Nemesis Lead

They make for entertaining reading, but I don't think there is much to learn from them. From his AARs......He is a big proponent of using heavy armor and lots of light/medium artillery in QBs. He uses very little infantry and likes expensive, elite troops. He also talks a lot about the value of risk-taking, moving fast and surprise. I think he likes "Russian doctrine" although he and Jason C fought about what this really meant. I also get the sense that he liked a mobile, counterattacking defense and mobile weapons in general. He is about as opposite a player as possible from me. I would have loved to have played him.

Steve-- Totally off topic but....You are referring to the Tipmann SMG 60 paintball gun. I owned one of those and it was a blast. Semi or full auto firepower at a time when everyone else was using pump action guns. The trick was to fire one or two 5 round stripper clips at a time and then reload. If they tried to nail you while reloading, you fired your third 5 round stripper clip at them. They all had pump guns, so it was easy to establish fire superiority. You could also bunker rush with these guns due to their high ROF and light weight. The trick was also to adjust your gun so it never shot full auto.......waste of paint and would leave you with a lot of reloading to do! you were also wise to take cover and coordinate your fire with others so you were covered while reloading. But reloading with this gun was actually quick and easy. Of course....that gun is now a relic and would be totally outclassed on today's paintball field. It does show that portable firepower had a place on the battlefield though (paintball or real), but ROFs (be it a full auto SMG 60 or an MG42) that are too high cause major issues. Actually--I think paintball has one thing in common with infantry combat. It is very hard NOT to get hit. [ March 10, 2008, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

PT-- You are correct of course, your opinions are as relevant as the next guy--I just like baiting people like FaxisAxis. I love you man! I was just pointing out that the "best wargame ever" has no fan sites or any semblance of organization for multiplayer competition. It was also in the bargain bin about 2 months after release. You are all entitled to your opinions, they are just shared by very few others in the world at large. I really wanted to like CMSF. But BFC released a product they knew was flawed and have been slower than slow in correcting their mistake. They basically took $70 from me (I bought the collector's edition) and others considering buying the game should know that most people do not agree that this "the best wargame ever." In the same vein.....the best president in US history was James Harding (with Richard Nixon a close second)! That is my opinion! Is it valid?

Wow--I was tired of this game after two multiplayer battles. Game has been out for 6 months and it still doesn't work as the numerous bug threads all (correctly) point out. If I remember the URL of one of the CMSF fan websites and multiplayer ladders, I will send you the link. Oh wait--there aren't any. Why would that be? CMSF is the best wargame ever, isn't it? [ January 05, 2008, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

LOL--clearly, you have not played any multiplayer games. They just break down and are a horrendous waste of time.

They ought to just stop working on any modules or new games until the get this one right. I would not, in 1 million years, buy another CMX2 game until this one was right. Right now, it ain't even close. [ December 31, 2007, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ]

Guys, A really great list of fixes (and I love the picture of the flying zombies) but.... Battlefront is (sadly) not listening. As far as I can tell, they have one guy working on this (they need the full original team for all the fixes this game needs) and have moved on to other things. They consider CMSF "complete" when, in fact, it is (without doubt) unplayable in multiplayer. I know, I have played a couple of online games.... Need more proof? Note the total lack of ladders/clubs and other websites supporting multiplayer games.

I am in my second multiplayer game since I bought CMSF. Bugs reported by me and many others still remain unfixed. The game is still unplayable with numerous bugs rather than skill deciding victors. This is very sad--this game has been out since July. I will never buy another BFC product without seeing reviews first. Way to damage your long term brand for short term profit, BFC.

A good question. I would love to hear the answer. Perhaps someone could actually learn something.

OK--thanks. Can anyone recommend a specific scenario?

Guys, I am soon to be playing a PBEM game and was looking for recommendations on a balanced multi-player scenario. What do you think?

Interesting charts--I have seen these before and there are a lot of different versions floating around the internet. The M80 round has a very thick copper jacket. Instead of breaking apart, it tends to stay together and penetrate much deeper as the chart shows. Some of the 5.56mm rounds you have listed have very thin copper at the cannelure and tend to break apart into lots of fragments. Not much penetration, but more tissue damage. The Hornady and M118 7.62mm ammo is superior to the 5.56mm ammo (not sure if the former can be used by the military). If you had looked at West German 7.62mm FMJ ammo, you would have seen a round that causes amazing damage. Very thin copper jacket that just "explodes" when it hits the target.

Or dropping 2000 pound bombs into residential neighborhoods..... War is always the same--few winner and many losers. But it makes for great video games!

The 5.56mm/45 does not have a better wound profile than the 7.62mm/51. The 7.62mm is superior--simple physics. And before you talk about the 5.56mm "hypervelocity" effect, realise that any copper/lead bullet moving faster than 2600 fsp is going to do terrible things due to spalling (but that same spalling reduces penetration). If 5.56mm had a better wound profile, hunters would use it on big game. They don't. However, we wont be going back to 7.62mm anytime soon. A soldier with an M4/M16 can carry more than twice the ammo of a soldier with an M14/AR-10. The 5.56mm recoil is also far lower so it is easier to put rounds on target (albeit with lower terminal effect). US doctrine is to engage the enemy and fix them for destruction by heavier weapons, air strikes and artillery. You need a lot of ammunition to do this. Men with 7.62mm/51 rifles would not be able to pin the bad guys for very long. Finally, we are also not facing opponents with body armor. The best solution is to keep using 5.56mm ammo--but go back to rifles with 20 inch barrels.

One point on caseless ammunition. No one fields it because spent brass is actually a great way to get heat out of the weapon. Without the spent brass (and the heat it takes out of the weapon), a caseless weapon heats up to the point that reliability becomes impaired and ammo cookoffs are more likely. This was the major issue with the G11 (that and budgetary issues from the Berlin Wall coming down). It sounds great in theory (less weight = more ammo), but in practice is has not worked. In the future.....who knows. I think that someone above also mentioned that often there is a tradeoff between penetration and terminal ballistics. Penetrative bullets that poke a tiny hole in you are not the best manstoppers.