MOS:96B2P
-
Posts
4,589 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
92
Posts posted by MOS:96B2P
-
-
3 hours ago, Centurian52 said:
AR has been on a roll with helpful Combat Mission tips videos. His latest one is one bogging, so I think a link to it belongs in this thread.
+ 1 Interesting stuff. If I understood correctly speed had no impact on bogging. I think this is what he meant when he said, orders had no impact? I wish he had spent more time on the speed issue since the forum often debates speed vs bogging / immobilization. IMO speed, in the game, does not effect bogging /immobilization but I'm not sure he went into enough detail to conclusively end that debate.
In game bogging / immobilization probably means more than just getting stuck. It may also mean mechanical issues, running out of fuel, etc. Instead of the UI reading Bogged and Immobilized it might be better if it read something like Broke / Stuck and then sometimes transitioning to Out of Action instead of Immobilized. This change in wording might be more accurate and make more sense more often.
So when the player's tank becomes broke / stuck on grass terrain in clear weather with very dry conditions it could be assumed it threw a track or something mechanical. If BFC ever made an animation for the track coming off this would be even better .............
-
These ISW guys are usually spot on.
-
14 hours ago, sburke said:
is it posted on scenario depot, or did you get an advanced copy? Some people get all the fun toys!
Its in the first post of the below topic.
Very cool map, especially with the mods.
-
-
I placed a few units on part of dragonwynn's very cool Fallujah map and then took some screenshots. This map has tons of potential.
-
2 hours ago, Beleg85 said:
Btw.:
2 hours ago, FancyCat said:I went and looked up some of the place names of the location, they all resemble government offices of quite mundane nature.
I would not read to much into a police / military type building being located close to the scene of the attack. If it was a police / military building that had a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) standing by that would matter. Then it might be interesting to speculate about said QRFs response or lack of response.
However many police / military type buildings serve as administrative, logistic, training and communication centers. Maybe even interrogation and lock-up facilities. Depending on the type of building (even one associated with "SOF") and the time of night it is very possible there were only a few people present or maybe just a night janitor.
Of course if we learn the building was the staging area for a QRF assigned to this civilian event then the building has some relevance. Very possible this building, at this time of night, did not contain first responders and played no role at all.
-
On 1/26/2024 at 10:32 AM, LukaFromFallujah said:
Map looks very good, suggestions that i would give you is to do more micro terrain, small elevations and ditches, put some trash as flavor objects maybe, Fallujah had alot of those, and maybe some more texture variation on some houses, but that's optional.
I tried to send you a pm but it said you are unable to receive. Of course maybe I did something wrong. I'll get the requested mod to you somehow. We will get it figured out.
I'll stay OT by saying the very first Chiraq scenario is set on this Fallujah map.
-
3 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:
I read somewhere that Ukrainian males aged between 18 and 26 can't be mobilized / aren't draftable or something although they can choose to enlist if they want to. I've also read / heard that the average age of a Ukrainian soldier is something like 44 years old - which is nuts. You can't even enlist in the US army if you are older than 35. If true, it sure seems like the individuals that you want most are the ones that can't be had
I've seen videos from inside un-occupied Ukraine where war damage etc. is being shown and discussed. In the background of some of the videos are what I thought were military aged males (18-20 something) in civilian clothing looking on or seemingly going about their day. On a few occasions it struck me as so odd I commented to the wife that they must be on leave from the front or have some type of medical condition that keeps them from fighting for their country.
A well trained, discipled, equipped and motivated 18-26 year old is very effective. With proper leadership they are extremely effective. I question the wisdom of with holding this resource from Ukrainian combat units.
1 hour ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:The reason is crystal clear. 44 year olds do not have many children, usually. The Ukraine has dire demographic situation and does not want to be in the position, that it survives the war but has nobody to replace the population gap. To put it crudely, it protects the breeders.
I suspect many in the West are not aware of this situation. I wonder if this is the official reason given inside of Ukraine when Ukrainians discuss the war.
So Jodi gets to stay at home and breed while Joe is in a trench dodging drones and glide bombs ......... We had marching / running cadence about similar situations.
-
19 hours ago, Probus said:
What is the best way to use a 2IC section tactically? Should they be used as security for your Company Commander or as a commander for moral purposes.
For that matter, does a company commander increase the moral of the company when they are nearby? How nearby should a leader be for the effects to be felt?
Over the years I've used the 2IC (XO team) most of the ways benpark described above and sometimes still do.
After reading AARs on how units fight at the US NTC I have attempted to modify my use of the XO team somewhat. I set up a Tactical Operations Center (TOC) staffed by the battalion XO. Other XOs, especially from different battalions, and liaisons from attached units that are not in the vertical chain of command are also placed in this TOC. In game mechanics this facilitates the horizontal sharing of information between units. Also, If I have multiple FOs, I may place one at the TOC to handle fires on TRPs (artillery liaison). The CO is generally with the Forward Command Post attempting to influence the battle at a decisive point and keeping subordinate units in C2.
Various house rules can also be used to make game play more realistic. So having a company and/or a battalion commander in voice C2 of a platoon fighting a decisive/critical action has a positive effect. This also motivates the player to bring the Bn. CO forward, as in most real life circumstances, and not hide him in the setup zone. Of course this also risks the company and/or a battalion commander getting KIA which will negatively effect the actual game mechanics in addition to the house rules.
Lots of interesting tactical situations can be experimented with using the C2 system, scenario editor and house rules.
-
2 hours ago, dragonwynn said:
It will be 4160m wide and 2992m deep and it covers a variety of terrain including farm fields, waddies, compounds, villages, highlands and lowlands. There is tons of micro terrain to battle through and the map is for a future campaign.
your forces, based out of a FOB and a OP, are responsible to gaining control of the valley from the Taliban.
If anyone has a preference of whether to have the 82nd or Canadian Forces you can chime in.
+1. Nice looking map so far.
I vote for the 82nd Airborne. However, I have a biased opinion since I was in the 82nd back in the day. I'm sure it will be an interesting campaign, on this map, no matter which BluFor force you use. It might even be possible to have the opening scenario be a "choice" scenario where the player chooses if he wants to use Canadian forces or the US 82ND Airborne. I did something similiar with the CMRT mini-campaign Alarmeinheiten. The AI plans are the same (which is most of the work) only the forces the player decides to bring to the fight are different. Below is a link. The first "choice" scenario is pretty straight forward and simple. The ability to compare and contrast the challenges of the mission with different TOE is interesting IMO. Just a thought if you can't decide.
-
On 2/26/2024 at 6:12 AM, Danny03 said:
If I may suggest - you could do a "mini mission" before each of the two final missions where you only move/don't move a truck into a capture area and hit a ceasefire. If the player moves it in he gets a full/partial/whatever you decide Refit level. If the player hits the ceasefire without capturing the objective he continues with his forces as it is.
This is an interesting idea that I have been playing around with in CMCW for an NTC rotation (campaign). This is to add an S4 logistics element that can be evaluated and has real implications in a campaign.
The mechanics of the idea is that there are two supply trucks that are part of the core force. The supply trucks only show up in scenarios where the scenario designer wants the player to have a possibility of refit, repair and resupply (or at least one of these three things). In the chosen scenario(s) the two trucks are on the scenario map (either from the start or as reinforcements). The player must keep these trucks safe and move them to an exit on the OpFor side of the map. The exit is to prevent the player from simply hiding the trucks in the player's setup zone. No other unit needs to exit for the supply system to work. The player has the challenge of preserving his supply trucks while having them follow the combat units across the map.
The next mission is a supply scenario (referred to as a "mini mission" above). If the supply trucks safely made the exit in the previous "battle" scenario they will appear on the supply scenario map. A short distance in front of the supply trucks is an occupy objective worth X amount of VPs. If at least one of the two trucks are present it drives forward to occupy the objective wining the scenario and earning whatever % of whatever Refit and/or Repair and/or Resupply the scenario designer decided was appropriate. If the player has no supply trucks on the map he gets zero or some very low number of the three Rs as determined by the scenario designer.
The player then hits cease fire and starts the next battle scenario with the three R's he earned (or didn't). This rewards the player for thinking about and taking care of his S4 logistics.
I conceptually decided on two supply trucks just in case a player had bad luck and one truck was immobilized from bogging while moving across the battle scenario map. Of course the number of supply trucks can be lowered or raised depending on what a scenario designer thought was best for the campaign.
So many ideas, so little time .......
......
-
10 minutes ago, Probus said:
The Hungarian President resigned! Here comes Sweden into NATO!
Wow! He was pressured to resign after pardoning a child rapist/abuser. Imagine that.
I think the actual leader of Hungary is Viktor Mihály Orbán who is Prime Minister.
-
-
1 hour ago, Artkin said:
Hmm, the map in the link isn't the full version, can you upload it by any chance please?
What you did with the ships is the coolest concept I've ever seen done in these games. Bravo!
The version with the airport is yet another modification of the Coup D'etat map which was modified from the original Ramadi map. It also has a sports stadium
. I can get a copy to you. I'll send you a pm.
-
2 hours ago, Artkin said:
Haha! Awesome idea! Which map is this?
The original map was made by @LongLeftFlank of the Ramadi-Government-Center. I heavily modified it by adding a coastline etc. I used it in the scenario Coup D'etat.
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-shock-force-2-2/cm-shock-force-2-scenarios/coup-detat/
Later I even added part of an airfield for one of several WIP scenarios.
-
20 minutes ago, dragonwynn said:
Because of its size I’m breaking it down in segments from the master map and designing missions from there. It’s semi historical based around the USMC 3-5 and though the map isn’t totally to scale I’ve tried to make it as close to the layout of the Jolan District that I could and still keep it playable.
I think you said in the opening post that the master map was 1376m wide and 1440m deep. It is pretty incredible (and time consuming) to make a detailed urban map of that size. I hope you consider releasing the master map at some point.
-
On 1/31/2024 at 3:39 PM, dragonwynn said:
Ok remade the Fullajah Map Jolan District and here are a few screenshots of it. But hopefully it will be fun to fight through.
+1 This is looking like a very cool urban map. Reminds me of the map @LongLeftFlank made of the Ramadi-Government-Center. Besides just the historical battle that took place many other types of scenarios can also be created on a detailed map like this. Very nice addition for CMSF2.
-
7 hours ago, Simcoe said:
Playing the new Final Blitzkrieg campaigns and the first Canadian scenario has mine clearing Shermans. The mines and mine clearing vehicles adds an exciting element to an otherwise bog standard scenario.
Why hasn't this concept been expanded upon? The Cold War especially, the Soviets invested heavily in mine clearing tanks and NATO invested heavily in mines. Why hasn't Battlefront added mine clearing vehicles to other modules?
+1 In CMCW a simple mine plow for both sides would be a great addition IMO. During the Cold War many of the rotations at the NTC involved obstacle breaching. Obstacles and breaching was a significant element of how units trained and thought they would fight.
-
18 hours ago, Rob2020 said:
Do any of the CM games feature the AAV7?
Yes.
-
24 minutes ago, kohlenklau said:
using whatever tricks are up my sleeve to have CM tanks and guns not be fully ready until a certain PBEM turn...
Maybe having the tanks and guns show up as reinforcements? There could also be a variable in the time they show up (between 10 and 15 minutes). This time variable would add to the replay potential and probably the stress level of the US player.
-
1 hour ago, Aragorn2002 said:
Can someone please tell me where I can find bridges? Is it under flavor objects?
Bridges are in the scenario editor in the left hand column. Just like roads etc. They may be on page two of the map features.
-
3 hours ago, The_Capt said:
You are baiting me, right? “Why they fail” is because this guy has zero idea what he is talking about. Maybe less than zero. As in, people lose knowledge just by watching his video.
Starting with the flail is the first hint. A flail is for admin and rear area clearances. I know some militaries still have them on assault vehicles but everyone in the business agrees they are dumb. On the modern battlefield the flail is suicide anywhere but clearing parking lots for Bde HQ.
Minebots - IED work, not for combat clearing. At least not yet.
Rollers. Ok, these are not designed to work in isolation. In fact it is his entire problem. Minefield clearing is a team sport. This guy is pointing to player positions and trying to figure out which one is best at “playing football”. Plough and rollers are the primary breaching systems. Rollers are designed to 1) detect a minefield, normally through a strike, and 2) prove a minefield after a plough tank has done a breach.
Every plough tank can only clear a safe lane “that every one must follow”. Sorry bald YouTube guy we have yet to invent an area clearance plough. Ploughs are at the center of mechanical breaching. But they are also tricky and terrain dependent. Ploughs and rollers are designed to work together in a team. With their friends, explosive breaching and engineering vehicles.
So opposed minefield breaching is one of the hardest operations to pull off. Right next to amphib on the difficulty scale. You normally have multiple breach lane attempts that use the mechanical and explosive systems. Explosive systems still need to be proven after the breach, normally by rollers. And engineer vehicles for complex obstacles like AT ditches or dragons teeth in the middle of a minefield. Adding more systems ups the complexity a lot requiring a lot of training and skill to pull off in the time windows needed to be successful.
Breaches fail when the breaching teams fail. However that is why multiple breaches are done…we expect half to fail from the outset. Further based on density and cover, one has to scale the number of breaches to try and get a single success. In Ukraine the densities are so high we are likely talking double NATO doctrine: so Cbt Teams are likely shooting for 4 lane attempts instead of 2.
Of course this violates concentration of mass restrictions we are seeing on the modern battlefield. So one either goes small platoon bites and infantry infiltration. Or establish conditions for a major breaching op, and risk most of one’s breaching assets. Establishing those conditions has proven to be the hard part.
Minefield breaching operations as we define them in NATO are failing because the battle space is denied to concentration of mass. RA ISR can even pick up large concentrations of forces and pick out the breaching vehicles. We have not created the defensive bubble to fix that. So minefield breaching is not failing because of individual systems. It is failing because land warfare as we know it is kinda broken right now. Until we either fix it, or figure out a new way to do these things…we are kinda stuck.
+1. Thank you. Very interesting and informative to have a professional rebuttal to that guys presentation. It seemed a bit off and now I know why.
-
This type of situation is often easier to understand / figure out if there are screenshots showing the units involved along with the user interface panel. Sometimes using Alt-Z to show command links will also help.
On 10/20/2023 at 8:13 AM, Myles Keogh said:I also "policed-up" the dead weapons platoon HQ pixeltruppen through buddy-aid. Did also play a part in the break?
I've never seen buddy-aid break C2 and don't think the game mechanics work that way. IMO this can probably be ruled out.
On 10/20/2023 at 8:13 AM, Myles Keogh said:Early in the battle, one section lost its weapons platoon HQ to an arty barrage which I thought would sever the C2 link between its two mortars and any other HQ/FO, but it didn't. Other HQ/FO's were still able to call upon those mortars. Yet, when I later moved that section's company HQ, the link was broken. After that, the only way I could use those mortars for indirect fire was through their own section HQ.
The foot movement of a HQ can temporarily cause a break in C2 which can (but not usually) remain broken for one or two minutes after movement has stopped. The company HQ was probably not moving continuously or often enough to cause this C2 problem but just to be thorough I mentioned it.
IMO the following rules apply: To fire indirect on map mortars must be within close visual C2 (12 Action Spots) of their chain of command or within voice C2 (6 A/S) of any authorized HQ, XO, FO team or within 2 A/S of a radio equipped vehicle.
I suspect the answer to what happened involve the above rules but it is a little challenging to figure out the details without screenshots of the units at the time with the UI.
On 10/20/2023 at 8:13 AM, Myles Keogh said:The company HQ was always in visual and/or voice contact with the section HQ (which is why I thought the link wasn't broken when the platoon HQ was lost) but moving it broke the link.
There are two types of visual contact. Close visual and distant visual. For indirect fire distant visual is not good enough. Close visual (12 A/S) with the units chain of command (so I think Company HQ in this case?) would be needed. Not sure which type of visual the unit had. Maybe this is it?
-
We know that they are cowards,” says Moussa Abu Marzouk, a senior Hamas official based in Qatar.
Says the guy hiding in Qatar.
After this latest Hamas terrorist activity he may need to hide in a cave in Afghanistan somewhere. That would be a lifestyle change for him.
Very cool map, especially with the mods.
First fanmade CampaignPack "Summer of Destruction" is released (no charge)
in CM Red Thunder Maps and Mods
Posted
NICE!!! All in alphabetical order also.
