Lee

Are those Russian soldiers getting in a little ambush practice and having some fun?

Redwolf: Oleg, lead designer for IL-2, said specifically that keeping the aircraft performance aspects of the sim un-moddable was a major reason why cheating was so rare in IL-2 to this day. He made the sim and talks to active players all the time, so he ought to know. And if I recall correctly, one of the reasons (there were others) Steve gave for not allowing players to modify the unit stats (in case a player might disagree with some tank spec, for example) was to make cheating more difficult. I'm not a programmer, but obviously there are technical reasons why he stated this. Steve: Perhaps you can briefly comment on this? In any case, I stated repeatedly that this issue (modifying in-game unit stats) is separate from applying some sort of abstract point system when purchasing units for a quick battle to try to keep the sides even and fair.

But it's easier to cheat if the units themselves are open to being changed, if they are fixed and not subject to modding of any kind, then it's a lot harder to cheat. From what I've heard, cheating is not a significant problem with IL-2 and the reason for that is that the aircraft specs and performance characteristics are not subject to being altered in the first place. This is hugely important in a multi-player game, to know that any cheating is highly unlikely to be taking place. In a wargame as complex as Combat Mission, I doubt it would be practical to try to show everything in the game engine to each side to see if anything had been changed to give one side an advantage. What if a shell penetration math formula had been slightly altered? Are you going to study the equation to see if it's the same as what's on your computer? This, of course, is entirely unrelated as to whether some sort of point system can be come up with for purposes of having balanced sides in a quick battle match. Steve says they have something in the works even better than a straight point system, so that will be interesting to see.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the in-game combat capabilities of the units running under the hood. Not the general conditions of the quick battle setup.

Excellent Cobra video. Very cheerful song, too.

I think the main reason to not open in-game unit combat/armor values to being changed is that that would open the game up to cheating (or at least make it a lot easier). In IL-2, the famous Russian WWII flight sim, Oleg has kept the aircraft data locked down for years, and as a result it's my understanding that to this day there is basically zero cheating in multi-player in that game. Some sort of point system to help decide what's a fair unit balance for each side in a quick battle is another matter, of course.

This brings up an interesting point. I wonder if the AI could be adjusted so that it would treat such a FO vehicle variant exactly the same as any other vehicle of the same base type, unless the AI were close enough that it could get a positive ID on the vehicle's exact type? At which point it would make sense for the AI to treat the FO vehicle as a high threat priority target.

dan/california: Yes, but in a high threat environment (which is what's being discussed at the moment) fighters looking to strike targets can't afford to just freely fly up high because that opens them up to all sorts of possible SAM fire, very dangerous. Instead they fly low and try to stay out of sight, which, of course, puts them in an ideal location to get shot down by the Gepard.

Gepard gunners are smart enough not to sit in open fields with their targeting radars continuously on waiting to draw attention from Russian Iron Hand pilots. They operate on stealth and ambush and target enemy aircraft in the vicinity from positions of concealment, with little chance for warning before they fire.

Yes, quite right, 1100m/s is over 3,300 feet per second, that's moving right along even by rifle standards and far faster than the jet. The Gepard gunner would be tracking and leading the fire enough to bring the rounds into an intercept, any aircraft at that range is likely going to be eating lead. Also, as was pointed out, if the aircraft is somewhat approaching the Gepard, or has just flown nearby and is beginning to depart, it's in even more trouble.

Sgt Joch: Interesting map. Bear in mind that the only reason the Assyrians got the parts in Israel was because God was punishing our ancestors for disobeying him. But he still saw to it that we ended up far better off than them. hehe

That doesn't make sense, why would he switch weapons when he's not taking fire (and thus can take his time and fire away at will). Unless he felt it was such an easy shot he didn't need to waste sniper ammo (250 yards is nothing for a sniper). That doesn't necessarily make sense, either, because what if he gets into trouble later and needs his assault rifle to fend off nearby enemies and is now low on ammo for it? That's why teams have assault rifles, to deal with trouble if they need to. But even with the assault rifle, a Brit sniper is going to be deadly effective at that range, most shots would be hits. With his sniper rifle, he would almost never miss. Sounds like some adjustments for snipers need to be made. First off, only use sniper rifle, unless the enemy is very close or one is taking so much fire that heavy return fire is required. Secondly, they should be more deadly than even an elite normal soldier is with an assault rifle, especially at medium (100+?) and longer ranges, where their skills would make the most difference.

I could be wrong, but off the top of my head, I think they are usually referred to as SAW gunners, as opposed to machine gunners. The new IAR they are thinking of adopting, would mean he would likely be called an automatic rifleman or some such. Indeed, we are right back where we started with the BAR, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I agree, a SAW is more like a light support weapon, something meant to boost firepower somewhat when combined with the rifles. Whereas an MG-42 or an MG3 is a full blown machine gun in the true sense.

Like I said, the version of the M14 that would be routinely used for clearing rooms and such would be the assault configuration like in those videos with a 16 inch barrel, quite handy in close quarters. Lighter than a DMR version, too. Some extra weight is good because the round is more powerful than .223, helps to dampen recoil. And as we've seen in the earlier video, the M14 can be fired fast and with control. In a building clearing maneuver you would typically fired fast double taps or short full-auto bursts on targets, but that guy even did it emptying a magazine on full-auto. While it is possible for a .223 to take out an enemy fast with a good hit, the .308 will do it much more reliably under more circumstances and it can punch through intermediary obstacles and still deliver a potent hit much better than .223 can. And as to wounding, again, that only works if you have distance between you and the enemy, and the enemy has any intention of even trying to help the wounded. In close combat a U.S. soldier doesn't have the luxury of waiting for the "wounding" aspects of his ammo to yield some benefit, he has to neutralize the enemy as fast as possible on the spot. Also, troops in Afghanistan have found how limited the .223 is when having to fire over longer ranges. Here's another area where the .308 way outclasses the .223. If each squad had 2 M14's (one assault, one DMR), this would add quite a bit of very effective firepower for both close quarters work and targets at longer ranges. Well, at least there are quite a few M14's out there being used as DMR battle rifles to help our guys, and they aren't in huge demand with the troops for no reason.

Dietrich: Yeah, just about anything would be better than .223, 6.8mm SPC is another interesting one.

I didn't say the M14 was a sniper rifle, I said it's a good battle rifle for use in the DMR role (many of these seem to have been accurized with match grade barrels, etc. for this use) or in a general combat/assault use. For a true sniper rifle, I think you're generally better off with a highly precise bolt action rifle like the M24 or M40. But if the army wanted to buy some dedicated semi-auto rifles, then I'd lean toward the PSG-1. The point is that the M14 is good for both DMR and assault, and will be very reliable in either role, even in heavy sustained fire combat situations. As to whether the M14 (or some other high quality battle rifle in .308) should completely replace the M16, you can go to many gun enthusiast boards and debate that all day, that debate has been raging for years. And there are quite a few combat-knowledgeable people on the subject that would say it's a good idea. In any case, that's not the point here. I think a good compromise would be to have in addition to the DMR a second guy (he would be the second best marksman in the unit) that would have an M14 set up in assault configuration (not DMR with big scope) that could take point on building assaults and such with maneuverable firepower that would drop enemies in their tracks like a sack of potatoes in the first round or two, as well as to help out in engaging targets farther out than the M16/M4 would tend to be effective at. Those two guys could also share ammo as needed. As to the point about intermediate rounds, there is validity to that. But bear in mind that both the StG 44 and AK-47 both used rounds of 7.62 or greater size, which are quite effective. The .223 is considered by many to be too light a round based on less-than-stellar combat results in a variety of situations. Just about any heavier round than .223 would be better, even if we didn't go to a full .308 battle rifle. Yes, it is true, despite popular belief, that the M16 runs better when well-oiled. But it's still not going to run as reliably on average under heavy fire conditions as the H&K 416 will. Another video of the M14 in assault configuration in action.

Yeah, the MG3 (A.K.A. MG-42/.308) rocks, it'll be great to see that in action! Check it out.

akd: Ah, then you were referring to something else. The problem I was talking about with the SEAL's were combat reports that the weapon was nice enough when it worked, but had functional reliability problems during heavy fire conditions in combat (this, of course, would cause such a DI weapon to foul very heavily and very quickly). The heat issue I was referring to is not something that is exclusive to the SR-25 and variants, it happens with the M16 and M4 just as much, those hot gases get vented back into the weapon and cause internal temperatures to quickly soar during rapid semi-auto fire or full-auto fire. This causes accelerated wear and thus the need for more frequent parts replacement. The H&K 416, for example, doesn't have this problem and it's one of the main advantages it has over the M16. It saves a lot of maintenance hassle and money over time, but the Army chose to ignore that fact (as well as the superior reliability). So as of now, pretty much only the special forces use the 416 (they know it's better, and so they use it). No, the M14 doesn't do anything magical with the 7.62x51, but it's rugged and reliable, even when very dirty, it's very accurate, you can smash the enemy in the face with the butt stock and it will not break the recoil spring (quite handy when you have lots of CQB, like in Iraq), it's been heavily battle tested and it's already in service and doing a great job. Trying to re-invent the wheel and buy another DI rifle like the M16 makes no sense. Now, for a dedicated sniper rifle, who knows. But for a main battle rifle that can be used in the DMR role as well as variants for general combat/assault purposes, the M14 is the way to go. For a true dedicated semi-auto sniper rifle, I'd rather have the PSG-1. Check out this cool video of an M14 in an assault configuration (Socom II) being fired. Bear in mind this guy is new to the rifle (I think he just bought it), but you can see it in action. Our English friend seems rather impressed with it. ScubaSam: As far as controllability goes, check out this video. And this isn't even an active duty soldier who trains on the weapon constantly. By the way, if you want to see lots of great pictures of all kinds of AR-15's (the design does have certain drawbacks, but it's still a cool assault rifle! ), check out this video.

Yeah, that was the other part (aside from the wounding theory), you can carry more rounds. But what difference does it make if you have to keep shooting the enemy to take him out, especially if you are in close quarters and you can't afford to have delays in getting results? With the 7.62x51 they go down fast and with less rounds.

ScubaSam: Yes, that's exactly the problem, this whole wounding theory might work ok if you're in open field combat with a real army that actually makes an effort to evacuate the wounded. When you're in close quarters combat, especially with these terrorist low lives, all that matters is putting the enemy down fast, wounding is a non-issue, you just want to kill them as fast as you can so they can't shoot at you. The 7.62x51/.308 does that very nicely. It also penetrates intermediary obstacles way better. Apocal: May have been an ammo problem or magazine issue, maybe needed a routine going over before it was fired, not sure. But everything I've ever seen about combat reports on the M14 was that it was very reliable, even when used in very dirty conditions like in Vietnam. Yeah, those flimsy M16 mags aren't so great. Another nice thing about the M14, nice strong steel magazines. akd: The M110 is just a variant of the Mk11, no significant functional differences. As to maintenance, these direct impingement systems not only dirty the functioning part of the weapon very quickly, they also build up heat like crazy, which leads to parts wearing/deteriorating and needing to be replaced more frequently, not exactly convenient or inexpensive from an armorer standpoint. Rustman: That's in line with the stuff I've heard/read on the subject of combat troops and the M14, anyone that can get an M14 issued to them jumps at the chance. They have proven to be deadly effective in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and are much sought after (also much in demand is the 1911 .45 pistol, which some troops have been issued). With a 16-17 inch barrel configuration, it's great for storming buildings and putting the bad guys down hard and fast. See the link below for an example of an M14 set up in a CQB assault configuration that you (and the Army/Marines) can buy now. http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=18

Steve: OK, no Gepard in the Nato module, but we must have it in SF2! haha Can I take the "no comment" on the German F-4F/ICE fighter bomber as a yes? MARS42: Yes, but I'm not speaking of taking on other armored vehicles, you don't need AP ammo to blast infantry, machine gun positions, buildings, assorted light vehicles, etc.

Apocal: The SR-25 uses the same basic direct impingement system as the M16, so it's going to have the same problems of reliability when it gets dirty, which it will get fast when fired. As far as the M110 version of the SR-25, if I recall correctly, SEAL's who have used it in combat have reported that it was a pretty good rifle, when it worked, but was not reliable with heavy fire (this is critical in a combat weapon). Why go to a weapon with inferior reliability? The M14 is extremely reliable, deadly accurate (especially with a match barrel), and is readily available with plenty of accessories. Sounds like another one of these mindless procurements the military makes (like buying more M4's when the H&K 416 was proven clearly superior in testing) to ensure career advancement ("Yeah, the M110 was *my* weapons program, and it got approved, when do I get promoted?") or a job after they leave the military ("Welcome the new military sales rep of Knight's Armament!").

Steve: Yes, the Gepard would not be sent there for that specific use, it would be used to maybe take out the odd surviving enemy helicopter or whatever. But if the German troops wanted some extra firepower in the mean time, they would not be adverse to opening up on various ground targets. I don't see why they wouldn't bring the vehicle at all during an invasion (Afghanistan is a special case, there is absolutely no chance of an air attack there). Tanks are often used in unrealistic ways by gamers, also, but we don't deny their use in wargames because of that. If the gamer does something really dumb with his vehicles, sooner or later he will pay for it with damaged or destroyed vehicles, especially in a realistic wargame like CMII. Well, even if we don't get the Gepard ( ), please tell me we at least get the F-4F/ICE Phantom fighter bomber for air support of German ground forces. Damian90: Obviously I meant allowing enemy infantry to get so close they could pick and choose exactly where on the tank to try and hit it with an RPG. Earl Grey: That makes no sense, we shoot terrorists in Afghanistan all the time with incendiary .50 cal rounds from the M2 Browning machine gun, it's perfectly allowed. So 35mm rounds would be just fine.

Steve: The Gepard would obviously not be used close up, they would sit back at a distance and hammer targets, they wouldn't let some dope with an RPG get close. And with 35mm rounds, range isn't a problem for the Gepard, and the firepower is awesome. Tanks can also be vulnerable if you let the enemy get right on top of them and take shots from any and all directions, but that doesn't mean you don't take tanks with you into a battle. You just use them intelligently. And the Gepard is an AA tank, so it's crew protection is (more or less) like a tank.