.png.91b60a5bafb4dcb6f45c202eabcb3ba8.png){kind=avatar}
exsonic01
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by exsonic01
-
-
I checked just now with QB, T-90A and BMP-3M shtora have only 2 smoke launchers. Smoke button is deactivated after I used second smoke.
-
I tested briefly, but no 3 smoke vehicles found. All vehicles had 2 smokes. I think that was my mistake or confusion.
However, I found following things.
- BTR and MT-LBM 6MB 6MA seems to have 100~120m range of smoke field. (MT-LBM has no smoke)
- BMP-2 and BMP-2K have black colored smoke. Dunno they are IR blocking or not. But the height of smoke screen was lower than white smokes. Is those black smokes useful?
- BMP-3 seems to have 80~100m, while BMP-3M and BMP-2M have 100~120m.
-
IanL & Kieme
Thank you very much for those advises. I read somewhere in this forum that one redfor vehicle can launch the smoke 3 times, but I also couldn't found.
-
1) I heard that some of the redfor vehicle can use the smoke 3 times. What is that vehicle?
2) Do BTR series, BMP series, and MTLB series field a smoke screen 100m in front? I find all redfor tanks have 50~60m.
3) How about blufor vehicle's smoke screen distance? I saw they were much more closer than Russian vehicles.
4) If I use forced smoke, how can I change the smoke's direction?
- Sometimes I want to field a smoke screen on specific direction, but it seems that the direction of vehicle's smokes is always based on his facing direction. Unlike forced attack, the direction of forced smoke cannot be changed. How can I change this?
Thanks
-
Yeah, that happens sometimes with 155mm shells. But your units were quite bunched up, keep them further apart and arty wont be that devastating.
BTW whose icon mod mis this and where can i get it?
Yes his precision strike was waiting for that.
I'm using Bil's NATO floating icon beta 3
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118238-bils-nato-floating-icon-set-beta/?p=1583358
BMP-3 and alike never finish to surprise.
I have recently witnessed several similar situations:
A BMP-3 driving at full speed, hit by an ATGM, destroyed, few seconds later a BTR-82 passes by, secondary explosion on the BMP-3 (huge), the BTR-82 is destroyed.
A BMP-3 hit by a 120mm mortar round, huge explosion, nearby BMP-3 destroyed as well.
I belive you can't qualify for a CMBS player if you never lost something else due to one of your BMP-3 explosion.
Yes, I also find out that those secondary explosions of Russian vehicles are deadly as well as an another 155mm shell. I'm glad that now I'm qualified as a real CMBS player lol.
Yes, that is right. The graph reads "up to" 50m, so the spacing is governed by geography. However the better LoS between squads is, the further to those 50m you want to get. Also, if you notice a tank is 100~200m apart from infantry, that is how late 80's tactics incorporated full scale usage of Arena/Drozd type of APS and K-5 ERA. If your tank lacks those, you would probably want them slightly closer. Also, this area ~250x300m was though to be ideal if squad comms break down due to E-WAR.
Thanks for good pictures and advice. I was trying not to closely gather around the vehicles, but it was not easy, I was hiding behind the smoke clouds, and advance under smoke cover. Smoke induces narrower front, and there was a bit of durp with my control. All of those make sometimes a packing of vehicles. I think I need to practice more of smoke advance tactic.
-
During one PBEM match
Boom~!
What ???!!! all 3 of them dead?
1 shot with 3kill by 155mm. Possibly a single Excalibur shell
Those units -knocked out by hammer from sky- are my units
I think this is because they were too close. IMO Shockwave or flame from the initial explosion affects on ammunition and fuel tanks of nearby vehicles.
Still, it was too brutal.
-
I'm not sure what Russia's geographic proximity to Ukraine has to do with QB prices but there is little difference in how I use tanks in Black Sea and the WW2 games. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.
If by "that bit of a discount for redfor" you are referring specifically to Kieme's suggestions then we are taking about 2 Russian and one Ukrainian tank. I won't comment on the T-64 as I have limited experience with it, but I think the T-72B3 is perhaps the best bang for the buck tank the Russians have against the US (vs Ukraine is a different story).
Maybe I'm wrong, I'm just expressing my thoughts. If we really become authentic, we need to consider each nation's 2017 economic situation and procurement ability, but that is too complex and difficult. And rarity point or deploy point of Rus / UA units even can be increased, based on grexit, china bubble.... and all other economic problems out there, which is
Since I have no idea about how BFC decided the deploy point, I can't comment on price - performance ratio of any units. But still, purely my opinion is T-72B3/T90A/T90AM are all a bit expensive. But I think that BFC would not modify the deploy points of any tanks in near future. Maybe a bit possible in next expansion pack? Well, all I need to do is just try to get used to current situation.
-
While technology has advanced, the role of armor and of the MBT in particular has remained essentially the same.
Still, that does not justify that same-line-comparison of WW2 vehicles vs 2017 vehicles, using CM game system's deployment points. I agree with your mention about role of MBT, but both side's battlefield is different, surrounding geometry is different, supporting assets are different, tank's combat abilities are different, and Russia is very close from Ukraine, and etc.... I don't know how BFC estimate the points of units, but that bit of discount for redfor vehicles would not hurt game's authenticity and thrill.
-
Interesting comparison, but I don't think it is fair to compare WW2 and modern MBTs, specially 2017's Rus army vs WW2 German army, just because they both use same CMx2 game engine.
-
I widely used Krasnopol 152mm during the last mission of Russian campaign. I remember those shells worked against the top of the Bradley.
-
Thanks Kieme, every time I learn. I didn't knew that the TRPs can be fielded during meeting engagement in setup phase, but it is available~!
I think it needs some test to delay time and unit's exp. But it seems that 152mm's fastest delay limit is 6 min for redfor, though. This makes the TRP as inevitable asset for redfor.
-
Again, I strongly believe that the BFC should award a medal for you
Thanks for great work!! -
1. How do you use UAV?
Someone doesn't use Zala, but other two UAVs are in danger of AA file. Other than Zala, do you use redfor UAVs? Why do you use UAVs though it will be shot down soon?
Similar questions for blufor. Grayeagle is too expensive, then, do you use other two UAV anyway, though they might not survive long enough?
I don't know, sometimes I badly want UAV (specially when I play redfor), but sometimes they are waste of point, because they will be shot down not more than 5~6 turn, when opponent have AA units. What is your choice?
2. Where do UAVs fly?
Sometimes UAV survives long enough, though there was enemy AA units nearby. During my recent pbem game, Gray eagle shot 2 Hellfire missiles to my tanks, but two of the crack tungu did nothing during 2 turns. After two of my tanks gone, finally, they shoot and downed the Gray eagle. Similar thing happens time to time. During previous PBEM, opponent's stinger team in the open didn't shoot for 3~4 turn after I operated Orlan UAV, which should be engagable with SAM. Why these things happen? Why SAMs does not react immediately? How do we need to operate UAV to survive as long as possible?
3. What shells do you choose?
So far, my PBEM partners choose elite or warrior difficulty. In this case, for redfor, airplane costs 10 min and 152mm artys take 6 min~ 8 min of delay, by veteran+ foward observer team in the fire support vehicle. (6 min is the least one with 2s19M2) For blufor, airplanes costs same delay, but 155mm arty takes about 3~5 min.
During meeting engagement (specially redfor, their heavy arty suffers longer delay time) I suffered a lot because of these artillery delay time. How do you use fire missions, and manage the delay time? 120mm mortars? Or just play in veteran difficulty?
-
ASL Veteran // So, the if the condition become 'damp' or worse, than the chance of bogging increase? I see.
Jargotn // I moved those tanks slowly, but they couldn't escape from the muds
MikeyD // Yes, I aware of those conditions, but didn't expect this much 'muddy' ground. I want to know each tile's ground condition, but it seems I need to check with visual. Thanks for the tip about smoke, but after medium wind, I think smoke scatters fast. In heavy wind condition, all smokes couldn't sustain even a single turn.
Vinnart // It seems the mud is now looks like more gray colored sands, is this right? Thanks to share.
-
No worry, I'm already enjoying lots of pbem enough. Playing hotseat is kind of 50% test + 50% practicing & challenging. I don't know about others but it works good for me, but of course it is bit less efficient in terms of practicing than real pbem game.
You might very well think that I'm arguing about balancing, but it isn't. Well, I admit I complained things about redfor, but I never said 'redfor should be stronger' or something similar like that. IMO, considering given close-proximity circumstance of Ukraine from Russia, just a bit of readjustment in point for redfor vehicles would be reasonable. Also, that would be good for pbem, giving more fun & challenges for both side's players. And yes, some of other pbem opponents told me about his Syrian/insurgent army playing days in CMSF, which was worse than Rus in CMBS, but he told me that was ultra fun. I hope I would feel the same too sooner or later.
Trust me, I played Wargame RD 1000+ steam time, and whole Wargame series might 2000+ time in steam, I'd seen enough redfor fanboys in Eugen forum, claiming that "T-90 should eat M1A2 for lunch" "My T-90s should be more stronger but cheaper" "Chinese ZTZ tanks are better than M1A2" something like that. And I was tired of some meaningless patch by Eugen. So, I was looking for more authenticity for modern warfare, and invested 55$ to get this game. With ARMA3 and Steel beasts SE, so far, this game is my top3 game after the year of 2010. It is interesting that some of Wargame tactics works well in here too. (and I wish there is a plan for CM coldwar Germany) If you're saying I'm a person who claims "game balancing", you chose wrong person.
-
Yes, I admit that I'm not that good to being redfor player, but I also like the point you mentioned when playing redfor, which gives me lots of thrill. It is looks like hunting for some achievements. I'm practicing redfor these days, using hotseat mode, defending or attacking my own few crack~elite Abrams + Bradley + Javelin + other supports assets. But still, putting a hole in Abrams is incredibly difficult, even in urban conditions. Bradley and Abrams combo with ambushing by US infantry gave me lots of trouble. If the blufor goes really patience but tricky, there's not much thing that redfor can do. Yes, like you mentioned, it is really hard part. But also yes, it is really fun, a lot, and I'm enjoying it.
But still, I think the point prices for redfor tanks and IFVs need to be considered. I think it does not need huge discount, just what Kieme mentioned would be enough.
-
Don't you think the fact itself that "redfor needs far more practice to become same level with blufor" is meaning of inequality? You must admit, that the playing blufor is very-easy-mode.
I dunno how much you are good in CMBS, but if there are tournaments, my 5cents for winner will be blufor. I never saw any decent & patient blufor player committed suicide like you mentioned.
Back to original topic, I agree with the posts that the redfor tank and IFV prices should be readjusted.
-
During one of the recent PBEM match, I already lost 3 of Abrams. It is not 'lost', but actually, they are bogged down and immobilized. They all bogged down far away from main battle field, so it is fair to say that I lost 3 tanks. One of them had no single chance to take a shot, not a single 7.62mm bullet. 2 other shoot several times, but they couldn't escape from the muds. And 4th tank is now bogged, and now I'm praying for him (I don't have religion but I'm really praying now) that please escape from there in next turn.
I'm really frustrated. Totally, out of my expectation, and all my plans are ruined. Imagine you lost 4 of your tank without battle, and imagine how it feels.
In Close Combat series or Wargame series, players can get a information about the terrain. Is there similar thing in the CMBS? How can I know which tile is full of mud or something like that? Or, should I need to find out the mud by graphic?
Thanks
-
Time will tell. Until then, I think I need to do more redfor Uraaaaaa
-
I dunno guyz. So far, blufor players were no fool, and they have Bradley and Javelin team as well, and their detection ability is also good. And they can use UAV + arty or UAV + "flattening arty dump" combo, and most of decent players didn't forget to move their vehicles every 2~3 turns to prevent precision rounds. Maybe the map was too open and US favorite.... and I admit my use of fire support and unit control was very poor.
All of those are very map dependent. However, IMO, it seems that the blufor players is likely to (not always but good chance) recover from their mistakes. On the other hand, for redfor, one single mistake in front of Bradley, Abrams, or Javelin is a death sentence. Against good, patient, and decent player, there would be not much things that same level of redfor player can do. There are too much things to consider and take care for redfor than blufor.
Or maybe I'm so bad at this game, which might be more true.
I think I need to practice more redfor. About crack Abrams, it is just QB and I don't think that we need to take care of real world 2017 situation. If you use your points like 3 tanks per one Abrams, your other assets will suffer from lack of number, and force balance will be bad. I also tried airplanes or choppers, but 3~4 Stinger team was enough to clear up the sky, though I used 3~4 air assets. Stingers were damn accurate. And too much airplane + arty will bring less troops on the field for redfor, so it become ugly as well, since smart US players will find out that redfor doesn't have enough land masses, and he will rush forward.
Maybe I need to find some different ways to break Abrams lines....
-
Well, it's a big of an exageration.
AT-14
- use buildings, they offer more cover and concealment.
- do not expose the AT-14 directly, let some other associated unit spot for him first
- try to place AT-14 at distance (more than 1000m from the targets) and in a flanking position (not directly ahead), alternatively, use it at the closest possible functional distance, but be sure to set up ambushes.
Khrizantema
- use good crew (Crack +)
- keep at distance (1000m +)
- use hull down as much as possible
- use smoke cover from other vehicles to protect it while it can shoot through using radar, or force the M1 to pop out smoke and then expose the Khriza.
US vehicles rarely use APS (due to the extreme costs in rarity) and ERA shouldn't be much of a problem against the 150mm warhead.
Good point Kieme, but the problem is, not all the maps are ideal for those conditions. Some maps have only a few "so obvious" possible ambush positions or houses, that any American player could easily predict and use forced-attack or "flattening by arty" tactic. Or, some other maps are so open, that all the AT-14 ambush attempts easily fail, no matter how much tries. AT-14 ambush become only feasible (against Abrams) under very, very specific conditions. Or, you need to put a lot (I mean, really a lot) of AT-14 teams, but if the US player is smart enough with good recon, then it can be easily countered by arty shells.
About Khriz, abrams users can also increase their crew experience as crack+, and they will also find Khriz more faster. Only possible way is just hide & hull down Khriz, but after 2~3 turns, (or 1 turn, depends on how "well" the hull down position is, and placing vehicles in "good" hull down position is very difficult) crack Abrams will eventually find the Khriz. Also, from the moment when the wind strength is medium+, IR blocking smokes will just scatter away in 30~60 sec, easily exposing vehicles within a single turn. I already tested, and it seems that "forced-smoke" tactic is only possible when the wind is calm, which gives 2~3 turn of smoke barrier. But depends on the map, still 1 turn of smoke barrier might enough, but it is really situational.
I also almost always use crack Abrams, and they are in the level of 'eagle eye'. So far, my crack Abrams detected almost of flanking attempts quite nicely. I can't imagine how strong the elite Abrams would be.
-
Yes that's how it works. I envisage the FO team would be using the UAV feed on the Air Controllers hard top to call the fires. Its what UAVs were developed for in the first place. Delay is less if its 2S19M2 and the calling team is in a command vehicle, otherwise its just normal delay time.
Great thanks to let me know. I was totally wrong about Redfor fire mission control.
-
Antaress // Oh my god, you're right. Russian FOs can call UAVs, without single air controller team on the map.
Damn, I almost always removed FOs when I play as redfor since I thought they could not use UAVs. But it was wrong. BFC really need to remove that confusing mention regarding Russian UAV.
Stagler // Could you explain me a bit more detail? If I observe with any UAV (include micro UAVs) with air controller, then attached FOs in the same vehicles can drop precision ammunition without direct LOS or UAV?
Also, do you know how to decrease the delay time of arty shells?
-
Nope. they can't.
I checked again, besides the name of all 3 of Russian UAVs, there is a mention "requires Air Controller"
Might be too expensive toys for Russian FOs
And if the Dreday's mention is correct, than game need a patch for Russian FOs to use UAVs.
Thanks for great work!! 
Question about vehicle's smoke
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Both normal T-90AM and T-90AM (APS) have only 2 somkes. Tested from QB. It seems there is no 3 smoke redfor vehicles. Did you tested in QB as well before?