Jump to content

WhiteWolf65

Members
  • Content Count

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

WhiteWolf65 last won the day on July 1 2019

WhiteWolf65 had the most liked content!

About WhiteWolf65

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 06/03/1954

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Columbia, SC, USA
  • Interests
    Military history research (Medieval, World War II, Korean War, Viet Nam, Cold War, Modern warfare), cooking, reading, designing and making maille jewelry, game map design, scenario design, beta testing, and of course war gaming.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Good Easter morning everyone, I need to fill a few slots on my CMx2 game roster. I prefer CM:FI but will also play CM:BN, CM:RT, and CM:FB. I will play any stock scenario, scenarios published by others, or Quick Battles. I prefer medium sized scenarios on medium or large maps. My only house rule is no pre-plotted artillery or air-strikes during a meeting engagement until Turn 5. During other types of scenarios the attacker can pre-plan artillery barrages or air-strikes on Turn 1. I play Iron level. I prefer to play the Axis but will play the Allied player if they are the attacker. If inte
  2. Yeah, I hate that those first turn pre-plotted artillery barrages and/or airstrikes. I usually have a house rule that says you can't pre-plot an artillery barrage or air-strike on turn one. Pre-plotted missions at five minutes is fine by me. No matter what BFC does with any updates for any of the games, I will always purchase and play them.
  3. I agree with you. So, it might be best to stop debating this subject any further.
  4. I completely agree that it is just a game and it is meant to be fun to play. But going back to what AttorneyAtWar said about MRLS rocket artillery being outside the scope of the game could just as easily be said about naval gun fire support in CMBN and CMFI. You have anything from a destroyer's 5" guns all the way up to a battleship's 14" guns. And then you have the super heavy artillery of all the nations in most of the games. I just did a little math project with the scenario editor from CM:BS this morning. The absolutely largest map you can make in the editor is 4.16 Km x 4.16 Km or 520 gri
  5. Then how can BFC justify that cluster munitions are within the scope of the game? A barrage of cluster munitions can take out a large chunk of any size BFC map. I'm just trying to make sense of what BFC is doing with these games. Don't get me wrong, they are and always have been great games. If they weren't, I wouldn't have been playing them for 20 years or so. I forgot one NATO country to include in any subsequent CM:BS module, the UK. I like Challengers a lot. Okay, onward and upwards.
  6. It was a huge map. The Russians approached over open ground from the other side of a tree line with some scattered small hills and a few copses of trees but hardly any cover. The Abrams were sitting at the far end of the map on a small ridge line in the open. They were not hull-down. As soon as the T-90s cleared the tree line, at least seven of them were taken out, as in destroyed completely.
  7. I can see your point and it is a very good one indeed. I would just like to see Black Sea taken to the absolute limit as far as a country's military might can be taken. As the game is now, the Russians can barely handle an attack from the United States especially if M1A2 SEPS are available. I ran a test with 30 T-90AM w/APS against a platoon of four M1A2s. Every single Russian T-90 was destroyed and only one Abrams was immobilized. Now that seems a little lop-sided to me.
  8. One further note to this discussion. I noticed that in the upcoming Cold War game that cluster munitions are available for both artillery barrages and air-strikes. I've seen what these absolutely evil devices can do. So saying that, why have cluster munitions in the Cold War game if we can't have modern rocket artillery in any subsequent Black Sea module? It just doesn't make sense to me. One other Russian Federation vehicle is the TOR-M2 (NATO code-name SA-15 Gauntlet) self-propelled anti-aircraft missile system.
  9. Why not? It is part of modern day warfare and war is hell, no matter what historical period game you might be playing. And the thing is, they would, like most rocket artillery be able to fire just one salvo. Takes too long to reload any of them unless you were playing a huge 2 hour long scenario. Besides that, there are all kinds of rocket artillery units in the Combat Mission games covering World War II. Granted, they aren't as accurate as modern day rocket artillery but they can do lots of damage in the right situation. I say, include them. If you got them, use them. A good fix to the proble
  10. I am sure that this has been discussed before but I wanted to comment on the Russian Federation ground forces for any future Black Sea module. After looking at the Black Sea manual, I noticed that there are no rocket artillery units, not even the BM-21. The Russian Army relies heavily on it's rocket artillery assets such as the BM-21 (is listed in the upcoming Cold War TO&E), TOS-1A, BM-30 Smerch, BM-27M Uragan-1M to name a few. I also noticed that the United States MLRS M270A1 MRLS is also missing from the United States force mix. Another Russian vehicle that is missing and is in use by t
  11. Sort of like the British Scimitar but with a larger gun. Good recon vehicles, as stated above.
  12. Thank you gentlemen. Just wondering about certain aspects of the game system.
  13. Agreed, but we will still be here slugging it out. Right?
  14. Believe me on this. If I spot a Javelin team, I will definitely take a very high interest in them and kill them.
×
×
  • Create New...