Nefron
-
Posts
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nefron
-
-
So, I've been trying to play this scenario as Russians, without much success. I haven't been able to find any playthrough videos or discussion on the scenario. How do you guys rate this one? Any tips would be welcome.
I've been able to get the Americans to surrender once before. The tactic consisted of rushing down the slope with pretty much everything. The US forces wasted enough Javelins on the empty MTLBs to allow the survival of two T-90s. One of them heroically broke into the town and proceeded massacring scores of US infantry and IFVs. A few TOWs missed, it's reactive armor stopped a few AT-4s etc. The US infantry counterattack caught my infantry in the flank, but they were thrown back.
Now, I'm trying to replay this the "right" way, instead of an all out charge, and it's frustrating as hell. Let's commence with the bitching:
It's kind of a chicken and egg problem with me: the Bradleys are tucked away in nice hull down positions, and I can get one or two with Konkurs, but the rest are proving very tricky. They are able to mow down infantry advancing down the slope with great ease, and I have trouble maneuvering my Metis teams into positions where they can fire. Besides, even that is not guaranteed to be successful, because the Bradley is magically able to spot the ATGM launch and fire at the team instantly.
Furthermore, my Gvozdika guns are frustratingly impotent. The Bradley is completely invulnerable to my 122mm precision fires, just shrugging off a firestrike after firestrike.
Any kind of overwatch with my MTLBs and tanks is made impossible by the Javelins.
Last but not the least, I'm only able to advance at snails pace. Methodically clearing out enemy infantry with artillery is possible, but I find myself running out of time.
-
So, I was playing "Going to town" as the attacking Russians, and I've got eyes on a nice little group of Ukrainian infantry. One of my Metis-M teams is in a good position to fire at them.
Now, it's a two man ATGM team, and both soldiers are armed with AKs in addition to the launcher. When I order them to attack the enemy infantry, either directly or using the target area command, they both start shooting their rifles first, then one of the soldiers shuffles around for a bit and launches the missile while the other is still shooting. This completely ruins the element of surprise that I wanted to achieve, and the whole of Ukraine opens up at my ATGM team.
Ideally, what I wanted them to do is to fire the missile without a warning, and scoot out of there, Syria style. Is there any way to achieve this?
-
Lol!
This game uses "reasonable" projections of future capabilities. T-90 with active defense is one such projection. As is Abrams with APS and LWR. There is no conceivable scenario which would pre-suppose "stripped" US units would be put in-theater. All units would get all upgrades. Although the peacetime US procurement system moves at a snail's pace, in war, innovation and quick fielding has been a hallmark of the deployments, thus far. I see no reason why that would change.
That is all OK. However, we can play with Ukrainian and Russian tanks as they are right now. They didn't magically upgrade all T-90s to the best in game variant.
I see absolutely no reason not to have that with US tanks as well.
-
See? Even the NATO capitalists want an Abrams without a LWR.
-
Yeah, that would probably be the best. Since we can play Ukrainian and Russian tanks as they are right now, I see no reason why Abrams should be any different.
It would be really interesting to see if Abrams would still dominate as much if Russian tanks could effectively get the drop on it.
-
It would be pretty trivial to implement though, I see no reason why not.
-
Anyway, I think modeling those differences would make the game that much interesting.
The way things are right now, we don't have a current version of Abrams properly modeled in the game. It would be fun trying to exploit that disadvantage.
-
I know, like APS. Still, there should be different variants available in the game if it's not the norm.
There is a reason that the Russians have these as standard equipment, and the Americans never used them. I'd like that difference highlighted.
And to be clear, this is not a nerf plz thread. I have no issues with say, the American ability to call down artillery with every single unit, if that corresponds to the way things are done in reality.
-
It is my understanding that currently there isn't a variant of Abrams equipped with a laser warning receiver. The developers obviously predicted such a potential development like with the APS, but what I don't like is that every single tank has those. Why not add separate variants, like with APS?
With all the talk about dealing with the superior Abrams spotting, I think that the lack of LWR would offer some really interesting tactical options. For one, it would be that easier get the first shot off despite the sensors disadvantage by setting up proper ambushes. Right now even if you do position your forces that they spot first, the tank disappears in a cloud of smoke very quickly. Without that problem Kornets would become pretty deadly.
The LWR is like the only advantage that the T-90A has over Abrams, and I find that dissimilarity very interesting. It obviously reflects a difference in thinking of those responsible: the Russians thought it was important enough to spring money for such a system, the US did not. Having that difference in the game would make it feel more authentic in my opinion.
-
The game tries to simulate this sort of environment to a degree and builds in lags and delays into targeting acquisition to give a reasonable reaction of the spotting crewman from "is that a rock or a tank?" to "TANK!" then to "Gunner sabot tank-identified 1200 meters-UP-FIRE-ON THE WAY." The issue is when placed into a very unrealistic (or unlikely at least) situation in which tanks are magicked in front of each other, the game is still treating it with some basic assumption of tactical maneuvering/concealment with inherent built in acquisition delays.That is understandable, and I don't know of a better way to do it. It's just that the difference seems too pronounced at short ranges. There is a good reason for Abrams or whatever to consistently spot better at long ranges, but that constantly happening when the vehicles are literally facing each other looks unrealistic.
I don't think the system is broken, only that it needs some adjustment.
-
This whole obsession with placing things more or less in the open and drawing conclusions from which is "better" is sort of....weird. The game is not designed to support this behavior. Nor is establishing it takes 1.34 T-90s to kill .56 Abrams especially helpful outside of measuring net trends over several battles.
Well, why not? I've had issues with encounters at even closer range where one vehicle consistently spots better when in reality there should be no difference. Think 20 meters down a street, if you have eyes you will see that Bradly or a tank, yet all my unit sees is a big question mark slowly rolling towards glorious victory.
I have no issues with how the game works at long ranges, and yes we can assume that the Abrams will spot its target first in most cases. However, having an invisible tank right next to your unit is really frustrating. At those ranges the optics and whatnot should matter that much.
Also, I believe spotting in open terrain should be better across the board. If there is concealment on the terrain, we would see it. You have forests, shrubbery, smoke etc. I don't see the point in simulating some magic cloaking device that is not being rendered by this pretty 3D engine we have.
-
To piggyback on this question, are ammo levels for artillery carried between missions?
-
This. It's a quite disconcerting fact that in the stock scenario "Dueling Shashkas", which states that it's an "even" scenario (which it's not IMO, it's much easier as Russia due to better spotting), Ukrainian Oplots face off against Russian T-90As and not -AMs.
Oh yeah, the T-90As absolutely pound the Oplots. That campaign mission with the assault crossing is even worse, since the AMs are there.
What about that panoramic boiler on the Opot?
-
Grad is basically the symbol of the war in Donbass, it's a shame we don't have them.
Now, I haven't seen this mentioned, but what about TOS-1? These are short range systems that could even be used on map.
-
Whatever it is, I want me some Grads.
-
-
So, I'm trying to clear out a town full of Russians in the Shadow of the Motherland campaign, and so far so good, but I ran into an issue with the AGS-17 grenade launchers.
I'm trying to position my grenade launcher teams on higher floors of the buildings, where they would have a nice field of fire. I expected that they would attach the grenade launcher to a window or something. Instead, they are barely seeing anything.
I'm ordering them to face the correct side of the building, and deploying the weapon doesn't help since they just lie down.
Does anybody has any idea what is going on here?
-
At the bottom in the user interface, unit area, the units subordinate to 2nd Platoon are listed. If you click on the listed unit the camera will jump to the location of that unit.
Ah, I like that. Didn't notice it, since only HQ units have that tab.
Good luck in your storming attack. Also can't help but to ask .......... Why no radios?
Dirty capitalist electronic warfare. It's a scenario variable in CMBS.
-
Press Alt+Z and select a unit.
On a semi-ralated note, you should also try Alt+P to show plotted paths for units. I find it very useful for coordinating movement.
Cool, that works, although I would prefer a simple tree view, or a different colored line for subordinates and superiors.
If you double-click on a unit, all the units in its platoon / company / battalion will have their icons highlight.
This is very useful as you can easily see "lost" units - but you must also be careful - if they are all highlighted when you give a movement order, they will ALL get that movement order. You might not want that. ( then again, you might, it can also be useful, but can cause a bit if annoyance if you didn't )
Oh yeah, I literally just found that out on my own, after a few hours of playing. Don't know why it took me this long, since it's quite intuitive.
I'm off to storm some American positions with no radios
-
Hi guys, new CMBS player here.
Is there a way to have my OOB battle visually shown in one place, like a tree or something? Or have the unit names shown above them? How about selecting all subordinated units to a given HQ?
I noticed that I usually spend some time figuring out who is subordinated to which HQ, and I sometimes mess it up, like mixing up platoons belonging to different companies, instead of splitting them on their tasks, as I intended to.
Galloping horse downfall tips
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
The hill right looking from your starting positions. with the really steep far side?
Yeah, I tried that, and I haven't managed to get the LOS to a single parking Bradley right. I could see it perfectly from the ground level, but the team was refusing to launch on it, and making them crawl further forward just makes them eat some mortars or a Javelin.
I would expect that 122mm precision missions would take the Bradleys out, but no luck.