Jump to content

Vet 0369

Members
  • Content Count

    617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Vet 0369

  1. You know, I've noticed that there seems to be a tiny cadre of the same folks posting these types of complaints. Kinda makes you wonder
  2. LOL! Good grief that was a long time ago! Why I think WBZ still played music then!
  3. I like campaigns. I use them to learn the capabilities of the different Red and Blue forces. In CMBS, I've played the US campaign and I'm on the last mission of the Russian campaign. The Ukraine campaign will be next. I play H2H with a friend, and we'll generally alternate Red and Blue sides. Playing the campaign allows me to learn the capabilities and weaknesses of each force. Also, most campaigns can be replayed. The pathing to the next mission can change based on the victory or a decision the user makes. Plus, the campaigns tend to start with a "relatively easy" mission, and become progress
  4. If I remember correctly, all of the campaigns use the concept of "core units" where's specific selection is identified as "core" throughout the game. When you suffer casualties or vehicle losses, the casualties or losses carryover through the campaign. Some times even ammo resupply is limited. Resupply is determined by the campaign designer. Most times, the designer doesn't identify the core units, and might even leave them out of a subsequent mission so the player can't identify the core and use other units as cannon fodder to preserve their core units.
  5. Yes, you're right of course. However, the premise still stands, even in a campaign. In real life, you don't get replacements right away. It can take days or sometimes weeks to bring a unit back up to full strength. In our modern forces, there is no "Repo Depot" waiting to send in new replacements. If a unit is reduced to below combat effective, the entire unit is usually rotated out. Units train together, and while individual Marines or Soldiers might be replaced piecemeal, I don't believe vehicles are. Of course, my experience and knowledge is from an earlier era, and things might have change
  6. I for one have never heard of that. I don't remember it being part of the U.S. Uniform Code of Justice (UCMJ) and since a "treasonable" offense, it would be a capital crime, so it would have to be in the UCMJ. If could have been the "Rocky Road" which was the Rmy Handbook that preceded the UCMJ though. I can honestly say that if I was in a mixed unit of soldiers or Marines of different nationalities, I would be sharing ammo or weapons with them.
  7. Aw, come on, the Army has always shared their equipment with the Marines. On Guadalcanal, the Marines landed with M1903 bolt action rifles. Shortly after the Army landed with the M1 semiautomatic rifles, most of the Marines had M1 semiautomic rifles. When the Marines withdrew from the Chosin Reservoir, they had Army vehicles and Artillery. Now granted, for the most part, the Army didn't know they had shared their weapons and vehicles with the Marines, but we found them to be very generous.🙂
  8. IIRC, the previous web site had a tab that was simply labeled "Patches." When you accessed if, you saw the base game, followed by the subsequent patches by version number. You clicked on the patch you wanted. In this case, you saw CMSF2 V 2.00. If you clicked on that version, you saw "CMSF2 V 2.0.1 and the updated campaign. Personally, I don't really see how the two numbering systems are so different or difficult to understand without hand holding. Talk about "A Tempest in a Teapot!"
  9. "Immobilized" can be a number of things, not just "stuck." Any component on a vehicle can fail. A tracked vehicle can throw a track, especially if muddy and not cleaned or properly maintained. An axel can break if it has high time on it. An engine can be over-revved, or over-heated and throw a piston. A transmission can fail. Most of those things can take hours to fix, which is beyond the time allotted to the mission.
  10. I ran a couple of tests with my CMSF2 mods installed and uninstalled, closing the the game between tests. There was no appreciable differences. I'm pretty sure that the longer load time for me was the first time I loaded with mods. I use a "Z" folder in the Data folder, so using the "Mods" folder could get different results. Give it a shot if you want to check that folder.
  11. I'll check out the load times next time I fire it up.. It might just be my perception. I'll probably run some tests and time them.
  12. In the USMC, the effective range of a rifle is the range at which ANY Marine can be expected to inflict a casualty on the enemy. The max effective range of the M-14 that I qualified with, was 460m (500 yds). At Parris Island, if you qualified as High Expert, you qualified for sniper school. Keep in mind that qualifying was on a range with known distances, while using a tight sling, and the TARGETS WEREN'T SHOOTING BACK!
  13. The RPG-7D3 was added in the Marines along with the Syrian Airborne. It shouldn't be part of the "Available Forces" selections if you don't have that module. If it's TO&E for Syrian SF in the base game, then that's a different issue. Either way, it shouldn't be there without the Marines module.
  14. I don't know if this applies to you, but I've noticed that the more mods I have installed, the longer it takes the game to start up or save.
  15. The U.K. Have AA assets. The issue is that those assets aren't in CMSF2. Stingers aren't one of the U.K. real life, so they were removed from CMSF2. It's as simple as that.
  16. I just checked the Semper Fi; Syria campaign, dated 12/23/18, and it still shows the M320 graphic, and when you mouse over the Scout weapons in the UI, it says M4/M320. I downloaded that campaign from the "Patches" tab on the BFC Web Site. it is dated as I said above, 12/23/18. Is that the one that's supposed to have been updated? Referencing the above request from @Cambronne, is it possible the Semper Fi; Syria campaign is the wrong one?
  17. True, but in CMSF1, there wasn't any air support available either in pre made scenarios or in QB. I guess the decision would be "Do we add the actual British AA capabilities, and if necessary those for NATO forces, or do remove the Red air support?" I know which I would choose.
  18. Yeah, too bad the Naval guns aren't in. The 5-inch Destroyer guns are equivalent to 127mm vs the 155 mm, but the 5-inch guns don't use Excalibur rounds in this time frame, and have a "boat-load" more rounds (pun intended).
  19. Thank you Steve for that info! It makes sense for the Force Recon Scouts to carry the M4 since they shouldn't be engaging anyway unless absolutely necessary! I'm not surprised that the Corps was considering M4s. Military always train to fight the LAST war, and that was MOUT in Iraq where the shorter barrel of the M4 was more effective in building entry. It would be cool if the actual U.S. Forces used a "kit" system like Great Britain so we could equip our infantry with what they need based on the anticipated mission.
  20. Has the M320 grenade launcher been removed from the TO&E? The M320 went into production in November 2008, and was issued to the U.S. Army in July 2009. However, they weren't issued to the U.S.M.C. until June 2013, yet there are Marine scenarios, based in 2008 that have the M320 instead of the M203. The max effective range for the M320 is 150 (point) to 350 (area). The effective ranges for the M203 is the same. So there is no effect from deleting the M320 except visually and realistically.
  21. Is it possible that the BMP-3 and RPG-29 are buried deep in some obscure formation? The BMP-3 has been in service since 1987, and Hezbolla uses the RPG-29 even if Syria didn't. Perhaps Syria never had any BMP-3s. I haven't looked at the TO&E since the patch, but it seems really odd if those assets have been removed while retaining the M-320 40mm grenade launcher since the M-320 wasn't in production until November 2008, and wasn't issued to the Marines until 2013. Yet in some of the Marine scenarios, Marines are using weapons that won't be issued to them for five years after the stated
  22. Sorry, my bad. I didn't remember having those options with precision.
  23. The Precision selection uses only the Excalibur. If the round was an "Armor" round, you didn't select "Precision." The Precision" selection, whether it's for the 155mm or the 120mm mortar, is guided, and you don't have the ability to select "Personnel," "General," or "Armor."
  24. Ok, so you aren't talking about the Excaliber round. That's fired only when choosing "Precision" fire. "Personnel, Armor, and General," are not precision guided rounds. So is what you are really asking about is the relative ability of a "General" or "Armor" shot to kill a tank IF it happens to hit the tank? I usually use three guns (if possible) to fire a precision Excalibur round each to kill a stationary tank, and even then, I've had all three miss and crater the ground a meter or two in front of, in back of, and beside the tank. I imagine the odor in the tank was pretty unpleasant, but no
×
×
  • Create New...