Grey_Fox
-
Posts
473 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Grey_Fox
-
-
16 minutes ago, Artkin said:
These look like somewhat large scale exercises given the amount of smoke bring given off from engines and guns.
Do you expect actual combat operations to be less confusing and less distracting?
-
3 minutes ago, Artkin said:
How biased of a post can you make?
Sarcastic, not biased. It shows just how limited the field of vision armoured vehicles are when they can literally drive into each other on an open field.
-
As you can see in the video here, what we see in game is not representative of reality:
-
3 hours ago, ncc1701e said:
But, at the company level, everything is in grey.
You need to select the battalion formation itself, the top-level label "1st Tactical Group (Battalion [BMP])", not the individual vehicles. Then you'll be able to select which variants of BMP that the various sub-formations use.
-
@arkhangelsk2021 why are you citing WW2-era documents to question Cold War era doctrine?
-
11 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:
I can try taking a look at it if you want to send me a file. I haven't had any other reports of this though. The version of Cold War that I currently have installed is different than your, so I'd have to revert mine to check out the file.
It's just the 1 battle though, right? It could just be a corrupted file? They are pretty rare but they do happen.
I've sent you a PM with a link to a dropbox folder containing the file, and included the password.
Error happened 2-3 times yesterday, but if I clicked ok on the messages it still allowed me to continue to the results screen. I did not get the error just now when I tried.
-
40 minutes ago, Redwolf said:
does this happen in every normal PBEM?
Can you continue your normal PBEM after clicking OK?
This was on the very last turn before the victory screen. I was able to reproduce it 3 times in a row. It did not prevent me from doing anything. I have not seen it in my current in-progress CMCW pbem.
-
-
Per the subject line. This is a normal PBEM, using dropbox and CM Helper, not PBEM++. Using the BFC install, version 1.03.
Why is PBEM++ trying to screw around with my normal PBEM?
The only interesting thing I have done is moved the installation folder from my SSD (F: drive) onto my HDD (D: drive) this afternoon.
-
4 hours ago, Nefron said:
It's kind of ridiculous that Kornet is a force to be reckoned with in Syrian hands (in SF), but in Ukraine it's a flop.
Dunno about that, in a recent Black Sea PBEM I used the AT-14 to great effect against US Bradleys and Abrams.
Even without firing a single missile. forcing the US to pop smoke and reverse into cover can be extremely useful.
-
15 hours ago, dbsapp said:
The thing that M60s sometimes don't see something doesn't change the fact that on average all Soviet tanks are much, much worse in spotting than their American opponents, and it makes them really uncompetitive.
The only thing the video shows tbh is that if you try to use the Soviets like you use the US forces, you're going to suffer.
The thing that keeps need to be repeated again and again (including in the discussion.video in the OP is that if you are trying to fight 1:1 as the Soviets against the US, you're doing it wrong. You need to have local numerical superiority.
Who cares if your guys only have individually a 40% chance of getting the first spot in an individual matchup if you are using the formation as it was I tended to be used, where your 10 T62s engage 3 or 4 US tanks at a time?
-
1 hour ago, THH149 said:
Ah ok, thanks, that's useful. Coordination needs care as you say, but still doable vs AI, perhaps less so against another player.
Is there a possibility to use the Abrams laser detection and auto smoke and reverse move combination against it?
I'm noticing for instance, firstly, that vehicles run out of smoke and stop reversing once they've been lasered and just sit there to be hit, and secondly, they might reverse into a handy location where a T90 could fire their main gun.
In a recent PBEM I was playing as Russia against the US. After some initial bloodletting I set up my ATGM teams in a set of tall buildings which were able to overlook much of the map. I had them all on short range target arcs and gave them sufficient time to acquire as many of the enemy as possible.
When I was ready to begin the engagement proper, I turned off all target arcs and laughed in joy as almost every single US vehicle popped smoke and reversed into cover, allowing me to push my company of T90s into positions where they were able to engage a fraction of the US force with maximum firepower.
By the time we ceasefired, out of the US force (a platoon of Abrams and a company of Bradleys) only 4 Bradleys and 2 Abrams were fully operational. Although I didn't kill a single Abrams, one was entirely combat ineffective and the other had substantial subsystem damage, both after taking several ATGM hits frontally. The US infantry had used up almost all of their javelins, to little effect due to my tanks being on higher ground, allowing Arena to defeat almost all of the javelins which were fired.
In return however I lost about half of my BMPs (mostly from an ill-considered attempt at an opposed rover crossing) and a third of my T90 company either knocked out or immobilized.
-
This is a 2-hour conversation between @Hapless, his opponent @Rice, and @domfluff, who is the admin of the unofficial (but extremely active) Combat Mission discord server.
They go into detail about their thought processes going into the game, how they responded to what happened during the match, and how Soviet doctrine can be used successfully in CMCW.
Figured it's worthy of its own thread because of how fascinating it is, and I hope we see more like this in the future.
This is a link to the unofficial discord server if you want to interact with more people in the community: https://discord.gg/SXkQ6rUuJN
-
10 hours ago, Gkenny said:
Have you started the mission yet? If you're still in the deployment phase, the incredible lag is due to the massive deployment zone. Once the battle actually started I gained 25+ frames.
It's still unacceptable performance either way.
-
Just now, Simcoe said:
I have pretty decent specs. 16gb ram, i7 cpu, nvidia 2080 and I run everything as low as possible.
Are you sure the game is using the graphics card? Can you check the Nvidia control panel and confirm that it's being used, and that FXAA is set to off for CM?
-
What's your computer spec? Bear in the Sun/Mist was fine for me, performance wise.
-
4 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
That doesn't sound terribly 'defensive'.
Also known as the SMAW-D.
I don't think there has ever been a war where the winner never performed an attack, and if you're in an urban fight it's perfectly reasonable to use one of those on the building next to you which the enemy has gotten into.
-
7 minutes ago, civdiv said:
So my two basic questions are;
- What tank designs should the Germans have skipped to save time and resources?
- What would have been the positive effects in terms of increased numbers of tanks they actually should have produced?They should have standardized their equipment and gone for a production-line style process, like the US did with their equipment.
It might not be a "positive", they might have had more equipment, but they would still have lost the war.
-
4 minutes ago, civdiv said:
The original article that OP posted lacks scale. In the last test we have 24 155 tubes firing 108 rounds per gun (2,600 total rounds) against ‘an infantry team’ with vehicles, including armor in support.
How big was this team, how many vehicles, dispersed over what area?
Now throw in the fact that it is going to take almost two hours to fire those rounds, so very much against doctrine. Maybe in the opening salvo of the war but that is about it.
I am sure the actual test cited had the missing data; curious as to why it isn’t in the article.
If the soviets ran into a defensive position that they couldn't bull through with the FSE or Advance Guard then I don't see why it would be unrealistic to assume they would call in a full artillery barrage which would allow them to do a breakthrough with acceptable casualties and continue to advance.
-
37 minutes ago, KGBoy said:
This is for Meeting Engagements only.
My thinking is you don't know the terrain so how can you plan TRPs without coordinates? You don't bomb towns because you don't want to kill town-folk. Both are 'realistic' considerations. Send in an FO at the start of the game.
Having said that Hard Cat Rules works for me.
Why wouldn't you know the terrain? Maps have been around for centuries. A basic read of a map would allow one to determine potential defensive positions and chokepoints.
-
10 minutes ago, KGBoy said:
WOuldn't a simpler rule be just to say no TRPs on MEs?
What's the rationale behind no TRPs on a route?
-
6 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:
There is no easy way to find your orders other than looking at each one. Unfortunately, there isn't anything that we can do about that.
Well that's not entirely true. BFC still own the website and could change it to show more information on individual orders in the list if they were willing to pay somebody to do it if they can't do it for themselves.
-
3 hours ago, Baneman said:
No, the level of intel available to the player would be set in the campaign ( probably per scenario ). If you play the same campaign, you should see exactly the same number of "?" on the map.
Not necessarily. There is a setting that determines the likelihood of any individual unit showing in pre-battle intel. If you redo a campaign, it's entirely likely that you could get tentative spots of more or fewer (or potentially even zero) enemy units.
-
6 minutes ago, IanL said:
Why not. I'm approaching a village why wouldn't' I blast the heck out of the enemy approaches or retreat routes.
I think it's to simulate that in a meeting engagement you haven't made contact yet and so aren't aware of enemy positions, or if they're even present.
Pre-planned artillery timing limitations
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I know some people have been editing their sizes and colours in order to make them more visible, but I don't know how they do it.