Jump to content

holoween

Members
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

holoween last won the day on May 3

holoween had the most liked content!

About holoween

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. For some reason the strikers mounted mk19 has a far worse dispersion than the crew seved one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-sjWRH8meo
  2. I didnt but its also not really a training manual more like a faq book for soldiers. To me there is a pattern emerging. the warhead arms somewhere between 25-75m possibly changing between missile versions with the 200m being the doctrinal min range so soldiers dont try to use it too close.
  3. Id echo that sentiment but id also add that this is the primary reason i also like to play huge battles. Once you know how to play well increasing the size adds an entire extra layer on top. because your small unit tactics still matter but they are now put into a greater context and managing an entire battalion sometimes forces decisions that on company level seem stupid but make sense in the bigger picture. So at some point you simply learn more from larger battles.
  4. The ability to split Squads in whatever way i want. The current system works reasonably well and for doctrinally ridgid armies is great but for more flexible ones it really misrepresents what they could/can do. But since were in dreamland let me add more things. Better arty control by allowing barrages to be modified by intensity and allowing a mix of ammunition used. The ability to have more than 1 player per side for pbem Larger maps so properly deploying and using forces becomes possible especially in the modern games. Recrewing of crew served weapons
  5. 1. trench vs foxhole comparison was last patch but the behaviour still exists. 2. Agreed Trenches are awful 3. Id expect buildings to have a far better cover rating than foxholes in the open so as far as im concerned no surprise or problem there. Equally Foxholes in dense terrain provide great cover which is again something id expect. The reason i dont have a larger sample size there is because ive been doing such comparison tests quite a bit in cm and while there are usually some outliers in every test the small sample size is enough to give a rough idea which is enough for me. It r
  6. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o4nz0sHbp8Z03fFmm9CweH8P8Z8Nf0XiGHwAQvztsZ4/edit#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/130RTbJ8HABwYqp4rTvsBU4NASTWebO3K4igNDxL1W28/edit#gid They are great but you cant expect them to act like forcefields making your infantry immune to fire.
  7. Small arms. I havent tested buildings against arty so i cant say for sure which is better but foxholes are massively increasing infantry survivability against arty.
  8. Depending on where exactly you place them they have up to the same protection as buildings. Making them any better doest really reflect reality.
  9. Foxholes already provide some of the best protection you can get.
  10. Its happening reliably to the german tornados which only have bombs and with all of their different bomb sizes.sSo reliably in fact i count them as only having 2 rather than the 4 they actually have for effectiveness (2 on target, 1 miss, 1 disapearing)
  11. Scratch the usable in the future part. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBQe7Ahod34 1:43 for the before and 2:43 for the after. If you get a dricet hit unless youre hitting the Turret or hull front composite armour arrays of something like an abrams/leopard2 youre left with a wreck and if you hit the composite armour thats a full rebuild of the area. In either case the tank is ko.
  12. Its not a little incorrect but its complicated. Because yes they wear green and they are infantry but they also part of the "Panzertruppen" and not the "Infanterie". Thats besides the point though. My claim wasnt there shouldnt be any mg4 with the Pzgrenns but rather that they shouldnt be the primary mg of them. What i posted was the closest to open source proof i could find because i cant just go around a few armouries, count the different mgs and then post how many of each type the PzGrenns in my area have. If the german army was a bit less strict i wouldnt have to rely on the anec
  13. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/93127/milan-adt_er-passes-industry-firing-trials.html To be clear, I think the 400m minimum engagement range was taken from Milan 1, so probably is wrong for Milan 3, but I'm doubting the 20m range as something that should be happening in any normal circumstances. Nice find. The document i found seems to talk about the milan 2 (its called milan2 in the table on page 89). The german wiki puts the minimum range at 75m for the milan 2 the french and english ones at 200m but none of them provide a source.
  14. One is the weapons capability and the other the intended engagement range. Compare the max ranges given for the ERYX.
  15. I wouldnt want to have to do it but its at least possible. The Milan flies Quite straight irl rather than the weird things it does ingame compare Ingame to IRL
×
×
  • Create New...