Jump to content

Paulus

Members
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Paulus

  1. Hi,

    I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

    I've got a grasp of US infantry doctrine, thanks to extensive documentation (mostly US Field Manuals)

    Now i'm having a go at Russian infantry. Perhaps someone can give a link or explanation at the usage of Russian infantry. 

    Regards Paul 

  2. IMHO Baneman is lacking in reconnaissance (little intel on Bill's composition and position) and lacking in maneuver capabilities (fire and movement), making the traditional find, fix and destroy hard. I think he has 2 options.

    1: Make an concentrated effort, like the fist. 

    2: Try to overwhelm Bill with multiple aggressive actions, Bill can't man the entire front. 

    Don't know wich one i would choose :rolleyes:

  3. Hi, 

    I'm playing a mission, NATO side, and am given UAV's and Apache air support. At the moment one of my UAV's spotted two Russian IFV's, within 100 meters of each other. When calling in the air support, via the UAV operator (a Fire Control Team), does it matter if I use point targets on the IFV's (so two separate fire-missions, + 2 times waiting time) or an area target (including both IFV's in a single fire mission). My big question is; does one or the other way, makes a difference in spotting and/or engaging (air support wise) the IFV's. And does the area mission reduce the chances of engagement enough to justify the use of two separate point fire-missions, + 2 times waiting time?

    Thanks in advance!

  4. Im sorry, i'm talking CMBN, same also on CMRT. 

    Some specs; graphix AMD Radeon R7 200. No mods, no forced settings on graphix card control software.

    A few screenshots; 

    Shader on, shadow onshadows_on-shaders_on.thumb.jpg.519d9e1d

    shader off - shadow off

    shader_off-shadow_off.thumb.jpg.87621829

  5. Hi, 

    I'm playing for several years, and I'm finally getting somewhat familiar with infantry tactics. 

    But this reveals my noobiness in tank tactics, especially in built up areas.  :)

    I'm not sure how tanks are used "in the best way" 
    Do i create a wall of steel, blasting every possible hide-out, protecting infantry? 

    Do i hide the tanks behind walls and houses, only to advance in order to blast identified positions? 

    I just seem to get ambushed by key-holed AT weapons and Pz shrecks.

    Perhaps someone can help me out! 

    Regards Paul

  6. Guys this is the same debate that has happened before many times here. I recall the answer from BF being they have no desire to add gore and blood to the game. ... 

    Yes, this would make further debate pointless. Too bad, I for one, wouldn't have a problem with paying for more visual eyecandy. 

    Not just the blood and gore, but hit decals and modular destruction of buildings to. Just my 2 cents. 

     

    Regards Paul

  7. ...No one who takes this game seriously is asking for blood and gore to be added...

    Sorry, but i find this insulting. Yes i take this game seriously (but perhaps not to your level), yes i would like to see some blood and gore.

    It's not gamebreaking the way it is, not at all. But it would be nice to add, immersion and overall mood in the game. 

    As people who find it too offending (to see blood etc.) i've 2 arguments; 

    -99% of games, model blood and gore (in combat), but almost none of the gamers complain. 

    - Combat Mission models in great detail the psychological effects of combat (the fear, the panic, the cowering, the screaming when hit, 

    the running away when broken etc..) and we love the game for it! But the physical effect are too shocking or sickening, or what? I find this

    some what hypocritical. 

     

    Perhaps somebody can correct me? :D

     

     

    Paul

×
×
  • Create New...