Apocal

No, I meant Close Combat.

I remember playing Combat when I was sixteen or so and I'm in my twenties. Awesome, awesome game.

There is an RWS version of the Javelin coming, if it's not already here.

If that happened while they were loaded, I would probably ragequit the game.

Disregard this, I've gotten used to seeing if the button is pushed in or not. BFC was right, I was wrong.

Do any other AT iconed units have more than three men in them?

I'm sorry, but I'm a tad skeptical that the typical VBIED is capable of knocking out a Bradley and a Stryker parked appoximately 20 meters away. The aforementioned murder-machine that is the RPG. The sheer numbers of Uncon antitank weapons that make vehicles a virtual no-go in some scenarios. The fact that Syrians get fortifications with overhead cover and the US doesn't, thankfully balanced by the fact that Syrian artillery is generally a use-early-or-lose-quickly proposition. That being said, the Syrians certainly are disadvantaged in most standup fights, but scenario design can generally make up for the deficiencies they have. EDIT: And honestly, I never really paid much attention to morale or leadership modifiers. Probably should start doing that.

That was actually something the 507th Maintenance Co. was criticized for, having all their pyro boxed and locked in one of the Humvees instead of distributed out among the other vehicles. It's probably in interest of not having some utter laundry list of crap to take when you hit the Acquire button.

Have you ever had an American squad take an RPG hit? Instantly pinned and they will happily curl up into balls and let the Syrians park a half dozen more around them. OK, let's step back and think about this for a second. A Stryker, using either a M2HB or Mk19 or maybe even 105mm gun is firing over their heads from a block away. And, if I'm reading you correctly, think they shouldn't be pinned down and/or in search of a new place to hide? Huh? Plus consider that most Syrian squads don't have radios that work reliably in urban terrain. Very likely they had no clue the building they chose to occupy was in the LoS to the Americans. They literally only know, what they know. And in built-up terrain with a lot line of sight breaks, that can be very damned little. Assymmetric perception: when you're fighting the REDFOR, the RPG seems like it's 10 feet tall and fueled by shattered hopes and broken bodies. When you're fighting the BLUFOR, it seems like all the .50cals and 40mm GMGs they possess spray hate and discontent like a runaway hose. I have a vague theory in my head that the splitability of the American squads allows for one team to be pinned, but the other team to be semi-functional, even when still combined. Syrian units are much more inclined to be rendered ineffective if the boss doesn't want to work anymore. This may or may not be a real factor, but it might explain why even "veteran" Syrians don't seem to be the equal of Americans.

Officially, the SMAW chuckers/breach monkeys are known as 0351, Assaultmen, in the USMC.

Because when you split the team, the assaultman moves "up" the chain, so it displays an AT icon. Recombine them, and the 0351s drop back down, so their icon becomes a rifleman again. Quoted for truth. 1) Battalion-level asset, chopped out to individual companies in-game. 2) Assaultmen (0351s) are a different MOS than antitank missilemen (0352s). My druthers would be to have a SMAW icon at all times for these guys. Kind of like how the machinegunners get a machinegun icon. Thoughts? Ken

I play real time as well and have recently discovered the utility of the pause button.

I've maintained my belief that the Javelin is the better overall weapon, I was just pleasantly surprised at the TOW's performance in this case. I was expecting the ATGM section to either require babying or become a throwaway force should I run out of Javelins. As it turned out, it was neither, I was nowhere near running out of Javs, because TOWs were taking all comers and asking for more.

HOLY BRAIN-FINGER DISCONNECT BATMAN! It should have read, "Also, the sustained rate of fire for the M777 is listed (in both print and PDF manuals) as being one round per minute. The official specification is 2 rounds per minute (or until the temperature warning device goes off). Reasoning?"

In my test campaign I just had a "final" mission that was ludicrously easy as an "outro."

Why does the M240 have a 50 rounds between reloads? AFAIK, they use 100 round boxes? Can't be a barrel swap, way too soon for that on a 240, unless maybe you strung it off as one long burst in 135 degree heat with 100% humidity after setting the bipod on fire. Also, the sustained rate of fire is listed (in both print and PDF manuals) as being one round per minute. The official specification is 2 rounds per minute (or until the temperature warning device goes off). Reasoning?

Admittedly, this is not entirely applicable (being the USMC in Korea, not the US Army in Europe), but from reading Colder than Hell by Joseph Owen, a mortar officer in a rifle company, he describes targets as usually being transmitted by runner on the attack or by field telephone on the defense, with himself (a second lieutant) doing the forward observation.

I'm back to report a very happy moment in CM. In the TF THUNDER campaign, the mission when you are screening the extreme left flank of the task force, TOWs not only outscored Javs, they did so with fourteen kills above and beyond the Jav-tossers. I think Javs got two kills, and TOWs hit 16 tanks and PCs. TOWs functioned much better, probably helped by the fact that a dedicated gunner/loader is working each.

SPOILER * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * It's possible to win the campaign even if you lose both Platoon Sergeant, the only WIA of the first battle, and the Platoon Commander, wounded while advancing with his leading rifle squad in the third battle, in addition to taking seven casualties in the final battle. Two KIA and 12 WIA, I still win the campaign. * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF SPOILER Five casualties would be considered bad for any one fight the platoon got into. Since this campaign covers a day or two (?) and the objective is to preserve your force while linking up with the rest of your company, it makes sense. Just imagine that you have to fight 20 or 30 more battles after this one and it makes sense.

I am very skeptical that anyone has gotten indirect fire support inside of a minute in our current fights.

It doesn't bother me too much since you can stack a deploy command on top of move orders. Run here, get up the stairs, face east and setup the gun is about as complex as possible a move you can think of, yet it works fine.

Are the previous sections any good?

No, the ability to fire different sheafs (patterns) was quite a laborious process before computers. Before guns began to get a BCS (battery or ballistic computer system, can't recall exactly which), layout of the battery was important to creating a good sheaf, because every gun was firing on the exact same data. If your target was perpendicular to the guns, tough shinto.

Yes. These. In addition, I've heard they story where one fin either didn't deploy, was ripped off or otherwise non-op and caused the Copperhead to spiral uselessly. Another when it decided that a pool of water was a much better target than actual aimpoint. This isn't touching the tactical relevance of such a weapon at a time when our primary concern was thousands of Soviet armored vehicles storming across Europe, not RPG-armed insurgent cells holed up in a dilapidated apartment building. Additionally, much to our engineers everlasting embarassment, the Soviets fielded around a half-dozen laser guided mortar and cannon shells in the same timeframe (or earlier), which were tactically relevant enough that they remain in production. And this is the bottom line.

Got you. Thanks for the answer. Are Excals something we can look forward to or is there already too much on your plate for the next module? Personally, I think giving further advantage to using dedicated units for spotting would make US forces seem less "generic."