Centurian52
-
Posts
1,260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by Centurian52
-
-
Despite having played CMSF extensively, I haven't spent much time with CMSF2 yet. Based on my experience in CMCW though, particularly in 1979 scenarios in which some, but not all, of a US infantry squad may be equipped with NVGs (something like 1/3rd to 1/2 of the squad members have NVGs), I'd say that having some members of a squad equipped with NVGs gets you most of the benefit of having the entire squad equipped with NVGs. The squad members with NVGs can spot the enemy and open the firefight on favorable terms, with the rest of the squad soon joining the firefight as they spot the muzzle flashes from the enemy.
-
The issue is how to award points to side A right?
So side B gets more points if less of side A exits. But since giving the enemy a bloody nose is generally one of the goals of a delaying action, side A can get points for doing damage to side B. So side A gets points by destroying side B's units, and denies points to side B by exiting its own units. Side B gets points by preventing side A units from exiting, and denies points to side A by preserving its own units. Side A wins if the points value of the side B units it destroys exceeds the points value of its own units that it fails to exit. Then it's just a matter of adjusting the points until side A achieves a major victory at the thresholds you want (80% of forces exited while destroying X% of side B).
Since it's a delaying action it would also be nice if there was a way to award points to side A for keeping side B off of a terrain objective for a certain amount of time. But as far as I'm aware there's no way to do this in Combat Mission.
-
4 hours ago, Dawoox said:
COMBAT MISSION MOBILE ios/android why not?
They gave that a try. I remember a lot of buzz about Combat Mission: Touch a while back. I'm not sure what happened to it or if it's still available somewhere. It looked like it was basically a mobile version of CMBN
-
13 hours ago, Mr.X said:
During the next hours, I will complete the short intro file and then start to send the content to all the guys who have ordered it. Within the next 2-3 days, everybody should get it
Looking forward to it! I do get a lot of spam, so I may have to filter my email by subject line in order to find it. What should I be looking for?
-
The site looks good. One small note: On the Scenarios page Fortress Italy is currently spelled Frotress Italy
-
10 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:
I'm not entirely sure just how much diesel versus petrol was actually perceived to be a relevant risk back then.
It's certainly been made up to matter a whole lot in the succeeding decades, but most examinations seem to indicate that the difference was actually insignificant: very few hits directly sparked fuel fires. Rather it was ammunition fires which caused them and when things had reached that stage, it didn't make any difference what kind of fuel was sloshing about in the tanks.
Notionally safer diesel fuel didn't do a thing to prevent the T-34 from being a tank with a high likelihood of burning and usually killing most of its crew if the crew comparment was penetrated, whereas the average petrol fuelled Sherman on average only suffered one killed and one wounded crew in the same circumstances and rarely brewed up compared to other tanks once its ammunition started being stored safely.
Pretty much everything I know about crew survivability and brew up rates comes from Nicholas Moran, a.k.a. The Chieftain. So this is all coming from memory of various interviews, presentations, and videos I've seen him do over the years. So there are two potential points of failure for everything I'm about to say. The first point of failure is that I may be misremembering what he said. And the second point of failure is that something he said may have been incorrect (he is probably the #1 tank expert on the internet these days, but even the experts get things wrong from time to time).
The Sherman supposedly had a crew survivability rate of 85%. Meaning that for every Sherman knocked out, an average of about 0.8 crewmen were killed. The T-34 was exactly the inverse, with a crew survivability rate of 15%.
The Sherman did burn a lot when it first saw combat in North Africa, but not more than other tanks. The "brew up" rate for nearly all of the tanks in the war (Sherman included) was about 70%. The similar brew-up rate between different types of tanks was probably because all of the tanks were brewing up for the same reason, ignition of ammunition propellent charges stored in the crew compartment. Accumulated measures taken over the course of the war to reduce fires (including but not limited to wet stowage) meant that by the end of the war only around 10% of knocked out Shermans were burning.
The Sherman's gasoline engine did catch fire at a higher rate than diesel engines. But the rate of engine fires was still insignificant compared to the rate of ammunition fires. And in any case, engine fires were less of a hazard for the crew since the engine isn't in the crew compartment.
That's about what I can pull from memory on the subject of crew survivability and fires. Most of it pertains to the Sherman, since this stuff mostly seems to come up in the context of Sherman myths. I'm not sure how to connect any of it back to the M10, M18, or M22. Except of course to say that which vehicles had diesel and which vehicles had gasoline engines probably wouldn't have been much of a concern to anyone who knew the stats. Which is not to say that it wouldn't have been a concern for the crews. Soldiers believe myths about their own equipment all the time. So whether it would have been a concern for the crews depends more on which of these myths were present during the war, and which came about after the war.
-
GoG does a pretty good job running legacy games on a modern OS, as does Lutris.
40 minutes ago, Butschi said:There are many here who still run on Windows 7 (or even older?)
Maintaining a legacy OS to run legacy software is fine. But I really hope those people aren't connecting their legacy machines to the internet. They will be vulnerable to absolutely everything out there. The machine you use to connect to the internet should be running a fully up to date modern OS.
-
24 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
plus it used Diesel fuel which greatly reduced the risk of fire.
How much of a concern was that really? I mean the risks of diesel vs gasoline. Fire is of course a huge concern. But the propellent charges for the ammunition are always by far the biggest fire (or catastrophic explosion) risk. Gasoline is of course a greater fire risk than diesel, but I can't imagine how either diesel or gasoline can compare to the risk already imposed by the ammunition.
That's before you even consider that the ammunition is in the crew compartment. The fuel isn't (usually).
-
On 2/4/2024 at 7:10 AM, Raging Al said:
I’m really hoping for early war, especially France 1940 and the Balkans campaign up to the fall of Crete in ‘41. Various Cruiser marks and Matildas for the Brits; Char B’s, Somua’s, Renaults etc for the French; Pz Mk l, II, 35t’s for the Germans. No big HE chuckers, so that ATG’s have a fighting chance.
But if that’s too ambitious, I’d happily accept the Western Desert campaigns over the same period.
I think there's a decent chance they'll get around to the early war eventually. Erwin seems to recall Steve saying they were never going to do the early war. Whoever's right, what's beyond doubt is that they aren't going to be doing the early war right now. Unless Steve has been lying to throw us off the trail (possible, but I doubt it) going straight back to the beginning of the war in a single bound just isn't practical. The only realistic way to do it would be to gradually work their way backwards towards the beginning of the war from where they're at right now. If we do ever get any 1940/1941 content, we'll get 1942 content first. And if we ever do get any 1942 content, we'll get more 1943 content first.
But for sure there are a lot of early-war tanks that I'm looking forward to. I want to see Crusaders in the desert, T-26s on the eastern front, R35s, S35s, Pz1s, Pz2s, and so on in France.
There were big HE chuckers (Pz4, Char B1). But there were no dual purpose guns that could fire both a large HE round and a high velocity AP round (I'm guessing weight was the issue). They were either large caliber, short barreled guns for chucking large HE rounds at low velocity. Or small caliber (still short barreled, but the barrel length is a decent multiple of the caliber) guns for firing high velocity AP rounds. When confronted with the choice between one or the other, most interwar tank designs seem to have gone for small caliber high velocity guns so they would have some decent anti-armor capability, and mostly depended on their machine guns for anti-personnel capability. For armies that wanted both good HE chuckers and good anti-armor capability there were a couple of approaches. The French went for a dual gun approach, with the Char B1 having a small caliber high velocity 47mm in the turret, and large caliber low velocity HE chucking 75mm in the hull. The Germans went for a dual tank approach, with the Panzer 3 being armed with a small caliber high velocity 37mm gun, and the Panzer 4 being armed with a large caliber low velocity HE chucking 75mm gun. It really makes you appreciate the mid to late war tanks like the Sherman that had good dual-purpose guns.
I'd say that ATG's already stand more than a fighting chance in the current late-war period. In a given encounter between a tank and an ATG in the late-war the ATG is usually going to win. It's no different in the early-war, though the lower numbers of good HE chucking tanks may make it even more one-sided in the ATG's favor. The big weakness of early-war anti-tank firepower is that none of the man portable HEAT chuckers (PIAT, bazooka, panzerfaust, panzerschreck) have been invented yet. The frustrations of the British 14mm Boys anti-tank rifle are quite the inverse of the frustrations of the PIAT. With the PIAT the struggle is to get close enough to have a decent chance of hitting the broad side of a barn. But if you can hit, that large warhead has an excellent chance of knocking out whatever you were shooting at. With the Boys you can pretty consistently hit what you're shooting at at the most common combat ranges. But few of your hits will penetrate, and most of the penetrations won't cause enough damage to knock out the vehicle. From playing around with it in CMAK I've concluded that you'll get the best results by massing two or more (preferably three or four) anti-tank rifles against each target. Each individual shot may not do much. But the rapid plinking of several AT-rifles striking the armor, causing spalling, and achieving the occasional penetration has a good chance of disabling something important or making the enemy tank crew think twice about staying where they are.
-
No BAOR screenshots in the 2024 year to come part 2 thread yet. The Part 1 thread did say we could expect some Cold War bones "very soon" now that their artists are freed up from Downfall, so maybe not too much longer (maybe another month or two?). In the meantime, while we wait for screenshots of the real thing, there are still these hacked together screenshots by @Unremarkable Sunray from the Screenshot and Video thread for us to look at.
On 10/17/2022 at 5:49 AM, Unremarkable Sunray said:Spent a bit of time day dream a BAOR expansion over the weekend - used a mix of assets from CMSF, CMA and CMBN. Sadly no idea how to take it further as a playable faction mod.
-
11 minutes ago, FlammenwerferX said:
The cat is already out of the bag. Timelines, plural, implies more than one era/front, I gather.
Not necessarily. English can be tricky at times. It is pretty common to talk about "timelines" for a single project. In that case the plural is referring to the many hypothetical timelines the project may potentially follow, of which only one timeline will become a reality (not that most people would be thinking about it that deeply while writing or talking about "timelines" for a single project).
He could have been talking about a singular timeline for each of multiple different CMx3 projects. But I think it's more likely that he was expressing uncertainty over multiple potential timelines for a single CMx3 project (initial development of the engine itself). I believe he was saying that if one of the shorter potential CMx3 development timelines becomes a reality (one of the timelines that sees CMx3 development finished before the war in Ukraine ends) then there would be little point in resurrecting CMBS in CMx2.
-
1 hour ago, BFCElvis said:
This was 100% "end user error" on my part. I own this one, not Slitherine, not Steam, not Charles. Me.
Everyone makes mistakes. Nothing earns my respect more than people owning their mistakes.
-
18 minutes ago, Sequoia said:
A lot of folks have read into Steve's comments that Battlefront is going to announce something really big, such as a new game family or cmx3. .I don't think that's necessarily the case.
I suppose that's right. He didn't say that it was anything big. Just that it's something we don't know about (hasn't been announced yet). And that in telling us that they are working on something we don't know about yet at this stage they are breaking their usual rule of not announcing things until they are certain what the game (he did say "game") is going to have and at least a rough idea of when it will be released.
So it's not necessarily something ground breaking like CMx3. All we really know is that it isn't one of the things that has already been announced. It's not the CMBN or CMFI Battle Packs. It's not CMCW:BAOR. And it's not Upgrade 5. It's also reasonable to assume that nothing they've said recently as been an outright lie to throw us off the trail. If Steve says that CM:Korea or France 1940 aren't on the cards right now (though hopefully they'll be on the cards someday), then it's probably not either of those.
That still leaves open the possibility of it being CMx3, a new modern warfare game, or a new game/module incrementally rolling the clock back on either the eastern front or the Mediterranean front. Or Space Lobsters for that matter.
-
1 minute ago, BFCElvis said:
I am going to create a link on our patches page for the updated scenarios and the new one.
Thanks. I didn't check my CMFB scenarios folder before leaving for work. But I have the Steam version, so I probably don't have it if no one else who got the Steam update has it. I might regret going straight for the Steam version, rather than buying on BFC and redeeming on Slitherine for a Steam key.
-
On 2/2/2024 at 10:47 AM, Traitor said:
I still want a CM game set in a near peer/ near future setting, but perhaps the next "modern" game could either use a fictional setting like in the ARMA series, or one that is extremely unlikely to happen such as China vs EU, Russia vs China, EU vs USA etc to avoid a repeat of CMBS.
The trouble is that it's the most plausible real-world settings that are the most interesting. I doubt I'd bother buying a game pitting the EU vs the US, because I know there's no chance in a million years of that ever happening in real life. I might have a bit more interest in a fictional setting. But really, it's the most plausible near-future wars that I (and I suspect most people) would be most interested in seeing simulated. I think the chance that the real war might actually break out is a risk you just have to take with near-future modern warfare settings. You either accept that risk, or you don't make near-future modern warfare games.
-
42 minutes ago, ratdeath said:
CM3 should start with Cold War! It's the best title to start with in my humble and very selfish opintion, lots of units, long distance engagement, huge maps and lots of fun stuff to play with!
Yes! And it's a good middle ground if BFC is waffling between starting CM3 off with a modern title or a WW2 title. And it'll allow the modules to keep coming for CMCW after CM3. While CM3 would be exciting, I would hate if it meant abandoning CMCW.
-
56 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:
Ironic to name it "M10" considering the US Army's WW2 "tank destroyer" experience
That's the problem with the US Army's 'M#' naming system. It leads to a lot of confusion. I know of at least two M16s (the rifle and the SPAA gun). As you've pointed out there are now at least two M10s (the WW2 TD and the modern not-tank). There's the M4 Sherman and the M4 carbine. The M3 halftrack, the M3 SMG "grease gun", the M3 75mm gun, the M3 Bradley. The M1 rifle, the M1 carbine, the M1 helmet, the M1 tank, the M1 Thompson SMG, etc...
Almost forgot. The M60 (tank) and the M60 (GPMG).
On 2/3/2024 at 11:00 AM, MikeyD said:The problem comes from labeling it a 'tank'. When you call it a tank people will try to use it as a tank. Currently the army keeps repeating that the new M10 Booker is not a tank, its an MPF combat vehicle. They have a horror of people thinking of it as a tank.
There may be a need for people to understand that there are different kinds of tanks with different roles. The M10 Booker is most definitely not an MBT. That doesn't mean it's not a tank. As much as the Army wants to insist that it's not a tank, it is very clearly a tank. But it's not a kind of tank that can fight other tanks. It can destroy infantry, fortifications, and IFVs. But if they need to destroy enemy MBTs, the infantry need to get their Javelins out rather than putting their Bookers into a fight they can't win.
-
The more I think about it the less I think I'd mind CM3 starting over at Normandy again. It would mean backtracking on any progress towards eventually covering the whole war. But CM3 would presumably represent such an increase in realism that it would be well worth going over old ground again. I'm sure there will be significant improvements in the ability to represent modern warfare in particular (better handling of drones, EW, modern air support, and modern air defenses). But as far as improvements that would significantly improve the representation of WW2 I'm hoping that we'll get assisted loading for crew served weapons. I believe that will significantly narrow the current gap between the Bren and the MG42.
I still hope that Combat Mission will eventually cover the whole war (and hopefully a few other wars as well). But maybe recycled TO&E and vehicle data from CM2 will help to streamline the rate at which they can cover larger stretches of time on each front.
-
8 minutes ago, David Jaros said:
Is CM3 means old games going to get engine upgrade ?
I hope they find a way to upgrade the existing CM2 content to CM3. But I'm not sure how that could be possible. The reason CM3 gets a shiny new number is that it will be an entirely new game engine, not just another upgrade to the CM2 engine.
-
1 hour ago, NamEndedAllen said:
The good Bad Thing about this Whatever It Is? I know I’ll buy it. There’s nothing else left!
Yeah, that's pretty much a guaruntee for me too. There's nothing that it could possibly be that I wouldn't end up buying. Even if it turns out to be the most anticlimactic thing imaginable, like coffee mugs themed for each of the CM2 base games, I'd order the whole set in a heartbeat.
-
23 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:
The obvious guesses are CM3, France1940,or a Brand new Eastern Front game , but Steve said 999 guesses will be wrong , so it must be something not obvious. My money is still on it is CM3 but not WW2 , just like CM2 was Syria...............as much as Steve denied it could be done ................its CM3 Viet Nam.
He denied that Vietnam could be done in CM2. It may very well be CM3 Vietnam.
-
I think I'm coming around to CM3 as being most probable. It would seem to be the only thing that would warrant this much secrecy and build up.
-
There are a bunch of possibilities streaming through my head.
- A new '43/'44 CMRT module is already in the works
- CM3 is well underway, and they found a way to port existing CM2 content into it
- A new North Africa base game is already in the works
- CMCW:BAOR is going to be way bigger than anticipated
- A new modern war game is already well into development
If I have to pick one I'm leaning towards the '43/'44 CMRT module. It seemed like Steve may have dropped a couple hints suggesting that would be it over in the Part 1 thread. Although, The_Capt started acting real sus over in the CMCW:BAOR thread right after the discussion came around to CM3 and I had been confidently claiming that the next western front title would be Tunisia. So either of those are also strong contenders. Of course maybe his sus behavior was related to the thread topic, rather than anything we had recently discussed. Then again Steve was talking about "the next modern warfare game" before he closed out the Part 1 thread. Ok, it could really be any of them. And probably something I haven't thought of.
-
6 minutes ago, FlammenwerferX said:
Wouldn't that be Shock Force
Shock Force wasn't WW2.
How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
It's far from an ideal situation. But continuing to inflict Pyrrhic victories on the Russians until the West provides enough aid to enable to Ukrainians to attempt another major offensive is not an ineffective strategy. I don't think the Russians have ever really recovered from Mariupol, Severodonetsk, or Bakhmut. It makes sense to me for the Ukrainians to try to hold Avdiivka for as long as it remains a strong position and the Russians are willing to throw their lives and equipment away there, even if it turns out that it can't be held in the long run.