Sgt Joch

look here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88201 someone with Vista posted that on the Tech support forum. I do not if it works since I have a Nvidia card/XP.

Colonel T.Reese, U.S.Army, an adviser to the Iraqi military has written a very blunt memo on the current capabilities of the Iraqi Government and military forces which has made its way to the net: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/world/middleeast/31advtext.html?ref=middleeast some excerpts: On the Government of Iraq (GOI): On the Iraqi military/security forces (ISF):

You can drop in to World at War as well: http://www.worldatwar.eu/index.php?〈=3&refcode=0&location=intro

its a very vast topic covering Norway 1940, France-Belgium 1940, North Africa 1940-43, Malaya-Singapore 1941-42, Burma 1942-45, Italy 1943-45, NW Europe 1944-45, it might be easier to ask for book reccomendations on specific campaigns or battles.

Tried the sand variant in game, a beauty! The recognition flags are a nice touch.

I started a couple of brit module 1.20 PBEM games and find that the file sizes are appreciably bigger over 1.11, with many over 10 mb almost from the start. Anyone else anything odd?

maybe in real life, although even then since a lot of the info is classified, it is hard to know, but if you test in the game, you will see the M1A1s have weaker frontal protection than the M1A2s.

real world data on the T-90 is classified, so hard to know just how capable it is. In game, the T-90 is a bit better than the T-72, but still outclassed in head to head matchups against the best NATO tanks, like the M1A2 SEP or the Challenger 2 enhanced. It is more evenly matched in head to head matchups against the older M1s, like the M1A1HC or the USMC's M1A1 FEP which have weaker frontal armour protection.

very nice.

looks like the insurgents are already probing the Marines defences: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/world/asia/16general.html?ref=asia and some photos of the fighting on the British side: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/world/europe/16britain.html

And before our British friends go into shock over what Steve just posted, I should point out that the Challenger 2 will massacre any combination of Syrian armour as ruthlessly and efficiently as the M1A2 (and with more panache because of that cool british accent).

BigDuke6's plot line is ambitious, but if we want this project to actually get off the ground, we should maybe stick to a mini-campaign or a scenario pack. As Jons can attest, managing a full-blown campaign is a lot of work. The strategy behind "Operation Khanjar" is actually very smart. NATO only took over pinpricks in Hemland, but those spots are located right in the middle of the best Opium fields. NATO has already annouced it will be setting up permanent bases in the valley. Since I presume they know the taliban can read, they may be hoping the taliban will attack the bases or outposts in the area. For NATO, it is a win-win, no need to go chasing after the Taliban over impassable terrain. Either they win the valley without a fight or they sit in defensive positions while the Taliban attacks them. On the other hand, the Taliban can't really afford to just walk away from this prime real estate. On top of the money they would be leaving on the table, there is the prestige issue of how this would be perceived by the civilian population they are trying to win over or control through intimidation. They can't just walk away without a fight. There is also the boost their cause would get if they could overrun a NATO FOB/outpost and parade the prisoners in front of the media. I presume the Taliban strategy is to lay low until the bases are setup and some of the forces have moved out before trying to mount an attack. so a campaign could look like this: Phase I: initial attack NATO attacks and takes over certain key spots in the valley. You would have mostly recon type scenarios since the bulk of the Taliban would retreat, although there would still be skirmishes, ambushes, IEDs, to deal with. Phase 2: counter-attack After the NATO are setup and the bulk of the forces have moved out, the Taliban probe the NATO defences and try an all-out assault on an outpost. Phase 3: counter-offensive Depending on the resluts of phase 2, NATO reinforces the FOBs/outpost and attacks the Taliban forces.

does it show I have free time on my hands? I found these photos of the Marines operation in Helmand: that terrain, lush farm valleys, square adobe type houses, is eminently doable with the current map editor. from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/asia/02afghan.html

again, coming in a bit late, but this could also be of interest to a CMSF Helmand campaign: this was apparently the situation on the ground before the operation began on july 2. both from a NY Times article on the situation: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/asia/03helmand.html?fta=y

I dont know if that was already posted, since it is a week old, but interesting nonetheless: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/world/asia/08afghan.html obviously, the Taliban will not tackle NATO forces headon, but will wait for the opportunity to come back in when they see an opening. Also this article on the increasing sophistication of IEDs in Afghanistan: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/world/asia/15ied.html

On the lack of dust, muzzle flashes, etc. of unspotted units, this is my favorite change in 1.20 to the core engine. This was the one big "gamey" hole still left in CMSF PBEM. In game, despite the worries of some, it works very naturally and seamlessly.

yes, the warrior in game can only carry 7 extra troops, but the typical British infantry section only has 7 soldiers, so it is not an issue.

.........CMSF2.... ..........CM:NORMANDY2....... ...been there, done that...when are we going to get down to the real action, like CM:Vietnam........:cool:

That is an understandable sentiment. I know german players that prefer to play as "Germans" and Russian players that prefer to play as the "Soviets". I also have qualms about playing against the "Canadians" in CMAK and prefer to choose the Canadian side when I can. However, I have never personally had a CMSF player refuse to play the RED side. If a player has a real problem playing as the reds, it is probably not a good idea for him to be playing wargames to begin with (or have ready access to firearms ).

I am not really into ladders. If you are looking for opponents, there are many right here hanging around the forum. -One new club which started and now has a nice size CMSF community is "World at War": http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?esid=574d3cd5fe9de15e4e547e33f38d6a39〈=3&refcode=0&location=intro They are hosting a CMSF tournament, "Syrian Dawn", in which through a combination of dazzling skill (and dumb luck ), I managed to find myself in the final. My oppo and I are now in the process of detroying a Syrian town.... Its a very welcoming and informal group if you want to check it out. -"Band of Brothers" :http://webandofbrothers.de/index.htm does not officially support CMSF since the leadership had the same irrational "Burn the Heretics!" reaction when it came out, but a core group of CMSF players hang out in the "other games" section of the forum.

Back to the main thread, this is really a matter of personal choice and again the same old argument about whether ww2 is somehow "better" than all the other wars. Of course on a strategic/operational level, Syria is no match for US/NATO (anymore than Iraq or Afghanistan), but neither was the Soviet Union v. Nazis, pre-november '42 or the Nazis after july '43. However, none of that has any pertinence whatsoever to CM. At the platoon/company level, you can find interesting matchups in any period, whether you are playing as '41 Soviets, '45 Nazis or '09 Syrians. I have played hundreds of CMBB, CMAK PBEM games over the years. I have now transitioned almost exclusively to CMSF PBEM games. There is now a large pool of interesting CMSF PBEM scenarios, CMSF PBEM games, clubs and players. I have played as both US and Syrian and the games are as fun, tense and challenging as any CMBB/CMAK PBEM game. There is certainly no lack of a "worthy foe". If someone wants to limit themselves to only playing ww2 games out of personal interest, that is of course their choice. But I dont see how anyone can argue with a straight face that tactical matchups which occured in ww2 are somehow more "challenging" than those which occurred in other wars. I enjoy ww2 as much as the next guy, but I don't see why I should limit myself to only playing with the obsolete equipment of a war which occurred 70 years ago. WW2 represents only 6 out of 6,000 years that humans have been killing each other in a semi-organized fashion. Each of the Vietnam war, Afghanistan war and Iraq war have now lasted longer than ww2. I am looking forward, like everyone else to the new CM:ww2 game, but it will certainly not stop me from playing CMSF, the new CM:Afghanistan game or (hopefully:)), CM:Vietnam and CM:Korea.

Next CMSF module is NATO: Canada, Netherlands and Germany. Looking forward to that one more than the Brits...

I believe the proper tem is "Kettlerian"... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Kettlerian

Presumably, how well this game does outside of Russia (other than sales to Nutty Wargamers like us ) will strongly influence the possibility of other games. If a game about a guerilla war in Asia with no U.S. troops in it does reasonably well in the U.S....then another game about a guerilla war in Asia that does have U.S. troops in it is almost a sure thing...

The 10:1 figure thrown about is the minimum ratio of friendly force to insurgents to defeat an insurgency in classic COIN theory. Although that is just a rough rule of thumb. The problem with COIN (if we digress for a moment away from CMSF) is that no one really knows what causes a successful insurgency or what are the winning ingredients for a successful counter-insurgency. For example: -Vietnam and Algeria waged sucessful insurgencies, but those in Malaya and the Northern Ireland were defeated. -North Korea tried ignite an insurgency in South Korea, but it failed dismally. -Iraq had an insurgency from 2003 to 2007ish, but one never occured under Saddam Hussein. After the fact, it is easy to point to internal and/or external factors that may have caused the insurgency to ignite or peter out, but no one really has the magic formula. The best NATO can do is apply the standard strategy: provide security, hunt down insurgents, push for reforms and hope for the best in the long run.