Rinaldi
-
Posts
1,186 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Posts posted by Rinaldi
-
-
2 hours ago, IanL said:
Thanks @Rinaldi for doing that. I personally had not fired 122 precision at anything during testing but I did 155 vs M1s and T90s and get expected results the vast majority of the time. This test shows yet again the artillery doing the expected thing - serious effect - on targets. So, I just do not believe that you frequently see Bradley's shrugging of hits and carrying on as if nothing happened. These test shows that is not common. Sure it can happen - I saw T90s that survived a hit from a 155 - it was not common but it did happen. Just because it can happen and it sucks when it does *does not mean it is common*.
Yes, I agree completely. Again, its been a game-winning strategy for me (as either side) numerous times. An immobile IFV is to me, easy prey. Naturally, I'd prefer to use the precision arty on artillery spotting vehicles, AAA, etc. but those are rare targets.
-
Yes, on lower difficulties the ammo will be spread equally between units - but within reason. For example: an ATGM team won't carry much more than 5-6 ATGMs max on Warrior; so its not as effective as planting one right next to an ammo dump on Elite.
-
As far as I'm concerned, this is the purview of a well-worded briefing.
Edit: This sounded dismissive; to expand: yes, it's meant to work that way. Proper zone recons are rare in the game so there's few examples of a good briefing to look for. I'll use "Wadi Scouts" from CM:SF, as its simple and instructive.
BLUFOR briefing reads:
"Your mission is to scout out the defenses at this part of the line. If fired on, you are allowed to return fire, but preserving your force is of utmost importance. Your primary goal is to identify the location of the enemy HQ unit and the general displacement of the enemy forces. Secondary goal is to locate the position of enemy minefields that are suspected in the Wadi. If you do identify a gap and meet no opposition, you are allowed to cross and establish a perimeter on the other side. "
My emphasis. In the unit objectives BLFUOR is awarded up to 200 points each total for spotting mines and enemy units. Everything should be inferred in mission by the player.
-
The total immobilization is wholly in line with my experiences; its in fact how I won as Russians in my "Power Hour" PBEM. Punish any lack of forward movement with 122 (for BIFVs) and 152 (for Abrams), move in to kill with a small counterattack force while dismounts tried to hold the trenches.
I have put 152s on that test map as well, and will likely run that test with them next. As well as for T90AMs - who have had a habit of defeating XCALIBUR with the top-side ERA. I'm neither here nor there on this slap fight. An IFV thats immobile is useless to me, but to others they can still be a source of heartburn, so, I ran a test.
The most interesting part of the test to me, and the only thing that didn't seem like an obvious result, was the low trajectory of the rounds: only half of the hits splashed anywhere near what is traditionally thought to be a weak point.
-
Because Erdogan is a nutter, in short.
-
I ran a quick test since my curiosity piqued and I'm not doing anything productive with this hangover.
- 4 Bradleys; 2 in vehicle fighting positions, 2 in the open.
- 1 Russian FOO set to "veteran" with a 6 gun battery of 2S1 122mm, also set to veteran. All precision missions were 3 shell protocol.
I only ran the test three times.
First strike: 2/3 hits (Rear top hull)
Second strike: 1/3 hit (Rear top hull)
Third strike: Total miss. No picture taken as no damage done.
Fourth strike: 2/3 hits (Weapon - both hit the TOW launcher)
Fifth strike: 1/3 hit (Forward top hull)
Sixth strike: 3/3 hits (All left hull)
Seventh strike: 2/3 hits (Rear-top hull & Turret top)
Eighth strike: 2/3 hits (Rear-top hull & Rear-top turret)
Ninth strike: 3/3 hits (Left turret twice & rear-top turret)
Tenth strike: 0/3 hits (but degraded tracks)
Eleventh strike: 2/3 hits (Forward top hull & Rear-top hull)
Twelfth strike: 2/3 hits (Forward top hull)
Some other data:
- 20 of 36 rounds struck (approx 56% hit rate)
- Of those hits, 11 hit a "top" according to the hit marker, the rest either hit misc. externals or struck places layered with ERA.
- The majority of the "rear-top hull" hits struck the vision blocks.
- All shots on target universally immobilized the IFV
-
You'll find your sentiments shared with a lot of people, John. On the one hand there's nothing wrong with dashing at top speed from battle position to battle position, and the reverse in conjunction with the hull-down command can save you, but you're right: It's an outright pain in most other situations and usually turns formation advances that are "shoot and move" into wild traffic jams with rounds only flying in one direction. Inbound.
-
2 minutes ago, HerrTom said:
Does Trophy give protection from high angle shots like have been mentioned in this thread? I thought most APS systems only protected something like 30 degrees above horizontal?
That's something I'd like to know about as well. I know certain sources claim they can reliably defeat top-down munitions but, thus far, I'm skeptical.
-
An excellent scenario from @George MC - as if that needs to be said. It's called "TV 98-5 STEELERS" for those curious, since he's too humble to plug in :^).
Another from one of his scenarios - Armor Attacks, or Armour Attacks if you download his UK version
. From a PBEM that was back-and-forth. Sadly, my opponent eeked out a minor BLUFOR victory.
-
From a H2H playtest; Ukrainian Russian Infantry launch their final attack against a Ukrainian roadblock, near Konotop. June, 2017.:
August 10, 2017: 1st Cavalry's "Power Hour" as the NATO breakthrough in the Eastern Ukraine is achieved.
-
Speaking to the facts isn't willy waving. You could perhaps accuse them of tech-wanking, but a title like CM precludes itself to that.
-
14 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:
...but the Western Allied Air Forces would have been difficult for the Soviets to deal with. I don't know how many fighter aircraft each side had available, but I don't think that the Soviet Union had anything close to the type of heavy bomber force that the Western Allies had. The Soviet air forces were probably not as tactically adept either. The Western Allied ground forces were smaller, no doubt, but the manpower reserves of the US had barely even been tapped yet and there were still several new divisions ready to ship by the time the war ended...
People consistently forget these points; and it bears re-iterating. Especially the war-weariness and manpower crises of everyone who wasn't the US.
The RKKA probably had the most robust (re: the only) coherent operational doctrine, and had showed it in practice several times, but they made relative botches of the East Prussia and Berlin campaigns and gutted otherwise hardy veteran formations. The Ground forces remain the single greatest unknown, but I'd narrowly give it to the Soviets.
The problem are force multipliers; the Red Banner navy and the VVS were lightweights compared to their Western counterparts, both in capability, training and doctrine. You read about non-stop carousels of IL-2s attacking and not really blunting or interdicting movement satisfactorily as late as Mius. The fact that the Germans had a light cruiser firing in close defense of its forces in 1945; despite the Red Banner army being only kilometers away, in strength and ready to pounce, is I think illustrative enough of their deficiencies.
It's all academic of course, but the reality is the US and UK were forced by geography and circumstance to fight a strategic war that saw all branches truly fighting in concert, the USSR not so much - and that matters when a belligerent is half a world away.
-
Which speaks to the point others and myself have made repeatedly: If you're going to waste that much tonnage on a hunk of metal, just go all the way and slap a real FCS and turret on it and call it a MBT and give it a proportional mission to its cost. She who attempts everything accomplishes nothing.
-
Too late, he's already "made his point." He stirs up just enough sh*t to revive a dead topic, then prances off. You might as well leave the popcorn on the counter with logic and reason sitting next to it.
-
2 minutes ago, Oleksandr said:
Rinaldi is this is the first time when I'm totally agree with you? lol
Unfortunately not, because I'm disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of your observations.
-
If all the infantry the carrier is meant to protect are hors d'combat, it has already failed in its primary mission and everything else is a moot point.
-
I love them, these styles of AAR are exactly what made me buy my first CM in the first place. Then I found that there were tons of guys doing these like Josey Wales and Hapless.
-
Presently I think only myself; I have two other videos being cut and edited at my own pace as well. Panzer Pyjamas might have a PBEM, can't recall.
-
ISIL isn't in game, so it's an irrelevant question - this goes back to the 'reading what the Dev team has told you to expect' point I just made.
-
1 minute ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:
What i really would like to know are not infos like game will be in engine 4.0 and then copy taste what all engine 4.0 can do... This we allready know!
Will be there in CMSF2 Russian Forces with all toys to play including planes?
Will Syrians have UAV and planes?
Can we have something like counter battery fire?
ISIL forces will be on US Side when choosing forces?
Modules stay modules or they will be included from beginning?
I am sure others will have more questions to follow...
These questions have been answered. Either you didn't read or chose not to read. Nice bait with ISIL being on the US's side, by the by.
-
You get all sorts with anecdotal evidence and personal opinions. They're useful but only up to a certain point. I occasionally play with a guy who has to the total opposite observation; says his tank crews get "suppressed" at the darndest things, and that not only is it unrealistic, but they should remove the chance for a crew to panic completely ("You can't suppress a tank)! Needless to say we agree to disagree on that topic.
-
1 hour ago, IanL said:
The crew behaviour is essentially the same but the tech means that more modern crews stay alive to be accused of panicking while more WW2 crews die in place to be accused of stoic bravery.
I laughed - well put.
-
One thought that's been nagging on me - I knew the ZSUs would be able to fire at airpower when they announced CMSF2 and what it would entail; but NATO has no ADA assets in game and there's a few default scenarios where the Syrian airpower gets to make a rare appearance. That'll be interesting.
This all looks phenomenal.
-
I can't judge because I swear like a sailor in day-to-day speech. I tend to be much more controlled when I narrate. I would chalk it up to the fact that he's much less scripted and seeing things live and in real time.
. From a PBEM that was back-and-forth. Sadly, my opponent eeked out a minor BLUFOR victory.
How accurate *is* CMBS?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by Rinaldi
Too many unknowns to provide the vaguest semblance of a counterpoint: DPICM, MLRS, hyper-concentration of fire on a scale we're not going to see in CMBS are all factors that are routinely seen in the 'hot' phases of the conflict.
Asides from 'it is artillery' there's little else to link it to '3 to 4 rounds of pure HE intermediate artillery.' As much as I enjoy Haiduk's posts, there is nothing beyond his assertion that its 122 and 152 - I'd assert (also without any base
)that it was likely a TOT-esque cocktail of multiple calibers. Too much doubt to draw any firm conclusions.