Apocal

Sure thing.

You need to send Brit mechanized infantry against Marine infantry to have a chance, the dismounted numbers and firepower of the latter mean that your infantry essentially cannot win between 100-300 meters, maybe more, unless you have a very solid terrain advantage. And they have more men in their squads, so just sitting back and trading casualties means a steady snowball effect that generally leaves him with 8-10 effectives and you with none. But don't let that terrain advantage come from a building or Mr. Thermobaric will come pay you a visit, utterly ruining whoever was in there. The lack of dedicated assault rocket launcher like the SMAW really shows. And it hurts. It is a lot of fun though. A real lot of fun.

All fire support teams appear blue, is that intentional? Anyway, this is one of my permamods now. Decided that much after about 30 seconds

-Hazy weather, gentle breeze, night. -Same setup as before. -Each FOO team made four calls for fire on both the targets. -All missions were first round fire for effect and on-target. At this point I think it's safe to say that difference is subtle, if simulated at all. Either that or I should be gambling right now.

-Clear weather, gentle breeze, daylight. -Piece used was an AS90 in all fire missions. -Point targets used, one at 500m the other at 2000m. -Both FOOs were Group HQs, veteran, no morale or leadership bonuses. -Mounted FOO team was turned out of the Artillery Observation vehicle. -Each FOO team made four calls for fire on both the targets. -All missions were first round fire for effect and on-target. Doing hazy, gentle breeze, night now. EDIT: Special note, in my initial testing I had someone other than the Group HQ calling missions in. I noticed that even when mounted the non-Group HQ FOO teams did not recieve the reduction in time calling for fire. They had the same time as the dismounted teams. The dismounted FOO Group HQ had the standard time as well, although I expected that.

stickypixie, I got some spare time I didn't think I would have tonight, if you want I can setup a call for fire test to see how good a dismounted FO does in comparison to a mounted FO. I'm thinking testing to see how many spotting rounds are required before firing for effect and a yes/no on if the fire for effect is accurate, insofar as I've noticed more fire missions landing "off" lately. Might be me just noticing things I didn't before, might be something new in 1.20.

It knocks a minute off your calls for fire. I haven't noticed any special accuracy beyond that which is provided by the FOO.

Another question, with the nifty side effect of a bump to get answers to my unanswered questions. Are there any plans for obstacles other than mines in Normandy? Stuff like abatis (plural form?), player placeable ditches and craters, dragon's teeth, etc? I may have asked the question before but if I did, I can't find the post or thread where it may have been answered. EDIT: Another one; strongpointing buildings, yay or nay? How about mouseholes and emplacing ATGs in buildings?

There is a bit more to that story than commonly told; all forces in theater were told to stop displaying their air recognition panels because it had been discovered that Iraqis vehicles were using something similar. Presto! Anything with orange is suspect. Back to CMSF, does the JTAC see the friendly vehicle as well?

The officer's name was Major James Loden, just run a search on it and you'll find news articles with more background. I can't seem to locate the original email however.

I think the recently collapsed buildings bear a testimony to just how tough Syrian trees are.

Thanks for all the answers.

I got into a debate of sorts with someone over minefield breaching and we decided to use CMSF to see how well it works out. Are there any good minefield breaching scenarios around? Second, is there any easy way to get rid of the freaking interior windows on a building? So many scenarios the designer forgets to do this and it leads to the whole building just being a walled killzone. But all the praise in the world to the designers that actually have the patience and persistence to remove every single one from every building. Finally, I noticed a long time ago it's far more destructive to a building to set the target for arty/CAS on lower floors, (presumably) so they use the right fuze or select the right aimpoint to get a specific floor. Is there any chance of adding a floor selection menu similar to the move menu for times when the roof is visible but the ground floor isn't? Or is that a deliberate design decision? EDIT: Two more questions, is there any chance we can have buildings occassionally catch fire and create a continuous, semi- or mostly-obscuring smoke? Also, is there any chance for blind fire through concealment? Right now, since you can't shoot through what you can't see, smoke and dust acts a bit too much like cover.

Umm.... not sure if it's just my monitor, but that "tan" is suspiciously close to pink... They do look nice though.

As I think it is, the game simulates the individual load-bearing capacity of individual soldiers, if that soldier is already carrying too much, he won't grab the CLU. Of course, what makes it a real sticky point is if he's carry the reload and tries to salvage the CLU because the CLU itself comes with one missile. So if you haven't fired the original Javelin, the A-Gunner, more often than not won't pick the CLU up, making for one damned useless man.

I'm pretty sure you can use IEDs as "booby traps" considering that for gameplay purposes they are the same thing.

Just played a quick battle with some IBCT types, same dig is going on, but this time it's not just the command truck, it seems to be completely random. Some of the TOWs can be dismounted, some can't.

I don't think anyone said that in this thread...? Although I appreciate the amplifying info provided by the (war)story.

To what Flanker said. It can create 60mm and 81mm shell holes, it should be able to do this.

Yes, this. Players can use them reasonably well, it's just the TacAI doesn't really understand the concept of up-shoot-down.

I was wondering if we were gonna get BPs for tanks in CMSF ever? Or Normandy? I know you can kind of do it in the editor, but it's time-consuming and the player doesn't get to lay out his own defense. Plus the AI doesn't understand WTF it is.

I think you missed what I saying: When it gets hit, that track is toast, slats or no slats. Possibly. Haven't done any all-angle testing, it's just that even with markedly more cautious tactics I still lose more vics and tracks in BF than even with Marines.

I'm reading that as: "Additional Brit forces in the NATO module"

Because ATGMs don't work in the countryside, right?

As others have noted, it's related more to the survivability of the crew than the vehicle itself.