Jump to content

HerrTom

Members
  • Posts

    737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by HerrTom

  1. I would be incredibly surprised if it wasn't NVA/Bundeswehr (plus, I'd love to see a professionally done version of my mod!) I have his book, Kriegsschauplatz Deutschland. I'll see if I can dig anything interesting from his maps. Edit: Found a map. He was in V. Armee so naturally his data is about its role in the "united armed forces" as he puts it. Oh some translations to help you guys: GSSD = Gruppe der Sowjetischen Streitkr√§fte in Deutschland, Group of Soviet Forces Germany OK = Oberkommando, High Command GdMSD = Garde-Motorisierte-Sch√ľtzendivision, Guards Motor Rifle Division (likewise MSD for w/out guards) GPD = Garde-Panzerdivision, Guards Tank Division (likewise PD for w/out guards)
  2. Right click and "Copy Image Link" and paste it here, it should automatically convert to an embed: Should look like this (I undid the embed) https://i.imgur.com/6oPsTOA.png
  3. Something else to note re: ZSU-23-4 vs M163 is that the former had a Radar fire control system while the latter only had a Radar ranger. Thus, the Shilka can leverage its FCS to put shells where the computer expects the aircraft to be when they arrive vs the M163 where the gunner has to eyeball it. I think this disparity, more than any other, makes the Shilka far more effective at the AAA role.
  4. It hits the tree and the T-64 fires back accurately destroying the launcher?
  5. While you're at it @The_Capt there is one error that is so incredibly egregious that I in fact lose sleep over it at night, tossing and turning in the throes of mild annoyance: The scenario Killing Time at Kirtof in fact depicts a killing time at Kirtorf Anyway, you should see how bad real engineers (outside of education) are at spelling. I've seen some pretty obvious mistakes in several MS and NAS specs I've read over the years!
  6. I've noticed BMP-2s using HE-I against M113s which seems like an odd ammo choice. Could it be because they're targeting the gunner? It ends up my BMPs failed to kill M113s multiple times because they fired HE at it. This one fired 26 HE rounds, getting lots of hits but no kill.
  7. I love your scenarios, but I would certainly have cried... very manly... tears.
  8. The TOW guidance unit tracks an infrared lamp on the missile, it's quite probable that the tracker wouldn't be able to see through the smoke even if the long-wave IR thermal sights could.
  9. According to this TRADOC bulletin, it has a minimum arming range of 5 meters, which would mean the above video is probably accurate (at least as far as arming goes), given that an action square is 8 meters. https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rpg-7.pdf
  10. Yeah, telling someone they don't care or aren't doing their job (especially when they certainly are!) isn't going to win you any favours or trust. I know if I read that directed at me my first thought is "what a jerk" and not "he's got a point." You guys are certainly polite and professional, though if I were to criticise one thing it might sometimes be transparency (in the loosest sense). Call it a nice-to-have, though, knowing what are known bugs and are being looked at might help some of us focus what we chat about here? I know it's a tall order for a small team, but some of the ire might come from having to search through a year or two of forum posts to find out if someone mentioned it. Are you referring here to just the LOD bugs specifically or the render distance as well? Thanks!
  11. Not a lot, but I spend time way zoomed out all the time planning my battle at the start of the game or when a big change happens tactically in the battle (like a new column marching out of the woods). In particular, the disappearing trees is a big problem in figuring out where forests are on the big maps - but it even is a problem at ground level. Say I want to blow up this M901. Looks like a prime position to get some eyes on: Edit: to note, since it's not clear from the pictures, they're taken from up on a hill at big zoom levels for clarity. But nope, you can't see it. Why? You drive the camera forward quite a ways and suddenly trees sprout from the ground. When planning my mission, I can't see any of the trees on the other half of the map from here. In reality, it's covered with trees.
  12. Roads and railroads have always looked terrible for me (1070 here) in all CM games. I started experimenting with some massive maps a while back in CM:BS and came across the same issue of trees disappearing in the distance. I'm not sure I buy the DirectX/OpenGL argument rather than it's a limitation on the CMx2 rendering engine that hasn't been addressed. I would think it really hasn't been an issue until we started getting these (awesome) big maps in CM:CW.
  13. I admit, I'm only really familiar with Soviet FAC procedures, but the pilots would be given anchor points and directed to enter combat through specific azimuths ("251, expect to work from control point 14, combat 270-280, offset 2.5-3" - meaning aircraft 251 is being directed to head to a predetermined point 14, typically coordinated through the ATO, then is expected to enter into the battlespace from a bearing between 270 to 280 and expect the target between 2.5 and 3 km from the point). I'm only particularly familiar with the cockpits of the F-14A/B, Mirage 2000C and AJS-37, but they all have dials (or buttons) to adjust the spacing and quantity of bombs to drop (except the Viggen which I don't think can drop in singles or pairs). This would be the purpose of a linear fire mission: the FAC directing the aircraft to drop bombs along a treeline, down a street, etc. Honestly, the way I would rework CAS would be the following: Linear missions: Pickles all ordnance along the length of the mission, or fires a burst from beginning to end with guns or rockets (which might not be able to get fully expended, for example). With guided weapons, it gives the aircraft a bearing to fly along and the option to engage enemies spotted nearby the target area. Point missions: Blow up that building, would drop two bombs instead of all of them. Vehicle missions: This would be the bigger change, targeting a vehicle would be the equivalent of "Your target: motorised infantry company, 10-12 targets, in battle formation, moving with a course of 80-90, speed 5-10 km/h." Gameplay wise, a vehicle target would give the aircraft the ability to search for similar vehicles in the vicinity of the callout like an area strike does now. This would be exceptionally dangerous to use directly on the frontline since it gives the pilot latitude to engage similar targets nearby. Bonus points would be the ability to tell the aircraft what ordnance to use! I know we kind of have that ability, but if it was a lot more explicit (guns/rockets/bombs/missiles, etc) rather than light/medium/heavy I think usability would be much improved!
  14. Remember your training, Corporal! Corporal did not in fact remember his training. The Dragon ploughed into the street and they received a kindly worded reply delivered by 125mm express mail. Meanwhile, the rest of the company deploys on a hillside, searching for signs of Ivan. Good scouting gave us some good warning, allowing us to catch a forward security element by surprise.
  15. I fought a draw in the last mission since I lost control of the woods so ended up on Bear in the Mist. In fact, I looked up that very picture, the representation of Neuhof is impeccable. I was honestly expecting to be plastered by artillery but barely received any fire. Potash Platoon lost one M901 to a lucky shell but otherwise expended all of their TOWs. Definitely understandable! It helped me for sure. True. I probably got lucky with the T-64s, I killed them all within two minutes of spotting them and had free reign with the rest of the battalion. Regardless, I think after the war the battalion commander is going to be in a lot of trouble, timetable or not! Was definitely a major victory for me, destroyed three helicopters most of the battalion and inflicted somewhere over 200 casualties in exchange for two M113 gunners.
  16. I too am enjoying the campaign and encountered the teleporting tank bug on the first mission in the 1982 campaign. As far as I can tell it happened when I plotted a waypoint under the overpass by the mine or landfill near where the engineers arrive. I was able to eventually get it to reverse off so it wasn't a writeoff thankfully. (The Soviet main element scared the hell out of me by the way, I was expecting it to come from a different direction!) @The_Capt while I'm talking about the campaign (it's awesome) there are two things that really stand out that kinda brought me out of the "immersion" of them: 1. In Neuhof, I was able to (against my better judgement) station a bunch of M901s up on the Potash mine and was only harassed by Soviet airburst artillery fire. They did eventually start dropping normal rounds (still harassment fire) after some thirty minutes. Anyway, that mine is what I would term Extremely Conspicuous Terrain and the fact that the Soviets allowed me to use it was incredibly surprising. Was that just a limitation of how we can make AI barrage plans in CM or a conscious effort to ease the difficulty (I admit I'm not sure I could have won without Potash Platoon Plinking Panzers) 2. In Dollbach, the way the battalion just kept rolling past me like a shooting gallery was super surprising. I deployed very conservatively since I was expecting the Soviets to respond at least with a recon-in-force after I annihilated a company but it never came. To be honest, even a rifle platoon may have forced me off the heights. Anyway, this one in particular felt really weird to me. Is there something else going on that I perhaps missed? All in all though, these are epic battles and the way the campaign is connected is super cool.
  17. The Su-25 was originally envisaged more as a light bomber rather than for CAS work specifically. The original role would see it striking targets like command posts and doing BAI against columns behind the front lines. Now, around this timeframe the Soviets were experimenting with close air support in Afghanistan, but that doctrinal experimentation with the Grach didn't really take off for a few more years past the game's timeframe. The Soviet-Afghan War by the Frunze Academy and annotated by Lester Grau (in English) is a good look into that. Edit: You can certainly see the shift in focus (or perhaps more accurately expanded doctrinal role?) with the T and SM upgrades in the 90s and 00s adding much enhanced capabilities to identify and engage single targets in an expedient manner, as would be necessary on FEBA.
  18. From the designer Q&A thread: For me the biggest thing that comes readily to mind was a minor change to the way aircraft work. I wanted to implement a change for aircraft that would allow them to release multiple munitions per pass. So for example, an F-16 could fly in and drop all its cluster bombs at once on a single targeted area. Same goes for any unguided munition, like dumb bombs. Unfortunately there just was not enough time in development for that change to be implemented, tested, approved and shipped. Maybe at some point in the future though. So hopefully if we've lead good, clean lives, we could get some linear aircraft fire missions and realistic one-and-done passes for fast movers.
  19. T-64s are beasts! This one ate a TOW and kept trucking along. Thankfully, Potash Platoon was able to finish it off. Meanwhile, Sgt Frazier of 2nd Platoon/B Company unloads into defensive positions, ready to hit the Soviets hard!
  20. I didn't know this was even in the cards! Since I'm sure it'll make a difference, I 100% support this! One thing that would be essential for this is the ability to set linear fire missions for aircraft, so you can give the order to work the area from a particular bearing (and thus drop the stick along a specific direction and length). Get some proper Cold War air strikes!
  21. I'm curious, what is that one thing that you so very much wanted to get into the title but didn't make the cut? Additionally (and I understand if you don't want to talk about it), is there anything you would have done differently when you started the project? I'm just curious about the design process that goes into making something like this.
  22. Thanks for the advice everyone. I guess my real problem is that I ran into Bradleys! I guess this kind of advance-to-contact might be best done zipping from cover to cover and dismounting to observe the area before remounting and zipping along again?
  23. I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgable about Soviet doctrine (especially operationally) but there's one thing that really hasn't clicked for me yet: What's the deal with BRDMs? Does anyone have some pointers in how to effectively use the "Razvedka" part of BRDM and scout with them, especially without turning into scrap metal?
  24. Thank you! All in-game, though it's admittedly not very playable with them all added (especially the border!). I mostly toggle them for screenshots. I've been tweaking my settings to get better contrast so I can get some nice dark shadows without making the image too dark (like my first couple), and I think I'm nearly where I'd like to be. One thing that bothers me that (surprisingly) only CM:SF "fixed" was that all of the depth effects show right through the tree foliage since the leaves aren't in the depth buffer. You can see it in the first picture pretty well where the leaves are in focus with whatever geometry is behind them.
×
×
  • Create New...