ScubaSam

Jeez, man, I think all people are after is a link to somewhere that backs up your ideas. It's not a trial, just a discussion. Incidentally, I have such a link to provide - there was a thread a while back talking about the possibility of introducing PDWs for front line troops - based on the idea a long range assault rifle wasn't required because no soldier was accurate enough to provide suppressive fire over a certain distance - essentially if the bullets don't pass close enough, it was assumed it doesn't suppress. http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets...on_Weapons.pdf It's not really a view I agree with - the idea of reducing an infantry platoon's firepower to a handful of P90s or MP7s creates a lot more problems than those it solves, IMO. And of course, there's always the psychological suppressive effect of rapid-fire MGs to consider - who wants to charge the MG position? No volunteers?

I'm surprised the SA80 L22 Carbine never really took off outside the tank world...A lighter rifle for guys carrying 51mm mortars / anti-tank weapons / extra ammunition for comrades might make sense. It is a fair point that the SA80 is bloody heavy...I've heard weight was actually *added* to the front in order to achieve the right balance in the operators hands, what with it being a bullpup and all. I do love the stat about it having greater barrel length than an M16 while being shorter overall than an M4...but those two weapons are featherweight in comparison.

Interesting article, that platoon weapons one, but I'm not entirely convinced by his argument. He seems to initially advocate the LSW over the LMG, citing its increased accuracy combined with a supposed ability to cause the same amount of suppresion. This I would argue with - the LSW is magazine fed, and has no interchangable barrel system, both facts he has overlooked. It's fairly unsuited to the task of suppresion in the same way as an LMG or a GPMG. The idea of replacing SA80s with PDWs like the MP7 or P90 I find a bit far fetched as well...surely replacing it with a weapon that is only effective out to 200m (because most engagements happen there) means that the same problem will reoccur (poor marksmanship + that weapon, meaning soldiers cannot hit anything at 200m) and you will end up with engagements taking place even closer, leading to you buying an even smaller weapon...and so on. I think the UK could maybe do with something like the M32 Grenade launcher, mind. Though the chap carrying it might object to having it and an SA80, so perhaps theres room for some other weapon there.

I tried it as well, the CAS didn't show and I played until the time again. However the SMAW marksmanship had improved, my marine took only one shot to destroy each BMP =) Still wasn't enough to help me win though, too much open ground and too many Syrians! Trying the campaign from the start again, but its quite tough. The maximum blufor score is 500, and the enemy starts with a 200 point bonus, so you can only allow 300 points of your forces to be killed...not sure what that equates to, but it must be less than 3 dead and 8 wounded, as Gpig said he lost on that earlier. Fairly realistic numbers mind! Just damned difficult =)

Tough is right...I won the first battle with an Uncon surrender first time round, 1 KIA (for the army, not my beloved marines) and 3 WIA. Now having to replay that in order to reach the fixed version of mission 2 (with CAS). Battle is proving much more tough this time! Lost badly, 2 MVTRs down plus about 10 KIA, more wounded =( I think I got cocky and figured it would all work out just like the first run...are there multiple AI plans for each map, FMB, or was I just unlucky?

Really enjoying this so far, but not sure if I've discovered a problem with the 2nd mission or not - the briefing states that "Rotary Wing air assets will be circulating near the battlespace and can be called on if necessary", and the basic plan given suggests using CAS to take out enemy vehicles and heavy weapon positions. So I played away, noting that the air support wasn't available immediately - fair enough, I thought, perhaps It'll show in 10-15 minutes. It however, didn't arrive at all, and I played my way to a defeat at the time limit after some fairly rubbish SMAW markmanship from my marines failed to take out any enemy vehicles =P Should the air support be there?

My problem exactly...I can see Steve's point about refusing to make an "Editor-lite" in order to keep the standard of community maps high, but the editor is not just for those wanting to release to the community. My preferred method of play is to pick a QB map and select my own forces in the editor, before assigning a few objectives, making sure the AI setup is sound, and playing. Basically allows a custom battle on any map. I only add polish when I'm making a campaign for friends/others to play. As vulture said, it's not the best use of my time. I usually have to spend at least 30-40 minutes setting up for a battle that lasts 1-2 hours, thats around a third of my play time just spent tweaking the map and adding forces. I personally would say yes to anything that make "quick setups" easier (like drag-creation of roads) but then I'd probably miss the in-depth features when it comes to creating something really fancy to show off to other people.

Another point on infantry defence - Try to defend in depth if possible. If, for example, you have a single platoon defending an objective, It's inadvisable to place the entire platoon in one straight line, no matter how spread out they may be. A better plan would be to create two forward positions, with a section/squad in each, in line with eachother, about 50m or so apart. Place any MGs you have in these forward trenches/positions, in such a way that they can provide fire right across the "killing zone" to the front of your platoon - in other words, even if an enemy squad was 20m away from right hand trench, your MG should ideally be able to fire across the platoon lines, left to right, and cut them down. Your third squad/section and HQ units go in a third "fallback" trench, where they can provide cover to the forward positions. If the enemy get too close to a trench, its occupants pop smoke and fall back, while the other forward trench and the HQ/reserve trench put fire into the advancing enemy - this should be enough to break any assault. MG -----------------------MG ---SQUAD-----------SQUAD-- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------SQUAD/HQ--------- That sort of idea Although of course this is, again, an ideal situation where the terrain allows it. If you're in a hurry you may have to settle for 3 squads in a straight line and just sight the MGs across the open ground But the idea is that there's somebody watching your back as you're defending that open ground, which I'm sure is a reassuring thought for the pixeltruppen.

Radio contact is ok but the other forms of audio and visual communication are (supposedly) better. Without a command delay its hard to see the difference, but I think the better the C2 link between squad and HQ, the better the morale bonuses etc applied to the unit. That's why Syrian squads break so easily - their C2 links are pretty poor, and thus a squad will often find itself cut-off from any help from above. The manual mentions something about it, how a squad with no C2 may assume the worst - perhaps the entire force has pulled back and left them behind? And they thus take a corresponding drop in morale.

For in depth positions I believe the basic idea is to "leapfrog" from one to the next, so the assault section, as soon as they've cleared the enemy, immediately becomes a support team that puts down fire on the next objective. Meanwhile the other sections will move up and through the first enemy position and carry out their attack on the 2nd. Once that's cleared, the assault team goes firm and provides fire while the other two move forward once again. And so on until they run out of ammo or collapse from exhaustion Fire support in this case not only has to screen the advance to the enemy position, but might screen the area behind that position as well to prevent anybody giving overwatch to it. That assumes, of course, that the platoon knows the enemy are dug-in in depth. Most often what happened to us in OTC and yes, Cadets was that we were only told of one enemy position and it wasn't until we did our re-org that the next one would open fire. Mass confusion ensued...

Its basically right, yeah, the platoon would split down into the assault section, the support section (who will suppress the enemy) and a reserve. Platoon HQ will be located somewhere between the Support and Reserve. The usual advance to contact formation will either be a "one up, two down" triangle or a "two up, one down" triangle, depending on the threat. Once contact is made the lead team will become the section that suppresses the enemy while a hasty plan is made. The reserve teams will then either be allocated as extra firepower to suppress the enemy or as assault teams to move in for the kill, so to speak. It's all very flexible, really, so just use the terrain and your fire support to your advantage and your attack should go fine. Another guide about how to deal with multiple in-depth positions might be needed though They're the real kick in the pants - when you discover another enemy platoon is dug in behind the one you just barely managed to clear out...

I believe the location of the HQ is supposed to be "in a position where they can best influence the battle" - So for a Rifle Platoon HQ that should be one "tactical bound" (50m or so) behind the lead sections, where they can use that 51mm mortar to best effect. The Sniper platoon HQ would need to be in a position with comms to both his sniper teams, but maybe also overwatch on them as well because of his L96. As for the Javelin HQ...Its true that their vehicle is pretty rubbish, but to be far neither they or the Jav teams need to be close to the action. The missile has a range of 2.5km, so I tend to sit them back on, as you say, a good observation point where they can watch for tanks. Because of the relatively safe nature of this location, the HQ sorta sits with them, but as I said the key idea for HQs is usually one "tactical bound" behind the lead combat element.

The idea of editing a single scenario still stands - even in an urban enviroment 4 hours is enough to do recon, pull back, have a cup of tea, watch the evening news and still have 2 hours for your assault And if thats not enough, play WeGo, you get more actions done per minute because theres no "thinking" or "planning" time. 4 hours = 240 turns. More than enough for me...

...and the grenade launchers as well. I'd seen it indoors before, but today I saw a grenadier use his SA80 UGL outdoors in a close assault. Point blank range, killed himself and a buddy in the process.

Throw caution to the wind and have a special GMG equipped Jackal Mega Task Force (JMTF)? Though I'm not sure how that would sit with the purists....;)