dbsapp
-
Posts
592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by dbsapp
-
-
18 minutes ago, Artkin said:
Emotional reaction?
That wasn't emotional. You are delusional.
The Abrams' turret could probably do 1.5 rotations and still land a kill on a t80 before the t80 can rotate in .5 or even .25 rotations.
You need to start thinking and replying like a big boy.
Oh, thank you for returning me back to reality. I almost forgot that it's an internet forum, and not a place where grown up persons can exchange informed opinions in polite manner.
-
Your emotional reaction proves that abrams worship is more than real.
No doubt, abrams is a pretty decent tank and it's better than the previous generation machines like m60 or t62.
It can be argued that US merely closed the gap with t64 by producing it.
What so special about it? German gun? Or armor, which qualities are as unknow as of the rest of moderm tanks.
With all that being said Abrams is portrayed in modern pop culture as some divine impenetrable chariot. It could be shown on many examples that it formed some sort of cult (with a little help from Pentagon and Hollywood propaganda).
Unfortunately, CM games is a remarkable example of Abrams worship cult.
-
18 minutes ago, domfluff said:
Aside from the usual caveats of seeing the Russian export equipment being used by non-Soviet actors, T-62 was certainly effective against the Chieftain (as it should be against the M60 and Leopard-1).
Indeed, the BMP-1's 73mm main gun fires a HEAT round which is sufficient to penetrate the three main NATO tanks of the period frontally. There was, after all, a reason why the Abrams, Challenger and Leopard-2 existed.
In Cold War, the T-62 is pretty much in the same class as the M60A1 - they should be a fairly even match for each other, and trade with each other fairly well. The later M60's gain better optics and ultimately thermals, but the armour protection remains - it took until the next generation of NATO tanks for that to change,
The same can't be said for the T-64. There is a massive uptick in armour capability between the T-62 and T-64 - it's not uncommon to see a T-64 shrugging off multiple hits to the turret for no appreciable effect, and the same applies to the T-72 and the T-80 variants.
The Abrams is cheating, obviously, and represents a generational leap that the Soviet equipment never caught up to.I never understood this Abrams worship. The first m1 with 105mm gun were quite mediocre.
The real deal was thermal sight, but it was not restricted to Abrams alone. M60s etc could use them as well.
-
3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
I will give you this on the TO&Es and equipment we only have what history has left us and few can remember. As to "sick in trembling vehicles"...heh, I think we have enough experience on the team to get that into the scenarios and campaigns at least at some level. Probably why some people see things as "unfair" at times, to which most of the old vets respond..."you have no idea..."
Either way CMCW is a game at the end of the day. We want it to be as accurate as we can get it but it is still always going to have to accept levels of abstraction. We can only hope people get enjoyment and maybe a little education out of it.
Every PC game inevitably has some level of abstraction.
So many hardcore sims fiercely claim that they simulate real life 100% and release some game-changing patches every few month (e.g.DCS).
-
1 hour ago, Freyberg said:
I've always thought the Crusader was an elegant-looking tank. Shame they were so flawed.
There are so many ugly tanks, but my favourite tank to hate is the Ferdinand - clumsy, unbalanced, ungainly thing with its loose ill-fitting tracks...
This pair indeed.
I would say that t-80U and t-72BM3 turn me on the most (red it and realized that it sounds like perverts forum).
-
1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/312980/discussions/0/3051734893994833911/?ctp=2#c3056238885199008946
An interesting post about 115mm (T-62) penetration and damage to Iranian Chieftain tanks. Appears to be mostly from Iranian sources. There is some info from British post battle investigations of Chieftain performance. If you look through other posts in that thread there are a few other points of info. Note the comment about damage to gunner sights. Thats been the topic of more than a few CM discussions.
Might give some perspective on T-62 performance in CMCW.
It's mostly from Iraqi sorces, because the chieftains were captured by them and shown to British specialists? (Or else, it's not clear from the post indeed).
Gives an impression that t62 was quite effective against chieftain.
In fact, t62 has a good reputation in the army, because it has bigger crew compartment and can sustain more penetrations without blowing up, like t72 does sometimes due to autoloader ignition.
-
Well, I didn't mean that you must implement it in CW.
It would be a nice, but unnecessary feature.
CW is more about theoretical combat as it was envisioned by military planners of that time, not about actual soldier getting sick in trembling vehicle.
-
2 hours ago, Amedeo said:
My understanding is that troops riding outside their BTRs/BMPs in Afghanistan/Chechenia were doing that only where mines were considered a more likely threat than AT weapons and small arms fire.
The Soviet Military Encyclopedia (published 19776-1980, thus very relevant to the CMCW timeframe) clearly states that tank riding tactics lost their importance in the postwar period because of the introduction of armoured transports. Of course the practice didn't totally disappear, but I guess that tank riders in the Soviet Army of the '70s/'80s were more likely to be found in propaganda photos than on the field. I'm not saying that it wouldn't never ever happen, but, well, if we are talking about the first days of a hypothetical WW3 in Central Europe, I don't expect to see a Soviet assault with tank riding infantry.
Yes, it could be a nice feature to have but, as already pointed out, it would be too much a pain to implement, given it wouldn't be an expected/viable tactic. I think there are a lot of more urgent/relevant features to add.
As far as I know, riding on top of BMP de facto became the main method of travelling for mechanized infantry at least since Afghanistan war throughout both Chechnya campaigns and up to conflict in Georgia.
The major reason was that BMP\BTR unfortunately not only proved to be extremly unreliable in terms of mines protection ( and they caused severe casualties in Afghanistan and Chechnya) but also were insufficiently protected against light machine gun fire.
It was generally believed that if BMP comes under direct enemy fire (especially RPGs) the chances to survive were much higher for those who were on top, while infantryman inside were much more vulnerable, because it isn't easy to escape from the crippled car stuffed with ammo.
Besides, BMP lacks comfort, it is very densely packed, if it has any room it is a room for improvement (pardon my pun). So no wonder they prefered to be on top while driving through zigzag roads in the mountains.
-
Basically, by alt-shift-left click.
Also by changing facade (there is an option to leave the part of the wall broken or empty).
Unfortunatelly, there is no way to leave only the wall (or I don't know it).
-
BONUS "If I pretend I have invincible binoculars maybe they will go away ":
-
Yesterday I played one of the most - and maybe the most epic -CM battles I witnessed so far "Storming the Castle" from "Broken Shield" Campaign.
-
1 hour ago, Artkin said:
Hey man, just be nice. If you have something credible to complain about (that hasn't been mentioned already) we would like to hear it. Otherwise it is nonsense. It's gotta be credible.
Don't be a crybaby.
Saying "just be nice" and "it is nonsense" is not nice. I always believed that expressing your opinion on the product you bought is not a crime.
-
On 7/10/2021 at 3:43 AM, Vanir Ausf B said:
Of course. When a player advances to the next mission of a CM campaign they make a post about it on the forum. Everyone knows this.
Apparently, not everybody, but some people do:
On 7/9/2021 at 5:00 PM, M.H. said:I am currently completing the "Pebble in my shoes" mission of the "Ride of the 120th" campaign.
-
2 hours ago, The_Capt said:
That means you are almost at Alsfeld...first one I have heard of yet!
That should make you wonder if everything is alright with the game that has been released 2 month ago.
-
I guess the only CM game you can mount tanks in is CM Red Thunder\Fire and Rubble
-
Thank you everybody for your input.
21 hours ago, Sgt Joch said:Note there are free demos for all the games so you can try them out before you buy.
I will give it a try.
20 hours ago, Erwin said:This has nothing to do with the game title, simply the concept of a specific designer for his specific scenario. What you need to ask for is a list of the best scenarios and campaigns across all titles.
You are right! I'm open for suggestions. By the way, I had an impression that German side scenarios outnumber Allied. For example in CMFR there are more German campaigns than Russian.
18 hours ago, BornGinger said:Have you played all scenarios and some of the quick battles you have in the three games you already bought? Have you played any pbem-battles in the games you already bought? If your answer to those two questions is No, why get a new game when you have enough to do in the ones you already have?
But...but.. soulless consumerism?
22 hours ago, Vacilllator said:I would go for BN next, then FB, then FI.
Seems that BN and SF2 are the most probable options (but it will be frustrating to hammer poor Syrians with Abramses).
6 hours ago, Bozowans said:What exactly was it you didn't like about Cold War? And the original campaigns for CMRT? Is it just too many units with too much going on and no other reason? The campaigns for CMRT were pretty huge. I liked them but I remember it being a pain sometimes to move all the units around. I enjoy huge battles but I have to be in the right mood to play them.
The first, the number of units and maps scale. It takes forever to make a save file. The second, most important, the campaign design seems strange. Maybe I don't understand something, but personally for me is the opposite to the notion of fun and joy.
-
Want to share some thoughts on gameplay in general and ask for advice which CM game to play next.
I stumbled upon Combat Mission games by accident while browsing through Steam suggestions. I never heard about these series before, despite having cheeked all the necessary toolboxes (hardcore sims and wargames). At first, I bought Combat Mission Black Sea and really fell in love with it. It seemed that the game contained almost everything I like (and I put the blame of some things that I didn't appreciate on my inexperience). In my opinion back then the "Going to Town" scenario was almost perfect example of tactical gameplay.
I played through both of the Russian campaigns and found them equally fascinating. I also appreciated the first US campaign in CMBS.
After that I decided to go further and bought CM Red Thunder. At first, I was really disappointed, because the quality of original campaigns (it's my personal humble opinion of course) was no match with CMBS. But it helped me to discover the large pile of community made scenarios for CMRT, that truly made the game shine. Later I found out that so called "training campaign" in CMRT was not "basic training stuff" and is quite interesting, being thing that all the original campaigns in CMRT should be.
I'm glad that devs fixed it in Fire and Rubble expansion. All the stuff, including missions, campaigns etc., in CMFR is really enjoyable and in my opinion holds my "golden standard" of CMBS.
I've also bought CM Cold War, since I'm really fond of the history and military technology of this period. I began with Soviet training scenarios, which were quite nice, tried NTC and Soviet campaigns... Well, everything what I'm saying here is merely my personal opinion and maybe I'm wrong, but... hm... Let's say it this way - I don't get it, it's definitely not my cup of tea. On the bright side of life there are some good single missions out there. I hope that for the expansion pack they will try something, as Monty Python put it, "completely different".
So my question is - after these overstretched introduction - what CM game I should play next?
I prefer small to medium size battles that require some tactical maneuvering, not the blunt and tedious march through the enemy lines that has 10x more units than you. Judging from my experience, the difficulty level in some CM games could be unrealistic (in my view) and artificially hard (or maybe I'm noob, whatever). I would like to play something more natural, where attackers have at least some advantage over those who they attack.
The number of units under your command is also an important consideration. I have an impression that initially CM was created not for "battalion size" battles, but for something about the company size. Nor game engine, nor UI are suited for the gameplay with big number of units.
Suggestions are welcome.
-
1 hour ago, IanL said:
Doh! I should have mentioned that. I think @sburke has the distinction correct but honestly if one of those choices is disabled I just use the other one. One of them works
So, did that work for you? Did you get an AD team out of it?
Yeah, everything worked fine after this enigmatic mystery was solved.
I never used dismount, and always pressed bail out if I needed to pull drivers out of the vehilce.
-
11 minutes ago, sburke said:
What should be a bug? I am unclear what you are doing or expecting. Everything I told you in my previous post is correct and does work. I downloaded your file, selected the m1152, selected special/dismount and I have a stinger team adjacent to the vehicle now with a launcher and 2 missiles. I select that team, hit move, put them back in the vehicle, hit acquire and took the remaining 4 missiles and again dismounted and now have 6 missiles. It is working as intended.
Ok, my bad, I confused "bail out" and "dismount". That's why I couldn't make my pixeltroops get out from the car.
The UI design in CM games is so user friendly.
Thanks.
-
3 minutes ago, Bufo said:
File deleted.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ARgO8179OrLil2AFHxB9AWavjSDkQ-dK/view?usp=sharing
Thank you
Unfortunately, the size of the file that can be uploaded to the forum is limited
I hope google linked can be downloaded
-
13 hours ago, sburke said:
No it wouldn't be a bug in the campaign, it is engine generated behavior.
Try dismount. Would help if you could note which battle in the campaign and a screenshot, but generally the vehicle mounted AD teams use a dismount command and already have the launchers. (as a side note you may not want to acquire all the missiles as they tend to burn through them rapidly.)
It should be a bug.
I uploaded the save file, so everybody can check it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ARgO8179OrLil2AFHxB9AWavjSDkQ-dK/view?usp=sharing
-
38 minutes ago, IanL said:
Try bailing out the crew and see if they become the AD team.
No way! The button to "bail out" for these vehicles is absent.
-
4 hours ago, sburke said:
you need an actual AD team.. It can't be just a random team. You'll either have a dismounted stinger team or a vehicle and the vehicle typically already has the launcher. Only the missiles can be acquired. I haven't seen a launcher as acquirable. Could be wrong but I just loaded up an AD platoon and all the launchers are already possessed by the vehicle crew. Only the missiles show up in the ammo pool.
That's what I'm trying to say. It must be a bug in the campaign.
-
I'm playing The Charge of the Stryker Brigade campaign (patched).
It seems, I can't use air defense capabilities of M1152 HMMWV (Stinger). This vehicle has several Stingers missiles and Stinger launcher. I tried to order my soldiers to embark HMMWV and acquire Stingers, but all they can do is to take Stingers without launcher. There is no option in the menu to take launcher, so in the end they don't fire.
I'm really puzzled how to use those Stingers stored on HMMWV.
Sexiest and Ugliest Tanks of WWII
in Combat Mission - General Discussion
Posted
I believe weapons should exist only for aesthetic purposes, not for the actual use