Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thewood

  1. thewood


    No on ground combat being a focus. Its still heavily abstracted. Its better, but its still secondary to air and naval. The devs will even say that. Don't buy it just for ground combat. The new ground combat model is a lot better, but its still a complement to the main focus of the game. One area that appears to be interesting is amphibious warfare. They have expended a lot of effort for support of landings and such. That part is very interesting.
  2. thewood


    From a usability standpoint, CMO is a huge leap forward. The clickable message logs, bubble pop ups, hit buttons, etc. make a big difference in situational awareness. I am less of a fan of the hi def terrain overlays, but they are optional and do help in certain areas. The radar LOS tool is a huge add for planning SEAD and strike missions. The overall user interface is much better. The fact that all content from CMNAO carries forward to CMO and CMO is only $40 if you own CMNAO makes this a no-brainer for anyone interested in naval and air operations. The 3D window is interesting, but not very useful in my opinion. Too much effort put into a small minority of players who wanted it.
  3. Yes...the original report seemed heading in a very obsessive direction and ended up there. Your patience as devs is commendable.
  4. This is a lot of obsessive time spent to get to that conclusion.
  5. CM has been, but in a fairly limited way to either teach history of combined arms or some basic familiarization with platoon-level tactics. I had a friend in the Marine Corp (combat officer) who told me he didn't think the perspective CM gave was very useful. He said useful training for him and his peers was either first person tactical as a procedural trainer or more operational.
  6. And this is exactly what I am talking about...dick
  7. Badgered is not a strong enough word for this topic. If this is how you treat devs who go to the effort of putting in a a good piece of content, I hate to imagine how you treat devs of games you don't like. And I don't want to hear, "we're tough because we love". There are much more useful ways to provide feedback. This whole topic disgusts me. And I'll come back to my original comment. If I were the devs, I'd just pull the Armata out until they decide what to do with it. I would be fairly disillusioned.
  8. I was talking to the other guy complaining. Grenny ninja'ed me. But you already have the pictures, so I am assuming you have the AARs to post. You guys seem to encounter this so often, it shouldn't take long.
  9. It takes longer to write a completely un-formatted post on the forum than it does to post an AAR.
  10. I have to ask...why don't you post the AARs?
  11. I vote we remove the Armata to resolve this issue.
  12. Not sure I follow the logic. I don't think any government body asked for a Chiefton, Centurion, or AMX-13.
  13. Not all laptops are created equally. Its mostly about the cooling. You also have to have expectations on FPS and settings. On the benchmark, it runs between 45 and 65 in all the tests. The surface runs 25 to 35. They both run 80-90C with some thermal throttling of the CPU. If you have a 1660, that's not an old card. Its one of the newest. The 1660 ti, which I have, runs about equivalent to mobile 1070. I had a mobile 1070 on my last laptop and it ran SB slower 10-15%. Of course it also has an 8750, vs a 9750.
  14. I run SB on two laptops, a Lenovo with a 1660 ti full power and a surface book 2 with a 1050 mobile. I can run SB on the Lenovo at pretty much full settings except ground clutter. I have to crank the surface down a little. No "stutters", but does get laggy in wide views with a lot trees on the surface. Thats why its kind of important to run the benchmark. It might pinpoint where the game gives you issues.
  15. I'm no tech support wizard, but you might consider running the 4.0 benchmark scenario and see how your system compares and see if you get stutters at certain ponits in that one.
  16. So it might be clearer to list the countries and possible equipment.
  17. So what the heck were you talking about. I have absolutely no clue.
  18. I am pointing out I was not mistaken. None of the links you provided show my original supposition as wrong. Please show explicitly now, where there is any ambiguity between pedigree of LAV III or the Stryker in regards to the H. You keep posting links that have no bearing on the original wish I had. Please tell me you haven't just wasted my time by not reading what I wrote originally... "The Piranha IIIH, which led to the LAV III, which led to the Stryker only seats 8 in game, while the Stryker seats 9 or 10 in the world. The H also, for some reason, doesn't allow an RWS in SB. While you can use the C, I am assuming real-world differences between between the C and the H are reflected in SB. Namely mobility and some limited armor upgrades. " I feel like this is where we started and this is where my previous post ended.
  19. I can't see where any of the links you provided talk about the connection between the Piranha IIIC or H to LAV III or Stryker, other than the last link you listed states the LAV-III is based on the Piranha IIIH, which makes my point. We aren't discussing DF30 or 90, I think. My wish was for either a specific Stryker variant or a Piranha IIIH with some upgrades to make it equivalent (with less squinting) to the Stryker. Nothing I have seen from anyone says anything about the Piranha IIIC being in the variant chain that leads to the Stryker. I have four links and a couple books that state explicitly that the variant chain is from the H to the Stryker, through the LAV III. I am not talking about the DF30, DF80, Piranha II, NZLAV, ASLAV, LAV-25, etc. I have noticed that every vehicle supposedly based on the H is just under 7M in length. Every vehicle based on the C is 7.5m or greater. Even without explicitly stating the H is a base platform, approximate hull length draws a pretty good correlation between H-based and C-based So my conclusion boils down to how we started this discussion. The LAV-III and Stryker are built on the Piranha IIIH platform. Even the LAV-III 600 is built on reworked IIIH platforms that started out as LAV-IIIs. No one has presented any thing to refute that or the now four links that possibly validate that. I can double check Jane's 2005 and 2010, but don't really want to. Of course. the mitigating question is; does the game really expose the differences between the C and H? I know the dismounts are 20% greater in the C. But other than that, does the C have slightly greater armor, speed, or acceleration? I assume if the devs went to the trouble of explicitly putting both models in, that there is a game worthy difference.
  20. OK, I thought the H was used for initial LAV III and Stryker platform base. btw, where did you find that source that makes the detailed distinction? I have been trying to track one down and the only design timeline I could find was in an osprey book. And that made no distinction between the C and the H. Part of the confusion comes from these two sites stating that the C didn't enter production until 2006 and the H was the original basis for the LAV III and then the Stryker. http://www.military-today.com/apc/stryker.htm Which might align with what your saying if they redesigned the LAV III and Piranha IIIH for the Stryker and then marketed the redesign as the IIIC. http://www.military-today.com/apc/mowag_piranha_IIIc.htm https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=1104 http://www.military-today.com/apc/stryker.htm Just checking length and weights on a few sites and the IIIH is the same as the stryker at like 6.8M. The IIIC is around 7.25M. I also noted that the IIIH seems to weigh around the same as the Stryker, which is less than the IIIC. Also noted that the original LAV III was that same 6.8-6.9M length. Again leading to the confusion that the IIIC is a heavier and longer vehicle than the LAV III, Stryker, and Piranha IIIH. Of course weapon stations and era/slat armor screw up weight comparisons on "as fielded" configurations.
  21. There was the whole LAV series prior to the LAV III. But the current LAV III design was based on the Piranha IIIH. The Stryker was based on the LAV III hull. Hence the IIIH connection.
  22. I would consider that incredibly unrealistic to be jumping around between vehicles, vs. maybe commanding from a map. So you aren't really playing a simulation. You seem pretty hardcore about sticking to the procedural simulation aspect. Just wondering how often real tankers jump from one vehicle to another. Or is it that everyone has their own threshold of realism? All I am asking for is the ability to do exactly what you just said you do. Be able to jump from one vehicle to another. Just not do it with a hot key or by the map. I'm wondering if you use real tankers as your benchmark for realism, I'd like to hear how realistic it is to jump from vehicle to vehicle. It must be some relatively new technology.
  23. So you never change vehicles in SP? Just curious.
  24. And that's a distinction, as I have explicitly called out, between a wargame and a procedural simulation. I'm not arguing for some group of features that will somehow transform SB into a game that it isn't. But when asked what makes it difficult to play SB, whether as a wargame or as a single large unit commander in SP, its managing large numbers of friendly units. And I'm not alone in that. In the thread about complexity and in this thread, more than just a few players have mentioned this feature. Some of them playing in-vehicle. Whether as a wargame feature or a simulation feature, its a potentially key feature to remove some complexity and improve the a player's quality of game life.
  • Create New...