evilman222
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by evilman222
-
-
It often feels like the M113s have armor which is only designed to protect against vigorously thrown paperclips. While playing as the Soviets, I managed to clip the M2 on one with a Sabot round and somehow kill everyone inside the vehicle.
-
On 6/6/2021 at 9:59 PM, domfluff said:
I think I understand why - the majority of players only ever play singleplayer, and a QB AI is never going to be decent, except by accident sometimes, so it's probably correct that it's a lower priority than some.
I definitely agree. I literally never play multiplayer. That said, it can still be fun trying to dismantle a static AI defense on some of the larger QB maps. Would also be nice to up the time limit to 4 hours instead of 2 for some of those large urban QB maps (which were mostly just in CMBN, but still...)
-
Even if it's not the priority for the game, I think QBs need an overhaul for the next patch. The point totals mentioned in this thread for the next patch still feel a bit low (should be about 30k vs 30k default imo), and I'm really surprised that some of the larger maps from the US campaign aren't available as QB maps.
-
Is it just me, or does the Soviet artillery need to be seriously reduced in this scenario? I've tried playing through it a couple times, and it seems like their arty always leads to one of two possible outcomes. Either I deploy somewhat close to where troops are automatically deployed prior to the battle, and the directly hits US forces completely wiping out the player's force, or I move them back a bit, which preserves my forces (and makes the scenario playable) but Soviet troops end up advancing too rapidly towards the farmhouse/barn and are destroyed by their own barrage. Even if this amount of arty is historically accurate, it feels like it makes this scenario almost unplayable.
-
12 hours ago, Double Deuce said:
I would personally rate a module with the rest of the Warsaw Pact nations low on the priority list. For the most part, they're essentially using the similar enough equipment/organization (with some exceptions of course) and would probably be sufficiently accomplished via a thorough mod. I'd shoot for either the West Germans and Brits as the next module.
I think for that exact reason they'd be included as part of other modules, similar to how additional Syrian formations were included in the various CMSF modules.
-
I was thinking something a bit more out of the box, and maybe them doing a module featuring Turkish forces fighting in NE Turkey and into the Caucuses.
-
I personally love the idea of a 1945-1949ish timeframe, but I think it would be best suited if they could somehow establish a system where all CM releases are different modules of the same game, instead of as completely separate programs. That way, they could use assets from CMRT and CMFB and release Unthinkable as a relatively simple scenario pack, instead of having to do a whole new release. That said, I don't see them doing this.
-
18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
A small update.
Thanks for the update mate. The whole situation sounds rather odd.
-
First time I try to buy CW, my internet cuts out before I can complete the purchase
The second time, my credit card company throws a tantrum and refuses to allow the purchase through thinking someone has stolen my card.
Third time, the website goes down. I'm beginning to think that this outage is partially my fault hahaha
-
On 2/21/2020 at 8:02 PM, DougPhresh said:
Incredible! Great stuff, thank you @umlaut .
I just want to say that you're being far too humble. You did a really good job, and as you can see with the reference material, anyone who is very serious about this sort of thing would just have to add some formation badges.
Maybe someone very enterprising soul could use mod tags to create Mickey Mouse camouflaged vehicles, the upside to which would be that late-war vehicles in that scheme will certainly be useful in the Commonwealth module for CMFB.
What's your source for the images/info? Seems like something I'd be interested in taking a look at just for the hell of it
-
On 3/13/2020 at 4:06 PM, DerKommissar said:
The English close captioning killed me. xD
Barrack Obama and Slavic, the Chesty Koala
-
Am I doing something wrong with my tactical approach during this scenario, or is this campaign insanely difficult? Seems like the player is always outnumbered 3-1ish and outgunned. Off-map assets would be able to somewhat counter this disadvantage, but by the time it arrives as reinforcements my force has already been blown to pieces by counterattacking enemy armor. I try and keep the actual strykers out of the fighting and rely on Javelins, but I often find myself stuck engaging armor from extremely close range, negating the ATGM advantage...
-
4 hours ago, Erwin said:
However, when the units are literally on top of each other what's the reason for no communications between them?
I think it's just a problem with the engine tbh.
-
On 2/11/2020 at 4:51 PM, Erwin said:
Certainly in CMSF1 I noticed that ATGM and FO's seem much worse at spotting enemy units than Scouts or HQ's. Even when I had an ATGM or FO sitting on top of a Scout or HQ, the ATGM or FO hard a hard time seeing what the HQ and Scout could easily see.
I haven't noticed it with dismounted ATGMs, but I don't often play as anyone other than the Americans. Javelins seem to have really good spotting (which, if what I've heard about how highly regarded the sights on that thing are, makes a lot of sense).
-
Is it just me or are some of the American TOW-equipped AT vehicles (Mainly the LAV-AT and the M1134 Stryker variant) absolutely pathetic at spotting enemy units? I don't have any issue spotting (and destroying) enemy armor with TOW-equipped Humvees, and the regular LAV variants see enemy vehicles just fine, but not with AT variants or AT strikers.
-
21 hours ago, ncc1701e said:
Works. Thanks!
-
Download link is broken
-
Do you guys find Stummels useful at all? I'm struggling to find a way to use them without getting them (more specifically, their entire, incredibly *$(#ing fragile crew) killed. They aren't well enough protected to use as assault guns unless you have pretty much the entire map suppressed, but in a long range direct fire role, their spotting hamstrings them, and sometimes their crews STILL get picked off by small arms fire at 1000m+...
-
12 hours ago, MikeyD said:
I have a vague (and probably faulty) recollection of WWII US instructions to dismount infantry from trucks perhaps 1600 meters from the forward line of contact, and dismount infantry from half tracks at half that. Whatever the real numbers were, it boils down to dismounting your troops while still outside effective hmg weapons range. This of course assumes you know where the forward line of contact is. Which means scouting come first, then after you've located the enemy you'll probably discover you're already too close (on a CM-size map) to be moving in column, anyway.
In most scenarios, using a column in CM is less than ideal. That said, there are times (like if you have an armor-heavy formation in wet, muddy conditions with only one or two usable roads) where it doesn't seem like you have many other options.
In a column I sometimes use pioneers as scouts if I don't have any dedicated recon units. Particularly in CMFB campaigns I encounter obstacles well before I take any kind of fire.
-
3 hours ago, 2Dog said:
There's also this
Can't believe I hadn't come across this site before. Looks like I'm set on reading material for the near future.
-
On occasions where you're stuck moving vehicles in a column via road (mostly in WWII titles, but I guess this is somewhat applicable to modern ones as well) how do you organize your forces? I've found that alternating Tank, APC/Halftrack, Tank, APC/Halftrack and so on works fairly well, with infantry without their own transport riding desant towards the middle or rear of the column when necessary for speed, or marching alongside towards the front if expecting contact. This has been effective, but doesn't sound very historical.
-
On 8/30/2019 at 4:49 PM, IanL said:
Question for you - are you playing on Iron? I ask because on Iron if a blue unit does not see another blue unit they will fire like they are not there. This can lead to what you are talking about. But so can just missing the red target too.
I am playing on Iron, but with the Abrams incident they were able to see the tank in front of them.
On 8/30/2019 at 4:49 PM, IanL said:As for CAS I have not seen that but I also make sure by air support calls are well away from my forces - learned my lesson from WW2 games not to be calling CAS anywhere near my forces.
I have been able to give a target area command with my own forces in it, and not have any issues with CAS intentionally attacking my forces (sometimes there'll be casualties due to my men getting caught in the blast radius of munitions meant for the enemy, but that isn't really what I'm talking about). I have never seen intentional BvB from CAS in the modern titles (In the WWII titles, meanwhile, I rarely if ever use CAS, even on the opposite side of the map from my forces, because my pilots seem to have forgotten which side they're fighting on...)
-
On 8/26/2019 at 1:36 PM, Frenchy56 said:
You underestimate the amount of work that requires. Making 1940-1943 CM takes a lot more than just throwing out a few vehicle packs, you also need new TO&Es for every nation involved, which as R2V demonstrates can very well be a colossal amount of work compared to making new uniforms and vehicles. The Eastern Front during 1942 and 1943 was not exactly fought in Poland, Bielorussia or the Baltic States, it was happening in the Ukrainian and Caucasian steppes, if it isn't Northern Russia. Buildings in Northern France and Belgium can be different as well.
An interesting prospect would be to have Battlefront make the new vehicles/uniforms, then put out a call to the community to do the research and handle the TO&Es on a volunteer basis (and to get their name in the credits). I think that there's enough people on here that would be willing to donate their time to doing such a project. If nothing else, it would be an interesting experiment...
-
Has anyone else had problems with their M2A3s wiping out their own troops with friendly fire? It seems like these guys are particularly bad about it. I was playing one scenario, where I had an Abrams and a Bradley creeping along in file along a narrow road (with copious infantry support, of course) when a Syrian infantry squad tried to dart across the road in front of us. Both vehicles spotted them, and the Bradley crew decided that it would be a great idea to try and shoot through the Abrams to hit the infantry, in the process knocking out just about every external system on the damn thing.
Same thing with infantry. I had a bradley with Infantry about 50m in front of it, and the vehicle spotted an enemy ahead on the fourth floor of a building. Literally every shot landed absurdly short and knocked out the friendly infantry.
I get that blue-on-blue fire is still a problem in warfare (side note, has anyone had it happen to them with CAS in the modern titles? I have seen planes strafe friendly forces in the WWII titles but not the modern ones), but this is just absurd...
Soviet Smoke
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
Does anyone know if there was anything unique about how the Soviets would have used smoke in this time period?