IICptMillerII
-
Posts
3,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Posts posted by IICptMillerII
-
-
A few years ago Elvis helped me out on Christmas Eve. I've always had a ton of respect for him. The man is a machine!
-
Congrats @The_Capt for winning this tough fight! In my opinion this has been one of the best beta AARs in recent memory, and the two of you even managed to finish it before the game released! Love how it came down to a final decisive exchange. I think the AAR has done a really great job of showing off the true peer-on-peer nature of CMCW, among many other positives.
4 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:How do you feel about the T-62 performance (price/performance and in the big picture)?
I Have have been traumatized by this tank in the past titles and I always go for T-55/T-72 if given the choice.
To add to what Warren said, the T-62 is actually a pretty effective tank in this title. It is not massively outclassed by anything (no poor T-62s vs M1A1/2) and in many cases will outperform US armor. As a rule of thumb: Everything >>> M60A1.
The T-55 certainly feels like an "old" tank in CMCW, similar to the base M60A1. Both are completely outclassed by later variants/models of tanks present, and is really noticeable.
-
11 hours ago, Rice said:
How are the M901s dealt with? Does the TAC A.I. shoot the launcher itself?
If only the launcher is exposed, and is spotted, then it will be shot at. And, if a sabot/HEAT/HESH/whatever round flies through the exposed launcher and hits it, it will be knocked out, without destroying the vehicle.
19 minutes ago, Erwin said:Have probably played about 15,000 hours with all the playtesting I used to do.
The screenshot you quoted is from Black Sea, not CMCW. So clearly this issue has been addressed in other titles to some extent.
19 minutes ago, Erwin said:vehicles with telescopic launchers or optics on top of the vehicle were very vulnerable as hulldown for them meant that the top of the vehicle was exposed and easy to hit.
So, the vehicle designed to only expose the unmanned launcher is the only part of the vehicle that is vulnerable, when exposed. Sounds like it is working as designed to me.
-
I think that might be a typo on the website. In game, it is labeled as the M224. Here is a screenshot of it. Bear in mind, the UI is still work in progress:
Also, the games timeframe is 1979-1982
-
29 minutes ago, JulianJ said:
Are we still expecting a release date around April 1st? I haven't pre-ordered because I didn't want to get my hopes too high in case of a delay.
Not sure where this April 1st date came from. The official release date is just the month of April.
But to answer your question, yes we are fully expecting the game to come out in April.
-
1 hour ago, Hacketäuer said:
Maybe not really a tactical question but what exactly was the role of Cavalry Units during that time? It is supposed to be lighter, more mobile then other armoured formations? So a kind of recon force? Yet still some Cav. Divisions also fielded MBT's.
For the US, they were essentially strategic screening forces. They were meant to absorb the initial Soviet attack (even if it was a complete surprise attack) and buy enough time (slow down the Soviet advance) for other units in country to get assembled and move into defensive positions. They were a tripwire.
Because of their precarious position, they tended to get all the best equipment right away. They had mostly Abrams and Bradleys once those vehicles came into Germany, as opposed to a lot of the other US units in theater, which were still largely equipped with Patton tanks well into the mid 80s.
-
6 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:
Also, that infantry screen has done more damage than I thought possible with those Dragon missiles.
The Dragon is not good, but it isn’t bad either. It’s... hard to classify. I think some people will love it and others will hate it.
-
Hell yeah, the deep penetration!
This is getting more exciting with every update. Fantastic stuff!
-
11 minutes ago, Dr.Fusselpulli said:
Was the color of the soviet tanks changed? I have the feeling they are looking much better now compared to previous pictures. Now they have exactly this proper yellowish green which I was looking.
There are a few different shades of Soviet green that appears in the game. Not my call on that decision. I think the T-64As and BMP-1s in the screenshots I posted look the best.
-
-
Well, I think the most recent turn The_Capt posted was a bit anticlimactic. Bil is certainly still in the fight! I still think this will all come down to a decisive engagement. They have traded blows trying to shape the battlefield, now one of them needs to capitalize on that and deliver the decisive punch.
-
1 hour ago, akd said:
Putting a bull's eye on your own tank...
I just noticed that. Gotta love gallows humor!
I see my first image didn't want to embed, so here it is:
-
Anyways, how about a return to sanity?
-
For those looking to see the Soviet infantry:
-
On 3/18/2021 at 7:08 PM, MikeyD said:
I had entirely forgotten that South Korea had taken a batch of T80Us from Russia in lieu of payment on debt.
That is where a good bit of the technical knowledge on the T-80 series of tanks comes from!
Cool tanks, T-80Us, the king tiger of the Soviet Army in the 80s.
-
I don't think its looking good for Bil. I think that he is simply outclassed by equipment here. The T-64 is a very capable tank (I would argue it is better than all the M60 variants but the A3) and even his BMP-1s are extremely dangerous to an M60. In short, if its not an M60A3, you are operating with an arm and a leg tied behind your back. Add on to this the numerical superiority his opponent has, and it isn't looking good.
If Bil does not win this developing tank engagement, I think he will be in check. That said, I won't be too quick to count Bil down and out yet.
-
6 hours ago, Amedeo said:
Hey, it was the cold war! As someone said: between 1941 and 1981 the US Navy went from the Wildcat to the Hornet, between 1981 and 2021 it went from the Hornet... to the Hornet!
Heh ok, I'll bite on that one!
Its important to remember that the F/A-18A that came out in the early 80s is a very different F/A-18E and F Super Hornets we have now. You don't always need a new airframe to revolutionize equipment! Although, the Super Hornets do have modified airframes to allow for larger engines and some other goodies as well.Great info on the T-55 by the way! The T-55A is definitely an outclassed vehicle by this point in the Cold War, and we are just shy of seeing the T-55AM (and T-62M) being introduced.
-
-
On 3/11/2021 at 8:04 AM, Bil Hardenberger said:
The way I see it I have two Courses of Action (COAs):
- COA 1 – Deep Attack. This was what I had hoped to do, but with Warren’s flank security position this one comes with increased danger for my tanks.
- COA 2 – Short Attack. I actually like this one as well, it will unhinge Warren’s flank security and force him to react to my move, plus it will provide some pressure on the center and Dolbach.
- Follow on Force. Regardless of which COA I decide on, I do intend to follow the 2nd and 3rd Platoon tanks with 1st Platoon’s tanks as indicated in the planning map below.
These graphics are always a work of art and a personal favorite of mine.
In my opinion, go for the deep strike. You have enough assets to cover the short ground near the town. A successful drive deep with your tanks would completely throw off the Soviets here, and force them to react to you. You'll also create a larger killing ground as well, which facilitates your primary goal of causing maximum casualties.
I'm excited to see which way you end up taking this.
-
Well, the good news is you don't have long to wait till you can experience it all for yourself!
-
It is most certainly not a dream.
-
It depends on the formation, but it is essentially a squad level asset. Its available all through the timeline of the game so it will feature rather prominently.
-
22 minutes ago, markus544 said:
Did the T-64 have ATGM capabilty...Did the T-62 have that ability too?
In reality, yes. In game, only the T-64B has a GLATGM. The T-62 variants that got GLATGMs are outside of the games timeline as of now.
2 hours ago, wadepm said:My original purpose in asking about the 3000 meter range was to see if the US tank got the upper hand at a longer range.
Depends on the tank, but even an Abrams is going to struggle to kill Soviet MBTs at 3,000m. It will be able to hit, but at that distance, with the ammo it is slinging, and given the armor protection of T-64/72/80, it will be hard to score a kill. And then, as others have mentioned, there is the Soviet ATGM threat. Not so much of an issue for an Abrams due to its HEAT defeating composite armor, but pretty much any other US vehicle is at severe risk from ATGMs.
-
PT 76
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
There is so much wrong with the above post. God bless him at least he is consistent and keeps all of us honest. Variety is the spice of life!
Im going to avoid directly quoting anything here because I am already not looking forward to the inevitable gobbledegook word salad response, but I have to point out the idea that the US was unaware of the T-64 is especially hysterical to me. It was a well known tank, and it was not kept in the interior of Russia. In fact, GSFG were entirely supplied with T-62/64/80 tanks throughout the late 70s and 80s.
Ahh but what am I doing? Why bother.
The PT-76 is a real fun light tank to play around with. It’s featured in a very well done scenario by @MOS:96B2P I won’t spoil anything about the scenario, but it’s a good one!