CHEqTRO
-
Posts
293 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CHEqTRO
-
-
Other bug I just cached, is that the Ostwind does not appear as a choice in the single vehicles list, althought it is available as an option in the Antiaircraft (light) formation. Hopefully you can fix it for the first patch as well.
Also, even thought in the manual is stated that the PSW234/4 is available from January 45, it is not really so until April, so either a typo or a bug.
-
Well, i would not know what to say, even when firing at the sides of the Panther they rarely achieved a Penetration, and if they did, the post penetration damage tended to be laughable. What i thought about testing, is seeing if this behaviour si repited with bigger cats, such as the King Tiger. Maybe they just have a problem with the Panthers xdd
Edit: So it seems that at least they are consistent with their decision to not open fire, they would open fire at PzIV at the front, but not at Tigers, King Tigers or Jagdtigers, so there is that.
-
Yeah, after doing some more tests, switching the panthers for other vehicles they did indeed start firing without issue, so I guess it has to be that
-
Hello all. I recently got the Downfall module and did set up a quick fire range to test how capable the M18s were at longer ranges, just out of curiosity. The fire range is very simple, 7 panthers set up directly in front of the M18 rifles, at increasing distances (50 meters, 100, 200, 500 1000 etc). The first turn (playing hotseat obviously), I gave everyone an small target arc so they dont start shooting at wherever unit they spot first, and in the second turn I manually give a target command to their respective panthers at the front. However, the recoiless teams, instead of firing to the unit to their front, as I had told them to do with the target command, decide to ignore it and target the Panthers at their sides.
Being curious at this behaviour I restart the test, and this time instead of giving them a direct fire command, I just give them a slim target arc so only the panther in front can be targeted. And surprise, none of the teams open fire, they just stay still, staring the panthers until they get destroyed by themselves, I suppose. At this moment, i suspect that this problem is tied to where the unit is facing, so to check it real quick, I gave a unit a small arc, and move back and forth so its back in the same place it was set up, but its facing is now is 90 degrees to the tank. I gave another target arc as before so their panther in front can be fired, and nothing, they still refuse to fire.
Finally i just allow them to fire to their tank at their flanks and they open up fire no problem, so the only conclusion I can get is that, for some bizarre reason, the M18 cannot fire to their front. Anyone can replicate this?
Edit: Here is the Firing range i set up to test this, in case anyone wants to try:
PD: Just realized that i post this in the general forum instead that in the proper FB one. Ups...
-
8 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
I've been having conversations with Slitherine ever since you posted the screenshot earlier. It isn't a problem how they do it but I should know how it works. So that I don't incorrectly answer questions.
What is surprising with your post is that not only did you purchase from Battlefront but you didn't purchase as a bundle!!! But Steam is treating it as if you have a bundle.
The other question that I am trying to find out about is, if this is how they handle bundles, why isn't CMFI working this way?
Now.......here is the other thing that concerns me......What if I exposed a hole in the system by asking questions. I don't want someone over there trying to "fix" things and shut it down.
Hahahaha, you shouldnt worry, as I tried to explain in my post, its working as intended, or at least as other bundles in steam work. Steam Bundles are not Rigid, they are just an asssociated discount to getting all content related to a product/game at once. You could buy first the base game standalone without discount, later get the steam Bundle for two DLCs that the game had, only paying for said DLCs, but at a discounted price; and later rebuying the bundle once they got a new DLC, paying only for said third DLC. Maybe i am confusing you saying that you "buy" the bundle, as there is no "real bundle", you are buying all content separately in reality, only with the associated discount.
This, by the way, is standard practice in Steam, not only by Slitherine , so I would be surprised if it was not working as intended. As for the CMFI bundle, well, like I showed, it exist, at least for me. Even if you own all content for CMFI in steam, you can check for "bundle info" in its store page in Steam. Thats why I found weird that Sunbather didnt have access to it. If he can not access to any bundles, then maybe, like I said, is because of regionality.
-
5 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
@CHEqTRO, did you purchase your bundle through Steam or Battlefront?
I did purchase them long ago from Battlefront, in the case of CMRT, first the base game, and then, once it came out, the FR module. I never got the BP, hence why I do not have it redeemed in Steam.
Wether you get the game from Battlefront or from Steam shouldnt matter thought, the game is registered as "purchased" in Steam the same way. Also, you shouldnt consider Steam bundles as rigid, where you buy everything at once for a fixed price, as it happens with Battlefront Bundles.
One neat thing of these kinds of bundles is that you could, for example, for a game which also has a DLC, buy the bundle for the base game and said DLC; and then, months in advance, once a second DLC is released, rebuy the bundle, paying only for this new DLC, but with the bundle associated discount. Thats why, even thought I have the base game for CMRT and the FR DLC, I can "buy" the bundle, with only the BP in it (In addition, in this case i get apart of the temporary 15% discount that is being offered for all CM games, the 10% associated with the bundle. You can check in the screenshot that depending if I buy it standalone, or with the bundle associated, I either have to pay 8,28, so 15% discount; or 7,45, 24% discount, even thought, in reality, I am just buying the BP standalone either way).
Thats why Sunbather asked why, even thought he had both CMFI and GL, he could not access to this same discount for RtV. I would argue that is probably a problem of regionality, as it is known that some bundles do not work in some regions. However, its weird that it works in some CM games, and not in CMFI
. If it has stopped working for all games, maybe his country of origin has had a change of policy?
-
15 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
I am 99.999999999999999% sure that they never offered this for any Combat Mission game.
You would be wrong though: (Te bundle is also present, at least, in CMBN and CMBS, apart form CMRT, from which I took the screenshoot):
Edit: The thing is, @Sunbather, that it seems that the bundle is also present for CMFI, at least for me
-
As I have both the Steam and BFC version, I downloaded both to test this out, and neither the Steam version of Colossal Crack or Surrender Invites Death requiere the Vehicle Pack. Also I opened Colossal Crack with the editor to look under the hood and it (or so it seems) does not use any of the VP units. Also, on the Designer Notes there was no mention of any rework by ASL Veteran, or any other editor, only the credits of the original creator, Jon Martina.
So, it seems that the reworked scenarios did not make it to the final release. Maybe @BFCElvis can come in and confirm this (And maybe upload the reworked scenarios as well
).
-
12 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Yeah, so that's what I'm talking about in terms of AT. On the battlefield these days weapons like RPG-22 and ILAW are not really an AT weapon. Sure, they can do more than annoy a Soviet IFV or make an ERA protected tank think twice, but only if the situation is highly favorable for the shooter. As we can see in this video that didn't happen.
A platoon sized force attack should have someone with a more capable AT system dedicated to overwatch. Something better than an RPG-7 would be ideal, but for a situation like in this video it could work out OK. Why? Well, for exactly the reasons we saw in this video. Not only did their attack quickly go from bad to worse when the armor showed up, but they weren't able to extract themselves very well either.
On the Ukrainian side they have access to a larger variety of AT weapons, perhaps even more so than the average NATO infantry unit. Platoons have direct access to several systems that are vastly superior to disposable LATW. Imagine this same scenario with the Ukrainians attacking a Russian trench and Russian armor shows up with even *1* soldier hanging back in the woodline with an NLAW, RPG-7, PzF-3, AT-4, or any number of other systems provided to Ukraine in quantity. At the very least the infantry would likely have done a lot better extracting themselves.
Yes, there's a hundred battlefield conditions to take into consideration as well as "bias confirmation" from videos to account for as well. I understand that. But it seems to me that there is a pattern of Russian units seemingly under armed, or perhaps under motivated, to engage armor.
Steve
Well, counterpoint ;), I think that they did in fact had some form of support/overwatch group. When the AFVs appear on the battlefield, you can see them firing acually "deeper" into the treeline, while there seems, atleast thats what the drone view would suggest, that both the assault and the flanking group were closer to the T junction, closer to the drone. Considering that it seems that there is some level of coordination with the vehicles and the drones, I find interesting that the BMP keeps strafing the same patch of treeline, even thought it seems that no one is there. Can you imagine the damage it could have caused to those russians behind the trees if it had been firing against them? Why didnt the drone, if they did in fact had communication between them at all, correct the BMP fire?
Well, I guess there is some other circunstances as to why they fired there, just firing blindly into suspected enemy positions, or they just saw some movement, or, maybe, there was indeed an overwatch group stationed there. If they were actually able to get an RPG round, or if the BMP saw them before they could do that, we dont know; however in case that the second option happened, it would have not mattered wether they were armed with, an RPG-7, AT-14, NLAWs, PZf-3 or a Javelin. They would have been overwhelmed by the fire coming from the BMP. Obviously, in case of the first option, they would have had more hit chances with an NLAW than with an RPG.
All in all, in a standard platoon (a 30 or so group) you can expect, doctrinally, like what, 3 dedicated AT weapons? At the very least we know there was one, and I am sure they had some more deep on the treeline. So yeah, not convinced that the russians have a particular motivation (reference back to the video I mentioned before of them firing at a tank repeatedly), or lack of AT weapons problem. Having something better than those RPG-7s would indeed be ideal, thats for sure
-
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:
What strikes me again and again and again... Russia goes into these situations without any AT capability at all. Not even RPG-7 in evidence. Not only is that a bad idea in case the Ukrainians have armor in support, but it also means less punch to take enemy positions.
Not really. On the video covering the first part, the attack actually opens with a Russian firing a RPG round into the trench. Also, you can see some of them having RPG22/26 on their backs. As to why are they not shooting against the UKR BMP and Tank, I suppose because either the RPG gunners were KIA/WIA by the artillery (rewatching said video, yeah, the guy with the RPG surely catched shrapnel from an artillery hit), or the Ukranians were able to quickly gain fire supperiority vs the Russians, and getting to fire an RPG with a 30mm cannon firing at you has to be a harsh proposition. Also the tanks just "appear" on the video, and we cannot see them actually approaching to those positions, so as far as we know the russians could had been the first to fire their RPGs, however, as you all should know, they are hardly a 100% hit weapon (there was a video the other day of a group of Russian infantry shooting to a tank with their RPGs, and having all of their shots fall short of the tank, it could have easily happened the same here as well).
-
7 hours ago, GAZ NZ said:
Hi everyone
What's the Russian vehicle at 2.22 on the video
An armoured car with cannon?
Seemed a bit different
Trying to identify all the improvised armour lol
Cheers
The same as the one that can be seen in its entirity at 2:02, a Typhoon-VDV armored car armed with a 30mm RWS system.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2023/03/counting-down-list-of-russian-army.html
You can see this particular model listed on this list made by Oryx under the AFVs section.
-
The raid does seem real thought, atleast one of the participants on the video has already been recognized as a member of the real "Russian Volunter Corps".
My question now honestly is wether they acted with or withouth the Kyiv government consent...
-
3 minutes ago, Zeleban said:
No, remind me if it's not hard for you
No need I think, you surely have access to google, only I would ask you to have in mind that there is more to the modern story of latin america than just drug cartels.
-
1 minute ago, Zeleban said:
Seriously? Perhaps you mean the fight against drug cartels? Agree. The drug trade is a very important part of the modern world. Fighting her is unacceptable.
There are more latin-american countries other than Mexico, you know right?
-
28 minutes ago, Yskonyn said:
A cooperation rather than a unification works better. At least I think so.
Unification is the most complete form of cooperation. Anything short of that would always be a half-work done, weak and popense to disentegration. Also, if we arrive to the point of sharing the same army, economy and politics, wouldnt our suppossed independence just be ceremonial at that point?
-
2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:
A number of pages ago I addressed this same point with the same poster (IIRC). Maneuverists always struggle to describe when it's a good time to engage the enemy. Every time you try and pin them down on it they will say, "nope, just maneuver around it".
Steve
I mean, the place to do the "maneuvering" around the Donbass area is Kharkiv. The failure of the 1st GTA to punch throught Kharkiv was probably the most important ocurrence of the first week of the war (Probably even more than the failure at Gostomel), and marked the whole conflict since. Does Russia has the strenght to try a general offensive to take the city and breaktrhought towards the open plains of Poltava and Dnipro? I actually think that they probably do, atleast they surely will by the spring. At what cost, and what final gain, thats another question, in which the ukranian army surely would love to put their input into the answer.
-
3 minutes ago, Huba said:
And here's an answer from Zelensky:
Now I wonder if that was agreed somehow with at least some key members - I really hope it was. It's not going to happen while the hostilities are ongoing, but has to happen after. Having clear prospect of NATO membership makes UA negotiation position stronger IMO. I'm sure that PL will support the application.
Stolberg announced yesterday a press conference for today without announcing the topic. Something tells me that this is what he is going to talk about, indicating that they indeed did know.
-
1 hour ago, dan/california said:
"Losing" both of them and using it as an excuse for a climb own would be the smartest thing they have done since Feb 23. No one would be more surprised than the cretins currently rigging the vote. I could see this as the one thing that might get them a meaningful change in the narrative, If they were willing to settle for the parts of the Donbas they currently hold. I also don't think they are that smart. Not unless their was something special in Putin's tea last night, and they are just holding off on the announcement.
Eh, the theory has its problems. Apart from what I wrote, actually losing the referendum would undermine one of the main points of Russian propaganda, that being that the Russian speaking population is under opression by the nazis at Kyiv and they, obviously, would want to reunite with their kind. Thats why it would only be acceptable for their propaganda if instead of a loss, the no to annexation came about because of lack of votes. That is still a possibility, however, going from 48 to 50% in participation is such a slim diference that i would be surprised if It is no covered by tuesday.
One way I thought they could solve the issue of the east side of Kherson region is if they go with a "by locality" approach. That is, well, would you look at that, the western parts of Kherson didnt accumulate enough participation, but the eastern parts did, so we will annex the rest and not the western bank. They abandon their ****ty undersupplied positions on Kherson in order to properly defend " russian territory" ,and so they have their excuse.
Finally the problem with trying to fully descalate, is that this would still be a strategic defeat for Russia, in both cases either if they try to do a territory swap between Kherson/Zaphorizie and the Donbass, ir if the decide to anchor themselves to their current borders. Thats why i think further escalation is more likely. But who knows, maybe they think that they can survive this defeat. I personally doubt It.
1 hour ago, pavel.k said:It came to my mind too that Putler can use referendums to retreat with "honor". But when mobilization was declared i refused this option.
Well, It falls inside the thought of escalation in order to achieve descalation. Maybe the reason why they are performing such a cluster**** of mobilization is because they dont expect to use it on the long run. Or It could be a mixture of desesperation/ russian disregard to proper procedure, Who knows (The CIA, probably xD)
-
Interesting. There is a crazy theory going around that the Russians "might" actually "lose" the annexionation referendum in Kherson in order to justify a retreat across the Dnieper, and do so "honorably". You know, as if they are following the command of the people, rather than another gesture of "goodwill".
I find the theory interesting, and the fact that there is so limited participation might give some wings to the theory. Still, the problem with it is that then they should also techically retreat from all of the territories of the Oblast east of the Dnieper, in order to keep consistent (Althougth since when have the Russians care about coherence), which would put the AFU very close to Crimea, so thats highly unprobable.
Unless, they also fail the referendum in Zaphorizie. Who knows, maybe the russians are about to try to finally descalate and are trying to save face. We give back Zaphorizie and Kherson, and pretty please, let us keep the Donbass. And the current mobilization and nuclear threats is just they using the good old "escalate to descalate" practice of old soviet thinking.
Or maybe not. I personally think the contrary really, that escalation is far more likely, and i would not be surprised if this mobilization is not really thought to fight Ukranie, but rather wathever conventional force NATO throws at them in case they go ahead with the full declaration of war and probable release of strategic weaponry.
Still, a curios theory, thats why I decided to post it here. Any thoughts? It would definitively be a 180 turn from what most of the world thought this was going to go.
-
Lets not forget that the russians have more strategic capacity just short of nukes. Full chemical release across the frontline would probably be more devastating that the usage of single Tac nukes, for example; and althought it would probably still trigger NATO conventional intervention, it would probably go better with the rest of Russia "allies" than direct usage of nukes.
Would love to see the current Russian army operating under NCB conditions thought XD. Still, some limited usage against cities, a la Assad, is possible.
-
3 minutes ago, Grigb said:
I noticed something interesting - Shoigu said: Conscripts will serve in[side] Russia [only]. That means recently captured territories as well. But that also means any formation reinforced with conscripts will not be able to conduct offensive operations outside of recently captured territories.
Looks like RU officially switched to strategic defense.
Or he is just lying/half-truthing, just as how supposedly no conscript could had been used in the initial phases of the war back in February, and there you had them
.
-
27 minutes ago, Huba said:
Realistically I think we can expect relatively quick arrival of reservists to the units already deployed. Perhaps some more TBGs will be sent in too, generated by units that previously just didn't have manpower to even approach acceptable manning levels (though really few, as I understand everybody available was already sent).
As for creating the new units from scratch, we already know how long it would take - 6 months at a bare minimum, and probably few times that, assuming training and equipment are available.
I don't see how they are going to provide new units with appropriate comms and support, if they are struggling with what they have already. Will the remaining artillery be diluted to support more units?
What I can see is RU covering the whole line of contact more densely, making aggressive patrolling and infiltration more difficult for UA. But apart from that? Achieving breakthroughs with mech won't be much harder probably, and might result in vastly increased losses for RU. As for using mass of conscripts in offensive operations, the very thought is too horrifying to contemplate...IMO not much will change in next few months. Kherson will fall to UA. Considerable part of Luhansk will fall to UA too. I wouldn't be surprised if significant UA offensive happens in the south. IF RU could withstand all of that politically, we might get to an interesting point indeed, but for now it's really too far away and there's so much uncertainty that I'd have hard time to take any specific predictions seriously.
One of the threats that I see to Ukraine in the "term" that arise from this mobilization, that I do not think that is being discussed, is that Russia will be able to generate new units (albeit of poor quality, but still), which can be positoned along the whole border with Ukraine, even on Belarus itself, creating the danger of possible attacks to Chernihiv, Sumy, maybe even Lutsk, etc... Even if those forces lack the strenght to do a proper push into Ukraine, they would still be able to threaten to make small pushes towards the important cities in those Oblast, esentially forcing the Ukranians to dilute their forces on the South in order to be prepared to this eventuality, esentially conceding the inititive back to th Russians. It will still take some time to generate those units, and there is always te possibility of the Russian state collapsig due to the ecnomical and social burden of the mobilization, but if the Ukranians dont launch an offensive on the South on the coming weeks, it will most likely never happen.
Also, lets see what comes out of Belarus, as they might be preparing to join the Russians in an eventual declaration of war
1 hour ago, poesel said:Afraid as in the sense of 'unlikely to happen, but if it would be very bad'.
Any (hypothetical!) ethnic cleansing inside Ukraine would very seriously damage the image of Ukraine. That would be the worst long term political damage that could happen.You didn't listen. The West forced Ukraine to this war. So Ukraine (as the puppet of the West) has already declared it.
Tssk, comrade come on. It's easy to understand.
So, declaration of war against NATO when?
-
What I missed from both speeches was a formal declaration of war. Under which pretext are they ordering a partial mobiliation then? I guess they will be forced to declare it once they annex the captured territories thought. Unless they want to admit that you can occupy "integral" parts of Russia without consecuence. They have allowed Belgorod and Crimea to be blasted with no reaction so
-
2 minutes ago, Huba said:
Serbian president is to address the nation in 2 minutes, let's see what comes out of it. I expect nothing, he'll ask to ignore provocations and that Serbia is not interested in any conflict. Hopefully...
Well...
I suppose there is something wrong with traduction, and it doesnt mean the north of Serbia, but rather north, towards Serbia. I would like the official statement thought, as of now I havent found the original source.
Being fair, is not the first time the serbian president acusses the kosovars of planning an attack:
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/serbia-says-kosovo-premier-decided-to-attack-serbs/2546239
CMFB v2.11 patch is now available
in Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg
Posted · Edited by CHEqTRO
So, @BFCElvis, I just downloaded the 2.11 version for Steam, and the new scenario, DF Home Alive In Forty-Five is not present. Checked both in the Steamapps and in the document folder for the new scenario and no luck. May you ask the folks at Slitherine to check if they uploaded the new patch correctly?