Jump to content

ChrisWerb

Members
  • Posts

    763
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChrisWerb

  1. I hope you don't end up playing in hazmat suits (although that may be a bit of a "thing" for some less conventional Danes already )
  2. I just played your scenario (the first one I have downloaded in over three years playing SB) and really enjoyed it. The only thing I'd criticise would be the extremely lavish scale of issue of Spike MR as pointed out by GibsonM. The Belgian Land Component allegedly only purchased 66 Spike MR missile systems so your company had about 18% of their entire inventory. I still had a lot of fun though. Keep up the good work!
  3. My own experience is that if you kill all but one of the infantry and destroy all of the IFVs, that infantryman WILL engage you (if his weapon is appropriate) no matter what. I'm not sure how that fits in with the morale model, but it always happens. It also happens that, although tanks seem very good at locating infantry in undulating ground, they often can't engage them because they don't have line of sight. That makes infantry in SB MUCH more dangerous with the new bumpy terrain model. I can't remember if it was this time around or 4.1 but infantry also got A LOT more eager to engage with shoulder launched AT in general. Pre 4.1 with the old "flat" terrain and extremely cautious infantry that spent more time break dancing and bobbing up and down than shooting, I was tearing my hair out. So, there's a long way to go, but the changes that have been made so far are really great.
  4. If I could have only five six things next time around(other than bug fixes) 1. Better infantry control. 2. More defineable" weapon loadouts for infantry 3. An IR MANPADS with selectable quality. 4. BONUS/SMArt 5. Anti materiel rifle with first person control and no restriction to HVTs. 6. Infantry fighting positions - no overhead cover, overhead "retreat" cover and full overhead cover and supporting AI logic
  5. Yes, in retrospect I admit it's a bit pointless. I didn't realise it was the one mounted on the sensor mast, so you don't get to have both. Also it doesn't include a GSR as far as I can tell.
  6. Gilding the lily a bit, but I'd like to see have the Tripod mounted remote sensor head for Fennek, which I believe can be deployed something like 50 metres from the vehicle.
  7. 1. At the moment, in game, AI gunners seem to be able to determine instantly if a vehicle is killed. When I'm playing a gunner first person, it's often difficult to tell, particularly at longer ranges with early TI etc. For AI gunners, could you please consider an option of "keep shooting until target burns or changes shape" or "put one round into each target then move on until they all burn or change shape", or something along those lines? 2. Could we have the option that some (it can be a small minority) enemy vehicles and infantry "play dead" if they receive minor damage or if their unit is being massacred, then are resurrected with nefarious intent? By the way, the combination of bumpy terrain and more aggressive (vs armour) infantry in the latest version is a vast improvement. I just wish we had the option to decide scale of issue of LAWs within infantry sections/teams so you don't just have the one RPG guy when you can see other's in the team carrying disposable LAWs that are only set-dressing at the moment.
  8. Is there any chance that option could be made available in the home edition? I can understand you may have commercial reasons to maintain the differences between the two versions.
  9. That's great. I'd like to than the devs for the work they put into this. It's great (whether it can be damaged or not) and adds immensely to the simulation. I'd like to see AVEPS as an option for older Russian/Soviet vehicles too.
  10. What I'd like to ask is how long did the "olive green phase" for US Army AFVs between MERDC and the three colour NATO camouflage last?
  11. In my next test, M384 HE on the other hand did knock out AVEPS on Boxer and DF30. The strange thing with this though was the LEMUR weapon station showed I had M430 HEDP selected whereas the normal SB display top right of screen showed the correct M384.
  12. Another AAR where I subsequently heavily dosed the DF30 and Boxer's AVEPS launchers with hundreds of rounds of 7.62x51 and they both then engaged incoming MILANs. AVEPS sensor damage test_13164_011420HP-Z4401549.aar
  13. Hi guys. I just retested. I drenched (and I mean drenched) four vehicles - a Leo2A6, CV9035NL, Boxer and DF30 with 7.62 coax, M384 40mm HV HE and 0.50 AP-T from just over 300 metres. Note that for the vehicles with no visual representation of AVEPS, I fired many rounds over the vehicle into the space that would be occupied by the system if fitted (essentially onto and over the turret top). For the Boxer and DF30 the APS was both shown as damaged in red on the screen in first person (this did not happen in the last test) and MILANs fired at the vehicle (to near miss above) did not cause APS to function. However, the vehicles with no visual representation of AVEPS on them still had perfectly working AVEPS which responded to MILANs fired from a Vector to near miss them. I'm wondering if damage to the AVEPs is only possible to vehicles that have a visual representation of the system mounted on them. {Note to self. Learn to read!] I'm really pleased AVEPS can be damaged, at least when visualised - this system adds greatly to the simulation. I have attached the AAR. Incidentally, the M153 PRotector (0.50) RWS on one of the Blue Boxers had a visual display showing SLAP loaded when the vehicle had AP-T loaded and this was correctly indicated in red at the top right of the screen. This is odd as the RWS in SB are some of the most impressively modelled subsystems IMHO. As am aside, how long should it take a DF30 to reload APFSDS-T? In game it never does when commanded to, no matter how long I leave it. This is the only vehicle I'm aware of this happening with. AVEPS sensor damage test_13164_011420HP-Z4401509.aar
  14. Hi I have been messing about, trying to knock out the APS on a variety of vehicles, both in game and by testing. I'm wondering whether there is a bit of an anomaly. I set up the following vehicles as targets at around 6-800 metres T14 T15 Leopard 2A6 w AVEPS CV9035NS w AVEPS GTK Boxer w AVEPS M2A3 w AVEPS I then liberally dosed them with the following. 7.62 Coax 0.50 API-T 40mm M430 HE (not HEDP as I didn't want to knock out the vehicles) (I also tried 20mm Rh202 20x139 HEI-T but that knocked out several of the vehicles and stopped turret motion on the Armata) The only vehicle I appear to be able to damage the Radar on is the T-15 which mirrors my experience in game when I get "APS Radar 1" etc. under damage manning the vehicle first person. It may be that the same can happen for the T-14 but I could not make it happen in test. For AVEPS, I could not inflict any damage at all. The only vehicle that appeared to display a graphical representational model of AVEPS was the Boxer which gave me an aim point. I put literally dozens of rounds of API-T into the AVEPS system to no effect. I'm having a lot of success and fun with AVEPS in game, but is there an anomaly here that it is impossible to damage? Also why is it impossible to damage on the T-14 (assuming that is the case).
  15. Hi I love the new model that shows projectile, HEAT jet and fragment paths, but could someone please explain the meanings of the different coloured lines? How do they differ? Many thanks Chris
  16. Yes, in SB it works well in German terrain where you have the enemy coming up valleys under AI/programmed command. It would obviously work less well in open terrain against a reasonably sentient human opponent.
  17. OK, I can post test results if you wish, but the "problem" is that the generic off map unitary HE is much less lethal than even M107 fired from on map M109A3s. What I did was take a flat terrain map (to avoid terrain screening effects), deploy 100 generic OPFOR (I put out three platoons, 10 per section then changed two of the unit HQs to missile teams and one to an FO team to get the round 100), bunched closely together and fired four tube 6 round per tube missions into 100 metre squares centred on their position (using an Apache with hold fire order as FO). The M109s were between 12 and 16km from the target. I love a problem with an easy workaround - just use on map arty
  18. I have found that the DF-30 is also highly effective vs T-14 Armatas given appropriate terrain and tactics. With APFSDS-T it will kill the Armata with side, ammo carousel shots up to at least 2000 metres. The limiting factor is accuracy at longer ranges - it takes more rounds to hit in the right spot. At ranges under 1000 metres often the first or second shot is lethal - at this distance or closer I tend to set the gun to full auto - in testing I can't remember it taking more than four rounds to kill. If the enemy is hull down from side or rear, rounds placed into the turret bustle will take out the turret drive and FCS, but you also then need to immediately take out the RWS which will often survive and can kill you with 12.7x107mm. Frontally, you're better off using MP-T as it is exceedingly unlikely you will penetrate with sabot/fin at any range and the MP-T gives good "splash" damage through forward arc fragmentation. Start by shooting into the front glacis which should put fragments into the GPS, then aim directly for the GPS and rapidly transition to the RWS. This should leave the vehicle effectively impotent. As a PS to the previous post, hits to the T-15 BMP Armata's unmanned weapons module/RWS will sometimes cause catastrophic explosions/kills to the vehicle from penetrations with either fin/sabot or MP-T. I'm not sure what is actually exploding - does HEI-T sympathetically detonate or are spare missiles stored inside the mount? The latter doesn't seem feasible dimensionally.
  19. Ben, I wouldn't recommend facing off with T-15 Armata HIFVs with a DF-30 under any circumstances, but you can cause them a bit of a nuisance if you man the gunner's position on the DF-30 and try to achieve a keyhole ambush, from hull down, where you only have to take on one of them. APFSDS-T is highly effective against the turret/RWS, especially side and rear on, but remember that sometimes the vehicle will retain ATGW capability along a limited arc even with the turret drive taken out. It can also immobilise, sometimes by track cutting, but I would not attempt that until you've taken out the turret/RWS. MP-T is very good at smashing up vulnerable systems on, or penetrating the exterior of the vehicle - probably not as good as 35mm KETF-T, but still very good. Occasionally you might even pull off an amazing fluke like this
  20. Hopefully this one should be quite easy to implement. SA-13 Gopher/8K35 Strela 10 (take the launcher from the SA-9 and mount it on the MTLB),
  21. I find, with advancing enemy formations, the best approach with a 155 battery is to use one or two tubes set to fire three rounds a minute to create a 400 metre "wall" of DPICM in front of the enemy formation that causes them to pile up against it for ten minutes. Then I create a 400 x 400 metre mission behind a wall to initiate after one to two minutes, depending on enemy formation size and speed, with the remaining tubes, but only have them fire two or at most three rounds a piece because anything that can will try to get out of the box rapidly, so more than that is a waste. The piled up vehicles also make great targets for other systems. Rinse and repeat further along the enemy advance route (if established with reasonable confidence). I do find "Little and often" works well for DPICM. I find the M107 155mm HE and generic tube HE to be highly ineffective against personnel. I know it's an old 1950s projectile with relatively limited fragmentation effects, but it's possible to try to take out a single, very well located, enemy infantryman with a huge concentration of these projectiles targeted into a 50 metre box centred on them with no ill effects. When you go over the AAR in "real world, events" mode, you see 155 bursts practically on top of them or within three or four metres - I would have thought blast alone would have disabled them in such circumstances. I admit I don't understand the intricacies of SB's damage model and I'm not going to go away and test it - it's just the impression I get. I know the British Army has gotten rid of its surface launched scatterable mines. I'm assuming our AT-2 MLRS rockets were either discarded through policy change or when time-expired and we didn't purchase more, but if anyone knows for sure I'd like to know. Likewise does Germany still have the MLRS AT-2 or other scatterable mines in service? I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the SB development team for the many hours of enjoyment this sad loner had over the holiday period. It's so easy to get completely absorbed in SB and it continues to amaze and delight me on an almost daily basis over three years on.
×
×
  • Create New...