Mad Mike

Hi Steve, thanks for taking the time to provide an answer. I don't think the Save Game / update is an issue here, I started a completely fresh campaign from the beginning with v1.21. So if it was indeed fixed, it should not exhibit this behaviour anymore. Out of interest, I had a look at the time when my Marines campaign file (Semper Fi Syria.cam) has last been changed on my computer, it was 22/12/2008. Version 1.11 came out on 21/12/2008, so that seems to be the last time the campaign has been updated. The reason why I can be so sure is that I have never reinstalled CMSF or any modules, simply no need to. I also didn't switch computers since first installing CMSF base in July 2007. I'm also quite sure that I always updated correctly, as everything works as it should. Maybe somebody could have a look if similar installs can be found .. it looks to me like the Marines campaign file has not been updated since v1.11. (Also, any readme's and update lists I could find did not mention an update)

BlackMoria, thanks for the reply .. yeah, maybe the branching was the reason for it .. the state it is in now, it is not really worth playing. I would 'Cease Fire' immediatley the next time, the result will be a tactical defeat, which i think is the best one can achieve currently. At least you won't lose any men for nothing. Would be nice if this could be fixed or, assuming it is already WAD, explained.

Hm, I don't think this is the case .. when I load the scenario (got a save right before the start of the scen) and immediately 'Cease Fire', the Syrians will still get 2000 points, even when I take 0 casualties. It should also be noted that the summary shows the points for their (that is the Syrians) Friendly Casualties, which leads me to believe that it does not involve any of the US casualties. So they do get 2000 points with their force fully intact as well as when it is completely annihilated. Big mystery, this one ...

Just finished 'Afternoon Delight' on my v1.21 Marines Campaign playthrough. Got a tactical defeat due to the "Friendly Casualties" 2000 points for the Syrians. This scenario can still not be won .. anybody care to elaborate? I've seen a statement saying that it cannot be won, but the campaign will progress nevertheless (which is true). Just wondering what this scenario is supposed to represent:confused:

Now that you mention it, I'm starting to remember. The poor 2nd LT died a lot when I "played" the book .. and now it happened again :eek:. Maybe it's just not meant to work out for me . Still, very nice scenario, the favourite moment for me was when one BMP drove into a trench which had a full squad in it, with the result of almost complete (one squad member survived) mutual destruction. Seeing your picture with the preferred artillery strike areas, I almost exactly used the same ones, at least at the two exits (obvious, I guess), but also on the two "assembly areas" before the two exits.

Alas, no. The 2nd Lt found himself on the wrong end of one wandering T72's 125mm gun. The XO survived, surprisingly. Agree, the artillery is crucial and I was a bit surprised by the amount that is available. I didn't really coordinate my arty very well, probably wasted at least two "calls". Therefore I don't think that the amount of available artillery should be reduced, with the response times of 5 minutes +, it is difficult enough to employ it effectively.

Hi all, just finished this scenario with a US Army Minor victory. *** Details below *** Suffered 10 KIA and 7 WIA while inflicting 68 KIA, 31 WIA, 19 MIA, 5 Tanks and 7 BMPs destroyed. I decided to defend the exits in the rear. I couldn't deny the Syrians access to their objective (access to the wadi), but I think that would be unrealistic to expect, given the odds you are facing. Overall, a very interesting scenario, but a less frustrating experience than reading the book (which I read, but never finished "successfully" ).

Very good fun and entertainment indeed, also quite a challenge. SPOILER BELOW * * * * * I think this scenario is the one with the highest number of opposition forces that I know of .. around 800 .. the fighting was just brutal. I lost all the men in the compound except for one lonely british engineer, who survived by retreating to the river. In the end I used one HQ in the compound to call airstrikes more or less on its own position, seeing that i was going to be overrun by uncons. It worked quite well I don't think you can survive in the compound, at least it would be quite interesting to hear how this could be managed. The reinforcements, especially the Marines, were decimated as well by the last wave of uncons trying to take the HLZ. The Brits performed quite well, essentially carrying out all the counterattacking, taking the ANA-Hill (on which I called continuous air strikes for about 1 hour) and also gaining a bridgehead in the main village with the compound. I lost one whole section of british infantry to a friendly-fire incident with an A-10 (ouch), but overall the air-support was quite good, even when targeted close to friendly forces. This scenario had more of a WW2 feeling, with over 200 casualties on my side, something which would be quite unimaginable for one single battle in Afghanistan today. But still, I liked it very much .. especially since I got that surrender (the only option for me to still win this) with 10 minutes remaining .. the dutch F-16 were helping a lot, basically levelling the compound with LGBs. Overall: great scenario .. can we have more, please?

Actually, i think you did .. I hardly ever posted here in my 10 years of lurking, but you are right, your posts were just too funny . Thanks for the entertainment, it can get boring around here.

Did you forget a smilie here? Just a couple of posts ago you put labels and movie references on a whole forum, and now you suddenly don't understand where GSX is coming from? Are you like 90 years old or something?

Yep, pretty much, please see the link below: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/06/23/224826/eurofighter-typhoon-proves-close-air-support-credentials-for-raf.html Well, it wasn't / isn't UOR, this capability was part of the core development program for the british Tranche1 Typhoons. It is actually an "austere" capability, which leaves some things to be desired .. but it can be used to some degree, certainly for dropping LGBs or GPS-guided ammunition as shown in CMSF. And you can believe me, i'm actually fully (or to be more precise painfully ) aware that a full capability is not the same as just slapping some store under a wing and take a picture of it while flying around Northwest England (for example). So I agree with you that the british Tornados / Harriers are much more mature and reliable platforms for the CAS role.

I beg to differ ... at least with the wording. Maybe we should say "operationally capable" instead of "available", because for sure Typhoons were available in the Air-to-Surface role (11 Sqn) by July 2008. They just finished a final exercise deployment to the US (Nellis), where they specifically practised Close Air Support and Precision Strike capabilities. Given the rather pragamtic approach to operational employment in the UK forces, I think it is entirely imaginable (without suspending any disbelief) that the RAF would have used Typhoons in this hypothetical conflict. Typhoons were/are certainly not 100% capable yet, but by July 2008 especially the british Typhoons had a basic CAS capability which could have been employed.

Hi Lethaface, I didn't really want to start a tax discussion (even though that's probably the all-time most favourite discussion topic over here in Germany). Just this: Without the (more or less) willing support of all the tax payers around the world, the selection of military hardware, gadgets and paraphernalia to be simulated in this glorious game called CMSF would be rather slim. There, that should let us sleep better ...

Like a wise man once said: "Nothing is certain but death and taxes." Maybe not the best example for something to be really disappointed about... An apparently promised but not delivered DVD case is clearly on a different level.

I used "Heavy" all the time, the Apaches first used their Hellfires and then switched to rockets, IIRC. Worked quite well for me.

Hi birdstrike, I can understand your frustration. I just tried it myself, with the following results: *** POSSIBLE SPOILERS *** I "managed" to get a Tactical Defeat - too many casulaties with too little gain, I only made it halfway into the village/town. I lost 26 KIA and 41 WIA along with three vehicles. With these "expenses", I reduced the Syrians by 240 men (KIA, WIA, MIA) combined. Not enough, unfortunately , leaving approx. 100 still ready to fight. For the HMGs, I used the AH64s - as long as they have Hellfires, this works reasonably well. I attacked both bridges with one rifle platoon each, the pioneers were supporting the right hand assault, the third platoon I used to cross the river in the middle, continuing up the irrigation canal. The assaults on the left and middle went quite well, I even managed to reach the hill, clearing it of the bataillon HQ. When I tried to turn into the village, it was still too well defended .. Squads sitting in every compound, waiting for the attack, with joined buildings as fallback positions .. tough nut to crack. In the end, I lost too many men and used up too much time crossing the river. I think the infantry performed very well .. a 4 : 1 ratio for the attacker speaks volumes. But after the battle, I find it quite suicidal to attack with the parameters being as they are in this battle .. There is no advantage to the attacker except experience, and this is easily compensated by the defensive setup .. even green troops can shoot you from about 5 meters distance;). Maybe I will give it a go again sometimes, just to see if I can beat this scenario.

Thanks, JonS, for the clarification. I guess the whole experience of Dumayr riot was just too frustrating for me . I really enjoyed "Counter Attack", first stopping the Syrian armor on the right flank with just one Challenger (epic 1 against 3 T-72 battle) and then employing the artillery to stop the Syrians in the middle and on the left flank. Very nice scenario .

Hm, maybe it was because i don't particularly care for those battles in built-up terrain or cities .. where you can expect the opposition in virtually every house. Also off-putting was the fact that the opposition seemed to "spawn" in the police station .. which doesn't really give you any chance defending effectively. I think these MOUT scenarios are quite realistic in the way they recreate the frustration any commanding officer must feel when faced with such a task .. as a western armed force, you lose quite a lot of your advantages and you are forced to engage at a level that should have quite some advantages on the Syrian side. As somebody else put it in another thread (don't exactly remember who it was), it felt quite painful (mentally, meaning that it was more like work and less like fun which I expect when playing a game) to play through "Dumayr Riot" and "Bowling Alley". This is not necessarily bad and it is just a reflection on my playing style and expectations. The scenarios were well done technically, but just not to my liking. Funny though, i still achieve quite good results in these MOUT battles most of the time.

Yep, i guess that's too true

Hi, for comparison, here are my scores for the campaign, both routes. I also used reloads a couple of times, but not too extensive. *** POSSIBLE SPOILERS *** Settings: Elite, Real Time Combined branch: 1) Border Crossing: Minor Victory, 7 KIA, 4 WIA, 2 AFV 2) Battle of at Tanf: Total Victory, No Losses 3) Crossroads: Total Victory/Surrender, 1KIA 4) Os-Sayqal - Recce: Minor Victory, No Losses 5) Os-Sayqal - Assault: Major Victory, 2 KIA, 6WIA 6) Bagdad Cafe 66: Total Victory/Surrender, 2 KIA 7) Dumayr Riot: Draw, No Losses - didn't really see any point in this one, therefore decided to skip it. 8) Sab'Abar: Tactical Victory, 5 WIA, 2 AFV, 1 other Vehicle 9) Mountain Crossing: Total Victory/Surrender, No Losses 10) Qutaife: Total Victory/Surrender, 19 KIA, 7 WIA, 5 AFV 11) Counter Attack: Tactical Victory/Surrender, 41 KIA, 19 WIA, 1MIA, 6 AFV, 2 other Vehicles Southern Branch: 12) Courses of Action: Major Defeat, 2 KIA, 2WIA, 2AFV 13) Ambush in the Lava Field: Total Victory/Surrender, 3 WIA, 2 AFV 14) Narrow Margins: Total Victory/Surrender, 4 KIA, 6WIA, 1AFV 15) Ash Shaykh Miskin: Total Victory/Surrender, 6 KIA, 13 WIA, 1 AFV 16) Bashar is in our Hearts: Total Victory/Surrender, 2KIA, 5 WIA, 1AFV Campaign South: Major Victory British: 86 KIA, 70 WIA, 1 MIA, 22 AFV, 3 other Vehicles Syrian: 1256 KIA, 579 WIA, 410 MIA, 62 Tanks, 107 AFV, 64 other Vehicles Northern Branch (aka: "The Road to Stalingrad"): 12) Courses of Action: Tactical Victory, 3 WIA, 1 AFV 13) Aadra Adversity: Major Victory, 5 KIA, 12 WIA, 3 MIA, 3 AFV 14) Martyrs Square: Major Victory, 3 KIA, 13 WIA 15) Going Downtown: Total Victory/Surrender, 26 KIA, 8 WIA, 2 MIA, 6 AFV 16) Bowling Alley: Minor Victory, 17 KIA, 16 WIA, 3 Tanks, 5 AFV Campaign North: Total Victory British: 123 KIA, 93 WIA, 6 MIA, 3 Tanks, 30 AFV, 3 other Vehicles Syrian: 1287 KIA, 616 WIA, 415 MIA, 69 Tanks, 105 AFV, 68 other Vehicles The campaign is overall very good, with just two scenarios i didn't really like: Dumayr riot and Bowling Alley. How the last scenario made it through any QA or Beta test is beyond me .. it's just crazy :eek:.

Hm, from what I can tell: There is no point in marking mines, it seems to be quite superfluous. The only effect i can imagine (and i'm not sure about this) is that units might avoid marked minefields in their routing decisions for movements. But I think the player can still force units into marked minefields.

Thanks for the test, Paper Tiger. I also ran a quick test myself (instead of just "complaining" about it ). After detecting the mines (by just walking into them and losing a substantial number of men) the british engineers were then able to "Mark Mines" (the command became available for selection). Interesting points: - As a target for the "Mark Mines" command, you can only select Action spots with a red Minefield sign in them. All other Action spots can not be selected as targets for a "Mark Mines" movement. - After successful marking, the minefield is not completely safe to move through .. I used some other squads with "Quick" and "Fast" movements, they also triggered mines (and consequently lost men) in the already marked mine action spots. - I think the manual is still misleading and could be clarified, as it states "Mark Mines: This command enables engineer units to detect and mark hidden minefields so that other units are aware of them." Detection is done the "hard way". For me the above sentence implies that engineers try to detect mines without just running over them and triggering them. So I think some of the "confusion" comes from the ambiguous way the manual describes this "movement" command. Because actually during execution of the "Mark Mines" command, the section or squad is not moving at all. Also, the status for each individual soldier could be updated so that it shows "Marking Mines" instead of just "Spotting" or "Hiding" for example.

I also have problems getting this to work .. most of the time, the "Mark Mines" button does not highlight at all. It seems to be one of the remaining mysteries in CMSF :confused:. And it shouldn't be, for example the manual states that "Mark Mines is a very slow movement command that takes the unit’s full attention and reduces awareness and returning fire." (v1.20 manual) So from reading this I assume that it should be a very slow movement where the engineers do activley look for mines. Maybe this and the circumstances that allow the command to be employed could be clarified. I don't have high hopes though, as this has been brought up repeatedly and never been answered with any definitive statement - a fact which is also supported by the current explanation provided in the manual.

Well, actually, even the Greens wouldn't make any difference .. as has been proven by the German participation in the NATO air campaign against Serbia over Kosovo in 1999. Happened under the political leadership of a social-democrat/Green coalition. The greens didn't exactly walk out on the government back then . Today, the german armed forces are in the process of changing their whole structure and mindset towards intervention, crisis prevention and engagements in a combined environment (NATO/EU/UN) - the classic defence of the homeland against conventional forces has been declared to be a scenario of very low probability and hence very low priority. CMSF is just a game, not the reality .. but if ever german participation in a conflict like the one being depicted in CMSF was likely, then it would be right now.

Hi snake_eye, thought I give you some feedback on the first standalone scenario "The Back Door 1st Day" where a helo inserted, reinforced Marine platoon has to take the dam. I managed a total victory in "overtime" (around 7 minutes) with losses of 2 KIA and 6 WIA. Overall, I liked the map and the battle setup a lot ... * POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW * * * * * * * * * * What I didn't like - the opening mortar barrage which is difficult ot handle, especially with the very tight time limit. Maybe 40 minutes standard plus overtime would be more realistic? Just suggesting here, if you like to keep the "rushed execution of an assault on the dam"-feeling .. that works quite well currently .