Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Djiaux

  1. Hmmm the 9th of May is going to be great this year. The Marines module was great in CMSF, it added some good options for the Syrians so quick battles and some scenarios would be better and it added a very interesting American army with way less javelins to make things more balanced, I loved the marines module. So hell yeah, a last update for CMBS with all this heavy metal I think it's a must and having the Russians have a little upper hand in armor while being back on ATGMs (Javs), infantry (loads of people squads) and air would be great for the game and theoretically possible. If you want to make that module outstanding making Russians have more infantry and thus causing some sort of balanced WW2 ostfront in modern times would hit the spot. I think its reasonable as this game doesn't represent a full scale war between the US and Russia, the conditions could be meeted.
  2. Doesn't it seem like it's the same chasis as the Armata? That wouldn't make sense right? Am I wrong and it's just similar?
  3. I think that Abrams spotting and in general US spotting could use some fixing (also Russian spotting), but appart from that I don't think the game needs much balancing, the US player will always have it easier so the less experienced player sould use it. The balance has to come from bigger numbers on the Russian side, Russian units have to be cheaper in a QB, if even with this your game isn't balanced just ask whoever is playing with you ti give you a 10%, 20% advantage. Abrams and Javelins are fine as they are, they just spot too well on occasion (trought dense forest with no LOS for ex).
  4. T-90AM and also the Tunguska. The first one is reaaaly good, when I have some I feel like I have great assets but can be owned so I have to be careful, when they are on the other side I have to be really careful too cause they can ruin your day quickly. The Tunguska because when I move my tunguska to shoot some infantry or to area fire I'm all happy, fire, fire, fire, fire, aaahahahaha.
  5. I was going to suggest running some test with some passengers on the BMP3, so far I have done some tests and without some passengers BMP-X are moles but it improves with some passengers. The incorrect weapon choice is a big handicap, it should be solved, also when using BMP-3 I would like to be able to choose the 30mm cannon to area fire, right now we can only choose between machinegun fire and 100mm cannon fire. Don't you think that in CMSF Bradleys were far less poweful? Back in the day I always had to rely on my US troops to make a good work as Bradleys could fail often, right now they seem to spot in no time, they fire TOW missiles fast and precise and they are very very superior to BMPs. In CMSF they were superior but not that much and I often lost a Bradley to BMPs.
  6. Given the fact that we have given our opinion and it will probably not change I will just make a final statement of my opinion. That's exactly the point but not the way you put it. Irak had to face the most modern western military equipment with outdated soviet military equipment and in inferiority in command, infantry, armor and air (most of all air). Cualifying soviet war machines by that war would be like saying that the T-34 was crap because German forces owned its face in 1941. I think the idea is that in a war with the best equipment the west and the east could bring the west would crush the east but would suffer heavy casualties, if the war went on eastern equipment could keep coming to the front faster than western equipment... this doesn't make sense, let's say I talk just about armor in general, you get the point... and in the end outlast the western forces. I think that was the idea the soviets had for WW3. This is only possible if eastern armor is not that bad, just worse than western armor, I think this is the case and I think that as citizens from the west we tend to think that the weapons our armies use are just incredibly better. Well I look at WW2 weapons and I just love many soviet weapons, nice small arms, great armor and good aviation. I listen to people talking about how good western equipment was and maybe we can discuss it if we talk US armor/German armor vs soviet armor but british armor in WW2 agains soviet armor? Please... And the fact that Russia is updating its army and making it more western-like. I think it's totally true but I think that in our days wars are again more 'cabinet wars' were you send your best troops and equipment to overwhelm a weaker force far from home, both Russia and China were in inferiority of equipment for this and I think both are trying to change that.
  7. I think we are discussing different things. Do I want to discuss if Sovier designs were bad at protecting crew and passengers? No, not really, they were bad, even when not SO bad in my opinion. Thing is that those machines were made not to have the soldiers safe in the battlefield but to ride them there safely and to fight along with them, I think that they were pretty good for that purpose hence their design is not awful as awful means completelly worthless. Anyhow you just have to take a look at how many countries are using those designs, they use those because those are cheap so they can buy more but that is the point, cost-efficiency.
  8. Ok, Shermans were also good and easy to provide in large numbers. I'm just saying that Soviet tanks and IFV are in no way awful, they are quite good and yes, worse than western ones.
  9. 1 It depends, the US make the best weapons possible so they will be able to crush their enemies, Soviets made the best weapons possible so they could crush their enemies AND their enemies couldn't crush them. The URRSS was not far from wars were its own survival was in the balance, it made weapons that it was able to supply in large numbers. If Nazi Germany invades you and you have only foot soldiers you will lose millions and millions, if you have some T-34 you will lose way less soldiers, if you have loads of T-34 you will loose still less soldiers and you will smash Nazi Germany soon, shorter war and more lives saved. The Tiger was not the right tank, the T-34-85 was. So cost-efficiency can save lives. It's not the philosophy that I want for my army, but you can't tell if they are wrong that easily. 2 Hm, do you have any numbers about IFVs lost in Chechenya wars? BTW 50-150 Bradleys lost? That's vague
  10. I think the reason for that is that on assimetrical warfare mines and IEDs are more dangerous than enemy fire, also the top of the vehicle is more confortable than the inside. Many western IFVs are neither prepared for mines or IEDs, they are prepared to provide with protection from small arms fire and shrapnel and to provide with firepower, same as Russian IFVs. That's the reason so many vehicles which are better suited against IED have been bought by western countries, these vehicles are much safer but wouldn't be adecuate for an actual battlefield. So I think that yes, ergonomically they are infamous but they are well designed to fight a war.
  11. So guys, I got a chance to purchase CM:RT today! I played a quick mission for 2 hours, in which I commanded a battalion of German infantry against an onslaught of Russian soldiers who were attacking a town. It seemed kinda like the quick battle was defender sided, maybe it was the map. Is there anyway to have the attacker get more troops than the defender? There is an option when you create the quick battle, I can't remember the name but you can make one side +30% -30%, etc. Quick battles are fun to smash IA, jump to normal battles to get full fun and loads of your soldiers killed : ) Listen to him, he's totally right.
  12. I don't see how Russian military equipment is awful. Soviet-style IFVs and tanks are among the bests you can find, they are never topnotch but that is not their philosophy, that's western philosophy. Why the Abrams is so good? Because it was made to beat all eastern armor. Why is the Leopard so good? Same reason. Why is Soviet armor much worse? It isn't, it has good or very good protection, mobility and power and it is much cheaper, it's the same as with the T-34 and German tanks, German tanks were better or much better... or were they? In the end they weren't. Why all the hype when a new Russian IFV or tank comes arround? Because they are one of the biggest weapon manufacturers, you can't put a T-72 commercial on TV (It would be cool though) so they create all the hype.
  13. OMG I want James Cameron directing the film, a next gen Russian MBT goes to 1980 to kill Sarah Connor while pretending to be human. - Gimme your clothes + Fuch, that tank just spo*KABOOOM* - I can't destroy it with these weapons Sarah, we have to hide until 1996 and wait for the Javelin to be developed. Ok, ok, I'm leaving.
  14. Hi, Just a little contribution if you are starting with CM A video made by one of the editors of the Armchair General magazine, it's like a tutorial about CM. He made 6 videos explaining weapons and tactics, I wish he had made 20 more as they are great. I would recomend CMRT why? Because the Ostfront rocks : ) I have not played CMBN, neither CMFI (these games are expensive so I just buy the scenarios I like best of all). CMBS is also a really good one, modern warfare is brutal and wildly fun, but if you are more interested in infantry maybe play a WW2 tittle first as in CMBS infantry seems less important.
  15. I would say that US squads are much more powerful than Russian squads, this is not balanced but this game is about realism, not balance, for a more balanced battle you will have to add more Russian troops. It is easy to have a very balanced battle. Reasons for the US squad to be much more powerful: - More soldiers on each squad. A Russian squad has 6 soldiers while a US one has 9 (am I right? I think it's nine, srry, I am playing RT lately). - Better optics. US squads can see better over long distances and much better in the night, also having 9 soldiers you also have 3 more spotters in each squad. - Javelins. A US squad has javelins this is HUGE, US soldiers can kill any vehicle from a concealed position with ease and over long distances. - More firepower for each squad. Each squad has more soldiers -> more firepower but they also have the XM25 which adds a little extra. - 'That little something' hehehe, sorry but they are indeed a little OP, in one recent mission one of my US squads entered a building (quick movement) and started going upstairs (again quick movement, no pause), they spotted a Russian squad on the top floor of a building across the street and started firing on them, the Russians were probably waiting to ambush my squad but they spotted them first while moving and started to fire on them. Well done boys, but I don't think this is reallistic, at such close range in plain daylight the Russian soldiers should have spotted me first. This said, they are not very OP, I just think it needs a little ironing, real war is not balanced and having to make up for better squads with better positioning and better command makes this game great. Also in WW2 armies weren't also balanced for instance.
  16. That's right, focus on Poland anf Germany, not that I don't want to see the Finnish army but we have limited resources. In RT plz include the Finnish army at some point.
  17. That's the way I understand it but I thought a title was more about an scenario (eastern front, western front, Itally, Afrika korps, Shock force, etc.). =: O Sincerelly, LOL. Then we are not getting any Stalingrad as a CMRT module? It will be a new title? I have to say that I prefer the old way, I wouldn't mind much having to buy a 1941 module but having to buy a new title... Anyhow, this is almos an OT thread, I thought this was the RT forum, not the BS.
  18. I really hope that you are wrong. Are there going to be no 1941 modules for RT? I think it would be great to see a Battle for Moscow or Leningrad module with the continuation war included.
  19. China, Korea, IrĂ¡n, Soviet armies, etc. most of all the chinese and north korean in WW2 and in korea war, those armies where relying on numbers instead of technology or equipment. Soviet armies would be my example of in-between philosophies because they relied on higher numbers but also on some nice pieces of equipment. China may have a little professional army right now, but I think that in our days all big nations have that kind of army to fight 'cabinet wars'. I think that both Russia and China have in mind that should a true war come they would field huge armies with nice, cheap equipment so they can mass it.
  20. I hope they make something like that but not as a CMBS module, CMBS can have loads of content for modules, a new CM series focusing on US army, chinese army and maybe both korean armies would be better. As said, given the small workforce I think our best hope is something like CM Afghanistan to happen. Not that I complain a lot, a WW3 CM has been developed at last (CMBS) horray! With this I can wait for other series. North Korean army vs South Korean army, hehe, nice, but look, I'm fighting Rus Vs Ucr, that is way better : )
  21. You can't measure the cuality of a tank if you put the crew training in. The T-34 was a much better tank than the Sherman (IMHO) because it was so good when it came out, it was fairly superior to most if not all german tanks with a great combination of firepower, defense and mobility; crew training, optics, radio comunications and tactical doctrine were another thing and it was ineffective in the early stages of WW2, but it had great quality. The Sherman? The Sherman wasn't any bad, it was great if you compare it with most british tanks, but it had less firepower and less protection, it was ok for mobility and maintenance and it had also a great quality for a tank, a good cost-efectiveness ratio. In a phrase, the Sherman surprised and amazed no one, it was good, maybe great, but the T-34 was a W T F for german tankists. To tell the truth I am amazed of how good the Sherman was, the US was also producing the M3 in 1941 and that was NOT a great tank : ) Soviet and German tanks were reasonable improvements from their predecessors, the Sherman is an order of magnitude better than its predecessor. Hey, also a thought don't you think that in our day only the three main tank developers in WW2 keep making tanks? That would be the US, Germany and Russia. Many nations produce tanks but all are mostly variations from the old soviet models or from the US models, Germany would be an exception as they can produce an outstanding tank by themselves and everyone will buy it or copy it, just like in the old days. ...And like int the old days thet are eager to use it to take Mosc... ok, ok, I shut up.
  22. When germans failed to conquer Moscow and later Stalingrad (Baku oil fields and the Volga) all was lost, there wasn't a thing they could do to stop the soviets from taking Berlin. Soviet resources where dwindling but so were german resources, faster and without hope. Was lend lease essential? No, it helped a lot and with lend lease the soviets could achieve great successes like Bagration, but it was not essential. Without lend lease the soviets would have had a longer war but their victory was inevitable, no wunderwaffe and no strategic success would have made it, the huge weapons superiority and the huge strategic successes where in the past and they didn't ended with the soviet defeat.
  23. We could make a poll and bet how will the Armata be, then when it is displayed in March (hey, phun here) we can see who was close. I really like Russian wartoys, I think the concept of war for Russians is different than for western armies. Western armies try to focus on training, efficiency and technological superiority, eastern armies focus much more on massed numbers as they can field loads of soldiers; Russia is something between both concepts, good equipment and training but everything cheap and not topnotch because they will send loads of people if war comes. This is what I think and I think it is close to reallity. This said. What is Armata going to be like? No idea, if the concept for Armata is a tank to prepare for an hipotetycal conflic with western tanks (it's sad that the world is in this situation) it should be something similar to the IS series, well armored, high firepower, good mobility; a nightmare but not as much as the Abrams is now or the tiger was in WW2. I think it will also have a 30mm cannon, infantry seems to be a real danger for armor in modern warfare and a 30 mm cannon is a good response. It could also be just another Tzar tank and we will all lol hard. P.D.: There is no reason for Russia to try and make a better 'normal' MBT, the T-90 seems good enough and they will not make something as good as the Leopard 2, it is not in their philosophy.
  24. Hi everyone, Is there a way to know if that artillery was shot by pro-Russians or by Ucranians? The best wasy would be to know in what places was it recorder and to what side it belong at that time. The videos are sad, I remember not so long ago videos from people in Ucranian arging about Crimea, about Maidan, they didn't look like they were looking for a war, war broke and now this is what they have.
  • Create New...