intended. For example the russian Zala-T drone (the small, hand launched one) cant be shot down either, neither by AAA nor rifle fire.

But doing that was only an option because the Iraqis mid to long range air defence had already been surpressed. Air defence sites were among the first targets coalition aircraft attacked during the war. In fact Supression of Enemy Air Defense had already been a goal of coalition aircraft even before the war offically started. Wikipedia quotes a NewStatesman article saying: "In September, the amount of ordnance used in the southern no-fly zone increased sharply to 54.6 tonnes. It declined in October to 17.7 tonnes before rising again to 33.6 tonnes in November and 53.2 tonnes in December. The spikes were getting taller and taller." "In the early hours of 5 September [2002], for example, more than a hundred allied aircraft attacked the H-3 airfield, the main air defence site in western Iraq. Located at the furthest extreme of the southern no-fly zone, far away from the areas that needed to be patrolled to prevent attacks on the Shias, it was destroyed not because it was a threat to the patrols, but to allow allied special forces operating from Jordan to enter Iraq undetected." http://www.newstatesman.com/node/150737 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion I hope this source is not to Kettlarian, but usually Wikipedia isnt too bad in this regard. The premise for CMBS is though that neither side has clear air superiority, so we can assume that there are russian MiGs patroling the skies over eastern Ukraine and that there are S-300 sites or similar capable weapon systems all over the place.

I can only speak from my experience as virtual pilot (i have been a fan of all sorts of combat flight sims since i was in my early teens), but loitering over the target area to wait for targets to pop up is usually only an options if the AA threat is litterally non-existent. Circling over for example a city for 30 minutes and observing the area is something that can be done in Afgahnistan, where most of the times the insurgents dont have anything better than 50 year old DShKs to engage aircraft, but in a high threat environment where every (russian) mech infantry platoon has at least 1 MANPAD and there is a chance of more MANPADs or AA vehicles beeing in the area, no pilot in his right mind would stay in the area longer than absolutely necessary. The typical time for an egagement cycle in such an environment would usually be less than 3-4 minutes, and that is already dangerously long. Ideally you remain hidden until some one on the ground like a JTAC assigns you a target, then you make one pass to ID the target, followed by a second one to engage it, and then you leave the area as fast and as low as you can. When the Radar Warning Receiver starts beeping frantically, you see the smoke trail of a heat seaking missile rising from the groud or "coulds" of tracers hurtling towards you, it' s already too late to run away and you are in serious trouble because there is a good chance of something nasty ending up in your cockpit within the next few of seconds. So i disagree with Apocals suggestions number 1) and 2). I cant maken a statement on number 3) because i dont know enough about the workload a single JTAC team can handle, but i tend to agree with number 4). EDIT: @Slim: the longer you stay in the area, the likelier beeing targetted and fired upon becomes. The pilots have something better to do than loitering overhead, namely staying alive. When you are in an aircraft and you make a pass over the battlefield, everyone is almost immedeatly going to be aware of your presence. The noise of the engines can be heard from kilometeres away and from the ground your plane will appear as dark spot on the otherwise bright sky. You cant really remain hidden from the enemy unless something obstructs LOS. EDIT2: This is slightly Off-Topic but IMO still interesting with regard to what CAS looks like from the gound: Video 1: Taliban vs AH-1 Cobra helicopter - the Talibans perspective! Video2: AH-64 Apache hunting Taliban - again, from the Talibans perspective. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=40f_1370959875

Looks like a baby Panther. If you feed it lots of russians and americans, it will maybe grow into a real Panther tank.

The free version of the newer versions of FRAPS only records 30 second long videos though. You will either have to look for an old version, buy the full ersion of the latest version of FRAPS, or illigally obtain an activaion key or crack or a pre-activated version by whatever means that seem feasible to you. FRAPS full costs 29 EUR or 37 USD. You can obtain cracked versions and license keys via bittorrent, but if you use FRAPS a lot, i recommend buying in to support the developers. Personally i use the free version because i never record videos longer than 30 secs anyways, i mostly use it for screenshots because the native screenshot function of Windows (print key) does not seem to work with some games.

Really cool. I will certainly follow this one closely.