Attilaforfun
-
Posts
143 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Attilaforfun
-
-
Tried to change DPI settings. No avail. I had already messed with the 3D settings and they're currently set as you recommend. No luck. I will try to redownload just in case but as the same problem exists with FI and BN I imagine it's my system.
-
They activated fine. I bought the bundles so its a single key. I have not delved into the NVIDIA control panel. I suppose thats prob what it is going to take but I have no idea where to start and wonder why some titles work and some don't.
-
Things have finally slowed down enough that games are again an option. I got a new desktop...using a TV for video. All my games play at 1980x1080. Crappy Nvidia GTX 1660. RT, SF2 and BS fire right up. All the rest...FI, BN,
SF2and worst of all CW show a black screen and then CTD. Help!BTW new maps in F&R are awesome.
-
1 hour ago, BFCElvis said:
Yes. That would be optimistic.
Grr
-
India for the win.
-
5 hours ago, MikeyD said:
Does claiming you play a scenario only twice include the number of times you quit 3 minutes into the scenario because you lost too many troops up front?
LOL you too?
-
Lie to us!
-
-
The TRP may have gone unnoticed by the OP during setup. We don't need to go there.
-
Situation: Infantry platoon defending a crossroad in rough terrain and about to be attacked with over whelming force. The platoon is toast, if they delay the attackers for 5 min after contact I will be happy. However their real task is to call a harassment mortar mission on the crossroads. My infantry are currently occupying the ground and there is an arty TRP in their midst.
So my question: When is the best time to call for fire(on your own position w a TRP...don't ask how the situation came about)? Call early and delay until you think the position is going to be overrun? Wait till the last minute? Does the spotter have to be alive during the entire fire mission? As there is already a TRP is it better to have someone elsewhere call it in?
Commander's intent is for the Inf to fight as long as they can and then have the survivors bail while a harassing mortar fire makes the enemies necessary travel through the area annoying for as long as possible. The mortar mission is the priority.
-
On 5/12/2020 at 11:37 AM, com-intern said:
3. The gun should likely become increasingly inaccurate as the gunner continues to shoot.
I may be wrong here but while the gun, if perfectly stable, should have perfect accuracy based on its qualities, the qualities of the ammunition, and the qualities of the environment this should not be the case in the field. As the vehicle or gun would move around due to the recoil forces of firing repeatedly on often uneven ground.I don't understand this. A target is reacquired for each shot.
-
2 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Not unless you set target arcs...
Ah... You are presumably talking RL... not the game.
I play this game because it is the closest thing I have found to real combat. By far. I want it even better!
-
3 hours ago, Erwin said:
Of course, ideally one ambushes from a flank, not from the front. So, in that case perhaps all the crew's eyes are pointed forwards and would not so easily spot an AFV on its flank? In that instance perhaps hulldown in ambush on a target's flank is the lesson that the CM2 game at least teaches us - since the target would not only have to spot successfully, but would also have to rotate its turret.
Tanks do not default to 'looking ahead.' Every tank in the platoon has an assigned sector. When you see a group of tanks move tactically you will note 2 things: a) the guns of the tanks are covering at least a 270 degree field and b) tank turrets are constantly moving searching for targets within their assigned sectors.
ETA: I have many many hours in M1 simulators. When attached to the Strykers all the tankers got sent to the sim center twice a year to maintain tank skills. I can recall our driver sighting a target exactly once in a hundred battles.
-
On 5/8/2020 at 4:10 AM, Hapless said:
The Sherman gunner's main optic is 4x IIRC, so it looks even smaller! Im not 100% up on my Sherman fire control and gunnery mechanics, but I don't think firing the gun is going to change the gunner's point of aim... so why would the gunner voluntarily aim somewhere else once he's on target?
The gun moves every round and the target must be reacquired.
-
11 hours ago, BFCElvis said:
Sorry ...but no.
-
So, I am trying to perfect urban combined arms operations via QB on the rough water city map in RT. There is a copse of trees right in front of two massive industrial buildings which must be cleared. The trees make perfect cover for assaulting infantry. Well perhaps not perfect but SOME cover at least from the hordes of SMG gunners. Too bad you can't use it as a jump off position because the friendly tanks supporting the infantry are apparently amused by blasting trees instead of the buildings behind them and having the HE rounds go off in friendly infantry. Grr. Round after round.
Let's take a moment to discuss main gun (or coax) optics. The primary sight is along the gun. If there is something blocking the round from hitting the intended target then it will be noted in the sight. In other words if my main gun round hits a tree it is because I aimed at the tree and decided to fire at it. A tank can fire through a forested area. There is either a clear line of sight to the intended target or there is not. If there is a clear line of sight the round will hit the target (or at least get close to it...these are primitive fire control systems after all) if there is not a clear line of sight the gunner will not take the shot. Possible exceptions to hitting trees would be firing from the move or damaged optics. However if damage caused the miss the tank will fire once before recognizing the issue not round after round.
I like the way trees break up LOS irregularly. I don't like firing main gun rounds at unintended targets. That is all.
-
I have to right click the application and tell it to run with my NVIDIA card otherwise it defaults to integrated graphics and looks bad. I have tried to set the video card as the default graphics but have not been successful to date. That's all the CMx2 titles. None of my other hundreds of games have this issue. That being said it is minor.
-
Think about it. The communists followed sov doctrine and used their weapon systems. Not a terrible amount of work needed. UN forces (The big ones...ROK and US) use mostly US equipment which is already there. DLCs for continued revenue stream could be released for the various UN armies and/or TO&E changes over time. Hills, cities, villages, forests and rice paddies...rough and nasty infantry country. BF would be the only company making a real Korean War game (tactical anyway).
The varied terrain. The multiple participants. Man it would be cool and a somewhat refreshing change from WW2! Chinese breakthroughs. US breakouts. ROK/DPRK desperate fighting at Pusan. The scenarios could be epic.
*I may be biased as I spent several years in uniform there and eventually conned a young lady to followed me home a couple decades ago. She still won't go away.
-
55 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:
...the Begleitgrenadiers in RT both pack serious SMG goodness.
That quote caused me to look up the Begleit Bde. Bde commander has a day by day log.
https://www.eucmh.be/2018/01/26/fuhrer-begleit-brigade-otto-remer-ardennes-12-1944-01-1945/
-
Nevermind
-
There were no humanitarians on the Eastern Front.
-
-
3 hours ago, Anonymous_Jonze said:
Romania didn't fight to the end. They made peace with the Soviets then attacked the Germans shortly after. Nonetheless it would be interesting to see what equipment they used.
So Romania did or did not have forces in the field at wars end? ...hence fought to the end.
I doubt there is a player here unaware of the general history of the ETO.
-
10 hours ago, Myles Keogh said:
That does sound great. More than I anticipated. I was very pleased when Steve told us that partisans made the cut which wasn't the case when this module's possible contents were first hinted.
I am bit surprised that minor nationalities were even considered. Weren't we told years ago that BF had no inclination to go down the research rabbit-hole that those nations' TO&E would require? Further, after the apparent coding nightmare that was including various "minor" nation formations into Rome to Victory, I would think BF wouldn't dare want to touch the Finns, Romanians, or Hungarians. However, that they even considered it does make one hope of a possible pack including one or more of them someday, but I certainly would not hold my breath waiting on such a thing.
Hungarians and Romanians fought to the end there MUST be a module for them! Interest displayed.
Then you can work on the Japanese...
Ord. firing HEAT iso HE in Area fire
in CM2 General Tech Support
Posted · Edited by Attilaforfun
Gunner, PC, Fire fire HEAT. Says...gunner there's a PC over there, fire at it (with whatever is loaded) the second fire command is to the loader AND gunner. Loader what round to load next and for the gunner to index HEAT.