Imperial Grunt

This is also pretty cool, though it is general and, of course, derived from open source material. Still, it shows how the US operations in Iraq finally got focused in 2005, after all the thrashing out during 2004. http://multimedia.threatswatch.org/showflash.php?media=anbarcampaign&w=620&h=475 I do not know if it is possible, but a great aspect for CM:SF would be if the player had a chance to make some operational decisions before the game begins, thus affecting how deployments are made. Then a series of battles can be played out based on that operational plan. Does anyone know if BF is taking any more suggestions or are they tapped out?

Does anyone know if players will get to kill Islamic Jihadists in the game? Check this out.. http://multimedia.threatswatch.org/showflash.php?media=alqaeda&w=640&h=480

Well, I have been twice to Iraq as well, being in the Marine Corps reserves. Once with an infantry battalion for the push to Bahgdad (with RCT 1) and then again as a civil affairs team leader working with the Iraqi police and local Iraqi leaders. I will be the first Marine to say that there are alot of fine soldiers in the US Army, especially in the light infantry and SF units. We are all warrriors for the United States fighting the same fight for our Nation. The Marines might have a different doctrine and use different tactics than certain Army units and vice versa, but they are more often complentary vice counterproductive. The Marine Corps will never fight a war and win a war without its US Army brother's in arms, as well as the Navy and Airforce. Each service has its strengths and weaknesses. The truth is that the USMC is a shock force to win battles, usually the US's initial battles. The US Army exits to win the Nation's wars. Sustained land combat. If the Marine Corps was organized and trained for that, then it would be just another Army unit. But as far as CM:SF goes, I thing that MEU's and MEB's would be a great US force to play, especially against enemy forces in higher numbers. A scenario might entail the US player to control and airfield, a port, and an embassy simultaneously, thus dividing up his forces. The typical "this side versus that side" need not apply. The battle of An-Nasiriyah would be a great CM:SF scenario. A very ambigious enemy force (the 3rd ID stated that the city was "clear"), an ambushed lost supply convoy, Marine units moving in under heavy fire, etc...) I can think of a hundred other scenarios about Iraq alone. Had the Iraqi army shown half the spine of the NVA, then the initial invasion would not have lasted 21 days. Thankfully, no one in the regular Iraqi army wanted to die for Saddam. But war always boils down to test of wills. The insurgents and terrorists continue to be a problem, but their cause is lost. Time will tell, but once a few taste freedom and prosperity, it is a very hard fight to destroy that. I have no doubt about the outcome in Iraq, it is just a matter of time. Anyways, I got rambling. Looking forward to the game alot. Semper Fi!

"We have no definite plans for follow up Modules, but it is highly likely that one of them will simulate US Marines." About time. In my opinion, simulating a Marine Expeditionary Unit would open the game to alot of scenarios and most of them could be based on real-life events. And of course there is all of the large scale deployments, like OIF and OEF. The Marines probably are the best combined-arms shock troops in the world with their air-ground tactics. It will be interesting to see how that is modeled in the game. The US Army employs combined-arms as well, but not usually down to the tactical level as much as the Marine Corps. And US Airforce CAS just is not the same as Marine CAS, where some of the pilots personally know some of the company commanders on the ground and have had infantry training in addition to pilot training. I hope the overall game looks like documentary, sort of like the History Channel's "Shootout:Fallujah" OOHH RAAHH!

Shootout: Fallujah is really good too. A modern CM2 would be awesome! Simulating insurgents would be fun cause they are all but invisiable until they strike.

My two cents, for what it is worth. Add or Change: 1) Add a map with military symbology to show "big picture" as well as known and probable enemy locations. Map automatically updates during game. Map may not match terrian 100%. Take away "God's view" option. 2) Squads and crews should automatically redistribute weapons and ammo as they take casualties. Squads and crews should automatically consolidate after taking casualties. Leaders should "bump up" positions. 3) Snipers should be more effective and much harder to spot. 4) Squads and crews should be able to use captured enemy weapons to varying degrees of effectiveness, based upon their training and experience. 5) Ammo from abandoned vehicles and weapons should be able to be redistributed. Add ammunition resupply trucks. 6) Plt and higher HQ's should all be able to call for and spot supporting arms, depending on nationality and training. 7) Model realistic tracer fire for different weapon types per nationality. Add effect of dust kicked up by small arms and machinegun fire. Fix the time of flight of bazooka and panzershrek rockets and for main gun rounds. 8) Add illumination rounds for night battles. 9) Extreme Fog of War option should be just seeing muzzle flashes, smoke, tracers and just glimpes of running infantry until that last 200 yards is reached, unless the battle is being fought on a golf course. 10) Study all the color footage shot during the assault on Fallujah and make the battle effects look like that. 11) Depending on the size of the game, create a time limit in which a side may give orders. If a BN or Co HQs is eliminated, that player should get less time to issue orders. 12) Make a Pacific Theater game! Semper Fi

Got it, thanks!

Hey, what happened to the other topics?

Game looks great. The H2 description mentions infantry. Are infantry units going to be incorporated into the game? "H2 Hover Tank - Generation D (Hurricane) The H2 works on similar principles as the H1 described above. The H2 was evolved for a direct support role, its hover propulsion and heavy armor allowing it to keep pace with front-line troops and bring its high explosive, direct-fire artillery rounds to bear on the enemy. The Hurricane is traditionally used against dug-in infantry or enemy structures and fortifications." Semper Fi

The infantry for the game could be clones too, just like these stormtroopers on the fringe of the Empire...

Wimp Bastard, those models do look cool and they make for perfect infantry teams that could be incorporated into the game. The need for zero-G suits would only be necessary for that environment and maybe the need for light infantry in places like that would be very minimal.

Then get them to make the code!

Will night battles take place?

Big maps would not inhibit the use of infantry. Like I mentioned in my post, they would travel in either armored personnel carriers or be landed by dropships in key locations to take control of key terrain and the like (a good assualt would probably have both elements working together). In the defense, they would not have to have much mobility. Having infantry included in the game provides more tactical options for the player and having a force with no "anti-matter" signature would provide for some good surprizes. Good squad control would be a key to any good game and I am sure it could be done. As far as game mechanics go, a fireteam or a squad would be equivilent to a vehicle, but with graphics and stats that simulate infantry capabilites and limitations. You could even make recon and heavy weapons teams in addition to the line units. As the unit took hits, its capability would degrade, like in Combat Mission. (But maybe they will be able to re-arm and equip when linked up with a base or their vehicles). Infantry units would be very useful and it would not make the game into a half-assed FPS. I am sure the armor fans would love the inclusion of tanks overrunning "crunchies" caught in the open. The fun would work both ways.

Will there by any amphibious vehicles such as a high tech version of the AAAV or even a subsurface vehicle that can climb out of the water onto shore and then drive inland? That would make for a great amphib assault. Semper Fi

Develop some infantry for the game! I hope the game will include infantry at some point. The units would be very useful in both offense and defense and for operating in "no-go" terrain for armored vehicles. Rather than using the "Starship Troopers" model, I recommend a combination of the US Army's "future warrior" program with some current tech being used by today's US soldiers and Marines. The "future land warrior" of 2025 will have camoflage that changes with the soldiers surroundings (an idea spawned by the Predator movie), a uniform that protects the soldier from Chem/Bio/Rad (just add-in zero-G/no atmosphere capablity), a type of exoskeleton giving increased speed, strength, and endurance, and very powerful weapons. In addition, the helmet will have a heads up display showing key information and be connected to a network for sharing information. This kind of infantry is in development now and definetly has a place in this game. Check out this link: www.natick.army.mil/soldier/wsit/content.htm The first advantage of infantry would be that they would be invisible from sensors once they dismounted from their vehicles or dropships. Thus they could occupy terrain and establish killzones and fire sacs while hidden. The squads would have automatic weapons and grenade launchers capable of taking out light vehicles and also have a sniper capablity for eliminating crew members and taking out key equipment (such as a tank's thermal sight) from a distance, and a limited number of anti-tank rockets, and fire-and-forget anti-tank missles, similar to the current AT-4 rocket (or RPG) and the Javelin fire and forget guided missle. Each squad would should also have the ablility to act as observers to provide battlefield reconnaissance as well as call indirect fire, such as artillery and mortars on spotted enemy units. Good infantry is a very powerful player on the modern battlefield and will continue to be a key part of any combined arms team. Elite formations, such as Marines and paratroopers will always have a place as both initial assault forces and supporting thier mech brothers in arms in the land campaign. I think the game would benefit greatly from including infantry into the tactical play.

I hope the game will include infantry at some point. The units would be very useful in both offense and defense and for operating in "no-go" terrain for armored vehicles. Rather than using the "Starship Troopers" model, I recommend a combination of the US Army's "future warrior" program with some current tech being used by today's US soldiers and Marines. The first advantage of infantry would be that they would be invisible from sensors once they dismounted from their vehicles or dropships. Thus they could occupy terrain and establish killzones and fire sacs while hidden. The squads would have automatic weapons and grenade launchers capable of taking out light vehicles and also have a sniper capablity for eliminating crew members and taking out key equipment (such as a tank's thermal sight) from a distance, and a limited number of anti-tank rockets, and fire-and-forget anti-tank missles, similar to the current AT-4 rocket (or RPG) and the Javelin fire and forget guided missle. Each squad would should also have the ablility to act as observers to provide battlefield reconnaissance as well as call indirect fire, such as artillery and mortars on spotted enemy units. Good infantry is a very powerful player on the modern battlefield and will continue to be a key part of any combined arms team. Elite formations, such as Marines and paratroopers will always have a place as both initial assault forces and supporting thier mech brothers in arms in the land campaign. I think the game would benefit greatly from including infantry into the tactical play.

Junk2drive, Vietnam would be a great tactical game, especially in the I Corps zone, where most of the more conventional fighting took place between the NVA and US forces. Early battles such as Chu Lai for the Marines and LZ Albany for the Army, Operation Buffalo, Hue city, etc...there is so many good possiblities.

Send in the Marines!!! WW11, Korea, and Vietnam. Got back from Iraq (again), this time I was able to teach some of my junior Marines basic infantry tactics using CMAK during our moments of downtime. Again, the USMC is one of the world's finest combined arms shock forces and have fought some great battles against very tough enemies. It would be a great game. When is CMX coming out? Are there any plans to allow limited battlefield resupply and capture and use enemy weapons? What about napalm (and the cool graphics that would go with it?) Why do professional snipers suck so bad? Why cant you consolidate reduced squads into new teams/squads? Why dont squads re-man BAR's and other key weapons after the one guy carrying it is hit? Why cant a squad pick up bazookas, or other weapons, from KIA bazooka teams and use them? Can illumination rounds be added for artillery and mortars for night battles? Trip flares? Why does artillery run out of ammo so fast? Why does firing smoke rounds subtract from artillery's HE ammo load? The Marines perfected close air support and the blind, burn, and blast technique for clearing bunkers in WWII, can that be simulated? So many questions.

Scenarios for a modern day version are endless. The Marine Corps Gazette features tactical decision games every month which are often very good. The CM system would work for battles ranging from small SF teams to entire brigades easily. Jane's provides alot of unclassified details about modern weaponry, which will easily suffice for the purposes of the game. The point would be the tactical gameplay, not a debate over the actual range of a Hellfire missle. Besides, terrain, WX, and target ID, often bring the actual effective range of modern day weapons back down to 2000m or less. For the US player, firing a tank at a target that turned out to be a schoolbus full of children might cause the loss of the scenario, or the battle. In an operation it could mean that the US player has fewer forces to work with, as the politians have ordered a withdrawal. There are so many options to accomplish a good game, and a balanced fight. Had the Iraqis shown the strength that the VC and NVA did in Vietnam, there is no way Baghdad would have fallen so quickly. Look at what the Chechen rebels did to the first Russian task force, equipped with T-72 tanks,BMP-2's, and Hind gunships, when they first pushed into Grozny. Superior firepower does not always mean automatic victory. As a point, here is a passage from the book "Phase Line Green" by Nicholas Warr. It is about the authors experience as a Marine rifle platoon commander at the battle for Hue. He describes an airstike by a couple of F-4's on a particular stone tower that dominated the inner palace. "The NVA AK-47 and .30 caliber machinegun rounds ripped upward, directing their light green and white tracer rounds at the invading Phantoms. The enemy's constant and defiant small-arms fire was only momentarily interrupted exactly when the napalm burst into a whooshing roar of flame and smoke and exactly when the high explosives burst their gut-wrenching concussive power on the tower. Immedietaly after, the NVA gunners stuck their crazy heads back up and started shooting again at the flame spewing dual exhausts of the departing Phantom's jets. The Phantoms made pass after disciplined pass, dropping no more than two bombs at a time, but the determined NVA gunners survived all of them and always had the last word in the deadly duel. One Phantom even took a couple of hits up one of his tailpipes and had to limp back to Da Nang without dropping all his ordnance on the tower." Two days later, a company of Marines took the tower, only to be driven off in a counterattack the next day. The company countattacked four times, and on the fifth day for the battle for the tower, it was finally seized. This scenario could easily be played in CM. The sky is the limit. And a Pacific version of CM should also be made!

CM Pacific would provide an entirely new perspective of WWII tactical combat. It is a shame that the developers have no interest in the Pacific theater, and the entire other half of the Second World War. With so many tactical wargames focused on Europe, a Pacific theater game would be very unique, and might even attract other gamers to CM. I did not get CMBB because I have played other games about the eastern front several times. I am looking forward to CMAK because it is unique and has the upgrades contained in CMBB. A Pacific CM should be the next logical step in terms of game upgrades, AI, and new units to command. Time will tell if the developers ever feel up to the challenge of the Pacific front and the utmost savagery experienced in those campaigns.

Los is right. The game should be made. It would also open possibilities like what if the Marine Corp had a division in Europe, similiar to the 4th Marine Brigade in WWI. Or if the Japenese sent troops to the Eastern Front. The bottom line is that the Pacific should not be ignored and it would be another top-notch war game. Someone with some clout with Battlefront needs to sound revielle and get them working on it. Semper Fi

I am pretty sure that when the new squad structure was officially adopted in 44 that the assistant squad leader position went away. I know that there is not an official assistant squad leader in the current T/O, which has not changed since WWII. The senior fireteam leader acts as an assistant squad leader when required. The Marine Corps experimented with an 11 man squad in the 80's, with a squad leader and two 5-man fireteam's, but the WWII era T/O proved to offer the best in firepower and flexibility. Giving corporals (and senior lance corporals) the authority and responsiblity of leading a fireteam also makes them produce results far beyond them simply being a senior member of a squad or section. It is also more efficient for a sergeant to supervise the actions of three fireteam leaders than to try and keep tabs on 10 or more individuals. With fireteams, a squad can conduct not only fire and movement (assaulting forward toward on objective, providing its own suppression as it moves) but allows fire and maneuver on the squad level. A squad leader can direct one fireteam to establish a base of fire while the other two maneuver to a more advantageous position or to the objective. It works well. I guess this level of initiative by squads would be hard to model, but it could be simulated by the squads being a little more efficient, in addition to the added firepower of 3 BAR's per squad. At any rate, the battles in the Pacific not only entailed amphib assaults, but alot of ground fighting. A Pacific game would not just be storming beaches. Guadalcanal alone was a tremendous campaign (could you imagine being landed on an island..then seeing the Navy just take off to fight the Japanese fleet) and involved ground maneuver. The unique aspects of a Pacific game would make it very interesting, challenging, and entertaining to play. The Pacific would be a great addition to CM and it needs to be made!

Thanks for the discussion. Maybe there is some interest after all. But simply putting US Marine uniforms on US Army squads wont be the same. The Marine Corps was experimenting with the fireteam concept at the beginning of the war and by around 1944 had adopted a rifle squad structure of three, four-man fireteams, each fireteam with a BAR. This 13 (3 fireteams and a squad leader)man squad still exits today and eventually the US Army officially (I think after Korea) adopted the fireteam concept as well (the Army's current 9 man squad has two four-man fireteams). Additionally the Japanese Imperial Army was very different from the Germans. I guess alot of work would have to go into the game mechanics. Still the thought of landing a battalion under the supporting fire of point blank 16"naval gun bombardment and close air support(how 'bout some F4U Corsairs), to immediately going into assaulting expertly camoflagued, interlocking, mutual supporting positions with flamthrowers, bangalore torpedoes, and satchel charges would be a practically shocking game, especially by Western Front standards. Add the light infantry fighting in Burma and other places and you have an entirely new Combat Mission game like no other. Vehicles were also used in the Pacific, especially landing craft and light tanks. The US Army even conducted a BN sized tank attack during the battle of Okinawa, unsupported by infantry, only to see the BN defeated by Japanese suicide teams with explosive charges who charged the tanks from concealed positions. Flame tanks provided crucial fire support. There are plenty of vehicles to game.

Thanks for the word. That is too bad. The Pacific theater always was a second priorty to the European theater despite the very tough fight. It would be a more infantry oriented game but it would provide a different taste of tactical combat, especially with the terrain, Japanese tactics such as banzia charges, and the savagery of the fighting. I think it would be a great game, and it would add a higher level of intensity as you watch your men advance down a jungle road..to literally bump into a camoflagued bunker..or try to defend an airfield at night..with the Japanese ready to charge.