Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Aquila-SmartWargames

  1.  - more control for scenario designers when it comes to CMRT pre-planned air support

    - and/or reassessment of friendly fire strike chances 

    - leaving the current CMRT system in its foundation intact in order to prevent issues for existing scenarios

  2. 17 hours ago, IanL said:

    Yuck, no thanks.

    It is not at all reasonable for a squad leader getting his men out of harms way to have multi minute delays just because a lot of order segments are involved. I realize the command delays are good at representing communication delays and experience for higher up commanders. It utterly fails for lower level officers and NCOs. Since in CM you play all command levels it just do not work.

    I guess one must do many things wrong in order to always end up with multi-minute delays just to get his men out of harms way in CM1.

    The claim that such challenges don´t matter for platoon and company level sounds like an opinion based on the fact that videogames is probably the closest one came to an infantry officer course or actual command.

    It was obvious beforehand that it is a feature some like some don´t, hence why an optional implementation.

    Persistent maps were also a great feature.

  3. 7 minutes ago, Vacilllator said:

    You off-topic 'helmet guys' should be moved to General Discussion 😁.  Yes, I have learned my lesson from the off-topic police 😮.

    Yes, lets focus on Fire and Rubble, Engine Upgrades and other upcoming CM content. That is more interesting.

  4. 9 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    I didn't say the effect was small. I just said I was happy to hear the effect is taken into account in the game.

    My post was meant to support your statement not to question it


    Good article published by the US Army Medical Department:


    On the WW2 US M1

    "Some aspects of the value of the M1 helmet are discussed by Beebe and DeBakey in their book on battle casualties.4More recently, Norman Hitchman5 of the Army's Operations Research Office reviewed some of the World War II casualty statistics and reached some important and timely conclusions regarding the value of wearing a helmet in combat. The following observations resulted from this statistical analysis:

    1. Of all hits upon the helmet, 54 percent were defeated.

    2. For every 100 men wounded while wearing helmets, 9.6 men received wounds in the cranium. Without the helmet, it would be expected that 11.4 men would be wounded in the head.

    3. The M1 helmet prevented a number of incapacitating hits equal to 10 percent of the total hits on the body.

    4Beebe, Gilbert W., and DeBakey, Michael F.: Battle Casualties. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1952, p. 176.
    5Hitchman, N. A.: Keep Your Head . . . Keep Your Helmet. Army 8:42-44, September 1957.

    4. The estimated savings in total battle casualties means that the helmet in World War II probably prevented wounds in more than 70,000 men. A significant proportion of these men would have been killed had the helmet not been worn.

    5. To get the same amount of saving by protecting other regions, body armor weighing more than twice as much as the helmet would have to be provided."


    - Should be also obvious that the main purpose of a helmet was not to protect from direct good-angle impact penetration by rifle rounds or them to do wonders. "However, battle casualty survey studies during World Wars I and II and the Korean War have shown that the primary wounding agent among the WIA and the KIA casualties was the fragmentation-type weapon"

    - that helmets cover a small part of the body is evident but it should be obvious that the upper cranium is one of the most critical areas when it comes to incapacitation and/or death. It is also a good idea to think outside of a wargamer chair as everybody with a service record would point this out: what is a more-than-usual exposed body part when situated in a trench, foxhole or in a typical (prone) firing position? Exactly. Thus simply comparing helmet body % vs overall body % is lacking.

    - For the French Adrian helmet 60-70% reduction in shrapnel head injury are thrown around in articles. These are secondary/tertiary sources and I never saw the primary source so I am in doubt about this high numbers without sighting the ps, could be "Helmets and Body Armor in Modern Warfare" by Dean, Bashford (1920) but not confirmed. The soldiers were often subject to shrapnel projectiles coming from above, these numbers could be very situational.

    - it was stated in this thread that the true protection of WW2 steel helmets is in the dark and that is exactly the case and what a good researcher/expert would point out.

    - Being almost a decade involved with military professionals, studying at military schools, reading multiple, multilingual sources, witnessing shrapnel/fragmentation and the protection of similar fashioned gear first hand I can´t remember coming across an opinion stating WW2 helmet shrapnel protection did not matter too much as it would be self-evident.


    Despite this it is not a really important discussion for me as I am currently fine with how the CM simulation behaves when it comes to frag/shrapnel and that headgear is to some extent incorporated is a fine extra. 

  5. 22 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

    Thanks for the answer. I'm happy to hear there's a small effect in the game. I think steel helmets do stop quite a lot of shell fragments though, depending on size, speed, and range of course.

    I would like to see the source that states that a WW2 steel helmet doesn´t matter too much and only offer a slight reduction in injury when it comes to shrapnel protection. 

  6. 19 hours ago, slippy said:

    so are all these changes just to address the suppression model? Or just tweaks/additions etc?

    Many are tweaks and additions. There is an extra mission. 

    From nowadays perspective it can be expected that the revised campaign plays more challenging due to the less experiencied 2/8, more resistant Germans, and less ammo/refit. On the other hand you will have more air support and more variable time at your disposal.

    I would see it as an alternative to stock Montebourg. Bummer when it comes with wrong uniforms.   

  7. 9 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

    But are the JTS mods just graphical?  And btw, The Heaven and Earth mod is only graphical, right?

    The games allow modification of what I call "hard data" so the JTS mods are not only cosmetical. 

    While it is technicallly correct that HE does not change hard data, calling it only cosmetical would be the biggest understatement I´ve heard alongside it. To everybody that has the slightest interest I recommend to test it out for yourself. Playing the yot Rat campaign in HE was on of the greatest and most unique experiences I´ve had in recent years in CM. It is remarkable what the team achieved despite CM´s modding restrictions.

    Which brings me to my point: I do not ask the devs to go full 180 degree on CM´s modding friendliness as I understand the reasoning. However I am confident that offering the community at least some more modding options would be a win-win situation for all involved.

  8. Another recent example is that there were people telling me that they got into CMSF2 because of the Heaven & Earth mod.

    If I hypothetically had zero interest in CMSF2´s Middle Eastern modern warfare setting but some interest in the Vietnam/Asian setting, I would buy CMSF2 just for it without thinking twice. I mentioned it several times while playing the Year of the Rat campaign on the stream and it was meant serious.

    I guess I have a lesser threshold than the average to spent money on wargames but if I assume that for some reason I had no interest in the default content of the other CM titles - which is not the case but hypothetically - but had for whatever reasons interest in user content such as the various mod/campaign projects, I would buy CM games just for them alone. Last week I bought two JTS games primarily in order to get my hands on total conversion mods.

  9. My first physical copy of IL2 I bought because of German 3rd party historical addon campaigns. I purchased a second digital copy of IL1946 exclusively for the BAT mod. Similar with countless other games. There are dozen games I would´ve never purchased if there would be no modding coming with them.

  10. That a tank in a ditch in front of another one might get later fully aquired but might catch a shot by accident doesn´t seem that unreasonable.

    2 hours ago, c3k said:

    No. If the Panther is selected (not sure from the video or the difficulty level) any spotted icon like that is what that unit is aware of but does not have positive confirmation. The OP's video does not make it clear. But, regardless, you cannot make the statement that "it is clearly invisible to the gunner at this point".

    I second that. While it

    a) can stand for a contact report that was received from contact sharing it

    b) also can stand for "I see an enemy tank but don´t have it fully identified and/or are not ready to engage it yet" 

    There is sometimes no way to distinguish if a contact report is coming from a) or b) and can be of mixed sources but the very strong color points more towards a very strong b) (This limitation is also why I think why we see this new icon blinking in CMFI RtV.)

    Doesn´t mean that I want to justify this case here. With the little information I have no real opinion on it. However labeling the tank invisible is wrong.

  11. On 7/6/2020 at 10:34 AM, 37mm said:

    Unfortunately I upgraded my reshade to the latest version &, although I'm pleased with the increased efficiency & the new effects to play around with, it has left my profiles in a bit of a mess... I'm trying to find out what the issues are & fix them.

    They decided to move alot of the effects into "legacy" when installing which isn´t downloaded anymore by default but has to be selected manually, perhaps thats the issue.

  • Create New...