.png.91b60a5bafb4dcb6f45c202eabcb3ba8.png){kind=avatar}
exsonic01
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by exsonic01
-
-
Hello Doug
IMO CMBS Russian airplanes has the all-weather capability, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong. At least Su-24 and Su-34 are available in any weather condition according to the manual. But "available" is not "effective" so be cautious. Your pilots may unable to see any ground targets and fly away.
I once tried Zala UAV in the heavy fog condition, and it detected some vehicles in the region (not all), but no soldiers. Plus, the most of vehicle detection was just unknown icon except one or two Abrams, meaning something is there but unable to recognize. And experience of Zala and Air controller also may effect on detection. Thick Haze would be slightly better than heavy fog IMO, but I guess you will see unknown icons...more or less.
But beware, US stingers are really really deadly, and I had no fun with Redfor air so far. I'm really curious are there anyone who achieved major success by Redfor air assets in PBEM. If there is, I really wish to learn how to manage them. One need to neutralize stingers first, but that is also really really hard to even find them usually.
-
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1728632-new-army-m1a2-sepv4-abrams-tank-for-2020s
"The SEP v4 variant, slated to being testing in 2021, will include new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round, Maj. Gen. David Bassett, Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, told Scout Warrior in an interview."
According to Maj. Gen. D. Basset, it seems that LWR will be installed from SEP v4, not SEP v3. What will be the major improvement of SEP v3 program? Increased detection and increased defense? And if the Marines included, what would be the capability of M1A1 FEP when compared to current M1A2?
Also, what would be the realistic SEP v2 and SEP v3 in CMBS?
I remember that once @akd and others mentioned about no LWR, no Trophy, and are there any other things to be mentioned? And IMO SEP v3 should have increased crew survival rate, increased mobility, increased defense but not sure on this point.
-
According to Mike, CMBS will have next module after new CMFI module. I would love to see new NATO forces such as Germany, UK, and Poland. However, I do wish to see more updated US/UA/Rus forces close to real life now. And new systems, like realistic building destruction & debris, variable weather, winter background and etc...
-
1 hour ago, Machor said:
It is the Turkish ASELSAN SARP:
The tank is not in its primary fighting position. This appears to be the new Turkish tactic against armoured SVBIED following the losses mentioned earlier in the thread. The tanks wait in cover for SVBIED to emerge, exposing themselves briefly to engage them before reversing to cover. This LEO2 is in a similar position:
BTW, Bellingcat just published a report on the Turkish AFV losses:
Interesting. Is the bellingcat trustworthy source?
-
On 2/8/2017 at 10:47 PM, Douglas Mac said:
Count me in please if still interested. I have the latest updates for BS
Please check the PM
-
Separate the AT team, and give them target vehicle range (or just target), while hide others or move them a bit behind. This is usually what I do.
-
That was really lucky. The most near miss I've ever experienced in CMBS
-
Dedicated multiplayer sever with lobby? Slitherine / Matrix games have PBEM++ server, which enables the PBEM without dropbox or email. I'm enjoying FPC-RS with PBEM++ as well.
-
More detailed expression = more immersive environment = more realistic game = possibly more sales.
1) model the fix.wings and rot.wings flyby when strike.
2) Small chances for "flying turret" for vehicles when destroyed. This happens rare for modern tanks, but still it happens. Dramatic boom boom is always great
3) Blood / gore expression (optional). Well, this could be debatable but this will make the game more.... realistic in some sense. But I also think that this is not that much essential. Just blood expressions would be enough maybe.
4) More detail modeling of shells(tanks/artillery) and missiles when flying. Right now, shells flying like the Star Wars laser blaster.
5) More realistic building collapse / debris? But this is already mentioned above.
How about FASCAM and ICM shells?
-
58 minutes ago, DMS said:
Realistic way to use BMPs is not to use BMPs like tanks. They should be behind infantry lines, so infantry would spot and give targets. Using scout teams to man the commander's place is a bad idea, better place that scout team on a hill and BMP behind that hill, than use "shoot'n'scoot" tactic.
Yes, this is what I'm doing now, put BMPs behind, and if infantry make contact and spot the target, than use BMPs to force-attack (attack briefly 15~30 sec) that position quickly, and scoop away.
However, drawback of this method is that those BMPs would be hard to deal against unexpected events/contacts, like sudden emerge of Bradley or Javelin/AT4 team, because they are pretty much blind and bound to my force-attack command. I already lost several BMPs while shoot'n scoop because of this issue. (My opponent get used to my tactic and counter my BMPs in that way
) I think eventually some units should be in the BMP, for better efficiency of shoot'n scoop, and to grant some freedom to engage to BMPs.
But I agree that embarking rifle squad scout team in BMP is a bad choice. I need some boys on the field for the firepower. I think I better use some sniper platoon/recon platoon units.
-
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:
This is a real major flaw in the BMP concept. If you're struggling with how to make proper use of them welcome to real-world tactical problems. Players have complained in the past that Steve must've done something wrong with the crewing or TO&E or something. Steve's reply was he can only work with what the Russian military gave him.
But is this true that all BMP crews are 2, not 3 in real Rus army now?
ps) I found the old posts in this forum and got the answer.
-
As far as I know, to maximize the BMP's detection ability in CMBS, 1 or 2 soldiers should be inside the BMP and work as a commander role. Is this right? Do you always put 1~2 ppl inside the BMP? But sometimes this results lack of infantry number on the field... Not sure how can I solve this dilemma.
-
Holy s..... Disaster after wrong force-attack plan
So sorry for those boys, Tungu shredded 1.5 squad. He deserves Gulag.
-
Rrrrrvenge for the fallen tank commander of Pvt. Viktor Reznov
-
On 1/24/2017 at 1:50 PM, John Kettler said:
exsonic01,
Methinks we have a miscommunication. Let me try again. As originally fielded, the 9M123 came in four varieties: HEAT with SACLOS LBR, HEAT with MMW ACLOS, thermobaric with SACLOS LBR and thermobaric with MMW ACLOS. What the Russians did, per what I read(?), was to devise a way to incorporate both guidance modes and user selectable, on one bird, thus leaving no need for two separate versions of each warhead type. Restating, a Kriz-launched ATGM of a given warhead type may be fired using either guidance mode. Consequently, the Russians now have to carry only two varieties of ATGM into battle.
Regards,
John Kettler
Thanks for the explanation, now I clearly understand
-
8 hours ago, akd said:
https://www.army.mil/article/124313/
Ok it seems A4 is on the field. I read something different from other source, that A4 will be equipped and fielded from M1A2 SEP v3, but it seems that is wrong info.
-
14 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
I think the v2 can fire M829A4. What it can't do is utilize the AMP round because it lacks the ammunition data link and updated fire control system.
But a4 is not issued yet, (but it will be soon) so I was thinking that if the CMBS Abrams is equipped with m829a4 this would be OOTF.
-
11 hours ago, John Kettler said:
exsonic01,
Thanks for the info. Have discovered something in the CMBS Manual (p. 107) I consider disturbing. Where there should be two separate missile types listed (9M123 and 9M123F), the manual shows only the first, 9M123, the HEAT warhead version! Since the thermobaric warhead armed 9M123F was explicitly designed, tested and deployed to deal with troops in structures, trenches, etc., it seems to me that by not having the 9M123F available, the Russians are being deprived of a potent weapon they'd other wise have. If this has been corrected since release, fine. If not, this strikes me as something fairly easy to implement.
Regards,
John Kettler
Wow, thanks to let me know. I agree, that if the thermobaric warhead is issued, than we should see that baby in this game. I wish to see 9M123F in CMBS in next DLC or patch. That would make the Khriz very useful platform for diverse situations in CMBS. How about introduce two models like airplanes: AT-armament Khrizantema (all 9M123) and normal Khrizantema (50:50 of HEAT and FAE)?
11 hours ago, John Kettler said:excsonic01,
Forgot to mentio that while several sources list the Krizantema as having no fewer than four distinct missile types (HEAT and thermobaric each for LRR and MMW), the Russians have implemented a pre-launch switch which swaps guidance modes, allowing the Kriz to carry only two missile types, rather than four. Unfortunately, I haven't yet been able to find that morsel again. Perhaps because I'm wiped out and barely here!
Regards,
John Kettler
Aha, that could be the reason why we are only seeing 9M123 only in CMBS, but I think CMBS AT-15 is only using MMW isn't it? It should be OK to introduce F model IMO. BTW, Some sources claim that the AT-15 is able to launched by F&F mode but not sure that is true.
-
3 hours ago, Armorgunner said:
IIRC The SEPv2 has no LWR irl
Welp, what a bummer, my mistake, I forget about this point. I read about this back in early 2016 but forget about this. Thanks to remind me. So are the Trophy, LWR, and m829e4 are the difference?
3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:As pointed out, the Abrams in the game is pretty much a SEPv3. The only functionality a true SEPv3 would add is better spotting (!) and better mine protection.
I'm not sure how they plan to achieve the IED protection. Well, it would be good if the battlefront models the more realistic v2 and v3 version.
-
I think current ingame SEPv2 is right at the point, except the trophy and M829E4 shell (not sure about this point) but anyway, if we could see the SEPv3 than it would be great.
-
Is there any chance that we could see SEP v3 in incoming DLC for CM:BS?
-
On 1/17/2017 at 4:47 PM, PeterT said:
Very nice scenario from Spartan resolve Champaign...
Regards, Peter
Hello Peter, for some reason, all of your pictures are seen as (-) sign to me. Could you reupload plz?
-
9 hours ago, John Kettler said:
PeterT,
Welcome aboard!
Private Lysenko did the Ukrainian nation, the UAF, his unit, his family and himself proud. Two shots, two kills and some tire damage of some sort of BTR. Did he live?
exsonic01,
I've heard of loosing the dogs of war, but man, has yours got sharp teeth! A Bradley and an Abrams, but wasn't that a live Abrams in plain view at around 0:10? Sure looked functional to me. If so, why wasn't it engaged? What was the music, please? Liked it and found it very suitable. Also, are those stock skins or mods? If so, whose?
Thought your second video was of interest because it showed the Krizantema in action against troops in a structure. Are we to presume the havoc on the receiving end was thermobaric in nature? See 2:05 and 3:10 at Krizantema video below for the real thermobaric warhead in action.
Regards,
John Kettler
Thank you for enjoying my video. I'm not sure which tank you are asking, but all the Abrams you could see around the 0:10 are dead. Most of them are destroyed, a few of them are heavily damaged and their crews gave up the tank.
The song is "Let's Go" by Red Army Choir. Actually, the very first music with this vid was "Polyushka Polye" which make it even more dramatic. However there's copyright issue in the youtube
so I changed. The penalty is not that serious (you just need to agree with the advertisement) but just in case I modified. I will try "Polyushka Polye" next time.
All vehicle skin is from Kieme. His mighty works are amazing, but it seems that he no more comes to any CM forums. Sad. And I used shader mod from BarbaricCo. BarbaricCo has his own skin mods for few vehicles, which is also good, but I still use Kieme's one.
I'm not sure whether the thermobaric warhead for Khrizantema is modeled in CMBS or not. (I guess not) However, the KE from the speed of ATGM, and explosion of 8kg warhead would be enough to kill all boys inside, plus wreck the wooden building. The wood building usually take 3~4 AT-15 shots, but that building was already damaged by 203mm Malka so it just collapsed with two AT15s, with all those rifleman squad inside
3 hours ago, IanL said:Cool two examples of ATGMs being used against infantry targets in the same minute. I wonder how frequently that is likely to happen.
I'm not sure my opponent command to shoot Javelin to my boys, or the AI just decided to do so by chance. However, the Khriz one is my order. I managed them to target the buildings to wreck it, like the second battle of Grozny style.
It was lucky to get that moment in the video. I just manually ordered my ATGMs to wreck the house, I didn't even know that there is a squad hiding inside. Right at the moment, they shoot Javelin to me, and ATGMs hit them with sweet revenge.
2 hours ago, rocketman said:@exsonic01 what vehicle mods do you use, doesn't look like the ones I have.
All vehicle skin is from Kieme. And I used shader mod from BarbaricCo.
-
What goes around, comes around.
) I think eventually some units should be in the BMP, for better efficiency of shoot'n scoop, and to grant some freedom to engage to BMPs.
So sorry for those boys, Tungu shredded 1.5 squad. He deserves Gulag.
so I changed. The penalty is not that serious (you just need to agree with the advertisement) but just in case I modified. I will try "Polyushka Polye" next time.
Infantry behavior under arty bombardment in CMBS 4.0
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted · Edited by exsonic01
I like all changes of new 4.0 engine, but infantry behavior under incoming artillery should be removed or modified.
This is coming from recent PBEM game. In this screen shot, one veteran experience + high morale troops were positioned in the 3 buildings left of the road. Then the 155mm rains. The position of platoon HQ (center building) was in the range of shelling, but the positions of troops (3 buildings in the left of the road) were not. Only top left one was in the boundary of artillery zone.
The problem is, after shelling, they all shocked and routed to the HQ position, the center building in the screenshot, even though the 155mm is continuously falling. This induced totally-unnecessary casualties if they just stayed in their original hiding place. Their original position was outside of the shelling zone, only HQ position was. But they run all the way to the HQ position through the deadly road and field. I also served in army (it was 16 years ago but anyway) and what I learned was stay in the fox hole, and try not to out in the open under incoming artillery, not run across the roads and fields like that screenshot. The only moment that one need to run regardless of shelling is the moment of chemical/gas shells, not the HE shells. One other danger of the situation is that, they can be killed in one shot. Imagine a single 155mm falling to that building. This will ruin my game because of stupidity of AI.
Whatever I do, I cannot help them to stop moving when the shell falls. I can't move my boys at that moment, because the 155mm is still raining there. All I can do now is just watching and praying, just as same as my poor pixeltruppen would do now.
Please remove or modify this new TACAI behavior.