c3k Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 ^^^ Part of that is interesting. The Abrams' combat edge is dependent, in a large part, to its sensors and other "soft" parts on the outside of the vehicle. Sure, a hit on an Abrams may not turn it into a tracked volcano, melting in place. But if you blind it and destroy its weapons controls, who cares where it goes? The Kriz is a pretty slick ATGM system...in-game. The Abrams' front armor is probably the toughest target it will face. It's not surprising that an Abrams will not go "boom" each time one of these missiles hits it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 This might be a good time to remind everyone that just because something happens once, or twice, or even three times does not mean it always will. Also remember that when bad things happen to your forces 49.99% of the time it is your fault and 49.99% of the time it is your opponent's plan. The rest of the time it *might* be a bug. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgovory Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Well the original post does have a point, though it's certainly not limited to this game or just guide missiles. Battlefields tend to be bigger in real life then in PC games for both techinical and flow reasons. Armor and Mechanized forces can cover 4km in a very short period of time. Line of sight can be much, much further. Ukraine is a big place, some of it can is forested, some of it you can see for miles. For proper scale you might need 40 square Km. Frankly that would be kind of boring. 20 mintues of driving through farm land punctuatied by a guy launching a Sagger into an unoffending barn. Combat Mission is still a game, and realism takes a back seat at certain points. When you start a mission, you know you'll face some stiff resistance. In real life, you have no idea what you'll face. Often it'll be light resistance or none at all. You might fight an small urban battle in Combat Mission shock force and go for 45 minutes of game time and win a decisive victory over the insurgents. In Iraq, you might be get in a six hour gun fight and never know if you actually inflicted any causalties on the enemy or how many there were, or even who they were and what their problem was. That doesn't make for a good game experience (or any kind of good experience!). There will always be a conflict between simulation, game, and what can realistically be produced on a computer. I'm not saying tha Battlefront is beyond critisism on any of these factors, but you should take these factors into consideration. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 While the Abrams so far seems like a Panther in Normandy against other vehicles, I imagine US players are really going to be sweating immobilization. It looks like there is a lot more kit in CMBS that may not easily kill it, but could take those tracks out and immobilize. How vulnerable is an Abrams to that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.