Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Thewood1

  1. Sorry, I quoted the wrong person. The point of my post was even the basic M1 was a massive step up in fire control and armor from almost anything before it. The T-80A and Leopard 2 might be the only thing comparable.
  2. So did that post of armor values help clarify that the M1 was fairly superior to the M-60A3? Just curious if you have a source that contradicts that.
  3. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/0/00/M1armour.jpg/600px-M1armour.jpg M1 (105mm) http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/f/f0/M60frontarmour.jpg/600px-M60frontarmour.jpg M-60A3 TTS This is from Steel Beasts. M1 plain vs M60A3. Most of the guys doing this are non-US tankers who actually measured the physical armor for older tanks. Even without the TIS, the M1 was a significant armor upgrade over the M60A3. http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/d/d8/T62armour.jpg/700px-T62armour.jpg T-62 http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/images/thumb/9/9c/T72frontLOS.jpg/700px-T72frontLOS.jpg T-72A T-62 and T-72A for comparison. The Steel Beast guys aren't perfect, but they know their armor and how its used. For a tank to be playable, they have to have access to the specs and usually the tank itself.
  4. You are correct. The rest of the battle sources were Iranian.
  5. What is most interesting is that Iran and Iraq were working with a lot of the same hardware represented in CMCW. Especially late in the war, you had T-72s, T-62s, and T-55s fighting each other. And some of the crews were more experienced in actual combat than any of the sides in CMCW.
  6. https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3051734893994833911/?ctp=2#c3056238885199008946 An interesting post about 115mm (T-62) penetration and damage to Iranian Chieftain tanks. Appears to be mostly from Iranian sources. There is some info from British post battle investigations of Chieftain performance. If you look through other posts in that thread there are a few other points of info. Note the comment about damage to gunner sights. Thats been the topic of more than a few CM discussions. Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.
  7. Did this get fixed? I don't remember if it was mentioned in patch notes, but thought it was finally recognized post-patch. Its a bug that can bite hard sometimes.
  8. Is there any thought or desire to move the base of the game to CMCW. That way its aligned with actual unit stats and performance. I would also think some of the OOBs might align better as well.
  9. If the 577 reps an HQ, they should be worth a lot of points.
  10. Part of it is in squad and platoon training around fire lanes. Even a hasty attack has some semblance of fire lanes. That's why training as a squad and platoon is so important. They really don't mean much in the CM AI mind.
  11. I still play both CMAK and CMBB...more than CM2. For games spanning the North Africa theater and early east front, they are are the only game in town.
  12. I know. I'm just pointing out that was a larger thread about Intel GPUs where someone stated it was in the specs that Intel GPUs weren't supported. I couldn't find it.
  13. That's a very good book if you are interested in wargaming tactical ground combat in the 80s.
  14. Its very effected even in turn-based. I see big differences in fps when looking at empty map spots and spots with a lot of units. Or do you mean the difference netween RT and wego not being impacted by number of units.
  15. https://www.battlefront.com/shock-force-2/cmsf2-base-game/?tab=demo Windows 7 or MacOS 10.7.5 (Lion) Pentium IV 1.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor 256 MB VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution in OpenGL DirectX 10 compatible Sound Card (Windows only) 4 GB RAM 8 GB Hard Drive space The game does not work in a virtualized environment (virtual machine) Minimum specs listed for CMSF2. None are listed for CMCW. I sure hope someone at BFC tests scenarios in the campaign on that minimum spec PC. I tried the Citadel scenario on two different machines: Wife's old desktop bought in 2014 - i3-3220, GTX 280, 4Gb RAM Citadel ran about 10-12 fps at lower settings and in single digits at medium settings. Granted that this PC is seven years old and only gets fired up a couple times a year. My current laptop MSI Titan GT76 i9-10900K, 2080 Super, 64Gb RAM. (This is a desktop CPU and GPU chipset, not mobile) Citadel ran at 19 fps at highest settings and 35-40 at medium settings. The desktop is well above minimum settings and meets recommended spec and it struggled even on low settings. And that was with no action. I was just sitting looking at level 3. Again, I'll point out that if you are going to put large scenarios like that in an included campaign, might want to warn people starting the campaign about it. I'd hate to spend a lot of campaign time then have to slog through a large scenario on the edge of being unplayable. btw, note there is no warning on that page about intel GPU chipsets. I know in another thread it was stated that warning was posted. Couldn't find it.
  16. Steel Beasts, basically since it more modern versions, has had formation movement. That includes column, echelon, wedge, line, etc. You can set spacing of the formation, speed, use cover, use road, reaction to enemy, etc. One of my biggest frustrations with CM, and the reason I only play company-level scenarios, is the number of commands needed just for some simple movements. Its not impossible to do. Steel Beasts figured out how to do this a decade ago and at the same formation level as CM. And they also have a relatively simple cut and paste function for routes, as well as a simple to use "follow roads" setting for a formation. If you don't pay attention, you can still get units all bunged up on a road. But I can set a battalion's worth of simple road movement orders in about two minutes in Steel Beasts. Its that capability that has continued to limit my CM play time in a modern combat setting. The short of it is, I would love to see CM have the capability. But its been a twenty year forlorn hope.
  17. If you can run it effectively. My point being that if you have a very large battle in mind, its probably not good to put it in a campaign where a new player won't know what the performance implications are until too late.
  18. There is a sweet spot for CM-sized battles. And its much less than 1200 soldiers and 300+ vehicles. Kind of surprised to see that as a scenario included in the game.
  19. I'll look at it in more detail. Thanks. I had assumed that having everyone on the same net would be incredibly chaotic. Thats why you have command vehicles with multiple radios.
  20. I only looked at the first diagram. It reinforces what I said. The battalion command does not go down to the individual level. It passes through company and platoon command in sequence, unless its an emergency. That's what I thought and thats what the diagram seems to show.
  21. There are multiple command nets for a reason. A battalion commander would pass their orders through several layers to get a single unit. Orders are not broadcast all on one net for everyone hear. With the exception of emergencies. Thats why command vehicles are so important. Thats true in the 1980s and most true today.
  22. The source for that pic no longer exists. Not sure BFC can use it legally.
  23. Is there a way to make the AI dismount a weapon and use it?
  24. A thread on the TOW thermals here.
  • Create New...