Elmar Bijlsma

And let us not forget the splendid area firing on last known location. I think it's one of the biggest leaps forward. No more frantic shooting at the beginning of a round and then chirping crickets for the rest of the turn until someone raises his head again. No, a convincing continuity in gunfire. Battles not only play more realistically, they sound it as well.

But why mount them on a tank? The tank certainly isn't better for it. Quite the opposite. I don't see what it adds. That is a calliope+vehicle I can approve of.

I never quite got the point of the Sherman Calliope. Thus I feel the same about their inclusion.

Oopsie !!!

That image doesn't display for me even if I feed the link in to my browser manually. But FALs come in a large variety. It could be a G3 too, the Pakistanis must've sent over more then a few and Steve brought them up just now. To me though, judging by the hand guard, it seems a FAL. Who knows, the game may have both!

G3, are you sure? Could be, they look similar enough, but looked like FN FAL to me in the screenshots.

Thqt's kinda the point being made. Yes, they do have them and they are being used but not in any role resembling conventional warfare. AC-130s do not fly near defended airspace if they can possibly help it. They are too vulnerable. That it would get involved in frontline fighting is exceedingly unlikely. While it's a cool plane, it's pretty exotic and not all that likely to be used in the environments modelled in CMSF.

Both CF-188 and CF-18 seem to be correct. Curiously, CF-118 seems to be in wide usage also, though I can't find out why this is. Might very well be erroneous.

Not at all. They've got nukes and are crazy enough to use them. And there is inconveniently located Seoul. But I think China is going to loose patience. Kim's visit to China recently possibly was him having to explain himself. China is a big, BIG believer in regional stability and I doubt they think it very funny. Either North Korea will change policy, or China will.

Foxholes are a rather generous description of what are minor indentations placed under troops at the start of a scenario. It's entirely possible you've just never noticed them before, they are that marginal.

I think you are making a bit of leap there. The failure to include Ye Olde Hunt doesn't really say anything about the WEGO component being an afterthought. Sufficient work has gone in to WEGO specific issues to show that hasn't been the case. Though I can't recall if there ever was an explanation as to why Hunt didn't make it it nor hasn't made a return in the patches.

Disagree, you don't want to overburden the UI. Especially not for things that cater almost exclusively to the more control freak minority. The old Move to Contact and Hunt orders would be good.

Surely you aren't talking about that finest of all battle rifles, the FN FAL? You heathen!

TF Thunder is the campaign that comes with the game. It may be called TF Lightning.

It almost sounds as if this was a scenario where retreating in the face of superior forces was pre calculated. Or was it the mistimed artillery that was the deciding factor? I hope it's the former. I'm getting tired of winnable scenarios, because I almost invariably do. Scenarios where I am not expected to win if I engage would keep me on my toes nicely. Anyway, thanks for the AAR. I was set to write this one off as I can only play so much CM in one day and with the Dutch on the way in NATO and of course Normandy this seemed a title too many. But I think I might just squeeze it in there somewhere. Nitpick: Musa Qala is in Helmand, not Kandahar province.

Well, if you played a previous CM game, you might want to start with the hotkeys stickied here in the forum. As for mods, well, mostly you should just look at the mods and pick the ones you like best. Go here: http://cmsfmods.greenasjade.net/mods BFC's repository Particularly to be recommended are the sound mods, Scipio's weapons icons and Pinetree's unit base modifications. I'd consider those the genuine must haves. As for scenarios, there's so much great stuff out there, but many people swear by Red v Red type scenarios and campaigns.

Finally, someone does Korea. Been a while, I think.

You aren't the only one. In an old thread about this same subject I commented on the fact that, without fail, those people participating in the thread who thought the RPGs were over-modelled were giving examples of being on the receiving end. Those that piped up that RPGs were under-modelled were describing instances where they were the users of those RPGs. That thread taught me more about humans then RPGs.

We are up to version 1.21

BFC have in the past indicated a direct comparison with Iraq is not entirely useful due to RPGs there typically being older and suffering badly from shoddy storage and handling.

Yes, in this specific situation it might have been better to wait for the CLU to cool. But if you changed that behaviour it would mean that in other situations someone rams his keyboard through the monitor in frustration as his squad gets toasted because they won't use the AT-4s right away.

The Javelin takes a bit to prepare. If your guys would have waited until it was ready then someone else would come to the forum complaining that the AT-4s didn't fire and this wait got the squad killed.

Nou, wat moet ik hier nu weer van vinden? Het begint steeds meer een trend om af en toe in je moerstaal te posten hier. Lijkt me geen slim idee. Wordt het zo onleesbaar van. Gewoon in het Engels converseren, wel zo netjes.

I agree, you can hear a bit of Irish in it easy enough.

Yup, I seem to recall reading that the Romans rotated their front lines every few minutes. In more Medieval times this probably wouldn't have happened, feudal armies rarely being very well trained or disciplined. But some ad hoc stepping back seems very likely to me. You'd have to. However, I caution against having too brutal a view of combat in any case. Charging the enemy a la Braveheart doesn't seem to me to have been widely practised. Given that some battles raged evenly for hours with pretty minimal casualties, I'm convinced that there would typically be little enthusiasm to exposing oneself the other sides' pointy things. I'm sure things got a bit more vigorous if there was a particular grudge, religious difference or tactical advantage but as a whole most killing got done on an opponent trying to run for it. One of my favourite bits of history takes place during The Rough Wooing. During one battle, possibly Pinkie, Henry VIII gets a bit testy with the commander of his Border Horse, after observing that their charge against their opposite number of Scottish Borderers didn't seem to produce any casualties even after a protracted melee. Turns out that the various clans on both sides valued their familial and "business" ties to their nominal opponents more then their respective remote Kings. Some of the finest light cavalry in Europe, and they got told off for not trying to kill the enemy.