Sgt Joch

President Obama gave a speech yesterday at the National CounterTerrorism Center.... ...which looks suspiciously like the CTU in 24... ..so who copied who?

The tactics are probably an issue ( and I tend to lose more men than I should myself ). I think we all tend to rush more in setting up and carrying an attack than US/UK soldiers would in RL (since our lives do not depend on it). Before attacking a particular building, we should have troops looking at it for 10 minutes or more, from many angles just to see if movement is detected, but who wants to wait that long in a game. regarding your point about an issue with British v. US body armour, just to be safe, maybe someone could run some tests just to make sure that no last minute bug may have crept in.

Calling the game "unrealistic" is a bit strong and I presume not the adjective you meant to use. The "rooftop" bug has already been fixed and will be in 1.21, no doubt the "MG not on the balcony" bug will be too. Small bugs always tend to creep in and are dealt with. Playing as the Brits is more of a challenge, they have smaller squads, less firepower, more fragile AFVs. You have to be more careful in how you use them than USMC squads. I am still working on the optimum tactics, but I have not seen anything yet that would lead me to conclude that the modeling of the British is out of whack.

Certainly the fact that weapons now are much more deadly than in 1917 is a given, yet the principle that "overwhelming suppressive fire" is one of the key to a successful assault still holds. What the proper ratio should be is, of course, debatable. In the article Jons linked, the U.S. army in 1976 conducted tests which showed a 88% success rate when a 2:1 ratio of base of fire elements to the maneuver element was used. I have often used a 2:1 ratio in CMx1 and CMSF, but find that in CMSF my assault element suffers more casualties than I like. Perhaps bumping up the shooter/mover ratio to 3:1 or 4:1 is the key. One of the advantages of a simulator like CMSF is that you can easily conduct this type of experiment.

The article Jons linked above is very interesting. It is nice to see that the tactics Rommel developped are still being applied. In terms of application to CMSF, I was surprised about the high ratio of shooters over movers that he used. I typically use a 2:1 ratio, namely 2 units providing covering fire for each one moving, but I will experiment with Rommel's tactics to see what impact it has. Who am I to argue with the Desert Fox? The problem with artillery are the spotting rounds which can be up to 100-150 meters off target and therefore can potentially hit friendly troops in that area. I personally try to keep my troops at least 200 meters away, anything closer and you risk friendly casualties. 50 meters with the rounds set to "personnel" is too close, you will definitely suffer casualties at that range if your troops are out in the open.

Interesting topic. I have been playing as Syrians quite often lately and they can be effective on the attack if used properly. Some comments, all based on H2H play, some of which have already been stated. As a general comment, playing as Syrians is similar to playing as the Soviets in CMBB in 41-43. They have numerical superiority, but lower quality troops and equipment. To carry out a successful attack, you first need decent troops, green/regulars with a decent morale at a minimum. You also need numerical superiority, at least 1.5:1 all arms and ideally 2:1 or more. You also need good terrain, urban or broken rural terrain. Attacking across a wide open map is suicide. All of these pre-conditions are realistic. If the Syrians did launch a counter-attack against NATO forces, they would use their best troops (Special Forces/Republican Guards) and attack on terrain that would maximize their advantages. On the attack, the most important rule is to avoid the long-range fight and get as close to the Blue forces as quickly as possible. Getting into a long-range fight with Blue forces is suicide, Blue has too many ways to kill your forces before they can even get into range (i.e. tanks, javelins, ATGM equipped Strykers/Bradleys/Hummers, Air power, Artillery. etc.) Getting in close maximises the effectiveness of Syrian short range weapons (i.e. greater number of shooters, RPGs) and takes away the advantage of Blue Air Power/artillery because of potential friendly fire. The attack should be led by small groups of infantry/RPG teams advancing under cover or from cover to cover until they can establish where the Blue forces are and how their defences are setup. Syrian AFVs should not lead or participate in the attack since they are too vulnerable to Blue AT weapons. They should be held back out of LOS until Blue infantry strongpoints have been identified. They can then be used to clear up the strongpoints, so the infantry attack can then continue. Red artillery is only useful as pre-planned barrages. The long delays (12-15-18 minutes) make it useless in an attack. You are much better off using AFVs/RPGs to provide quick artillery support, as required. In certain ways, attacking as Red is easier than attacking as Blue since you do not have to worry as much about casualties. You often have an infantry-heavy force which allows you the luxury to fight an attrition-type battle against the Blue player who is typically short of infantry and can't afford an even kill ratio.

It depends for what. For example, I had a 1.20 game recently where I ordered a LAV to "Area Fire" on a building that had four windows. The LAV then proceeded to hose the entire wall, sweeping from left to right, firing at each of the windows for 5 seconds.

You won't be disappointed. It is easily the most complete simulation of modern tactical warfare available at this time... ..plus it is extremely addictive and fun to play. If you are interested in trying it H2H, head on over to "World at War", where a lot of CMSF players hang out. http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?esid=c3ca2b822f9906d44d040c44c6f47a12〈=3&refcode=0&location=intro

:eek:.................I am just starting to get over the shock that BFC is planning to redo the ENTIRE Eastern Front from Barbarossa to Berlin....:eek: ....and in all those 16 modules, we won't have room for more than "some" Axis minor powers? We at least need the Italians, Romanians and Hungarians, although I agree we can probably exclude the Finns...

very nice work. It was a joy to watch.

I have a very good idea who you are, both here and at BoB. please, please keep posting as "egamarl".

I find it funny that more than 2 years after CMSF has come out, you still have people coming out of the "ether" proclaiming "facts" which have been repeatedly disproved in the past. CMSF is much deeper and complex under the hood than CMx1. 1:1 representation is more than just graphical. In CMx1, infantry does not, for all practical purposes, exist in the 3d world. Infantry is treated as in a 2d wargame, an entire infantry unit is seen by the program as just a single point. Your infantry unit interacts with "terrain" as a 2d unit would... so many movement points to enter a road, woods or buildings with a combat modifier for incoming fire depending on what terrain hex it occupies. It also has the effect that terrain does not really exist for CMx1 infantry. You can have an infantry unit enter any hex, except impassable terrain, by paying a certain number of movement points. Infantry can walk through walls and enter buildings whether there is a door or not and can fire at enemy soldiers through a solid wall. In CMSF, infantry exists as fully 3d. Each soldier exists in the 3d world as a separate entity, basically a mini-vehicle. This has many effect, for example, soldiers need to go through a "door" to enter a building. They need to look through a "window" to spot enemy soldiers or fire at them, etc. However I doubt our new friend "egamarl" is interested in a real debate. I always find it suspicious when a "new" member, obviously knowledgeable about CMx1 "suddenly" decides to register on the forum in september 2009.

Lets face it, we all have our fav period for WW2. I have always been more interested in the Eastern Front, partly because it was the decisive front in WW2 and partly, because the Eastern Front was so mysterious when I was growing up. There were tons of books available on NWE 44-45, but very few from the eastern front. Another totally irrational reason is the fact that Canadian and Russian weather are very similar. I can play a winter CMBB battle on a battlefield covered by snow and fir trees and then go out for a walk with my dogs and see the very same landscape...minus the bullets of course..

Although in theory you can get a hit at longer ranges, it is not the most efficient use of RPGs. First, your crew will miss a lot at longer ranges thereby wasting a lot of ammo. Second, when your crew fires, it exposes their location increasing the chance they will be killed by counter-fire before they hit anything. I only fire long range as a last resort. The most efficient use of RPGs is in ambush position, firing when the target is 0-100 meters away. It is then almost a garanteed one-shot, one-kill, even against Blue tanks with a side/rear shot. You can also use your RPGs to target enemy occupied buildings. They are quite deadly in that role.

I always have a couple of CMBB games on the go on top of my CMSF games. Sure, I see how simplistic it is over CMx2, but it still works, is still fun to play against a good opponent and its the only way I can get my OstFront fix. I will retire it from my Hard Drive when CM:Bagration comes out. If you really want to scratch your OstFront itch (or make it worse ), pick up a copy of Glantz's latest book: http://www.amazon.com/Gates-Stalingrad-Soviet-German-Operations-April-August/dp/0700616306 I am about 150 pages in and it is excellent. On a related point, do CMx1 players find that playing CMSF has improved their CMx1 gameplay? I played CMBB and CMAK for several years before CMSF came along and now realize I was not using the most efficient tactics. When CMSF came out, along with most other players, I had to relearn new tactics and make full use of combined arms tactics to be an effective player. When I now play CMBB, I approach it and play it as if it was a CMSF game and I find that this new approach has substantially improved my gameplay.

I am only talking from the time we testers received the first beta build until it was released to the public, that time frame is typically 3-4 months, since on top of test-driving the builds, we also help out with the design and playtesting of the single-player campaign and scenarios. AFAIR, the USMC module was more work since a bunch of new features were added and bugs fixed. In the British module, the biggest headache was just getting their quirky TO&E right. Regarding the expected release date, every game always ends up taking way longer than everyone expects. When I joined the team, Steve said we would start working on CM:Normandy in the summer of 2008.......

I like AKD's base sound mod myself, sounds great on my 5.1 speaker system.

That is GeorgeMC's "Rescue" scenario available, I believe, at the repository. I just finished that one PBEM as the "freedom fighters" , squeezing out a minor victory over my U.S. opponent. Quite enjoyable PBEM since it is balanced and enjoyable for both sides. It is quite long however, 100 turns. Another very good one PBEM, even though I am only 10 minutes in, is "Breaking the Bank" from the British Module. I am playing that one as British, but it is a challenging scenario.

note that you also need to keep friendly troops at least 400-500 meters away from the outer edge of the "area target" if you want to avoid "Blue on Blue" incidents.

Well to be fair, development of CMSF is basically finished by this point. I think we all agree that CMSF works well now and only some bug fixes, planned for 1.21 are required. Even when the British module was being worked on, Charles was spending a lot of time working on Normandy and the time to push the British module out the door from the time us Beta Testers got our sweaty little hands on it was not appreciably longer than the time it took to get the USMC module out. There is only one Charles, but that are many "volunteers" behind the scenes to do the grunt work.

NATO is being worked on now and should be out before Normandy. Steve could give a better time frame. As you can guess, Charles is working almost full time on Normandy and CMSF is feeling a bit neglected.

great find. Thanks for posting it.

The problem appears to be that players call in airstrikes too close to friendlies. A distance of 500-600 meters between "target area" and friendlies appears to be required to ensure friendlies are safe. YMMV this document discusses some of the issues around CAS and friendly troops: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/90-20/fm_90-20_jfire.pdf the interesting bits are at pages 69-71 of the pdf: -Any troops within 1 km of the target ("troops in contact") may be potentially at risk; -the "safe" distance between the target of an air strike and "friendlies" varies from 375 to 500 meters for dumb bombs/LGBs down to within 150 meters for 20-30 mm cannon fire.

Its not just a RAF issue. In a recent PBEM game of "Streets of Hama" under 1.11, I also had a friendly fire incident where air units given an "area target" order that had a spotted stationary T-90 in the middle of the designated area, ignored the area and instead strafed friendly grunts running between two buildings about 200 meters outside the "area". I see two possible explanations, either Air Units are misidentifying units on the ground more than they should or we "players" are calling air strikes way too close to friendly units. Either way, its worth taking a second look.