Apocal

I should've RTFM. The updated online pdf, not the old print version I have. OK, my apologies, I didn't realize that M1A1 TUSKs were already in the game. They were well hidden in the selection menu of the CAB (MOUT); it's kinda random, you sometimes get them with fair quality, sometimes with normal. And the BC never or rarely gets TUSK, you have to check the line companies. But once they are there you get the ERA, the gunner's fifty, the loader's gunshield, everything. Just to expand on this a bit, WRT to tanks: CAB-Poor: M1A2 40%/ M1A1HC 60% CAB-Fair: M1A1SA 40%/ M1A2 40%/ M1A1HC 10%/ M1A2 SEP 10% CAB-Normal: M1A1SA 70%/ M1A2 SEP 30% CAB-Good: M1A1SA 60%/ M1A2 SEP 40% CAB-Excellent: M1A2 SEP 100% CABM-Poor: M1A2 40%/ M1A1HC 40%/ M1A1SA 20% CABM-Fair: M1A1SA TUSK 40%/ M1A1HC 30%/ M1A2 SEP 20%/ M1A2 SEP TUSK 10% CABM-Normal: M1A1SA TUSK 60%/ M1A2 SEP TUSK 40% CABM-Good: M1A2 SEP TUSK 90%/ M1A1SA TUSK 10% CABM-Excellent: M1A2 SEP TUSK 100% I'm not quite sure the BC is supposed to have a different tank than everyone else in most cases, but I can roll with it.

1. Impressive. 2. www.fraps.com

Easiest way for me zoom out, shift select all units and CLEAR TARGET.

Roger that. I set the unit as 1CD which, AIUI, is the premier heavy formation in the Army but I'm not sure if they even they are even part of CMSF's hypothetical invasion. Probably inherent difficulty, I'll rework the REDFOR to make them a little less overpowered. Roger that. Did the briefing do a good job of conveying the context behind the fight?

As far as I've seen, heat has an equal effect on both Red and Blue forces, all other things considered. Which is to say, way too little, insofar as a I can loadout a rifle squad with two CLUs, four Javelins, five or six AT4s, maximum 5.56, extra 40mm and the effect on their mobility is neglible. Speaking from personal experience, that is rather unrealistic.

Is there a timeline and OOB available for the main campaign? I'm seriously thinking about putting together a campaign with all these three quarters finished missions and maps I've made, only thing is that I'd like to make sure it isn't totally out-of-sync with the storyline. Also, I just submitted my first mission to the Repository. Definitely looking for feedback regarding the relative difficulty, the setup, etc.

Thank you for the link hcrof. Thread addressing DPICM and why it's not in-game: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74506&highlight=DPICM While there certainly was a case during the takedown of Baghdad where two cav troops, Bonecrusher and Crazyhorse Trp of the 3-7 CAV, nearly overrun during a sandstorm, called for DPICM from MLRS danger close. It's not specified in my one resource covering the action ('Takedown' by Jim Lacey), exactly how close, but anything at or under 2 kilometers is danger close for MLRS. Most maps in CMSF aren't that big. The other wargames that depict DPICM; Steel Beasts series, Steel Panthers: Main Battle Tank, the Armored Task Force series, Operation Flashpoint with the Unified Artillery mod, all have one thing in common: map sizes large enough to prevent one player from calling down DPICM on the other half of the map and winning. CMSF is great, don't get me wrong, but IMHO, map sizes are just too small to have DPICM be workable. Additionally, there is the problem of not being able to control field artillery/mortar loadouts, so if the guns have DPICM, they have DPICM and not a damned thing you can do about it. But that's a decidedly tertiary concern compared to the former.

"Sounds like a design flaw to me!" In case some of you guys don't understand where that comes from:

I'm not sure Syria has the ATGMs associated with the Hind, at least not that I've heard. Of course, not saying I'm definitely right on that account, just I've never heard of it. Of course if simulating some high intensity Red on Red, by all means Cobras or Apaches right up.

On the other end of the spectrum, I rediscovered just how tough Brads are. http://img25.imageshack.us/i/bradtough1t.jpg/ http://img62.imageshack.us/i/bradtough2q.jpg/ First picture driver was wounded by unk ATGM, hence the two man crew and ten passenger seats. In the second picture, both Brads took hits from late model RPGs and kept it moving without loss or significant damage.

Excals are in service. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'self-targeting antitank cassette' but we did develop and employ a guided anti-tank round called SADARM, Sense And Destroy ARMor.

If it is in game, then it's probably part of the abstracted spotting bonus American vehicles get against infantry. Or a reduced penalty rather.

Kiowa makes an OK stand-in for Hind.

I hate the fact you can't edit posts after a few hours. OK, now that I'm re-reading this, I see where people might have misunderstood what I meant. Rather than 'on-the-fly' task organization, I mean something like a seperate but equal formation for the scenario designer. There is a lot of space on that formation tab (Syrians come close to filling what? half?) and Steve previously implied, to my understanding at least, that making new TO&E is a fairly quick, simple and straightforward process once the initial research is done. I'm just asking that the individual companies trade one platoon of each, so they are no longer all-mech or all-tank units.

That doesn't contradict anything he said. And GC does not say what you are implying it does here. While I'm treading the OT line here, how is it wrong for us to destroy a hospital or mosque being used as fighting position anymore so than a trenchline being used as a fighting position? Morally, the question is debatable, largely at an individual level, but legally the answer is clear: it isn't. Locations entitled to special protection are only favored as long as those special protections are not exploited by one side. At that point, all special protection ceases and it falls under the category of military objectives defined in Art. 52. Nothing in the applicable article of the Geneva Convention says anything regarding proportionality. In fact, the word 'proportionality' is not even found within the Geneva Convention at all. The applicable article of Geneva says merely warning must be given and a reasonable time allowed for departure of combatants. After which time, if they have not left and made clear their departure, it becomes a military objective. And rightly so. To band about terms like 'proportionality' and such would encourage the use of protected locations as fighting positions in as much as such a location would provide combatants protection from hostile action. Protection is protection, whether physical or pseudo-moral. We expect combatants to utilize the former and ensure, as much as possible, that non-combatants have a monopoly on the latter.

I'm pretty sure Krasnopol (Soviet CLGP) was around before Copperhead. Originally I thought it worked, but the Indians have had some of hte same problems with Krasnopol as we did with Copperhead, limited engagement parameters, angle T has to be less than 1200 mils, enough laser energy reflected off target and not the dirt around them (hard to do in a pool table flat desert, but even an issue in mountains when using a less than stellar laser), requires a full charge shot to get out a rather tame maximum range, expensive as hell, etc. Someone mentioned that the Copperhead though, was incredibly long and required a red bag charge, so it didn't fit in the breech. Therefore the cannoncockers had to load it, hook up a fifty foot lanyard and fire from outside their Paladin. Shoot-and-scoot with precision my ass!

I asked about it last year, Copperheads were removed from service by 2006. I'd heard they were on their way out that year, but didn't realize they'd be gone so fast. If you have an early version of the printed manual, like I do, you can see it mentions a fire mission type called "Precision", only for M109A6 batteries, that was meant to be Copperheads.

I'm gonna bump this up, don't know if anyone official took note the first time. I mean, they did the same thing for the Marine infantry battalion's CAAT platoon and the entire MEU(SOC) is one big task organization. Of course, I don't know how much work this actually requires... Also, it would be cool to be able to get the M1A1s with TUSK enhancements (ERA/ARAT, gunner's .50, transparent gunshield for loader, ), apparently the TUSK can be installed in the field on any Abrams variant, not just M1A2s. Picture of an M1A1 with TUSK. Notice the lack of the CITV, the M2HB fitted to CWS, the gunner's 50, and ARAT (ERA) on the sides.

I wonder if the Russian RKG-3 is simulated in-game? Hand thrown, top attack AT weapon.

Yeah, I have it. Thank you, just what I was trying to figure out.

Moderately off-topic but reading that whole interview was made worth it twice over by this line: LOL.

You can still keep the potraits. Only include the branch pictures (usa blue armor, usa blue heavy infantry, etc.), rather than include potraits (potrait usa armor, portrait usa heavy infantry). The result looks like this: Personally, I like it. I just need to figure out a way to either switch mods out fast or tie certain mods to certain scenarios/campaigns so I could have play different scenarios and have different units in all of them. I see. About the closest I came to study of that period was reading Rifleman Dodd by C.S. Forester for a 7th grade book report. I recall it being quite good and the main character being quite the Rambo-esqe badass.

Yeah retested it, you're right. Even with a realistic delay, you wouldn't get penetration to the ground floor of a multistory building. Fuze delay is a fixed time across the board. Real life, that's why you use shake-and-bake fire missions (WP followed by HE).

Thank you very much. Although I feel like I'm again missing something with the back and forth about the Rifles being mech or not...?

Umm, I have both, how does it work?