Hapless
-
Posts
424 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Hapless
-
-
36 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
Not good for fun or historical accuracy.
Fun is subjective. Historically accuracy is less subjective, so you should probably start finding some sources to back up your argument.
Like, how many StuGs there were in Normandy... assuming that their points value reflects that in addition to rarity, of course. -
This seems like a fun rabbit hole.
On 10/30/2021 at 3:45 PM, Redwolf said:historically accurate force mixes
is not compatible with
On 10/30/2021 at 3:45 PM, Redwolf said:general fairness between the sides
Pick one or the other, you can't have both. I, for one, would love to have more historically accurate battles where the Germans had no tanks at all, could only have green/conscript troops while I had a gratuitous amount of artillery along with swarms of angry Typhoons and P-47s.
In addition, we don't know how Battlefront calculates QB points: there could be plenty of other factors at play which push the values in one direction or the other.
I appreciate the intent- but I would think it is best achieved via house rules rather than inflicting one opinion on everyone else. Playing with 0 rarity (ie. neither player can bring *any* unit with a rarity cost) is a good one, really mixes things up. -
The TC might be
But yeah, you have an indeterminate amount of time. -
14 hours ago, dbsapp said:
What T72 gunner sees from his position from the very start:
Good luck figuring out if that's an enemy tank. Remember, you've got to decide RIGHT NOW and if you get it wrong you'll either DIE or KILL YOUR FRIENDS. No pressure.
-
I think the OP's point is more about how some of the pintle-mounted .50s on US vehicles don't ever get used.
As in, the weapon is fine... the pixeltruppen just never actually fire them because of where they're located on the turret (usually some kind of AA position IIRC). -
Sadly not.
-
I was messing around with a similar idea back in February and thought I was onto something no one else had considered- of course, the oustide world didn't know about CMCW at that point...
Broad concept here, with mutliple friendly units that are immobilised when not under control and wrecks to show destroyed enemy units:
I also did a short CMFI campaign messing around with Commando raids in Norway which had a similar choice system- this altered the order you played the two subsequent missions in changing the time, conditions, weather, off-map support and enemy preparedness. I'd link it, but there is literally no attachment space here
.
So, entirely doable concept! -
11 hours ago, Erwin said:
Good-looking terrain. Is that with Reshade, or has the stock terrain been improved?
I haven't added any mods or anything this time round. It is a hazy morning though, which might explain it.
-
That sounds like a really good way to get in a lot of trouble
-
IIRC, the terrorist attacks in the plot are carried out by a group operating out of Syria and the war begins because the Syrian regime refuses to hand them over to NATO. So, NATO doesn't have a problem with the Syrian people, the conflict revolves around NATO enforcing regime change in Syria and the Syrian regime resisting. For a real world example it's a bit like the Invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11: NATO vs Al Qaeda + the Taliban.
Dirty bombs are somewhat overhyped too: chances are they're going to kill more people with the conventional explosives than the radioactive payload. So enough to provoke a military response... not enough for the West to glass over the country where the perpetrators happen to be hiding.
Of course, from a gameplay perspective, this leaves room to restrict Blufor and give Redfor a chance by, for example, imposing tight casualty limits or necessitating the preservation of civilian infrastructure. -
Somewhat relevant and another point for the arty vs tanks argument (4:45 if the timestamp doesn't work):
TLDR: an airburst round went through all the way through the barrel and through the front glacis plate and into a track adjustment mechanism... which would not necessarily disable the main gun in the sense that you couldn't fire it, but it would not be a good idea.Â
-
The Iraqis had just fought the Iranians for almost a decade and had a very good appreciation of what their forces were capable of: ie. holding static positions and conducting limited offensive actions only if planned and rehearsed down to the tiniest detail. So that's what they did.
Hiding in cities might seem sensible in hindsight, but the Iraqis are trying to hold onto Kuwait which is mostly open desert with limited- and easily bypassed and surrounded- urban areas, so it's not going to achieve anything for them. You could maybe argue that the Iraqis would perform better tactically in the cities, but they even managed to lose the Battle of Al Khafji against the Saudis who were... not really representative of the quality of the Coalition.
-
Fending off OPFOR with maniacal laughter at the NTC:
Have to say 1a: Hasty Attack felt like a bit of stress test. -
Good spot. I can fix that!
-
Err, lagging somewhat behind the pack here, but work in progress...
ÂÂ
-
@chuckdyke is correct: I just cleared the Rahadnak Valley scenario out and put my own stuff in for that video.
Changing a scenario map to a QB map is pretty simple (just save it in the Quick Battles folder), though it'll probably play better if you tweak the setup zones and objectives and changing the AI plan to something generic for singleplayer QBs can be a bit of a pain. -
8 minutes ago, markus544 said:
Then with that said US naval units with gunfire support makes sense to me now. I was somewhat taken aback by BF mentioning that CMCW would have naval gunfire support.
I think that was actually a typo.
-
I think a trip to Norway may have been in store for them
-
You can get the standard infantry carrier and the -10 with the 37mm gun in the single vehicles tab, but the command (-3) and mortar carrier (-2) variants only come as options for mounted Panzergrenadiers.
-
Nice.
That top image is exactly how it looks for me.
I've really got to re-mod my CMBN. -
I have a few H2H games I need to make into videos, but I also want to coordinate some of them with Steam releases, so bit of a dry patch at the moment.
It takes some doing. -
Oh well, good news the texture is just me then.
The inside of my command U304s is just a flat grey texture with vertex lines on. -
Hello! Just a couple of things I spotted when messing around with ugly halftracks.
The U304(f)-3 (the command variant) is missing it's internal textures and the U304(f)-10 (the 37mm Platoon leader variant) has the gunner and passengers sitting in the floor of the vehicle rather than on the benches. Nothing game breaking or anything like that.
I'd post some screens, but apparently I've run out of space.
 -
The 79-82 timeframe is very much pre-SA80. The Falklands War was in 82, so that's what we'd be looking at in terms of infantry weapons, ie. Sterling SMG, SLR, GPMG and Bren.
Christmas 2021 Scenario Challenge
in CM2 Scenario and Mod Tips
Posted · Edited by Hapless
208x208 is distressingly small and 10 minutes is very short. Might actually make it more difficult.