IICptMillerII

Hi all, hope this isn't a repeat or anything but a decent amount of Googling around hasn't gotten me any decent results so I figure I'll ask around here. I was hoping to make myself (and possibly share with others if it turns out alright) some Soviet-era uniforms for the Russians. I was thinking maybe the silverleaf pattern with a flak vest over it, or maybe just the good old Soviet tan uniforms. Anyways, I have no idea how to make the skins themselves. I know they have to be .bmp files and to edit them you use photoshop (which I have but don't really know how to use) I was hoping someone could explain how to go about making the uniforms and maybe giving a step by step through some of the harder parts of the process. Thanks in advance!

Great song, and a great TV show as well. Some corny parts and generalizations, but overall I think its fantastic. Really takes a look at a lot of the issues/challenges that were faced in Vietnam, and it really doesn't shy away from anything. Internal race issues in the Army, infants being killed, bad LT's, family issues like divorce, it hits em all. Props for mentioning a great show!

Thanks for the update! Big list of changes, and all good stuff. Can't wait to give it a go. Thanks again!

I know that in Vietnam the life expectancy of a helicopter door gunner once contact was made was extremely low, and support weapons such as squad machine guns and heavy machine gun emplacements (as well as other assets like AT emplacements and the like) are always singled out as a top priority for obvious reasons. These things are perceived as being capable of inflicting a lot of casualties on friendly troops quickly. Think about it, who are you going to target first, the dude with just an AK or the guy rockin a PKM, or a guy with an AK or a guy with an AK and grenade launcher. This also applies to leadership positions, and is why leaders (again, 2nd lieutenants were only expected to survive something like 13 hours of combat total in Vietnam) is due to the fact that the enemy identifies them as a higher threat. (Bugle scene from 'We Were Soldiers') Could it be the case that once the TacAI identifies one of these gunners, they focus their fire and attempt to bring it down before focusing on the other dismounts? Logically it seems to follow, but I am unaware if this is an actual game mechanic. My gut tells me it is the case, but as has been stated before in this thread a gut feeling means little or nothing, especially when trying to determine and average. Does anyone have some input that could confirm/deny this theory?

If I may weigh in on this; there is a thing called fire discipline. What fire discipline is, is well trained soldiers knowing when, and more importantly when NOT to shoot. This applies to everything, from the individual rifleman/tank, all the way to the company level and higher. A great example of this is the Pacific theater during WWII. At night, the Japanese would probe allied lines, looking for weak points and to map out the layout of the lines so that they may infiltrate the lines or discover the best way to attack it. The Americans manning their positions knew that firing at the enemy, even if clearly identified, was not always the best response. They knew, through tough experience and good training, to hold their fire. This way the Japanese would not be able to obtain the information they sought unless they further exposed themselves. Fire discipline encompasses much more than what I have described, and i you want to know more I urge you to look further into the subject. My point is, is that if I tell one or more of my tanks to only engage enemy targets within a specific field of fire by designating said field of fire with a target arc command, then those soldiers better exercise good fire discipline and NOT engage anything outside of that arc, even if the target is just slightly outside of that arc. The TacAI will take the appropriate measures to protect itself given those orders, whether that means remaining concealed, or popping smoke and reversing, or even engaging a danger close threat that would be otherwise impossible to avoid. The TacAI does all of this already. It is important to remember that the goal of a battle is not to kill every enemy in sight, it is to win the battle. The knee-jerk reaction that many (I myself am guilty of this, as I'm sure many others are as well) feel when seeing the enemy is to get all excited and start blasting away. You have to think, does blasting away get me closer or farther from victory? If you don't know, you have to make an on the spot decision as the commander by quickly weighing what you know against what you don't. Remember, there is no right answer necessarily. War determines who is left, not who is right. There have been plenty of encounters between opposing military forces where actual fighting was minimal or non-existent, yet there was still a clear victor. The reason you don't hear about it is because its not sexy and glorious like combat is portrayed to be. I believe it was Sun Tzu who said something along the lines of, 'the best victory is the one you achieve without having to fight.' Something along those lines. (Please anyone feel free to correct me, going of the top of my head there) So remember, just because you see bad guys does not mean you should immediately engage them. The side that initiates the engagement (across all scales, individual to operational) has a clear and distinct advantage. The side that engages the enemy first at the time and place the initiating side chooses, that is truly an art of war.

Those files are going to be inside one of the black sea v100.brz files. Most likely A, but I could be wrong. You'll have to use the mod tools and unpack the file and find the music folder. In the music folder should be what you're looking for.

Looks awesome! Can't wait till its ready. Thanks for all of the hard work, and thanks to the beta testers for their input!

Yikes. I apologize, I was assuming a basic level of intelligence there. Perhaps I need to break it down a bit more though, which has now become apparent. Yes, a tank, a vehicle made of metals and electronic components, is not a living creature. The reason a tank is able to move, fire, and generally do its job is due to a crew that sits inside of the tank. This crew is trained on how to operate the tank (an armored vehicle which is of course not alive) in all aspects of its operations, including maintenance and combat. Perhaps there was a language barrier there and you did not fully understand what I meant when I said that a tank wouldn't just sit in the open and allow itself to get killed. Hopefully now you understand that when I said tank, I said it as an all encompassing term to include the crew and their actions under fire. If there is further confusion by all means please let me know. I understand that English is not the first language of everyone on this forum. Panzer has summed up nicely everything I was trying to say so I will not belabor the point any further.

The time a crew would be stunned would be seconds, very quick, if they were at all stunned. It wouldn't impede their ability to engage targets and defend themselves. No tank is going to just sit out in the open and allow itself to get killed because the crew is "frozen with fear/stunned into immobilization" Either the crew is going to engage the enemy, or it is going to reverse and pop smoke to avoid taking more fire. CMBS already does both of these things, so I fail to see what the issue is here. If you are trying to make it so that Abrams crews are stunned to the point where they do not function for a few moments (do not engage the enemy or move or pop smoke) making the tank a sitting duck, then you are wrong. This does not happen. If you want this kind of "effect" play Wargame, that adds a game mechanic where tanks can be "suppressed" for gamey reasons. Sounds like what you are looking for.

I think the perspective it provides is one of the coolest parts of Steel Beasts. Commanding a tank or IFV while at the same time being able to command larger units in a large scale battle. One of the scenarios that I have seen videos made about is the "Red Tide 85" campaign that was done a while back. It was a classic NATO v Warsaw Pact engagement in Western Germany, and it looked somewhat comparable to Combat Mission, the main difference being the perspective. As for the price I know its up there, but I know that you can buy time limited licenses for a month or a few months for a greatly reduced price. That may end up being the way I do it, so I can experience it without having to make the full commitment. I do think you make a good point, that experiencing these kinds of battles from a tankers perspective is much different than the one we get from the commander perspective in Combat Mission.

Then don't play it. Go somewhere else if you don't like the realism. I for one am sick of games claiming to be realistic and then dumbing down aspects for the sake of gameplay. That is not, and should not ever happen in CM. You want a game where ATGMs can kill hordes of Abrams and the T-90 is equal to or better? Play Wargame:Red Dragon. Luckily there will be no nerfing of the Abrams of Javelin in the game from a patch because the developers of CM strive to provide a realistic simulation. Thats the other point. Its a SIMULATION. Not a 'game.' How does gameplay even factor into a simulation? Aside from UI< controls, and eye candy, it doesn't.

That is a really good point you make, that the numbers represent the soldiers that will not be returning in the next battle in the campaign. I think this is the primary reason why this discrepancy has not been addressed, because while it may not appear to be completely historically accurate, it is accurate in respect to the player and his forces moving on in a campaign. I think this lends more support to my idea, that on the smaller scale battles tend to be more deadly, and that the amount of KIA is higher than WIA, but once you include all the numbers from the small and large scale (where factors such as disease, accidents, malpractice and all the others) it flips the WIA to be much more than the KIA.

Ahh ok I understand now. I thought that this could have been some kind of lead-in to a "oMg pLz nerf ABRams its tOO OP" thread. By the way I've been looking into getting Steel Beasts for a while now. I've seen some really good youtube videos of gameplay, some made by Krause who is semi-active on these forums, and I've really liked what I've seen.

Burke does have a good point. BF clearly has some bigger issues that they are working on and the issue of skewed casualty numbers is a pretty low priority I would imagine. Plus a thought just occurred to me, is it possible that at the level we are fighting battles, that there are in fact more killed than wounded? I suppose that this does make some sense. Perhaps it is only on the large scale where wounded begin to outnumber killed due to off-battlefield factors such as disease and accidents, etc. For instance in the Pacific in WWII many soldiers (I believe more than combat casualties) became casualties from malaria than enemy fire. Similar thing happened in the Spanish American War, where more US Soldiers became casualties due to bad meat in their rations than became casualties due to enemy action. Perhaps this is the answer, that on the scale we are playing (especially if an attacker is successful in his attack) the amount of killed actually outweighs the wounded. Can anyone lend advise or possibly data to back this up? Or refute it?

Whats your point? If you are trying to claim that Abrams should not be as good at gunnery based on your own experience in Steel Beasts, then that is pretty weak. As has already been mentioned, tankers train a lot, in real tanks, with other real humans, and constantly strive to better their gunnery. We have historical examples of green crews (crews with no combat experience but trained on their tanks) engaging the enemy and destroying them utterly. The First Gulf War, battle of 73 Eastings and other engagements. Yes the Iraqi penetrator was inferior blah blah blah. That isn't the point. American crews did not treat the Iraqi's as pushovers. In fact quite the opposite. The US was very worried about the Iraqi army, and feared taking over 30,000 casualties. So despite lack of combat experience, it has been proven that well trained crews can not only perform (like they are supposed to) but excel (which we have seen them do) I again have to ask what is your point?

Oof, ain't that the truth. If the United States has proven one thing, it is that it never enters a war anywhere close to prepared. Some of the worst military generals in history have led Americans into battle at the beginning of wars, and the men were under-equipped, under-trained, and overall under-prepared for what they faced. So many historical examples of this, to name a few the Civil War, North Africa and Operation Torch in WWII, the beginning of the Korean War ("No more Task Force Smith's" to those who know the reference and now infamous Army mantra) Vietnam (more for political reasons) and the 2003 invasion of Iraq ('Not enough IBA's or up-armored vehicles? YOLO!' - US Military, April 2003) However the other thing the US Military has proven is how quickly it adapts. Rommel said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "I've never seen such utterly incompetent fighters before in my life, but I've also never seen someone learn the lessons of war with such speed and effectiveness." Again heavy paraphrasing there. If someone knows the real quote feel free to throw it in. Panzer makes a good point that, like what Rommel was saying, the US Military, when it really needs something, usually does a pretty good job at getting what it needs real fast. I think that in the scenario presented in CMBS, it is logical that there would have been some build up to the conflict, and that combat ready units in the US Military (those units expected to meet the enemy first if hostilities were to break out, which they have in CMBS) would have had APS installed on them ahead of other units.

Its important to note that many Russian ATGMs won't do much to an Abrams besides annoying the crew with a loud blast and damaging external systems on the tank. Others have mentioned that a few of the Russian ATGMs can penetrate and cause damage to the Abrams from the front, but as a rule of thumb know that a lot of ATGMs are pretty ineffective against an Abrams. If the Abrams has APS, its honestly a waste to engage them with missiles. Try to slug it out with your own tanks, or if you have none, get small and hope the infantry can do something about it. Don't waste ammo and give away your position by spewing useless missiles at the enemy. Adapt and overcome or die

This is true. I believe that there were two friendly fire incidents with American tanks in the First Gulf war. Both times the Abrams was hit in the rear and the shell penetrated. I believe but could be wrong that in one of the incidents one of the crewmen was killed or wounded, possibly the driver of the tank. If anyone knows more about the incidents feel free to add/correct me. As for feeling a jolt when being hit, I think that it would be more of a vibration, and a quick one at that. Remember that it is a small object hitting at a very specific point. A lineman in football (American football) running at full speed and tackling you has roughtly the same amount of force as a point blank 12 gauge shotgun blast to the chest (based on the players specific weight and speed at impact. It varies, but it is possible to have this amount of force) The reason the football player doesn't turn the person he is tackling into putty is because the force is spread out over a much larger area. Thanks to Newton we know that an object being struck by a bullet can only be moved as much as the recoil imparted on the rifle moves the rifle. Thats why when you see people flying around from bullet hits in movies its completely unrealistic. What this means for tanks is that an enemy tank being hit by a Sabot round can only be moved as much as the gun firing the Sabot round recoils. (Yes, the gun does recoil more but is dampened a lot by mechanisms in the tank) Considering the amount of kinetic energy the Sabot round has is less than when it first left the muzzle of the tank gun, and that the target tank weighs many tons (anywhere from 45-70 depending on the tank) the actual 'jolt' felt by the tank should be rather minimal. That said I still think that the crew would know it was hit, as I think that a non-penetrating round would cause some kind of vibration. That along with the sound of the impact (dampened by the tank itself as well as the hearing protection of the crew) would let those inside the tank know that they had been hit but the round hadn't penetrated. Bringing this back to the original question asked in this thread, none of this would be enough to stun a crew into combat ineffectiveness. The only way the crew would be made combat ineffective is if it was penetrated.

Ah ok so it is a known phenomenon by the developers. As I said I don't think that it is game breaking or anything like that, just that I think its odd that there are more killed than wounded. Maybe the developers get around to addressing it, but if they don't do that anytime soon it shouldn't be a big deal as it really doesn't negatively effect gameplay at this point. Still, it would be nice to have it sorted out to make the numbers add up more realistically.

Ok thanks for the feedback! I'll give these ideas a go and see how it all plays out

This is a good point. Personally I have seen Abrams do just that, move out of the line of fire on their own to avoid losing external systems. In fact, I've noticed that Abrams tend to follow a NATO SOP from the later years of the cold war. The tankers were instructed to find and engage one target, firing once and then immediately backing up to reduce the possibility of being effectively engaged by the enemy. I have noticed my Abrams doing this in game, although I am not sure what the exact mechanics behind this behavior is (whether its an actual simulation of NATO SOP or just a generalized AI feature) However I do admit that when my Abrams have acted this way it has been due to enemy tanks and APCs such as the BMP-3 and not direct fire from a Tunguska. Seems like this could tie into a discussion/debate about the virtues of playing WEGO vs Real-time. One gives you finer control and micromanage while the other gives you the benefit of replays, better performance on large scenarios (at least for me) and what some argue is a more realistic way of how orders are issued and executed, orders are not instantaneous.

Hello comrades! Recently I have been playing the Russian campaign, "Crossing the Dnieper" and I've really been enjoying it. So much so that it has got me thinking about making my own campaign, mostly for my own enjoyment but if I feel that it is good enough (and if I ever get around to finishing it) I may upload it for others to experience. Anyways, my question is: Is there any way to add some level of randomization to where units are placed? For example, if I were to make a mission where a Russian Motorized force (would be player controlled) is attacking a Ukrainian defensive line, is there any way to randomize slightly where the Ukrainian positions would be? The reason I ask is because if I end up making the campaign for my own enjoyment, it would take a lot away from it if I knew exactly where the Ukrainian defenders were set up, thus making it unrealistic and rather boring. Any help/advice would be appreciated. I'm very new to anything that can be considered modding or map making for CM, and I will likely just cut out chunks of the master maps for the stock campaigns instead of making my own maps, so please go easy on me!

Thanks for all the great feedback guys! Good points from all, and thank you IanL for clarifying how the Career Recording System works. Saved me some typing haha. As to the point about the difficulty level not changing the amount of casualties caused/suffered, it appears that the game manual does not quite agree with you. From the Combat Mission wiki: "Troops suffer slightly fewer casualties and are less likely to panic" (http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/Skill_level) According to this it does in fact appear that at the Basic Training skill level (friendly forces at least) tend to take slightly fewer casualties. Not sure if it is significant enough to factor into all of this, but it is worth noting as a possible variable. As you mentioned, casualties may in fact be higher at the Basic Training skill level because of how fast artillery and other support can be brought on target, however it may be the case that the overall lethality (at least to friendly troops) of weapon systems is toned down to account for this. Pure speculation on my part but it would make sense. As to style of play, I tend to be very cautious. Call me a sap, but I dislike seeing my pixeltruppen get killed/maimed, so I tend to take the more cautious route when doing anything. I do agree that this can be a factor that varies in impact from player to player based on their play style. I will note however that at least for me, both the enemy and I tend to suffer more KIA than WIA, regardless of whether or not one side is on the defensive or not. I also think that it is a good point that off-screen casualties could be a small factor here in some limited way. It would help to explain the total casualties suffered per battle. Speaking of that I would like to note that on the whole I've found the number of total casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA) seem to be very accurate based on the battle itself (troop formations/sizes, attacker/defender, etc) It just seems that the KIA:WIA should be flipped. Thanks again for all of the great feedback! maybe this is something that could be addressed with a simple config change, simply changing the KIA value to WIA and vice versa. I'm not a modder so I wouldn't know the details on how to do that or if it is possible but it could be something to look into. I suppose in the meantime I could always just manually reverse the results myself when entering them into the Career Recorder. I may give it a go as a test and see what the results look like.

Pardon me, I misspoke. I am agreeing with you that any scenario that leads to taking infantry and making them into overnight tankers is unrealistic, for the reasons you have pointed out. To tie this into what I am saying, I do not want to see people trying to use an unrealistic scenario like the ones we have described as a forced handicap in order to 'level the playing field.'

Exactly my point. The current scope of the conflict the game is representing does not really allow for a realistic scenario where this would happen on any meaningful scale.