IICptMillerII
-
Posts
3,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Posts posted by IICptMillerII
-
-
The 1500m figure comes from an average designed to measure combat LOS in Germany. It may have been specific to the American sector, which is much more wooded and hilly than Northern Germany. Anyways, the point is, it is a combat average.
Nice pictures though!
-
43 minutes ago, sawomi said:
As someone who lives in Germany I can say it's defenitely not "rare" to have a LOS over 1,5km.
Combat LOS, not a typical LOS of a civilian driving down an autobahn.
-
Any tank is capable if in a good position, or if they just get lucky.
This platoon of M48s caught these T-62s in the flank at pretty close range. The results speak for themselves.
-
-
On 3/7/2021 at 7:19 AM, Megalon Jones said:
How about Brezhnev's health deteriorates much faster and the Central Committee can't come up with an acceptable majority bloc that doesn't include placating the hawks. Poland isn't able to stem Solidarnosc with martial law. Throw in a bad harvest, a tanked oil market and signs of ethnic troubles in the Asian SSR's.
That's a decades worth of bad news. Now, compress it into about a six month time frame.
Sure, why not! One of the great things about CMCW is that if you want to, you can create your own backstory to inform the context of your scenarios. Its all what you make of it.
-
15 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:
TL;DR - Blind him with smoke, then CHARGE!
One of the really cool elements of this title is the shift from "smoke is my best friend!" to "smoke just blinds my men as I die from targets I can no longer see."
This is part of the technological shift Warren has mentioned a few times. In 79 there are essentially no vehicles with sights that can see through smoke, so the use of smoke can be very important to blind enemy positions and protect your men in the open.
However, by the end of the titles timeframe (82) there are a handful of vehicles on the US side (Abrams, Bradleys, M60A3 TTS, M901s are the big ones that come to mind) that all have thermal imagers and can see through smoke no problem. The Soviets employing smoke to conceal their men will not work against these threats. Anyone who has played CMSF2 or CMBS is aware of this.Luckily for Warren, Bil has very little assets that have thermal imagers, so heavy use of smoke will likely benefit him greatly. Just thought I would point out that dynamic. It is another element of this title that makes it unique.
-
On 3/7/2021 at 2:42 PM, Rice said:
How much time have you had with the M60A2? I'm curious as to it's performance against T-64s.
It does not perform well against the T-64 in a stand up fight.
22 hours ago, Sequoia said:Didn't someone post somewhere that it was rare to have a LOS over 1000m in Germany?
1500m is the figure I see thrown around most often.
-
21 hours ago, Double Deuce said:
Just curious, for those in the know, what 'Force' naming convention will be used for CMCW? I know the WWII titles use Axis/Allies and the CMSF2 (the only modern title I have) uses Red/Blue. Will it be NATO/WP, Red/Blue, etc? The reason I ask is I'm working up my own custom tweaked Scenario AI Planning and Scenario Objective Worksheets based on the ones in the "Sheriff of Oosterbeek - Scenario Design DAR/AAR" PDF.
In the editor the US is "Blue" and the Soviets are "Red."
-
1 hour ago, Able Archer said:
An ongoing series of blog posts about "Third World War 1987". https://ww31987.wordpress.com
(yes, a little late for CM:CW)
That blog is great. I’ve been following it for a while now. The author is turning it into a book which is coming out soon. I’m excited for it!
-
4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
You live in a free country, buy a different game.
Luke is a beta tester and has put his own time into helping to make and improve CM over the years. His criticisms are legitimate and come from someone wanting to continue to improve CM. Might be useful to understand context before flapping your gums.
-
Glad to see you back Kohl!
-
16 minutes ago, kevinkin said:
The Wargamer.com comes to mind off the bat. And amateur reviewers over at Steam etc..
it didn’t help that the screenshots they use (CMFB, SF2 and now CW) were terrible quality.
FWIW I think the graphics in CM are good for a sim. If I wanted to overhaul the looks I would start with the terrain, then add some more animations in. Beyond that I think it’s functional and even looks pretty good sometimes.
-
18 minutes ago, BornGinger said:
If you aren't joking because Pete loves to make large maps, you mean that the maps in Cold War are going to be larger than in the other games
In the campaigns at least, the average map size is somewhere around 4x2km. We’ve found this to be an ideal map size to allow period appropriate forces (a Soviet motor rifle battalion for example) the proper room to both maneuver and fight. It also allows for weapon systems that are more modern (ATGMs, Abrams FCS) the right amount of room to stretch their legs.
I know that “knife fighting in a phone booth” has been a common complaint of CM games in modern warfare settings. I think this title goes a long way to mitigate that concern.
Also, Pete is a goddamn wizard with the scenario editor. His maps are honestly jaw dropping. There are others too of course, George MC and MOS come to mind, and that is only a partial list. This title has been blessed by the skillful touch of some of the best mappers out there
-
2 minutes ago, IanL said:
Raise and lower the camera - perhaps? I was not aware you could use it for zooming. Z and X keys are for zooming.
Ach, you're right Ian. Bit of a brain fart from me. Zooming the camera is ZX, raising and lowering is the scroll wheel. Doh...
-
8 hours ago, Japo32 said:
In any case.. if you don't plan to modify anything. I would like you to give us the option to change mouse buttons options as we wish. For example mouse wheel for height or zoom... right mouse for pan or rotation.... control+mouse buttons for other thing... etc... Right now we cannot customize that area.
Sorry if I am not understanding your question/request, but if I am reading this right, this is already possible.
When I play CM, I use the WASD keys to move the camera around the battlefield. QE rotate the camera left and right. If you press and hold the right mouse button it will rotate the camera around, and if you press and hold the left mouse button and then move the mouse, it will move the camera around at varying speeds. Using the mouse wheel is how I zoom in and out as well.
In the controls section of the options menu, I have the camera config set to "Standard." I have it set this way in all my CM games.
-
26 minutes ago, HerrTom said:
Decided to pull out all my relevant books in case any have been missed in this thread.
Since I realise now my picture isn't too great and I don't want to get them back out:, from top to bottom:
- First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War Three by Kenneth Macksey. World War 3 Canadian Style, shows a lot of nitty-gritty tactical detail that many other books find wanting. Super detailed and a good ride too.
- The Third World War by Sir John Hackett. I honestly found it pretty dry and hawkish, which I guess fits Hackett's objectives in writing it. Lots of scenario ideas though I found a lot of stereotypes (and worse, mirror-imaging!) that I don't think survive a retrospective look. I got it as one of the "must-reads" but honestly am not too big a fan.
- The Cold War: A New History by John Lewis Gaddis. The historiography is getting a little dated by now, but it's still a solid single-volume history of the cold war, a real credit to Gaddis and his editors.
- Red Thrust by Steven Zaloga. Reads like a cross between Clancy's work and First Clash. A good read, showcases some of the major technical gaps between WP and NATO equipment in the 80s.
- The Offensive by A. A. Sidorenko (translated). I know I already mentioned this, it's a dry but very informative read. Can't get better than a primary source on Soviet military thought, though!
- Soviet AirLand Battle Tactics by William Baxter. Intentionally misnomered, it's a surprisingly easy read on the complicated subject. Definitely a good way to get started looking at the other side of the Iron Curtain.
- The Soviet Conduct of Tactical Maneuver by David Glantz. Glantz is probably one of the best experts on the Soviet military in the west. Great historical context bringing the development of Soviet tactical manoeuvre to the modern day.
- The Bear Went Over the Mountain by Les Grau and David Glantz. Largely a translation of a Frunze Academy report, drills down into specific engagements in the Soviet-Afghan war and identifies problems and failures in the execution of operations. Interesting and detailed commentary by Grau and Glantz ,too.
- The Soviet-Afghan War by Les Grau. Some duplication from above, includes information on other combat arms beyond tactical units like logistics and artillery.
- Armies of Nato's Central Front by David Isby and Charles Kamps, Jr. Really just an encyclopaedia of militaries in Europe, good info on OOBs and the like.
- Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland by Siegfried Lautsch. Lautsch is a retired NVA Colonel, which allowed him some great insight into the Warsaw Pact side of the equation. Great diagrams, clear and detailed language. Honestly my favourite of the books. Also showcases plans and wargames which aren't the much misunderstood Six Days to the River Rhine!
That's a great collection! I'm jealous of "The Third World War." I haven't been able to get my hands on a copy despite trying for a while now. I recently looked into getting "Armies of NATOs Central Front" too but same issue.
"The War That Never Was" is really good. I just finished reading it. Definitely some good ideas in there for modules...
-
16 hours ago, Ryujin said:
Nope didn't know, thought the M1IP armor carried over to the base M1A1, with the A1 being the new gun and fcs. Thanks for the correction, do you know what changed?
IIRC the turret armor was slightly beefed up, but not by a ton. The blowout panels for the ammo were also tweaked as was the ammo stowage, which theoretically would have improved crew survivability even more.
But you are definitely right that the DU armor that came with the HA was a pretty decent leap forward in (already pretty exceptional) armor protection.
4 hours ago, Able Archer said:True. Makes you wonder why the M1 got an 105 mm while Germany chose 120 mm for Leo 2 developed slightly earlier. And Soviet tanks already had 125 mm guns.
perhaps "cost" is the obvious answer. At least they prepared M1 for the 120 mm gun.Its also important to remember that the size of the gun doesn't matter nearly as much as the ammo the gun is firing. There are 105mm sabot rounds that outperform 120mm rounds.
-
15 hours ago, CameronMcDonald said:
The World in Conflict OSTs seem apt to drop in here!
Spetsnaz is my favourite track.
You beat me to it!
Fantastic soundtrack. I've already made a personal mod that has 3 of the songs as the menu, loading, and end game music. Might release it as a day one mod when CMCW comes out.
-
4 hours ago, Ryujin said:
there's 4 generations of armor so that chart isn't quite correct:
- M1
- M1IP/M1A1- New turret
- M1A1(HA/HC/SA/FEP) - DU armor
- M1A2 - Even better DU armor
Not to nitpick, and I am sure you personally know, but the M1A1 was not just the M1IP with a 120mm. The A1 came with even better armor and a new fire control for the 120mm gun as well. And it was the M1A1HA that added the DU armor. Just so everyone else is aware
-
56 minutes ago, IMHO said:
Is HE arty support deals more damage to armored vehicles than in CMBS? More mobility kills? More damage to sights?
Well, there is DPICM now. So, if you are using HE artillery against tanks it is now doubly wrong.
-
17 minutes ago, Ultradave said:
3) Conversely to 2), NO ONE thought that anyone in NATO/US would authorize nuclear strikes on anything inside West Germany, which made having them pretty pointless, really.
4) Considering the expected course of a Soviet invasion of West Germany, the most important thing I learned was exactly how to blow the warheads up into tiny little pieces so that they wouldn't fall into Soviet hands (blow them up conventionally - which you can do without setting off the warhead).
5) The consensus at the time was that any use of tactical/battlefield nuclear weapons would not remain contained and would rapidly escalate to a general nuclear exchange. It seemed both sides felt this was true (it later came out) which makes it unlikely they would be used.
Bless you for posting these words of sanity in an otherwise "nukes gone wild" speculative environment.
-
21 minutes ago, Geoff-Ludumpress said:
CMFR should have been completed before CMCW IMHO. Image the other ww2 vehicles we could have had in F&R if they were not working on CMCW, eg. Ford GPA sea jeep, T-34 mine rollers etc.
Developing CMCW did not detract from the development of F&R.
CMCW had a very small development team for the vast majority of its development cycle. We didn't open it up to the full beta tester team until only about a month or so ago now.
-
23 minutes ago, sfhand said:
As a long time observer of BF forums this thread's topic seems very familiar. I do not write this to denigrate anyone, I am and have always been someone who is deeply fascinated by human behavior and psychology. I am all too human myself. I have enjoyed the perks and suffered the follies and heartbreaks that go along with that.
From my first days here I, as a gamer not a grognard, have taken note of my fellows' interests, partially to enrich my own experience of CM and to enhance my abilities in game in an effort to be a worthy opponent. As a result, I have read many people expressing desires for many things. In terms of "what games they would like to see next" the Eastern Front of WW2 and a fictional Fulda Gap scenario have been very popular ideas dating back to CMBO. As a result I can only view this as a win/win with no losers from either camp.
For me, if I were to look for one of my "CM desires" to be frustrated by this announcement it would be my desire for a modular CM3 that could take full advantage of modern computer architecture (another very common theme around these parts). I write this as one who can not know if the development of a fully modernized CM3 is likely, or even possible, for a small company like BF. So, in reality, I am not frustrated by the announcement but rather very happy for more content, engine upgrades of current content, as well as more user made scenarios and mods that will invariably follow. Two birds in the hand... what?
Well put! Not to detract from anything you have said here, I do want to point out that I think the original poster meant the title as slightly tongue in cheek.
8 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:But the development of Fire and Rubble has been a very troublesome one, with a lot of delay and radio silence. And human as I am I've lost my patience and good manners on several occassions.
I understand the frustration, but I do want to quickly point out that there were some very real (and serious) life complications that cropped up (multiple times unfortunately) that caused a fair number of the delays. It is not my place to comment on those. I only mention it to try and give some context.
-
6 hours ago, theforger said:
for those budding CW Scenario Designers
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bear-Marches-West-Scenarios-Wargames-ebook/dp/B0086V6KA4
I have this, and I think its worth picking up. It isn't exactly overflowing with content, but there are a lot of decently put together scenarios, and they all come with some cool custom drawn maps as well. I would say its worth it.
4 hours ago, Able Archer said:I started re-reading Team Yankee yesterday. They're using M1:s with the 105 mm gun, it fits perfectly into CM:CW.
The older edition is much better. The new edition has a ton of typos and grammatical errors. The editor really dropped the ball on the re-release.
U.S. Thread - CM Cold War - BETA AAR - Battle of Dolbach Heights 1980
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
Exactly, on both points!