FlemFire
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
Posts posted by FlemFire
-
-
British tanks are offensively ugly. Most look like first cousins to field tractors.
-
I mostly use snipers for spotting with restricted firing arcs. I think the way it depicts their accuracy in actually hitting targets is fairly on point. I did have a PBEM game where I setup an Elite US marksman squad in a forest to spot out of, and it got bumrushed by Syrians. They peeled back to a cozy spot just before exiting the treeline and ended up shooting over a dozen Syrians coming through the brush. Not even sure they ever missed, but the lethality from what was basically a couple guys was pretty shocking. My opponent also never could make a spot on them despite the close proximity.
The .50cal rifles I'll let them shoot now and again. In SF2 they can sometimes penetrate BMPs. The conversational ricochet with its occupants is usually enough to make abandonment an agreeable choice.
-
Once you get past like 1943 the up-gunning is winning the armor battles to the point where getting hit at all is pretty bad for your health and things like fire control, range finding, accuracy, etc. begin to take primacy. I think it was in one of Glantz's books where he stated by that year the T34 was getting penetrated something like 90% of the time at ordinary ranges whereas earlier in the war it was more like 30%, then 50%. So if it's late war my choice would be one of the American tank destroyers, as the doctrine was typically fire support & counter-attacking instead of head on mano y mano. The M18 also looks sexy, if we're going by which metal coffin is most aesthetic.
-
4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:
Be interested to hear what the pros on the board think, but I'd bet money that this cheap and cheerful system is for export.
...I mean, since 1989 has the US Army ever faced robust radar-directed counterbattery fire from a near-peer army, where it needed to keep its tubes flitting around for survival? As opposed to digging in, calling for air and outshooting the enemy first, in the Uncle Sam way? Is there a serious expectation of that threat arising in the future?
Towed 105s, dug into a firebase well-stocked with shells, remain the best solution for breaking up enemy concentrations in a battalion or regiment AO. They put a boatload of low cost HE on target quickly, and way outrange guerrilla mortars and Katyusha/Grad type rockets. And on crap mountain roads, towed tubes can get more places than SP can. Plus the Hummer can be an ammo carrier.
So I'd guess the export markets for this system would be India and Vietnam? perhaps some of the Eastern Europeans? Taiwan can afford higher tech like MLRS, which makes more sense anyway for the short, intense 'all or nothing' war they'd fight.
Large medium tech armies with an unfriendly neighbour who aren't keen on Chinese or Russian kit (probably because they ARE the unfriendly neighbour) and will buy American kit in spite of the higher costs, especially if Uncle Sam subsidizes it.
IIRC, back in the day when I still read Janes, it was the French-Italians and South Africans who dominated the tube artillery 'marketplace'. And then Chinese knockoffs drove them out, as with everything else. Until China became The Enemy again after 2016.
FWIW, I don't claim to be infallible on this stuff.
Likely, but the U.S. military does seem to have a growing import placed upon mobility, speed, flexibility, etc.
-
Interesting... the obstructiveness of destroyed vehicles isn't simulated quite right. Here's another thread where tank-rounds are going through the destroyed vehicles:
As far as the soldiers themselves, this can happen sans-vehicle. The AI will sometimes do this with the attached grenade launchers so they do seem rather cavalier at times with their explosive content.
Example:
I'm assuming they ran out of ammo and the AI prioritizes the target over reloading and ends up blasting a grenade round at pointblank. (IMO, the bigger point here is they need melee combat back in there...)
-
3 hours ago, SimpleSimon said:
Some of the scenarios involving attacks in bad weather seem pretty dicey to me regardless of the conditions. It's bad enough if you stand to lose any vehicle to bogging, but when the scenario also involves an attack right into the teeth of the enemy defense with no prospect of maneuver and scores you viciously for failing in spite of these conditions I rapidly lose patience with the scenario designer and whatever his intent was and head to the editor. Weather is great contextual stuff, but the scenario designers need be aware that it can radically and unpredictably alter the circumstances of the scenario. That's fine as long as the expectations on the player are reasonable...
I sense PaperTiger's aura in this post.
-
IMO, sandbags and similar static defenses should be even easier to spot ...
-
10 hours ago, Sven said:
I agree with you both, but it's really something for Battlefront to patch somehow.
Patch what, exactly? Constructed defenses are very visible by design. There are still ways to obscure them and keep them in keyholes and the like, but if an attacker is just staring across the field it's not like a big stack of sandbags is going to go unnoticed.
-
500m+ is very, very far. Considering people who are shooting at each other are usually doing so from prone positions and/or behind cover, I can't imagine the targets to hit being particularly easy. My understanding is that they learned very quickly during WWII that such engagements weren't worth the effort. As the fire support tech got really advanced, it became extremely problematic for defenders to engage at such ranges. After all, if you shoot at someone at 500m, and that someone has a radio who can chit-chat with a guy who has a much, much larger gun than yours, or perhaps even an airplane or jet, then you should probably not take that 500m potshot. And so all those visible fortress networks which dominated defense budgets leading up to 1940 quickly fell out of use by the time 1945 rolled around. With static bunkers going the way of the dodo, defensive engagements turned into close-range ambushes or fluid skirmishes meant to draw attackers into counter-punches.
As someone who just plays Normandy & Shock Force 2, the primary thing I notice is that the lethality of ambushes has ramped up considerably (which I think is what you're referring to about guys being minced very fast). However, I think you might be running into a smaller scale instead of sheer lethality by itself. Getting shot at in the open is bad for your health whether it's an MG42 or an M249, and the end result as a basis of time when being ambushed by WWII tech or modern tech is mostly a matter of seconds. SF2 feels particularly punishing because the assets on hand aren't so 'epic.' You probably feel the sting of those short-range firefights because you're often operating within the constraints of a smaller engagement, as opposed to Normandy where a typical battle has you maintaining large tactical reserves just cause there's so many bodies available. After all, it's extremely common for SF2 bluefor objectives to be, in essence, don't lose a squad. This is actually why I find the Cold War setting rather appealing -- because we'll basically be seeing those two elements being smooshed together. So instead of fearing lethality, I'm curious about lethality + large peer-to-peer engagements. My opinion, of course.
-
3 hours ago, akd said:
I believe ricochets can cause casualties.
2 hours ago, Erwin said:Yes, this has been my experience as well - for any caliber. It's hard to prove sometimes as it can be hard to know where fire is coming from. But, I well recall putting a lot of small arms fire from many units onto one wall/window that I wanted my engineers to blast thru, and they suffered several casualties from what seemed like ricochets.
Just yesterday in a game, I saw an enemy RCL fire at my inf. The shell hit the tree in front of them, and instead of exploding, ricocheted away and hit some other inf who were well out of any fire, and wounded/killed a couple.
49 minutes ago, QuiGon said:Maybe, but that was definitely not what happened in my case, where my troops where actively and purposefully engaging their comrades on their own.
Would it shock you guys to say I also have a video clip of ricochets causing casualties
-
6 hours ago, chuckdyke said:
Nope it has been discussed and tested and tested some more. If you plot a fast move through mud you get bogged. Not because you go fast it is because you drive through mud. The GM engine adjust your speed according to the terrain. Mud needs to be avoided you will get bogged on slow at the same rate as when you go fast. The move commands are for tactical use.
To clarify, I was speaking to CMx1 and that it as you say not modeled at all in CMx2.
-
I believe CMx1 paid attention to speeds on muddy terrain? IIRC, it's not going around fast that prevents it, but going slow. If you go too fast in mud you actually grind yourself into the earth. If you're in a regular vehicle it's one thing to fly over mud with some momentum, but a tank is too heavy so you have to go carefully. That was my understanding, anyway.
-
@Chibot Mk IXit's the caliber of the round.
I frequently run into buildings being shot up for suppression and do not suffer casualties -- if I'm doing it with small arms. However, if you are shooting large caliber rounds then it can kill your own guys. .223, .30, etc. won't do it, but .50, I mean that's something that can punch holes in concrete. To prevent the above, give them a target arc so they're not opening up with your own friendlies in the firing lane. This is true of a lot of stuff. In one of my previous PBEM games I was the assaulting force in an urban enviro. Friendly fire was almost as big of an issue as contending with the enemy itself. But sometimes it's also just... acceptable to eat some friendly fire. (Don't tell the troopers that.)
I actually have an example just like yours to show. In this case I'm using irregulars to look for contact. They make said contact, but all the US forces standing by were basically free to fire. What ended up happening was the guys running to the building side got lit up by a humvee's .50 and I believe one got killed by a 25 or 30mm cannon round.
Base of fire POV:
Irregulars POV:
-
If I have my troops in awkward, hilly positions where their profile is low and enemy armor is either on an even plane or downhill, I've seen tanks sail shots over their heads and generally have a hard time dialing it in. This is true in SF2/BS as well.
However, I have noticed that if tanks have the higher ground they tend to be remarkably accurate with the shot placements.
-
1 hour ago, Bearstronaut said:
For me it was the Close Combat games. I played all of them when I was younger and liked them immensely. I always wondered what they would be like in a 3D engine and with competent AI and then in 2017 I found CMBN and my questions were answered. I only wish that CM had the same kind of operational level game that Close Combat does but the tactical combat blows CC out of the water.
Same pathline, though a bit earlier as I rotated to CM with that demo it had back in I think 1999. I wanna say it was a on a PC Gamer disc, can't quite remember. Also wish CM shared Close Combat's eye for operational stuff. A Bridge Too Far's resource balancing was a particular favorite of mine.
-
Displace/egress order would be nice. For PvP, it would be a massive buff for defenders.
I think it would most benefit the irregulars from Shock Force -- imagine being able to shoot an RPG and then get the hell out of dodge ASAP instead of evaporating instantly in the face of BlueFor's reaction.
-
On 12/10/2020 at 10:58 AM, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I've played them all.
Agree with your comments by and large though.....Especially about the first scenario in 'Road To Montebourg', that scenario taught me a lot about fire and maneuver in CM.
Any particular favorite that sticks out, or maybe a campaign that had an awesome scenario or two?
-
I'm glad I have so few hobbies
-
On 3/25/2021 at 10:14 AM, AlexUK said:
That sounds like me against the AI!
Delicious times, love it
Same. I've actually done it so often that I've started to recognize I'm in way too much of a hurry-up mode and will save the game to take it up another day. It's especially dangerous with the modern titles, because you can be having a clean sweep of a map, yet 60s of carelessness can end with one insurgent mowing down a full squad or something equally disastrous.
Edit: the #1 reason for it btw is because I like the campaigns, so if I'm nearing the end of a mission I get in a rush because I want to see the next battle. So it's definitely a nod to those who design these maps that they got me hitting fast-forward at the expense of my troops.
-
19 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:
I think it's more respectful to your opponent to just give up when you can't win, instead of doing some kind of silly suicide attack.
A bit like in chess, you shake the opponent's hand and leave the table when you give up - you don't throw the pieces at him.
I was just joking, but an IRL chess table flip is a good analog to the Fast zerg out.
-
If you want to communicate it in-game, take all your men and Fast their way to the nearest enemy.
-
21 hours ago, Erwin said:
It may be that by being close, it appears that there are more Javelins, but what happens when you separate the vehicles by more than 3 action squares?
Not sure what you mean, but I'll try to explain how it's been done during the campaign:
I'll put a Javelin team in a spot. They usually carry 2 missiles with them (an inadequate supply for my overkilling mindset).
The Marine carriers typically have a boatload of missiles in them. When the fireteam exhausts their 2 missiles, I'll bring over one of these vehicles and park it. The Javelin team then automatically starts collecting more missiles to shoot. I noticed this on Mission 3 (I think) where you're defending but get vehicular reinforcements. My Javelins were out of ammo, but able to quickly resupply without any seesaw work put in.
I haven't tested this with an empty vehicle, btw, there's always someone in it still driving.
If the vehicle isn't close by, then they don't collect obviously, but I haven't tested at what range they stop doing it; nor have I tested what all ammo resupply is actually taken this way. I think because the Javelin team is dedicated to that sole function it operates like this. I don't think a regular Marine squad with ATG's resupplies in the same way, but again I haven't thoroughly tested it. Might simply be the case the game has somehow assigned the vehicle itself to being an ammo carrier which I suppose makes some sense.
-
16 hours ago, Erwin said:
Unless its a supply dump units would still have to mount, acquire, then dismount... I have been wishing for adjacent units to be able to exchange weapons and ammo (within reasonable limits + time penalties).
Might be vehicle-to-vehicle based then because I'm doing a Marines campaign run and can park those carriers next to Javelins and they just stock up instantly.
-
On 3/2/2021 at 9:33 PM, Erwin said:
Totally reasonable. It's when one starts loading up 600 rounds+ each plus AT weapons etc that it gets silly. But, I do it as I hate the ACQUIRE routine - it can bring the whole game to a halt. One shouldn't have to split off a min of two men from every single squad just to get more ammo. Ideally we should be able to ACQUIRE ammo from any other unit (within reason and time penalty).
A "share ammo" button would be nice; something you can toggle on and off as needed. The whole ammo organization in general is a little weird. Sometimes it's a great labor to go and fetch some, other times you can park a carrier nearby and guys magically offload heavy anti-tank missiles into their arms in an instant.
Steam & PBEM++
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
By Fall... wouldn't there be another in the CM lineup being released on Steam at that time?