Jump to content

IICptMillerII

Members
  • Posts

    3,007
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    44

Everything posted by IICptMillerII

  1. Just tried it and I couldn't get anyone across the bridge either. Does anyone know who made the original campaign? Hopefully that person still has the individual missions and the campaign script so that the mission can be fixed easily. No idea what could be causing the bridge to not be able to be crossed, but it could be a placement issue or something like that.
  2. I'm all about fire superiority, on the tactical level on up, but this seems excessive... I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not.
  3. Ok, following this logic, why not just put a 120mm on every stryker? Same question. How about, instead of asking 'why don't I have a big enough gun to defend myself?' ask 'why wasn't I smart enough to position myself correctly and not blunder into a horde of tanks?' Bradleys die. Abrams die. BMPs and BTRs and T90/T72s die. This does not make them irrelevant. Seriously, what do people not understand about a vehicle being designed for certain roles. By this logic, tanks are bad because they cant transport infantry, and they cant shoot down enemy planes. They can be killed by enemy infantry and enemy planes, but they cant defend themselves against them? The horror! What about the WWII halftrack, or the Cold War M113? Neither of these vehicles would survive toe to toe against a tank, does that mean they're worthless? No. No it hasn't. The stryker dragoon is a prototype that is going to be field tested with 2CR sometime this coming summer. It is NOT a deployable vehicle. The Army field tested flying saucers in the 50s, but I don't see any of those flying around. You can say the same thing about literally any APC. Is the BTR bad because of this? What about the MT-LB? The M3 halftrack or the M113? Seriously, no vehicle is perfect for every possible situation. Thats why different types of vehicles exist. By the way, if a horde of Abrams were ambushed by mechanized infantry, it wouldn't go well for the tanks either. These arguments are semantic that do not address the main point of the stryker.
  4. Exactly. Its a bad comparison to begin with. Apples to oranges.
  5. I had some technical difficulties and the forum lost my reply to this, so here it is now: These vehicle you've listed are not tank destroyers. They are not designed to go toe to toe, that is head to head, against tanks. Sabot/HEAT rounds fly much faster than ATGMs. The purpose of ATGM equipped vehicles is to provide units with a stand off auxiliary support. A tank destroyer was designed to be used only against tanks, and in a head to head role. Head to head means trading shots. An ATGM equipped APC will lose very quickly if it starts trading shots with tanks. I know it seems like semantics, but these are actually important distinctions.
  6. I'm not sure I understand your overall point, but what I can say is that the reality of the battlefield is what got rid of the faulty doctrine of the tank destroyer. As I stated earlier, the tank destroyers were only designed to go against enemy tanks. One of the many consequences of this is that when they were used in an infantry support role, they didn't carry much HE. Try it in CM, use M10s instead of Shermans and you'll see the issue. The reality of the battlefield made the idea of the tank destroyer not plausible, and thus it was scrapped. This is objectively false. Adding more of anything is not cost effective, its the opposite. All of the arguments being made are in a tactical vacuum. "Well the Panther was better than the Sherman in a head to head fight so the Panther is a better tank." We all of course know that this is not true. In reality the Sherman was a much better tank for a bunch of reasons, one of the primary ones being that the Sherman could get to the battlefield whereas most Panthers never did. The equipment you have on hand is always better than the equipment you wish you had. The entire point of the stryker is for it to be a battle taxi, like the halftrack of WWII. It is not supposed to go up against tanks, just as the Humvee, or the M113, or the BTR are not meant to go up against tanks. More importantly, the stryker is supposed to provide cheap and fast mobile transport to infantry. Tanks and Bradleys are heavy, expensive to maintain, expensive to keep in the field, and expensive to keep in the fight. And by expensive I do not mean cost alone, I mean man hours required to keep a Bradley in the field, to refuel, to re-supply, etc. A stryker is much cheaper, which means you can have a stryker unit operating much longer in the field with much less logistical strain than a heavy unit. Even more important is deployment time. It takes at least a month to get heavy units deployed to a theater. Stryker units can be deployed much faster, and in much larger numbers, and requires a lot less supplies. THAT is cost effective. Sticking a 30mm gun on the stryker makes it harder to deploy, harder to maintain, and more logistically hungry, which defeats the point of the stryker. All of this illustrates the fact that there is a difference between an IFV and an APC. The stryker is an APC. It is designed to cheaply and quickly get large amounts of infantry moved around a battlespace. The stryker excels at this as is.
  7. Clearly you know nothing of US tank destroyer doctrine in WWII, or even the tank destroyers themselves, for this is exactly what happened. Commanders saw a vehicle with a gun that looked a lot like a tank, sitting behind the lines doing nothing, and decided to use them in roles they were never designed for. There is a reason no modern military has used tank destroyers since 1945. People today in 2017 argue the world is flat. Just because some ridiculous argument exists out there in the ether, does not mean it is the predominate way of thinking. Comparing the stryker to the bradley is the same as comparing a helicopter to a plane. They both fly, but that is where the similarities end, both in their uses and doctrine.
  8. As others have said, I would recommend sticking with v3 for now. There is a patch coming for v4, but it's unclear when that will be released. For now I'm running most of my games on v3 and enjoy it much better. If you want, you can purchase the upgrade and have two installs of the game, one v3 and one v4 to see for yourself the differences. Otherwise I would just stick to v3 till the patch.
  9. Ahh ok thanks for the clarification. Glad to hear that CM is getting some much deserved use/exposure in the world of defense contracting!
  10. Aha, found the New Zealand reference: Specifically: New Zealand Defense Forces training aid - pretty much that's all there is to say about it And no, this will not be released for sale to the public. Sorry, but that's just the way it works sometimes It seems that BFC is in fact working on a new contract for New Zealand. Can only be good for us, whatever effects come of it.
  11. I forget which thread it was in, but I recall Steve saying that the only way they can make coop short term is if they got a defense contract. That would give them the long term funding to be able to pour the resources into creating coop in CM. It might have been mentioned in the big thread in the CMRT forum, but I can't remember. In another thread (can't remember which one either ) Steve mentioned that they picked up some kind of contract with the New Zealand military. No idea if its big enough to allow them to start developing coop (I suspect not) but who knows?
  12. What about the M1128 MGS, or the M1134 ATGM variants? And for that matter, what about all the other variants such as the M1129 mortar carrier, the M1132 Engineer vehicle, the M1133 medical evacuation vehicle, or the M1131 fire support vehicle? Are all these variants of the stryker bad? Do they all need to be able to kill BTRs? If so, why should an ambulance variant of the stryker have to kill enemy vehicles when other ambulance variants of other vehicles do not?
  13. This looks fantastic! Hopefully by the time you have it done the patch for 4.0 will be released and the map can be fully experienced.
  14. I would also love to see the possibility of having a friendly AI, as well as the ability to do coop, but I know the latter has already been addressed to some extent and we shouldn't expect to see that anytime soon. On the subject of having a friendly AI; I would like to see some type of general AI added to the game. One that doesn't require pre-scripting into a map/scenario. Though I do like HerrToms idea of having to fit your plans into a greater timetable as well. Perhaps after BFC has finished all of the upcoming projects they will have time to tackle some of these new things?
  15. This terrible meme of "muh stryker is bad becuase it can't kill aircraft carriers and space aliens at the same time, totally worthless" needs to die. Also, my car is a piece of crap because it is not capable of getting me to the moon and back. The Apollo rocket could do it, why can't my car?!?!?! Clearly I need to upgrade it by strapping great big engines to it so I can blast into space! First of all, just because you claim to be a "veteran" does not somehow validate your wrong opinion about the stryker, or anything else for that matter. To hammer home this point, CM is by far and away the best combined arms tactical combat simulator out there. Its two primary designers, Steve and Charles, both never served in the military. If you're argument against the stryker IN GAME is that because CM is a tactical simulator, you always want to bring the best possible vehicle for the immediate worst case scenario, then I agree that there are better choices than the stryker. The same argument can be made (and has been made, to the death, by many many morons on the internet) for the German panther tank of WWII. In a vacuum, on a tactical battlefield where the panther magically starts the war on that one battlefield, its a fantastic tank. However, in reality there are many other factors (one of which is getting to the battlefield) that made the panther one of the worst tanks of WWII. Yes, on a given tactical battle in CMBS a Bradley is a better choice than a stryker. The same argument can be made that you are better off taking a panther or tiger than a Pz IV in the WWII titles for the exact same reason. IN REALITY the panther and tiger were crap tanks. IN REALITY the stryker is extremely capable and in many cases better than a Bradley. The stryker is the opposite of the panther/tiger. In reality, the stryker is an amazingly capable vehicle that gives the US Army a capability it did not previously have; the ability to get to the battlefield before the war is over. (Bosnia, and the 6 months of build up prior to Desert Storm are some great modern examples) I'm not going to sit here and write a 5000 word essay on why the stryker is good, or why the US Army will continue to heavily use it as is, or why the 30mm up-gunning is a terrible idea because frankly I don't have to. People much smarter than both of us know why the stryker is a vitally important vehicle as is. You've made more than your fair share of ridiculous posts here on the forums, and I've abstained from getting involved. But in a thread where you claim to be preaching tactical wisdom, while at the same time not understanding basic principles of warfare that resulted in the adoption and widespread use of the stryker is where I draw the line. The fact of the matter is this; you can have your opinion on the stryker, but your opinion is wrong. Your word vs the US Army, yeah I'm gonna go with the Army on this one.
  16. I would argue that in CM2 you are still forced to do this, but now moreso due to factors such as morale/experience/fatigue, and the general fog of war inherent to any battlefield. Yes these facotrs were in CM1, but in CM2 you have to keep your plan simple/flexible due to real life reasons, not an arbitrary game handicap.
  17. Not sure wading into this is the best idea, but what the hell. I very much disagree. At all levels of warfare, firearms handling and safety, and common sense, the basic rule of "only point/fire at a target you are sure of" permeates all. You are NEVER supposed to dump wanton fire into unsure targets. At the very least, its a waste of ammo, and more than that it poses a severe security and safety risk, regardless of whether you are a rifleman being overrun by [insert horde stereotype here] or a civilian hunter off in the woods somewhere. ("Duck Cheney!") Yes, there are plenty of different types of targets that are viable even if you cannot see a specific person in a firefight, for example an occupied house/hedgerow/trenchline/etc. Herein lies the nuance of the issue. Some people think that an enemy smoke screen with the clear intent of concealing enemy forces that are maneuvering in the open constitutes a valid target to fire at/through. I would argue against this personally for various reasons, some of which I've already mentioned, and others. But at the most basic, I would rather be shooting at something I can see, than firing at something I only think might be there, at the very least risking an empty weapon when the enemy does emerge. A bolt action rifle with a bayonet beats a machine gun if the machine gun is out of ammo/reloading because it was dumping fire at targets it couldn't see. Further, it has been proven through history time and again that simply putting fire down is not enough. The fire must be effective, whether thats direct or in direct fire. Again, there is much more that can be said/argued about this. My main point is that in the real world, shooting randomly at unobserved targets is always a big no no (enough to be disciplined for a negligent discharge, even in a firefight) and that the ability to shoot or not shoot into/through smoke in CM makes very little difference on the overall outcome of the tactical situation. Besides, if you're going to dump fires into smoke to hinder enemy maneuver, you're better off calling on the red legs anyways. P.S: This all wasn't aimed at you MOS, just my general response to the topic.
  18. Is there any way for you to upload a video of the bug? I've never seen anything like this before, and have played both direct connect through evolve/hamachi, and PBEM quite extensively. Are you both on the same version of game? You can check this by looking at the lower right on the main menu: Other than that I really can't think of a reason for your issue. Having a video to see what is happening would help a lot to diagnose the issue. If its not possible to take a video I understand. I know you mentioned that you want to avoid PBEM, but it may end up being your best option. I think you'll find that if you use CM Helper with dropbox, you can actually exchange turns very quickly. You do not have to close the game or mess around with folders and files at all. CM Helper takes care of everything, so you and your friend can still chat in real time while you're trading turns back and forth. Its much less of a hassle than you may think, and you get the added benefit of being able to replay turns to see everything happen. Again I know its not what you would prefer, but its the best bet of resolving your issue, unless there is something we're still missing information on. Good luck!
  19. The concept sounds exactly like the command cycles system used in the game Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm. Basically, the side in better C3 has a shorter delay between giving and executing orders, allowing you to get inside the enemy's command loop, thus outmaneuvering him before he can even react to you. I think its a cool concept, but I think its more suited to larger scale games, that cover more of the operational level of command. CM is a tactical level simulator, essentially putting you in the boots of team leaders and up. It wouldn't make any sense if you just had to let a team sit around getting blasted by something for minutes on end without any input from you. That said, it would be nice to see C3 elements in CM refined/expanded upon in future updates.
  20. I would like to see engineering vehicles/capabilities added to CMSF2 and CMBS. Simple things, such as mine plows on tanks should be doable, considering the sherman flail tank is in CMBN. However, seeing that BFC has been very clear about the fact that they are not adding new things to CMSF2 (aside from the new features present in the current engine) I think its more likely we would see a vehicle pack for CMBS first, and then hopefully one for CMSF2 later.
  21. I too have noticed this with UKR tanks in general. They tend to default to using the ATGMs, regardless of range. This is what I think is happening as well. The TacAI is using the ammo best suited to destroying the target, and because the ATGMs are much better than the sabot rounds they carry, they tend to default to the ATGMs all the time. Not sure if its a bug, or if it should be heavily tweaked or not to be honest. But at the very least I can say that I too observe the behavior. P.S The behavior is also present in CMSF to some extent. T62s tend to engage all targets with the ATGMs first, for what I assume is the same reason the UKR tanks do the same.
  22. Check your windows firewall settings. For me, even if I allow Hamachi in my firewall settings, it still refuses to connect, so I have to disable Windows Firewall in order to get it to work. I have an anti-virus program, so I'm not at risk by turning off windows firewall. I have used a LAN emulator called Evolve with great success in the past. You can get it here: https://www.evolvehq.com/download
  23. The animations for Black Sea can be found in the v100a data file. All I did was explode the file, copy the "animations" folder into the "Z" folder in CMSF and loaded up CMSF. Same for CMA. I suppose if you wanted you could port the WWII animations into CMBS/CMSF/CMA, or if you wanted to get more technical you could mix and match.
  24. Ahh ok. I was playing around with the campaign script and compiler in the CM editor and found it really isn't that hard to do. Once you have a working template to go off of, its quite easy to plug in the right values. Having Notepad++ helps as well.
  25. All of them. Movement, firing positions, etc. They all "overwrite" the older animations and work for the most part.
×
×
  • Create New...