IICptMillerII
-
Posts
3,007 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
44
Posts posted by IICptMillerII
-
-
19 minutes ago, Artkin said:
The T-62s had some seriously abysmal performance in the CMCW tournament Slysniper is hosting. My opponent had unbuttoned tanks totally oblivious to huge m60's for like half a turn within 300m. So I also think something isnt right there.
Huh. Pretty much all of my experience playing the Soviets is that I have T-62s both outspotting and outshooting M60s, and the M60s are unbuttoned while the T-62s are buttoned up. Crazy how different these anecdotes are.
-
A battlegroup is simply another term for a battalion task force.
Battalion task forces were quite prevalent in the 70s and 80s. Both NATO and Warsaw Pact forces used battalion task forces (battlegroups) extensively.
-
Great video! Always love cinematic CM vids!
-
23 minutes ago, Erwin said:
My primary experience is with CMBS. Still waiting for the bug update for CMCW. Glad to hear one gets battalions to maneuver.
There have been three patches released for Cold War since it came out 9 months ago. What are you on about?
Also, maybe being toxic about something you haven't even tried yourself isn't the greatest move.
-
1 hour ago, Erwin said:
One issue re Soviet tactics is that in RL wouldn't the Soviets be maneuvering in larger formations than we usually see in CM scenarios? eg: In Battalion strength or more rather than company. That would allow a lot more firepower to be focused on NATO positions to overcome them linearly. And also a lot more casualties to be tolerated.
Every. Single. Soviet campaign mission is a battalion level action, and the final battle is a regimental action. And all of them are on large maps that accommodate the force size. Most of the US missions are battalion level as well. The training scenarios for the Soviets are all battalion level actions, and a good number of the independent scenarios are battalion and larger actions as well.
The record is so beyond broken at this point. Have you even played Cold War? Sheesh. -
-
9 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:
No it's the October crossroads assault in Holland and best of my knowledge hasn't been recreated by anyone in the community in CMFB. Not sure it would be the best scenario being a bit of a one sided turkey shoot. Would be interesting if in game you could have the pixeltruppen of Capt Winters alone firing shots at the German company in the game without the German TacAI gunning him down in two seconds.
Whoops, you’re right! Mea culpa. A point to Chucky D.
Definitely a “moment in time” type battle. It’s funny, I can imagine CM players screaming about how the game is broken cause no one in the company would shoot back/hit the one paratrooper firing into them
-
This scenario is in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy. It's called "Silence the Guns - Brecourt Manor"
-
4 hours ago, M.H. said:
Hello,
Since a few days I have a issue with the display of the grounds, have deleted all mods, reinstalled, problem persists.
On the three screenshots you can see once with the problems in the display, it's like smeared, overlaid or something like that, then a screenshot with movie-mode where the floor appears normal, and picture number three shows the display before the problems. I use a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti.
Does anyone have any advice?
Thanks for the attention.
Kind Regards
It looks like you might have turned movie mode lighting on. Try hitting Alt+M to toggle it. Also, in one of those screenshots you definitely had modded unit icons, so you still have mods active.
-
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:
John, i'm also in favor of an overall revision of Soviet CAS as depicted in the game. It loiters too much-CAS does this in most of the games-but the Soviets emphasized ordinance dump on all their strikes. This caused some issues with Army leadership-who wanted actual loiter capability (later provided by the Hind and Su-25) not provided by the generation of Mach 1.0 capable attackers mostly available to the VVS in the 1970s. (The Su-17, 22, 27 etc).
Incidentally the MiG-21 could actually mount and fire the beam-riding missile Grom (radar guided, not laser). CAS and multi-mission capability in Soviet aircraft was often more widespread than believed, they were more role-specific than western types but not inflexibly so.
The Soviets never intended to use fixed wing aircraft in a Close Air Support (CAS) role. CAS is defined as having some level of direct coordination with ground controllers, meaning that a ground controller is calling in and directing strikes in support of troops in contact. The Soviets did not ever intend to do that. Fixed wing aircraft were meant to carry out strikes along the enemy's depth, including targets that were farther behind the Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) than conventional artillery could strike. Nearly all of these targets were briefed, as in they were designated before the strike as opposed to having the pilots find their own.
Helicopter gunships had more of a CAS-like role, in that their role was more about supporting troops in contact with air support, but even here it was not directed by ground controllers. The gunships job was to fly in, strafe enemy positions and then bug out. It was expected that helicopters would do a better job of engaging enemy forces in close proximity to friendly forces.
There is a strong argument that the Soviets should have no fixed wing aircraft in CMCW. The reason they are included is because players would be up in arms about a feature being stripped from the game, and because there are some limited use cases for them to be present. All Soviet air support (helo and fixed wing) should be used as pre-planned strikes during the deployment phase. This best simulates how the Soviets would have used them in reality, as an opening pre-planned strike in support of an attack. Anything else begins to really stretch the definitions of Soviet "CAS."
-
16 minutes ago, Amedeo said:
Since there's no T-64B variant in game expressly labelled "1980", I presume you mean all T-64B tanks from 1980 onwards.
Thanks for the clarification.
Ack, you're right! man, what a typo on my part. My bad on that. You can see why the manual has a typo in it now!
I was thinking about the T-72A and T-72A (1980), which both carry different ammo. I corrected my previous post to reflect that.
-
5 hours ago, Amedeo said:
Speaking of typos in the manual: did you (or some other of the beta testers/devs) say that also the T-64A in CMCW uses the BM15 (and not the BM12)? Or am I remembering it wrong? Thanks.
Yup. Actually that highlights a typo I made in trying to correct a typo.
T-64A is equipped with BM15
T-64B is equipped with BM22
(same with the B1 variants)
-
22 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
- T-64B: BM15 APFSDS, BK18M HEAT
- T-64B1: same as T-64B
This is actually a typo in the manual. The T-64B and B1 are firing BM22, just like T-72A (1980) and T-80B.
-
10 minutes ago, Glubokii Boy said:
2 Simplyfying the scenario editor.
I definitely agree, though it is important to remember that the vast majority of players do not interact with the scenario editor at all. So if we are talking about improvements that affect the most amount of players, then gameplay improvements are the priority.
I do think improving the editor (mainly by making it much easier to produce maps a lot faster) would be a massive improvement overall. Maps and their development tend to be the largest bottleneck when it comes to players and custom content.
-
On 12/10/2021 at 12:30 AM, StormDog said:
In general, I'd like improvements to make the command phase to be less tedious. The easier it is to play the game, the more enjoyable it becomes.
Completely agree. I think this is one of the single biggest things that could be done to improve the experience of playing CM. Allowing the player to do more with less clicks would be a massive improvement. Anything that reduces the administrative burden on the player is good.
-
Warren nailed it on the head.
We should put in bold in the manual something to the effect of “Ammo > gun size”
-
On 12/10/2021 at 5:09 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:
It also has different HEAT ammunition (APFSDS is the same).
T-72A: 3BK14M
T-72A (1980): 3BK18
@Armorgunner It is also equipped with BM22 APFSDS rounds, which punch significantly harder than the BM15 APFSDS rounds the T-72A is equipped with. It is a significant upgrade that makes it competitive against Abrams.
-
23 hours ago, MikeyD said:
I remember when the Beta team was researching armor penetration stats for the PT-76 light tank we were astounded by the numbers. Our initial guesstimate penetration numbers for the gun had to be doubled, or something like that.
Man you made the joke and then the man himself restated it just now in a new thread! Nice bait and switch!
-
25 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
Reminds me to say that I'm not amused that Mac versions on Steam are probably not just delayed but won't come. Makes the game look worse on Steam.
Slitherines call.
-
49 minutes ago, Scorpii said:
Some overall impressions regarding PBEM++ now that I've gone through about 4 or 5 games, mostly open challenges.
1. The inability to communicate in-game with the other players without using another program such as Discord or Steam is a huge issue. You can get around the issue by re-naming the file your sending back. PBEM++ was, in my eyes, a way to allow for more open games or challenges without the need for an outside medium but, instead, it leaves newer players confused or they'll have to ask what's going on. Or if I want to set-up rules or conditions with someone else, there's no way for me to do that. Don't get me wrong, I love how PBEM++ works, but for me, sometimes I don't want to go through the hassle of setting up a match or communicating outside a game. I get this is the first iteration of PBEM++ in Combat Mission, but it is an issue.
2. Unable to see the end-match result and points at the end of the match. If you call a cease-fire and send the file back to the other person and somehow communicate you'd like a cease-fire, you won't see the result yourself. I assume that the other player sees the end-game results but I don't know because PBEM++ will automatically delete the match regardless. I've had this happen in all of the matches I called the cease-fire in. I've not once been able to see the results of a cease-fire and I would like to at least be able to see that.
3. Allow the game to remember my Matrix login details. Please.
Conclusion: I love PBEM++ and its iteration. But these are like the top three biggest annoyances and concerns I have towards the system in creating a more "wider-audience" friendly introduction into CM. Am I saying I want CM to be acceptable to everyone who's interested? No, the series is always going to be niche. I just want it to be easier to set-up public games and I'm leaving this thread as a steady community feedback and I hope the BFC team at least takes our notes forward.
Good points. I agree with most.
Friendly reminder though: PBEM+++ is Slitherine's. Any requests for improvements to their system should be directed to them.
-
Glad to see another JK thread has run it’s usual course.
Friendly reminder that everyone’s favorite Australian pup doesn’t even own Cold War, has no intention of buying it, and is not discussing anything remotely related to the topic at hand. Not that he ever does, but I digress.
This thread should be locked for elder abuse. Not that it isn’t warranted, but still.
-
10 hours ago, Codreanu said:
Some screenshots from a PBEM I finished up.
B Troop infantry take out a BRDM-2, they end up picking off a pretty significant amount of them in the first stages of the battle but in the long run it gives away their positions and uses up precious Dragon rounds.
After a long preparatory bombardment, a thick curtain of smoke is dropped and the lead elements of the first infantry company swim across the river. My M60s and Dragons get quite a few but they can only get keyhole shots through the smoke.
Artillery dropping on a section of 100mm anti-tank guns set up on a road on the far side of the river.
Despite the good half-dozen BMPs either sinking in the river or burning on the banks, Soviet infantry press on. My M60s take a serious beating and I lose 3 in one turn and don't really have the manpower or firepower to counterattack and push the Soviets back across the river so I hit surrender after a few more minutes. Good decision because there was another entire company in transit across the river and what looks like another company in reserve.
It was a tough but very fun fight despite getting my butt kicked. The smoke barrage on my side of the river was what really did me in, I think, my opponent was able to mass his entire force at one small point in the crossing and I couldn't deliver any flanking fire across the river due to the smoke.
Great shots!
-
19 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
One thing to do with a keyboard warrior like you ignore.
Calls a long serving member of the British armed forces a keyboard warrior. Combatintman was literally defending Western Europe in the BAOR while someone here was eating his homemade mushrooms that has given him the brain we all know and love today.
6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:I am not here to sit by idly when people rubbish the Australian armed services. Testers and editors here think they are a law upon themselves. For me he is just somebody to be ignored. I look at my games and when he had something to do with it I won't play it.
Oh no, god forbid someone break out a legitimate, objective statement about a military's capabilities, on a forum about a sim that features various militaries and their capabilities.
4 hours ago, chuckdyke said:On the internet you can be anything and claim to be anything. Better I stop playing this game. It has stopped to be some fun. The reason I came on this forum. The fact he insulted dead veterans says enough about him. Something a poser would do. I don't say he is.
Don't slip on your drool on the way out! I'm sure there is someone here that would be slightly less entertained by the nursing home posts.
-
3 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Yeah, about that.....See Egypt, as mentioned earlier.
Egypt didn't operate the Mig-23. They bought a few but they were essentially hangar queens as they spend most of their time in storage.
Anyways, my main point was that the A-7 is far from being "outclassed" by the Mig-23, nor was the Mig-23 a technological wonder in any way. In fact, it was largely using tech that was behind the times when it was rolled out.
Great post-game analysis for Hapless' recent series
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted · Edited by IICptMillerII
Da, comrade! Check out this vid of me giving one such address to my men before a battle:
Extra rations of carrots every day!
How do you say, "hit the nail on the head" in German?