agusto

CMBN cant hide its heritage it seems .

At first i thought it was another one of those "buddy aid" screenshots but luckily they are just doing sports...

T-34s vs. Tiger Is is still a better match than T-55s vs M1A2 Arbrams tanks, as we had it in CMSF .

I ve never had problems taking eneemy positions with the current command set as well. I always use overwhelming, excessive surpressive fire, wich is the key for a good assault on an ememy position in my opinion. The assault element should really just have to walk in and kill the cowering enemys. Interstingly i am using QUICK almost all the time, i guess at least 90% of the commands I issue are QUICK.

Dismounting multiple vehicles simultaniously is done by using waypoints & pause combinations. Pause the game, draw a couple of waypoints for the vehicles you wish to dismount, then select each vehicles last waypoint and click "Dismount". When you un-pause the game again, the vehicles will move to through their designated waypoints and the infantry will dismount as soon as their transports have reached their final waypoints. You can coordinate the timing of the whole procedure by adding pauses to the waypoints.

IMO the Humvees, while certainly lacking armour, are quite effective at supporting their dismounted infantry from the distance. They are/can be armed with .50 HMGs or MK19 automatic grenade launchers, wich are both very effetcive long range weapons vs. soft targets. They are also capable of effectively engaging targets inside buildings. Alternatively they can be armed with TOW ATGMs, turning the Humvee into an effective mobile AT platform.

I would like to see all the cool editor features of the 3.0 engine (AI triggers, using real maps as background images in the editor, etc).

Me too. I tried to make a scenario based on Desert Storm some time ago, and although i never finished it because testing showed playability was poor (M1 tanks battling T-72s in wide, open deserts, not much of a challange for the US player), i definately would have enjoyed having some cold war vehicles. Especially the Javelins, wich didnt exist yet during Desert Storm, gave the american infantry supporting the tanks a significant and unrealistic advantage.

The past has shown that battlefront preferably adds factions in modules that allow for at least partially recycling of already existing content. For example the only faction in CMSF + modules that doesnt share any of its equipment with at least one of the other factions are the British - the rest all have at least some common equipment. The same is true for the Polish faction and the SS in CMBN - both share large quantities of equipment with forces that were already part of the base game.

So politics must be when you meet some (male) friends at the local bar, drink some beers and discuss weather or not a date with Mary Jane Rotten Crotch is worth it at all.

IIRC the maximum is 3 hours fixed + 1 hour variable time, so the total maximum would be 4 hours.

Hmm, thanks for posting that. Steam and Iron really looks quite promising, i think i might get it. The Harpoon series are quite good. Another game that looks VERY interesting to me but that i havent tested myself yet is Command: Modern Naval and Air Combat. Dont know if you have already heard of it, it is quite new.

Grigsbys War in the East, maybe? I havent played it much but i think the smalles units you can move around are at the companys/battalion level.

I guess the binoculars remain with the squad leader, wich makes sense since theys are part of his personal gear.

Lets turn it around, doesnt it happen very often that people propose exactely what gives an immidiate personal gain? In my experience this happens often enough to justify questioning your motives. But lets forget this.

I have an idea how to quantify the accuracy of CMRTs model of dive bomber attacks in a way so it can be compared with real life statistics. Lets say we know that statistically a real dive bomber of a certain type could put X% of its munitions within an certain circle with a diameter of Y meters. Why not recreate the target circles we have seen in the pilot training videos in CM? We know an action spot is 8x8 meters in size, an that is all we need to know in order to statistically quantify the accuracy of CMRTs dive bombers. Build a map with nothing on it but a 40m (5 actions spots) radius circle marked by a texture of a type, put single hard target for the bombers in the center of the circle and let them attack it. After the attack, make a screenshot of the map from exactely above the center of the circle and mark the centers of the craters and draw line through the centers of the action spots that mark the circle. If it is a circle with a radius of 5 actions spots, the radius of the line you have just drawn will be 36 meters. Now you know how many planes scored how many hits inside the 36 meters radius circle and how far they were away from the intended target. Run the test a couple of hundered times you have a statistic that you can compare to statistics about how dive bombers performed IRL.

kulik, do you own CMSF?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4S08VnDWE4 almost as good as watching war reports from Syria.

Defensive fire, weather conditions, the target doing evasive maneuvers...attacking a stationary, undefended carrier during good weather would certainly significantly increase the hit ratio. So lets assume 1 hit per 5 bombs dropped vs an aircraft carrier would be a good ratio and hitting a tank would be 25 times harder. This would mean that for each tank killed in a dive bombing attack at least 125 bombs would have to be dropped. Ulrich Rudel is claimed to have destroyed 519 tanks. Lets assume he destroyed all of them during dive bombing attacks (wich we know he didnt, but for now, lets assume it anyways). This would mean that he dropped at least 64,875 bombs between 1939 and '45 or at least ~30 bombs per day, assuming he was in the air during every single day of the war flying attack missions. During the war, Rudel flew 2,530 combat missions. Given the 519 tanks he destroyed, he must have dropped at least 25 bombs per mission just to get all the tanks killed. If Rudel destroyed only half of his accliamed kills during dive bombing attacks, this would require him to have dropped at least 12,5 bombs during each mission, much more than any single seated german dive bomber could carry at once.

1:30 - 1:36 close miss on a target moving in a straight line 2:35 - 2:41 obvious miss on a target taking evasive maneuvers 21:33 - 21:43 obvious miss on a target taking evasive maneuvers If i counted correctly, the video in total shows 4 attacks on moving ship targets, 3 of wich are misses. All attacks on stationary targets where at least within the designated target area. The video explicitly states several reason for why dive bombing accuracy may vary under combat circumstances and for why dive bombing can be very, very accurate under ideal circumstances. 1) Weather. The video states that wind may decrease the accuracy of dive bombing to the point where it becomes practically impossible to hit anywhere near the target. However under ideal circumstances (no significant wind), the pilot will not have to take deflection due to wind into account at all. 2) Target movement. If the target is stationary, the pilot will not have to estimate the targets movement speed and adjust his aim accordingly, wich makes hitting the target much lmore ikely. If the target is not only moving but actively taking evasive maneuvers, this will further complicate the task. So from the video we can tell that ideal circumstance are circumstances under wich there is no significant wind and the target is stationary and that under those circumstances, an experienced pilot is very likely to hit his intended target (the circle show in the video).

What is wrong a training film? The ideal circumstances under wich training is conducted? They pretty much match the almost ideal circumstances under wich Lucas' test was conducted.

As i said, Il2 is just another simulation and doesnt represent reality. It tries to recreate it, but how accurate the results match the real thing depends on the quality of the simulation. I think though that as a combat sim it is much more accurate than ArmA. EDIT: Here is a video of US dive bombers training vs. a stationary target. They are very accurate. 3:00 - 3:10 shows an alomst perfect hit on the target. That is my definition of easy, JonS.

I havent read most of the thread (except the first 4 and this page), but i have to agree with all those saying that Lucs' initial test results are with the range of possibility. I have always loved combat flight simulations like the WW2 sim IL-2 Shturmovik (of wich i of course know that it is not the real thing but just another simulation), and attacking a stationary colum of 4 tanks with iron bombs would be easy after some training. It is a whole different story if they are moving or even taking evasive maneuvers, but if they are stationary, they are easy to hit. Another story is spotting them: visually spotting tank-sized targets from the air is very difficult, if they are well conceald, almost impossible.

Yes. Along with all modules.

I was willing to spend money on the CMSF base game in 2012 although it had already been ~5 years since its initial release by then.