With the new patch.. one more thing for Uncons

[Sublime]

Uncons get a spotter.  I did NOT in the QB menu see any indirect assets though.  They do get on map 81mm mortars in fighter squads.  I do know uncons in all theaters and in almost every war theyve had arty have used it indirectly.  Sometimes terribly, sometimes well, sometimes during battles, sometimes not.  I dont think they should get a full menu, but it seems like especially in a country like Syria where the uncons have wire, radio, and cell phone IEDs. technicals, etc.  That theyd at least maybe have a $hitty off map light mortar capability.  Like 1x 81mm off map that gets call times like Soviet arty in RT and is really only good for preplanned.

Thoughts?

[MikeyD]

Early on I had tried to strong-arm Steve into giving uncons the Type-63 artillery rocket launcher but he wouldn't budge. Steve has his own idea of what he wants CMSF uncons to be. Combatants are very much 'neighborhood guys with guns'.  Fighters at least have 82mm on-map mortar which can now be used for indirect fire. I just tested, they can be used for turn 1 'opening barrage' fire as well with a spotter.

[Sublime]

Ah I did not know you could turn one barrage them. However still again - if yiu have cellphone IED guys what would stop anyone using a landlime, or cellphone" pre arranged signal, or whatever. I think having an uncon spotter is silly if we.re not going to have offmap. At the end of the day every other title of every other military gets the option of offmapping their 81s if theyre an on map option AFAIK. I understand almost all other CM forces are nation states but like you mentioned with the rockets or even just being able to select off map fpr the 81mm teams the fighters have. 

Edited January 3, 2019 by Sublime

[Lethaface]

Unfortunately the Spy Forward Observer can only communicate with mortars using close c2. So yes preplanned is possible and with some hassling you might be able to spot from a building next to the mortars or so, but not much more.

[MikeyD]

You can build your own scenarios using QB maps as a base (just remember to rename and save them in the Scenarios folder).
These have the advantage of having EVERYTHING available for purchase and there's no points limit to worry about. If you want you can have your uncons backed up by massive 130mm artillery barrages or BM-21 artillery rockets. You can also go into the generic QB AI orders and tinker with the timing and movement to suit your needs. Its a simple starting point for anyone who someday wants to generate his own original scenarios. Playing the game is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Lethaface]

Funny I was thinking about trying that actually yesterday, but wasn't sure you could just drop forces on a quick battle map while keeping the objectives and scoring intact. I have actually fiddled with the editor before, but usually just for looking at units. I didn't pass the elevation challenge ;-P.
And I'm already glad that I have the time and energy to actually play CM again.

However, I think it is interesting to create some setups for PBEMs based on QBs. Thanks for confirming it is possible! I'll try to convince Sublime to function as a guinea pig and drop some forces for him on a map

Edited January 3, 2019 by Lethaface

[Ultradave]

9 hours ago, Sublime said:

 I think having an uncon spotter is silly if we.re not going to have offmap. 

Not at all silly. It gives you some capability to keep your mortars out of the line of fire while spotting for them. As was related, you need to be close to the mortars but how about a spotter in a building or on a rooftop, with the mortars deployed just behind the building for cover.

[Sublime]

I think its silly. Sorry but I could see even if they could put a cell phone icon from the cell ied guy in spotter teams and let it function the same as a radio with crappy call ins and response for the mortar because as of now they have to be in vocal communication its really just not worth it, or justified by getting a spotter.  Even if you could somehow integrate it into the c2 tree where if they were in command the info could be called in (simulating runners, working landlines in some areas perhaps, other signals)  but I dont believe thats possible Ill look into that tomorrow

[Sublime]

I reserve my right to use the wrong adjective and remain obstinately obtuse

[Ultradave]

9 hours ago, Sublime said:

....its really just not worth it, .....

OK, fine. I gave my opinion as someone who's been there, (having been a FA FIST Chief). You're free to have your own opinion. I'll let you explain to that mortar crew why they have to set up out in the open

[Sublime]

Ok well heres my serious reply then - if we wanted a real life replication of uncon artillery in Syria (as history has borne out) they absolutely would have indirect fire.  The Viet Minh, VC had it. AQ Iraq, Taliban all have used it. ISIS has used it.  Especially rockets to be honest but thats another story and MikeyD tried on that.

Usually the fire was prearranged turn one stuff but theres definitely instances of it being "called in" about as effectively as youd think. 

I mean lets be serious here - Redfor is already at a disadvantage in BS. In SF2 that difference is huge, especially with uncons, why wouldnt you want them to have an ability that really only human players will be able to use right and two isnt outlandish at all and totally plausible? As it is I think its already been proven that the uncons in Syria from the start of their civil war to now have shown how effective and sophisticated they can be at times like the uparmored vbieds, weapons factories, homemade tanks, to the drone attack.

Its a matter of factand record that in the Battle of Berlin Soviet soldiers fu*king around bored would prank call random numbers and curse in Russian and startled Germans. If in the BATTLE OF BERLIN there were some landlines still working certainly thered be q chance of the same in anycity Syria 62 years later?

Or again runners, cell phone etc? Besides you trumping me utterly on real world experience in spades I didnt sed any actual counter argument as to why itd be impossible or unrealistic or foolish to let uncon spotters either through a C2 network or some radio like mechanic for other spotters n throw a cellphone icon in HQ units inventory or whatever for the fighters. Explain to me how this is totally impossible tjat these fighters that have cell ieds, radio, wire, technicals, heavy crew served weapons, can only do indirect fire (against an enemy who can murderize anything it gets LOS to?) if they can literally shout at the mortar team? I dont buy it.

[Lethaface]

I think the current Spy FO can definitely be useful, if only  from close c2. Of course that depends on the scenario, but it's possible to have the spotter in a 3 story building, in c2 with a couple of mortars just behind the house. So it has use, although limited to a certain degree.

At the same time it would, in my eyes, be an improvement if the Spy FO could have c2 with the mortars through his radio if the mortar team is in c2 with it's HQ. The SPY FO can do the same with regular Syrian (offmap) artillery, so it feels a bit arbitrary to me that he can't for the irregular mortars.

Some form of GSM / walky talky whatever communication among irregulars in Syria in 2008 isn't unrealistic I'd say.

[sburke]

Keep in mind BFs view of what uncons represent is starkly different than what ours may be based on Iraq and current Syria conflict. Shock force is a fictional invasion with a large force in a short period of time.  Developing the infrastructure and experience among uncons to utilize mortars isn’t something that started on day one. That they even have mortars in CM2 is more a reflection that the game now allows for on board mortars. CMSF isn’t really the sandbox that many of us want to turn it into. ..... unfortunately.  

[Lethaface]

Well they are able to utilize mortars with spotters, only not communicate beyond shouting distance 

Anyhow, it's quite a great sandbox already! We can of course always use scenario's to give the irregular's some off map mortars or even type 63's. 

 

[Ultradave]

On 1/4/2019 at 8:21 AM, Sublime said:

Ok well heres my serious reply then - if we wanted a real life replication of uncon artillery in Syria (as history has borne out) they absolutely would have indirect fire.  The Viet Minh, VC had it. AQ Iraq, Taliban all have used it. ISIS has used it.  Especially rockets to be honest but thats another story and MikeyD tried on that.

Usually the fire was prearranged turn one stuff but theres definitely instances of it being "called in" about as effectively as youd think. 

I mean lets be serious here - Redfor is already at a disadvantage in BS. In SF2 that difference is huge, especially with uncons, why wouldnt you want them to have an ability that really only human players will be able to use right and two isnt outlandish at all and totally plausible? As it is I think its already been proven that the uncons in Syria from the start of their civil war to now have shown how effective and sophisticated they can be at times like the uparmored vbieds, weapons factories, homemade tanks, to the drone attack.

Its a matter of factand record that in the Battle of Berlin Soviet soldiers fu*king around bored would prank call random numbers and curse in Russian and startled Germans. If in the BATTLE OF BERLIN there were some landlines still working certainly thered be q chance of the same in anycity Syria 62 years later?

Or again runners, cell phone etc? Besides you trumping me utterly on real world experience in spades I didnt sed any actual counter argument as to why itd be impossible or unrealistic or foolish to let uncon spotters either through a C2 network or some radio like mechanic for other spotters n throw a cellphone icon in HQ units inventory or whatever for the fighters. Explain to me how this is totally impossible tjat these fighters that have cell ieds, radio, wire, technicals, heavy crew served weapons, can only do indirect fire (against an enemy who can murderize anything it gets LOS to?) if they can literally shout at the mortar team? I dont buy it.

My original comment and second comment I responded to was that having a spotter the way it lets you now was not silly and is in fact worth it, which I still maintain.  That's all. The rest is you putting words in my mouth about things being impossible.

So I think I'm done here. Thanks for the discussion.

[Sublime]

Ok - well I apologize for that then it wasnt my intention

[Bozowans]

I've been reading the book House to House by David Bellavia, about his experiences in Fallujah in 2004. He described the insurgents there using mortars quite effectively, walking fire onto the US forces as they charged into the city.

Before the assault, he described an artillery duel they got into with an insurgent spotter. They pulled a Humvee up to a ridgeline outside the city and set up an observation post. Eventually they spotted sunlight glinting off binoculars from an insurgent spotter within the city and called in a fire mission onto the guy's location. The insurgent must have had the same idea because a short while later a mortar exploded almost directly on top of their Humvee. A few minutes later though, the insurgent was turned into pink mist when his position was blown to bits.

Outside Fallujah there was a five foot high railroad embankment or berm that traversed the landscape and blocked vehicle access to the city except through certain roads. For the main assault, the US plan was to move up engineers during the night to blast holes into the berm and then rush the main assault battalions through the breach as part of a gigantic headlong charge into the city while it was still dark. Once they made it into the city, the infantry would dismount their vehicles and then assault the nearest buildings. This was of course preceded by a massive days-long air and artillery bombardment that destroyed much of the city.

Despite the heavy bombardment and the darkness, the insurgents were able to direct pretty accurate mortar fire onto the masses of US vehicles as they moved through the breaches. Bellavia described looking out the portholes of his Bradley and seeing mortars exploding among their vehicles while they were moving along, so the response times of the insurgents must have been pretty fast. The insurgents timed it so they would hit the US forces with mortars, volleys of RPGs and dozens of IEDs as they charged in, and they knocked out or at least damaged a lot of the US vehicles. Bellavia described seeing a Bradley burst into flames and a lot of the other ones get hit, including his own.

The insurgents did have a lot of time to prepare for that battle, but it's interesting reading about what they were capable of. Despite being massively outnumbered and outgunned in every conceivable way by a global superpower, they were still able to cause like 700 casualties to the Coalition forces over the course of that battle.

[Sublime]

Idk apparently from the answers its just not happening no matter what is said

My last point is in response to sburke - which is a good point about the Syrian regime calling fighters to arms suddenly - but a counterargument is the Fedayeen in the 03 Iraq invasion.  Many times they were simply Iraqi Army troops who shed their uniforms and fought as uncons.  And thats about as ersatz conditions to make a guerilla force as you can get.  It also doesnt really adress the fact that it seems anytime the US is involved anywhere in the Middle East foreign fighters steadily arrive and usually are there before the US ground forces, especially because the US military footprint is huge and we telegraph such moves with airstrikes, etc as a sovereign government...  I do concede I see sburkes point and the reality between the lines that its not going to change and there are bigger things for them to move onto besides changing SF2, that they intended SF2 only to be really an upgrade from SF1 not a new game.  Im ok with it as long as it gets us to the next release anyways

[sburke]

1 hour ago, Sublime said:

Idk apparently from the answers its just not happening no matter what is said

Not true, however if you are expecting an instantaneous fix, yeah you are not gonna get that.   They just completed a patch and they have a backlog for other projects.  This one is not gonna jump to the front of the priority list.  Whether it eventually gets changed or not is a BF decision and they have not commented.

However you can use Syrian army units and get the result even though they won't be wearing uncon outfits (unless someone does a mod...hint hint...)

[Lethaface]

38 minutes ago, sburke said:

Not true, however if you are expecting an instantaneous fix, yeah you are not gonna get that.   They just completed a patch and they have a backlog for other projects.  This one is not gonna jump to the front of the priority list.  Whether it eventually gets changed or not is a BF decision and they have not commented.

However you can use Syrian army units and get the result even though they won't be wearing uncon outfits (unless someone does a mod...hint hint...)

Recently something sprang into my mind: weren't fighters supposed to represent Hezbollah troops or sumfink? That would also explain the availability of advanced ATGMs like the AT-14 and the availability of RPG-29s? If so, I'd say it wouldn't be unfair for them to have the availability over some more artillery options.
Although I realize this isn't going to happen over night
 

[Sublime]

No I meant its not going to change as in like real changes to the uncons - like MikeyD mentioning he tried for 122mm rockets early and steve nixed it. Im not saying it wont be patched or the usual standards wont apply - just that Im looking at this more like a normal new release instead of it for what it is.

[JulianJ]

I actually think there is another important reason for uncons to have off-table light arty - mortars, (Hell cannon?), I particularly like the idea of the home-made Grad launcher, as @MikeyD suggests, which I expect most people have seen on vids - a tube/ramp with a bipod at the front or suchlike.

The reason is game balance.  The NATO side seems very overpowered already.  I am playing one of the games against only uncons, and my reserves are just sitting out in the open behind a berm in their Strykers because I do not expect or fear an artillery strike will cause them any hassle. In CMBS, artillery is to be feared, and quite regularly even the AI manages a deadly strike on me, sometimes on the deployment zone, more often if I have been hanging around somewhere too visible, like on top of a hill with spotters, command elements and AT teams,  for example.

It seems to me that the fighting power of insurgents is not to be under-rated, given what has happened to very powerful and well-trained forces in various parts of the world. I'd like to see a wider roster of equipment - the improvised weapons are, from my point of view, interesting.  Home-made armoured vehicles, including VBIEDS,  the Kurds' ingenious 50 cal and 14.5mm sniper/antimaterial rifles, technicals with a wide variety of weapons, and of course, home made rocket launchers and armed drones. 

I  know some of this is a bit "out of period" for 2008 but it is not unreasonable for an imaginary conflict to have an immediate effect on weapons development. 

ISIS's use of one or more massive, armoured VBIEDs (a sort of precision airstrike-equivalent) to blast their way into prepared positions, followed by an immediate aggressive ground attack, has been very effective against even battle-hardened fighters like the Kurds and the Syrian army and overwhelmed parts of the Iraqi army, with small numbers of attackers. So I don't think that uncons should necessarily be so weak and fodder for conventional troops.

 

[LukeFF]

11 minutes ago, JulianJ said:

The reason is game balance.

Battlefront's reasons for creating these games like they have never include notions of balance. If uncons have certain weaknesses built into them, they are there because in all likelihood they are also weaknesses in reality.

[LukeFF]

16 minutes ago, JulianJ said:

ISIS's use of one or more massive, armoured VBIEDs (a sort of precision airstrike-equivalent) to blast their way into prepared positions, followed by an immediate aggressive ground attack, has been very effective against even battle-hardened fighters like the Kurds and the Syrian army and overwhelmed parts of the Iraqi army, with small numbers of attackers. So I don't think that uncons should necessarily be so weak and fodder for conventional troops.

You are entirely missing the point that has already been made, namely that the game isn't about post-war counterinsurgency operations or an entity like ISIS rising to power. If you want uncons that have some serious capabilities, then use the Fighters group instead of combatants.

Edited January 6, 2019 by LukeFF

[Bozowans]

I thought the game was about the post-war counterinsurgency just as much as it is about the initial invasion. There are a number of scenarios in the game already that take place long after the invasion and deal with routine occupation forces running into trouble from insurgents.