tyrspawn Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Ain't there a small contradiction ? The CMSF conflict is fully fictional. If you would have decided to give the invaded country a fantasy name instead of Syria, you would have been able to circumvent such 'creative bottle necks' without remorse! Technically he is referring to verisimilitude, not realism. Verisimilitude is a realistic believability and authenticity in a work of fiction. And with him, I am also a fanatic for verisimilitude and creating a fictional scenario so well researched that it merges fiction with reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSX Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 No matter how enjoyable CMSF is, and it is very enjoyable, there is always that feeling that it would never happen in real life. Where as ww2 did happen in real life. And so SF is a fictional what if type of game where we get to use a lot of Western forces against a very weak 3rd world 1970's esque force. As there is no going back then we have to play with what we get given and this essentially is what makes SF a mostly single player game for me, which is Ok in itself, but definitely not the experience of past CM games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Alex, And all what you say it's: "thanks but we know what we do" - it's offended, a little. I actually don't care I was asked a straight question and I gave a straight answer. My answer may not be what you want to hear, but it is logical and rational. So there should be nothing to be offended by. Again, the TO&E in CM:SF is based on the best information we have about how the Syrians are organized and what weaponry they generally have available to them. It doesn't matter how the Soviet Union or Russian forces are organized and armed since we are portraying Syria, not the Soviet Union or Russia. Therefore, arguments which are based on speculation or a simple desire to see something in the game are rejected. That's all there is to it. Especial when we both know, that not all moments in game have 100% substantiation under itself. True, but there is a difference between a game which has no ties to reality and one that tries to portray reality. If we remove the restriction of trying to portray the Syrian forces realistically, then why should we try to portray the Blue forces realistically? There are all kinds of things we could give the Blue forces that are pure fantasy. Now, this doesn't mean we don't bend the rules a little bit for the sake of gameplay. We have given the Syrians T-90SAs which, as far as we know, they still don't have in their hands (they have been negotiated for only, not delivered). But we do have to draw the line somewhere. And whatever line we draw someone will complain. We are very used to this, so it doesn't bother us. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share Posted October 26, 2009 Steve I all understand correctly. Just I suggested not only to change structure of subdivision that we have in game already, but also and went in game some little changes like: NV devices, skill level for scout troops and trucks for some Syrians. I think that CM is not only main game campings from BF, but also and many players-made campings/scenarios, playing a QB, and of cose MP games. For example AT and AAA (or trucks) guns maybe not so useful for BF main campings, but it very useful for RED vs RED scenarios or some blue vs red scenarios. P.S. I understand, that you outlay all resources on Normandy, but SF also good game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 News! Being released Oct 31st. A new CMSF module, Combat Mission Shock Force:The Zombie Wars. Syria unleashes an army of undead against the NATO invaders. Read here how this started World War Z. http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Z-History-Zombie/dp/B001TIELWA/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256569938&sr=1-7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 News! Being released Oct 31st. A new CMSF module, Combat Mission Shock Force:The Zombie Wars. Syria unleashes an army of undead against the NATO invaders. Read here how this started World War Z. http://www.amazon.com/World-War-Z-History-Zombie/dp/B001TIELWA/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256569938&sr=1-7 Though NDA limits I can confidently say: If you loved "White Zombie" , if you drooled with joy over "Dawn of the Dead", then you'll love CMSF:ZW...I promise it won't be like "Shawn of the Dead" we won't make that mistake twice! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolteg Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 More issues that I, for example, would really like to see fixed in the next patch/module. - When the company is armed with AKM, they don't need so much 5.45 ammo in BTRs - When company is armed with АК-74, they need not 7.62х39, but 7.62х54R ammo - Airborne company on BMPs doesn't need 7.62 ammo at all, because they don't have AKMs nor PKs - Also, BRDMs of recce platoons has PG-7V shots, altough nobody in such platoon has RPG-7 or even AT skill.. What gives? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Bolteg, the extra ammo in vehicles is fixed per vehicle type. The US//Brits, having fewer weapon variations, benefit due to fewer mismatches between what is carried in the standard loadout, and the weapons used by the squads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 More issues that I, for example, would really like to see fixed in the next patch/module. - When the company is armed with AKM, they don't need so much 5.45 ammo in BTRs - When company is armed with АК-74, they need not 7.62х39, but 7.62х54R ammo - Airborne company on BMPs doesn't need 7.62 ammo at all, because they don't have AKMs nor PKs - Also, BRDMs of recce platoons has PG-7V shots, altough nobody in such platoon has RPG-7 or even AT skill.. What gives? I think that there is certainly room for tweaking with the ammo types stored in the Syrian carriers. Maybe include all 3 types of ammo (7.62x39, 7.62x54 and 5.45x39) or have a generic 'assault rifle' ammo type that serves both calibres. About the BRDMs, I believe the Soviets put an RPG into at least one of the vehicles in a platoon. I don't know aboout the Syrians though. To be honest, the russians have a habit of stuffing everything they can get their hands on into thier carriers so I wouldn't be suprised if a Syrian recce platoon could 'aquire' an RPG from somewhere. Maybe with good equipment settings? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolteg Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 About the BRDMs, I believe the Soviets put an RPG into at least one of the vehicles in a platoon. Yes, they did. RPG-7 and shots for it. Not only grenades, as it is in the game at the moment. The issue could be solved by adding RPG-7 to all such vehicles or by creating a "new" vehicle class, let's say, "BRDM-2 recon" which will have RPG-7 and ammo for it or no RPG-7 and RPG-7 ammo to not confuse people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Doesn't the HQ vehicle have a slightly different model? An extra antennae or something. Maybe the HQ vehicle could have an aquirable RPG-7? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 30, 2009 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 Not for Red, but how about new artillery shell type - guided shell with the laser aiming - "Copperhead" for Artillery support, and new artillery task for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I've always wondered about cluster munitions myself. Do the Syrians have them? The US certainly does and might be prepared to use them if they have just been hit by WMD's. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Bolteg, the extra ammo in vehicles is fixed per vehicle type. The US//Brits, having fewer weapon variations, benefit due to fewer mismatches between what is carried in the standard loadout, and the weapons used by the squads. Not so, as it happens. Have a shufti around the British vehicle loadouts sometime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 30, 2009 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 I mean for US(Blue) forces. Syria I thing don't have nothing similar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Not for Red, but how about new artillery shell type - guided shell with the laser aiming - "Copperhead" for Artillery support, and new artillery task for it. I asked about it last year, Copperheads were removed from service by 2006. I'd heard they were on their way out that year, but didn't realize they'd be gone so fast. If you have an early version of the printed manual, like I do, you can see it mentions a fire mission type called "Precision", only for M109A6 batteries, that was meant to be Copperheads. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 What is really obviously missing from the Blue side is GMLRS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 About Copperhead. I recall someone (Steve?) recounting how Copperhead was thoroughly despised by the soldiers who had to fire it. The technology is two+ generations old (active lazing by a ground controler), the terminal effects are underwhelming, and the failure rate is high enough that you don't want any forces between the artillery tube and the target. Someone on the original thread joked that the U.S. inflated Copperhead's lethality for deterrent effect, but the Russians went out and designed a round that could do everything the U.S. claimed that Copperhead could! Don't quote me on this, though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 About Copperhead. I recall someone (Steve?) recounting how Copperhead was thoroughly despised by the soldiers who had to fire it. The technology is two+ generations old (active lazing by a ground controler), the terminal effects are underwhelming, and the failure rate is high enough that you don't want any forces between the artillery tube and the target. Someone on the original thread joked that the U.S. inflated Copperhead's lethality for deterrent effect, but the Russians went out and designed a round that could do everything the U.S. claimed that Copperhead could! Don't quote me on this, though I'm pretty sure Krasnopol (Soviet CLGP) was around before Copperhead. Originally I thought it worked, but the Indians have had some of hte same problems with Krasnopol as we did with Copperhead, limited engagement parameters, angle T has to be less than 1200 mils, enough laser energy reflected off target and not the dirt around them (hard to do in a pool table flat desert, but even an issue in mountains when using a less than stellar laser), requires a full charge shot to get out a rather tame maximum range, expensive as hell, etc. Someone mentioned that the Copperhead though, was incredibly long and required a red bag charge, so it didn't fit in the breech. Therefore the cannoncockers had to load it, hook up a fifty foot lanyard and fire from outside their Paladin. Shoot-and-scoot with precision my ass! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 And that about "Excalibur" shell is is in service? Also in Russia have self-targeting antitank cassette shells, how about US? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Excals are in service. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'self-targeting antitank cassette' but we did develop and employ a guided anti-tank round called SADARM, Sense And Destroy ARMor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'self-targeting antitank cassette' but we did develop and employ a guided anti-tank round called SADARM, Sense And Destroy ARMor. Go to 2.01 in this video That is what I think Alex is talking about. Which brings me back to cluster bombs. What are the chances of seeing them included? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjhouston Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Which brings me back to cluster bombs. What are the chances of seeing them included? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THZvZ6S4C14 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share Posted October 31, 2009 hcrof Yes, I talking about same system but at 152mm artillery shell. Maybe also should talk about same cluster air bombs with AT elements and also anti-personals cluster air bombs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Doesn't the HQ vehicle have a slightly different model? An extra antennae or something. Maybe the HQ vehicle could have an aquirable RPG-7? BRDM-2U - no turret and 2 x antennae either side of the hull. 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.