Grey_Fox
-
Posts
472 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Grey_Fox
-
-
1 hour ago, FancyCat said:
how do we feel about the supply of ATGMs? feels like videos are dried up a bit of those.
It's probably a symptom of heavy fighting and the casualties that comes with them. People don't have time to upload videos to youtube while fighting in trenches.
Also bear in mind that ATGMs can't really be crowdsourced, while consumer off-the-shelf FPV drones can be, so propaganda efforts may be directed towards those (a phenomenon alluded to by Mike Kofman and Rob Lee).
-
On 4/17/2024 at 8:34 PM, MikeyD said:
it could be 700m or more downrange before the gunner got the missile in the crosshairs.
Given how it was intended to be used, and how the Soviets intended to fight, that's not necessarily a weakness.
For comparison, M150s and M901s would have long displaced before the Soviets got within that range. Ideally the infantry supporting them would also have pulled back a fair while before the Soviets got within Dragon range (1km).
-
On 3/18/2024 at 8:46 AM, Jane's said:
Whether you like it or not, it's not only up to BF to resolve that problem.
While it may be an AMD issue, it is also BFC's if they intend to keep selling the games.
-
That entirely depends on the physical characteristics of the tank.
The Tiger has a bow gunner in addition to the gunner, commander, driver, and loader.
The T-64 has only the driver, gunner, and commander.
So you have 4-5 potential spotters in the Tiger (depending on what the loader is doing) versus 3 in the T-64.
Then there is the specifics of what the T-64 can see, the size and shape of the viewports, etc. Armoured vehicles have a lot of blind spots.
In terms of technology, much of Cold War era technology can be described as modern day weapons systems (ATGMs, guns, etc) with WW2 era optics (largely eyeballs and binoculars). It isn't until the widespread proliferation of night vision gear and thermal optics that you see a major swing.
-
All vehicles and emplacements do this as far as I'm aware. The animation only goes so far,.and tanks jockeying for position to get a more optimal firing angle isn't animated, so you'll see cannon fire at some pretty funny angles. Not often I've seen it happen in a flat arc to the side though.
-
Odds are it's because the OS doesn't realise that CM is a game, and so is using the integrated graphics chip.
If you have an nvidia graphics card, go to the nvidia control panel and add the CM games to it. Make sure to disable FXAA.
-
18 hours ago, Anthony P. said:
@Grey_Fox re your earlier (valuable) advice, do you know if there's a spotting bonus for targets to the front of the tank if the commander is buttoned up for tanks with thermal sights? I.e., do modern AFVs like Abrams, Bradley, etc. receive a spotting penalty for targets to their front if the commander is unbuttoned?
I did some digging (and by that I mean I asked around), and none of the armoured vehicles in CMCW equipped with thermal imagers would have allowed the commander to view the commander's thermal imager repeater while turned out.
The M1A2 *might*, if they were to position themselves very very awkwardly to look at the screen, but otherwise it shouldn't be modelled. Which doesn't mean it isn't modelled, but it shouldn't be.
Also, the reason the M60 TTS imager was superior was that it was displayed on a screen, while for the M1 it was displayed in an ocular sight.
-
5 hours ago, Anthony P. said:
@Grey_Fox re your earlier (valuable) advice, do you know if there's a spotting bonus for targets to the front of the tank if the commander is buttoned up for tanks with thermal sights? I.e., do modern AFVs like Abrams, Bradley, etc. receive a spotting penalty for targets to their front if the commander is unbuttoned?
It's not a "penalty" or a "bonus", it's an additional pairs of eyes doing similar things.
The benefit of being unbuttoned is that the commander has unobstructed fields of view and greater situational awareness, but he won't be able to see through smoke, if he only uses his thermal imager when buttoned-up. I don't recall if he does, and I'm not sure if there's a way to reliably tell.
Bear in mind that in CW I don't believe the TC gets an independent thermal imager, just a repeater for the gunners' sight at most.
-
1 hour ago, Stimo said:
1. Can an FO inside a moving vehicle efficiently call in a mission on a TRP?
2. What does the screenshot below mean? Tubes are too hot and fire will resume in 13 minutes, or something else ?
Thank you
Fire missions will always be called in faster on a TRP. Depending on the specific unit and game, an FO calling in fire missions from say an artillery observation vehicle may have shorter call-in times due to the better communication links available.
The "FIRING 13 min" text means the length of time remaining on the fire mission - the current barrage will last another 13 minutes.
The red circles indicates that the barrels are hot, which will affect rate of fire. When all the dots are red, the battery will hold down its rate of fire to a "sustainable" level. If they're green, they'll use the maximum rate of fire.
If you check the manual it will tell you the maximum and sustained rates of fire for each artillery unit. In the case of the 2S1 (the unit in the screenshot), the maximum rate of fire is 5 rounds per minute, and the sustained rate of fire is 2 rounds per minute. And that's per tube.
-
On 1/22/2024 at 1:51 AM, Genushe said:
1. Will Red Thunder's unique aircraft mechanics be expanded to other WW2 titles?
This was actually rolled out to IIRC CMBN several years ago, but the people on the forum cried like bitches until it was reverted because they like to pretend they could call in precision air strikes in 1944.
-
It's fairly unusual for somebody to ask for people to register for "pre-orders" of a player-made campaign.
-
2 minutes ago, Brille said:
just false expectations
I think this is a major factor in a lot of the complaints about spotting being broken.
-
10 hours ago, Anthony P. said:
I'm not so sure about that, I've definitely had buttoned up tanks spot contacts off to their sides, so I'm confident that they don't just stare blindly right ahead.
They don't, they're probably also using the vision blocks. But the tank commander cannot see with thermal optics outside of the forward 90 arc. The LOS is also drawn from the gun barrel, not from the actual CITV sensor on the top of the tank.
You can read about testing here: https://community.battlefront.com/topic/142602-abrams-citvprimary-gunner-sight-limitations/
-
19 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
For CMSF2 and CMBS, there are alot of AFV that have CITV and commander video , I will keep the hatch closed for those.
Worth bearing in mind that unlike in real life the CITV only covers the front 90 degrees of the Abrams in CMBS and presumably CMSF2, so there are circumstances where being turned out may be advisable.
-
Soviet doctrine was to fight buttoned-up and rely on mass to identify and destroyed the enemy.
US doctrine was to stay turned-out as much as possible.
-
22 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
I did bring this up in the CMBS forum at some point, but I haven't made a large formal announcement yet. I'll edit my initial post in this thread to give the bad news... it's scrapped. It's just not something we feel comfortable doing and Slitherine is 100% of the same mind.
Will there be another CM game made which will allow people to play with modern TOEs?
WW2 is all well-and-good, but it is nice to play with equipment that was invented less than a century ago.
-
Game Engines are paid upgrades which have to be purchased on the Nattlefront store. That's why you need an activation code.
-
42 minutes ago, Warfare said:
1 by company CO, 1 from greyhound. They both had direct sight of target point both times but the FOV of both spotters was down a long road and spotting rounds fell unisghted in fields to the sides where the rest would come in later.
I thought this would just increase call in time until a good spotting rounds hit, rather than just sending the full bombardment.
Not being able to see where the spotting rounds fell meant they didn't know what adjustments to make.
Sometimes they'll go into near-infinite infinite spotting phase, other times they'll just get tired of waiting and call in the fire mission, hoping for the best.
It sucks, but these things happen. Ideally you should have tried moving the unit that was calling in the fire mission to a position where they could see the fall of the spotting rounds and the intended target, and then they would be able to make adjustments.
-
47 minutes ago, Warfare said:
Hi, I'm relatively inexperienced at CM and I'm having problems with it on one of the road to montebourg missions. I've tried to call offmap 81mm mortars on point targets but the spotting rounds don't fall on target and then the full mission falls in a tight cluster (red circles), nowhere near the point target. Both were short heavy bombardments. One is from company co and the other was from a greyhound.
I don't remember this being a problem in other missions but I don't usually use point target. Is this working as intended and if not what should I do to get the battery on target?
Was this a fire mission called in by an FO or other officer? If so, did they have constant direct line of sight on the desired target, and on the location of the spotting rounds?
-
I think artillery-fired multispectral smoke/red phosphorus is badly needed in CMBS.
-
On 12/14/2023 at 4:52 PM, IanL said:
Are you doing the same for AMD products? It's their change that caused this not BFC's.
At the end of the day, if something you created and claims works on a certain product doesn't, at some point you are the one who has to do something to deal with it.
AMD screwed up, sure. But BFC have a responsibility to try to do something. I'm facing this problem at work, where certain security setups are blocking some functionality. Sure, this is a problem with the customers' security infrastructure. But it's also my problem because our product doesn't work under certain circumstances, and we want it to.
At least now on the BFC site there is a warning that the game will not run on certain AMD cards. That warning isn't on the steam pages however.
-
18 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
It isn’t the bullets. Drones are cheaper than the things firing all them bullets to sweep the sky clean. And firing all said bullets at the Face of God is going to leave an ISR signature that will ensure retribution. Same goes for lasers or EM.
It is classic military dilemma. If I stay quiet my opponent will hunt and kill me with UAS. If I blaze away at them, my opponents artillery will target and kill me.
Won't the command and control systems of these UAVs also have a fairly strong signature in order to burn through any EWAR?
-
9 hours ago, The_Capt said:
Except for the part where shooting down drone swarms is nearly impossible with todays technology. And while you are blazing away at every bird, bug and flying squirrel for kilometres you are going to be visible from 53 miles west of Venus. So you had also be able to shoot down every mortar, artillery shell and sub-munition that is going to be lobbed at the Serbian New Year’s Eve party your ground forces have become.
Short of air burst nukes we do not possess an realistic ability to clear millions of cubic meters of sky.
I like how drones are cheaper than bullets in this scenario.
-
2 minutes ago, benpark said:
It was a module, not a battle pack as you stated. That's about 2/3rds of a full game.
Yes, my apologies for that. So you can see how CMCW, a full game, had a significantly shorter development cycle than Fire and Rubble, which was "only" a module.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
The problem with this is that there are tradeoffs when it comes to strapping larger payloads to UAVs, in the form of size, speed, agility, range, and cost. Mike Kofman and Rob Lee discuss this on recent podcasts.
Strapping a grenade or RPG-7 warhead to a UAV may be feasible for your $500, but a larger tandem warhead will drive up the size requirements of the drone in order to achieve similar performance, which means greater cost and possibly lower survivability. And bear in mind that the FPV drones have a low success rate to begin with.