|
|
|
Notices |
Do you own this game? Write a review and let others know how you like it.
|
 |

September 28th, 2008, 02:01 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 234
Thanks: 36
Thanked 53 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Damn. My cunning plan to smoke out the Chechens has been foiled. 
|

September 29th, 2008, 06:40 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat2
Damn. My cunning plan to smoke out the Chechens has been foiled. 
|
Why not just smoke the building their in, move up and beat the snot out of them? Ti scouts if you've got it, TI tanks if not.
Or take up positions and wait for your smoke to clear.
|

September 29th, 2008, 08:00 PM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 234
Thanks: 36
Thanked 53 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Thanks for your replies.
I asked the question because I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Russians used smoke shells (which are incendiary by nature) to set fire to buildings during the Chechnya War, especially during the Battle of Groznyy - which I played as a random battle the other day.
As it was, I was able to suppress the Chechens with ‘shmel’/artillery/rocket fire (and tank fire from a safe distance) and then attack their buildings with infantry protected by smoke screens.
P.S. I can’t remember where I read about the smoke shells being used as incendiaries and so I’m not sure whether it was true or not.
|

September 29th, 2008, 08:48 PM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brazil/France/Somewhere over the Atlantic
Posts: 660
Thanks: 21
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
now i see, skirmisher's right, the ten year old code limits what can be done
|

September 30th, 2008, 12:25 AM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 358
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat2
Thanks for your replies.
I asked the question because I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Russians used smoke shells (which are incendiary by nature) to set fire to buildings during the Chechnya War, especially during the Battle of Groznyy - which I played as a random battle the other day.
|
Sure they're not talking about WP? Reporters are rather notorious for giving out the wrong details 
|

September 30th, 2008, 07:59 AM
|
 |
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 234
Thanks: 36
Thanked 53 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listy
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat2
I asked the question because I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Russians used smoke shells (which are incendiary by nature) to set fire to buildings during the Chechnya War, especially during the Battle of Groznyy - which I played as a random battle the other day.
|
Sure they're not talking about WP? Reporters are rather notorious for giving out the wrong details 
|
I can’t remember how reliable my source was - as I said. It could have been a news reporter (i.e. unreliable) or it may have been a defence journal or Russian eyewitness account. The Russians certainly used WP in Groznyy. And, as Marek has pointed out, their smoke shells probably contained white phosphorus as well.
|

September 30th, 2008, 09:19 AM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brazil/France/Somewhere over the Atlantic
Posts: 660
Thanks: 21
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listy
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat2
I asked the question because I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the Russians used smoke shells (which are incendiary by nature) to set fire to buildings during the Chechnya War, especially during the Battle of Groznyy - which I played as a random battle the other day.
|
Sure they're not talking about WP? Reporters are rather notorious for giving out the wrong details 
|
I can’t remember how reliable my source was - as I said. It could have been a news reporter (i.e. unreliable) or it may have been a defence journal or Russian eyewitness account. The Russians certainly used WP in Groznyy. And, as Marek has pointed out, their smoke shells probably contained white phosphorus as well.
|
WP nades would be great in game, i'll try to make one, i guess that infantry flame is the class
|

September 30th, 2008, 03:01 PM
|
Captain
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 801
Thanks: 3
Thanked 21 Times in 20 Posts
|
|
Re: Smoke vs buildings
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP
Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listy
Sure they're not talking about WP? Reporters are rather notorious for giving out the wrong details 
|
I can’t remember how reliable my source was - as I said. It could have been a news reporter (i.e. unreliable) or it may have been a defence journal or Russian eyewitness account. The Russians certainly used WP in Groznyy. And, as Marek has pointed out, their smoke shells probably contained white phosphorus as well.
|
WP nades would be great in game, i'll try to make one, i guess that infantry flame is the class
|
You could probably achieve the desired effect by just changing the class of the basic grenade to "Infantry Flame."
Also of note, the napalm class for aircraft isn't ruled by the 1 hex to the rear distance restriction that bombs and cluster munitions are (ie, if you make a bomb or cluster bomb using either of the relevant classes it will always drop behind the aircraft). What this means is that you can set napalm weapons to range +1 and actually get incendiary rockets, etc, with the napalm effects.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|