Apocal

I just finished the second mission. Defeat sue to certain forces taking it, so I have to repeat...?

I don't think it's a problem with vehicle modelling per se. I think it's because suppression and morale effects are deliberately toned down to make for more decisive fights. So unless you're actually killing a helluva of people, you are being sold short on the moral effects of M2s and MKs. There are a few times I've done it in CMSF and gotten away with it. Sometimes you can roll them through your own artillery barrage.

I forgot to say thanks for the quick response. Thank you. Do you have any sources I should be looking at? Right now I'm pretty much stuck on FM 100-60, which is increasingly only representative of the 11th ACR at NTC or as a historical piece.

The market for dumbed-down wargames was eviscerated when RTSes really came into force. Now the market is saturated with good to excellent RTSes. CMSF (or any serious wargame) going in that direction is like jumping off a rope bridge onto razor wire.

Are you actually agreeing or being sarcastic? I used to try the same thing, long-range fire from hull-down positions, but it didn't really work as advertised so I switched it up. I used the Stryker AT's in the campaign mission to hit from the sides and they outscored the Javelins by far. Even if it's nothing fancier than putting it behind a building with a sqd or team for local security and spotting, it works.

Ambush from the sides or rear.

This is why you lay off the grilled cheese before bedtime.

According to FM 100-60, they actually have a full battery of mortars, two platoons with three tubes each. But I'd assumed that the Syrians modified it to suit local conditions and their preferences, which tends to happen, especially with big ticket items like fire support.

Reserve Mech Inf (BTR) Battalion. Companies have a section of heavy (120mm) mortars. Battalion has a platoon of medium (82mm) mortars. Is that for real? It seems pretty bass-ackwards, unless they expect a seriously huge frontage to be covered by companies... even then it seems common sense that in such a case you'd want 120mm at battalion to keep more assets in your range fan.

I just ask because the USMC (and maybe the Army's lightfigher community) said the same thing regarding their Humvee-mounted TOWs, but I haven't ever heard of it being used operationally.

Wait, so you're saying that the "reverse slope, no aim point" line is basically the real hull-down? That explains some ****.

How often is that actually done?

AIUI, he is part of the Force Recon det assigned to the MEU(SOC). Speaking of MEU's, I had a LAV-AT in the campaign, the mission where it's like a handful of AT assets versus the zerg rush of Syrian armor. That thing was bagging tanks like they were on sale. The holy ****! moment was realizing just how many tanks it had destroyed. It looked like a murder scene.

*cough* Target Heavy *cough*

Perhaps URC should try running two miles in wet sand and (after resting) running two miles on paved road for an example of just why his analysis doesn't hold merit?

There was something about that in The Highway War: A Marine Company Commander in Iraq. He was a LAV company commander and planned for all his vehicles to be able to swim across any rivers they encountered. Up until one was in an accident they had were fully functional in that regard, in spite of being hit with heavy machine guns, mortars and RPGs.

Well, amphibious capability certainly makes an opposed river crossing operation easier. Otherwise your tracks are stuck on the bank while infantry cross by whatever means available. True, but there are always helicopters around.

If it really bothers you that much, why not just restart the game with all the agreed upon settings?

You're not going to accomplish much when the crew compartment is filled with smoke.

Falcon 4, IL2, Strike Fighters series, LoMAC... I can't think of any flight sim that doesn't actually. That being said, those with thriving MP communities (IL2, LoMAC) typically deride servers that offer anything less than full physics as "training wheels." Those that allow the most customization of the game experience have small or non-existent MP communities.

Or because there is no slot in the damage panel for "Armor Integrity"? Would you stick around in a smoldering track with a hole through the front?

TC was turned out. Do the same in CM:SF and your short and medium range spotting goes way, way, way up. It also causes the infantry you haven't spotted to pepper your track with small arms and generally resulting in a 3 man crew for your Abrams. YMMV.

I was speaking more for the AI. As it stands right now, high motivation forces have this kind of bizarre side effect of being an easier fight when you significantly overmatch than lower motivation formations. The fanatics stand there and eat bullets like Tony Montoya on coke until they are annihilated. The low-mo guys take one or two dead and book it, then setup nearby, so when you move closer it's a whole 'nother firefight on your hands. It doesn't happen all the time, mind, but often enough. Players though, players are quite adept at giving you drawn-out running firefights. Obviously I don't know how your code works, but I always thought Steel Panthers: MBT did this quite elegantly by placing a victory location on the unit's vacated position, so that once rallied, they'd counterattack to regain it. Occassionally, there was some shennigans due to it's simplicity, but overall you'd get reasonably realistic reactions out of it. Maybe tie it in with a basic calculation of combat power and local fire superiority so that a depleted airborne squad won't charge two platoon's worth of troops who are sitting in their foxholes.

Here: At 5:53 of this version of it, you hear the TC engaging a technical with his rifle, then the gunner gets the turret around lights it up with the coax, with spectacular effect. Generally they'll use main in CMSF, almost always a sabot round for some reason. At 6:54 is the close encounter of the RPG kind. It was the coax rather than the 50cal, I believe at this point in the Thunder Run their 50cal was down (either out of ammo or irreparably jammed) and at any rate, the 50cal couldn't depress enough to hit the team.

You realize there are units out there that operate with only 7.62 MMGs and 60mm mortars as their upper-tier of fire support and find this to be sufficient for their needs? Certainly they don't turn away extra (uparmored Humvees, larger mortars, arty, etc) but the light infantry can and do get by with nothing more than fraction of firepower that Stryker units possess. The way CMSF works, if you aren't actually generating casualties, you're being short-changed on effectiveness. Steve actually mentioned that in a recent post when I brought up, for gameplay reasons the morale modelling leans towards hold-at-all costs instead of more realistic, but less decisive combat. I understand it from their standpoint, but it's slightly frustrating when people try to equate the game with real life. It also makes all-infantry forces less... not really less effective, but they need more help than they otherwise would. EDIT: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1133747&postcount=18 -- the post I mentioned Then we'd just roll tanks everywhere. Taken even further in the extreme (since you said firepower over armor), we wouldn't even roll tanks, we'd roll SP arty. For an IFV, yeah, firepower and protection took precedence. Then we realized there were times when you'd need infantry mounted, but also able to "hold their own" once dismounted.