ASL Veteran

Dammit! I had about thirty minutes worth of typing done and clicked on another link to add it to my post, and instead of opening up a new window it changed the one I was typing my post up in and my whole post was lost!! Oh well, here is a link that I found where someone was taking the Trafficability information and putting it into simulation form for the military http://www.sedris.org/presentation/TTMS.pdf Maybe I'll retype what I had earlier when I have more time and motivation again.

Huh? The OP said that Battlefront was at the top of Wargaming not at the top of all games sold including FPS, and all those console games out there. He said Wargaming, so your statement doesn't make sense with regards to the OP unless you are counting Combat Mission as a sub niche within the Wargaming niche or something like that. In that case, then I guess every individual game is a niche, or perhaps you are defining 3D wargames as a niche within the wargaming niche? Maybe all those hex based, 2D or top down games are another niche within the wargaming niche? If you don't think that Combat Mission is at the top of the wargaming niche then that's a good discussion to have. Who would you put at the top of the wargaming niche if not Combat Mission? That long running and very successful series called Close Combat who are still going strong after all these years? Maybe there is a Talonsoft title that can take top honors ... if they were still around. Is there a Matrix retread title that takes top honors? Go ahead and list your top ten 'wargames', I would be curious to see your list.

The critical thing for me in the new CMx2 Normandy game will be if we hear the background birds again as they were in CMBO. Especially that rather loud, long bird warble. I have heard that bird call since moving to the east coast but I had never heard that bird call before when I was living on the west coast.

You know that there is already a CMx1 related 'project' that is OpenSource right? I believe that it's called 'Combat Mission Campaigns' and if you mosey on over to the Combat Mission Campaigns forum the guy who was working on it has left a link to the code that you can download and play with all you want. It's pretty obvious that you can talk the talk. If you want to do great things that the Combat Mission community would greatly appreciate and sing your praises over then you can make the Combat Mission Campaigns work. Demanding / Requesting Steve to OpenSource the CMx1 code is a little like tilting at windmills or banging your head against the wall. Why don't you download that source code for Combat Mission Campaigns and walk the walk buddy. With a man of your obvious talents I figure you should be able to crank out the Combat Mission Campaigns in about a month or two - what do you figure?

Personally, I think bogging in CMBO was way over the top for the Sherman. It seemed like every time I moved a Sherman offroad it would get stuck at some point no matter what the ground conditions were or where you were driving. The railroad tracks thing was kind of annoying too. Just crossing a railroad track was almost a guaranteed bog (or seemed like it anyway ). The railroad track thing, I'm pretty confident, was mostly targeted upon driving along the tracks rather than crossing them, but when your kubelwagen gets stuck on the railroad tracks when he's trying to cross the tracks while on a road it gets very annoying. Especially when you are trying to give Kwazydog the beatdown in his own scenario (grrrr). Having said that though, the bogging in CMBB and CMAK didn't seem out of line and the bogging so far in CMSF really seems to be a non issue. Sure it happens every once in a while but it's rare enough that it doesn't really bother me. CMBO seemed like bogging was out of control though. My Shermans lived in terror of every blade of grass in the open fields.

For the curious I managed to find this for the dismounted portion of the Bradley platoon: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/figa-2.gif and this for the mounted portion of the Bradley platoon: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-71/figa-1.gif At first I thought that CMSF gave the Bradley platoon too many pixeltruppen, but now I realize that the number of troops is the same.

The thing that got me with the TO&Es was the Bradley dismount element. I always thought that the Bradley dismount element was only six guys but in CMSF it's nine just like the Stryker. I thought the main idea with the Stryker was that it could carry a bigger infantry squad vs the Bradley. Obviously there is the wheeled vs tracked thing and the lighter weight, but I was pretty sure the Bradley dismount element was only six guys vs the Stryker's nine guys. Am I crazy? I've been out for a long time though so I may just be hallucinating .

In the first two attempts, there were troops in the trench positions, troops in the buildings, and the destroyed column. For the most part only the column troops were moving. Head to Head though the column troops would probably play more of a role in the battle because of the generous setup zone. The AI ones just run around and get shot . In my third attempt though it has been a bit odd I have to admit. There was only about a squad and a half in the trench in the woods which I took with no opposition (I mortared it first). The first trench outside the woods was unoccupied, as was the second and third trench. Although I think there were some bodies in either the second or third trench who were shot by my sniper and MG teams when I took the two story building. The fourth trench though is full of bad guys. Many of the Syrians in the trenches though started running around after my sniper and MG teams started to engage them from the building outside the town wall. I got the impression that they were attempting to run either into the town or into the building at the intersection but I'm not sure. All I know is that it became a shooting gallery for my pixeltruppen along the wall. There are Syrian bodies all over the place around the third trench, but not in the trench. Outside the trench.

Okay, let me tell you all about the tale of my adventures on the Euphrates. The original plan was very similar to what Black Moria outlined above. Call it 'Plan A'. I started off with one infantry platoon on the right side of the road and the other infantry platoon moved down the road to the gap in the wall and set forth into the woods on the left side of the road. The Abrams held down the road and the JTAC and the artillery spotter drove up to the three story building and camped out on the rooftop. The platoon on the left side meandered through the woods with the Hummer carrying the sniper team in the lead. My plan was that the platoon on the right side of the road would drive quickly up to the wall in front of the woods, dismount, and the infantry would form a skirmish line and move across the woods to the wall on the far side. Once on the far side of the woods, that platoon would then bring fire upon the town from that side. The Strykers remained positioned against the wall in the general vicinity of the gap in the wall until the woods were cleared, then they would follow the dismounts to provide support. On the left side the sniper team in their Hummer would lead the way to the gap in the wall on the far side of the woods, and then the whole platoon would pass through that gap assuming the sniper team didn't find anything and head towards the restricted building on the other side of town. After capturing the restricted building I would then assault the town from that direction. So much for the plan. The Abrams moved down the road and did their thing firing away at all the Syrians running around like headless chickens down at the far end of the map. The platooon on the right side moves quickly to the wall, dismounts, forms the skirmish line, and advances into the woods. Soon they encounter the entrenchments and my guys are getting the worst of it. I don't think the trees were providing any cover at all so I was taking pretty heavy casualties. I started driving the Strykers into the woods to provide support but they were taking a lot of hits and I lost one or two. Eventually I took down the entrenched Syrians with some artillery support and pressed forward to the wall on the opposite side with my remaining pixeltruppen. Because my troops along the wall could not see the Syrians in the entrenchments out beyond the woods I had to send a squad into the entrenchments and clear them with assault move and hand grenades. None of the squaddies I positioned along the wall as overwatch helped in any way since the Syrians were invisible down in the trenches. It was bloody and grinding work but it was going relatively well even though the casualties I was taking was a little higher than I liked. Meanwhile on the left side my Sniper team quickly made it to the wall on the far side of the woods, dismounted, and walked up to the gap in the wall and found nothing. Thinking the coast was clear I then proceeded to move the sniper team along the high wall next to the town until they got to the low wall where it adjoins the high town wall in the area in front of the Restricted building. There the sniper team found a veritable shooting gallery of Syrians running around and the sniper was picking them off left and right. I even moved the Hummer along the high town wall up to a position close to the sniper so they could reload if they needed to. Thinking everything was clear, my platoon who had been idling in the woods until the sniper team checked things out began to move forward for the gap in the wall to get into position to take the restricted building. Unfortunately the Stryker is a bit taller than a Hummer and as soon as the lead Stryker got into the gap in the wall "Ka Boom!" eleven KIA as some rocket type thing smoked it. The explosion also created a gap in the wall at the corner, so I dismounted the rest of the platoon and attempted to storm into the town from that gap in the corner. It just went badly after that. I managed to capture a few of the low buildings near the wall but it was just impossible. There were way too many of them and way too few of me. At some point my personal morale limit was reached and I cease fired and decided I would take another go at it. Plan B: Okay, so what I took away from my first attempt was that there were way too many Syrians in the town for one platoon to handle. My next attempt was to load up both Stryker platoons on the left side of the road and attempt to use both platoons to storm the town, leaving the Abrams on the road and the spotter and the JTAC in that three story building just as before. I formed my infantry in a double line across the woods in front of the town with the Strykers positioned behind the squads as fire support. After my Spotter got into position I dropped a max load of 120 mortars as prep fire onto the edge of town such that I could smash anyone in the buildings on the opposite side of the high wall and create breaches in the wall. After the artillery barrage was over, I moved my infantry slowly up to the breaches, but before they hit the assigned breaches they came under heavy fire. The artillery prep was obviously not as thorough as I had hoped and once again my guys seemed to be taking the worst of it. This time though my Strykers were in position to provide support, but unfortunately that turned out to be as much of a curse as a blessing. There were so many rockets of various types flying through the woods to hit my Strykers that there were frequent detonations when said rockets hit the trees. Since my squads were positioned in the trees in front of the Strykers they were taking some pretty severe hits. Soon the air was filled with cries of "Medic!" and "I'm hit!". Some of the rockets were finding their targets too and so I was taking some punishment. Eventually I was able to get the first platoon to occupy the low buildings on the other side of the breeches and I was able to start assaulting my way forward about three buildings deep on the left side of the town. I was trying to get my second platoon into position to start clearing the taller buildings on the right side of the town but that's basically when disaster struck. You see, the buildings on the right side all have single entry points on the right side so you can't get into those buildings very easily. There were a couple of Syrians who were giving me all kinds of trouble on the end building, so in a fit of anger I shouted "Oh, you want some of that too eh?" I targeted that building with every Stryker I had and started pounding the snot out of it. I then mounted up a squad in a Stryker to have them dismount near the door and run in (because it was just too open to get to that side of the building in one piece), but the Stryker with the squad in it started doing a goat dance and was reversing, spinning, and driving around like a man on drugs (pre 1.11). That Stryker just couldn't get there from here. So I kept blasting the building until it finally collapsed. I then started on the next one blasting it until it would collapse but I was running low on ammunition for my big guns already. Between the heavy casualties and the dancing Stryker I finally had to throw in the towel again when the Syrian tanks arrived (after muttering a few choice obscenities). On the cease fire screen I had killed like over 200 Syrians and I was like "damn, I was killing them like flies but it didn't even have an effect." Plan C: Currently in progress. Having tried one platoon on each side of the road and two platoons on the left side of the road, I am now trying two platoons on the right side of the road. After a prep bombardment on the trench in the woods, I moved my infantry through the woods to the opposite wall so my pixeltruppen basically lined the wall from one end to the other. I put the sniper team and two MG teams into the two story building just outside the town and they have been lighting up the Syrians in the trenches along the right side of the road. Recently some SF guys in the town started to make my rooftop MG nest untenable and the house is now a bit hot, but I'm still hangin' on in there. My guys along the wall have been very busy because the Syrian decided to leave the trenches and start running for the town. Between the Syrians leaving the trenches and the Mech units running around my guys have been blasting away. So far Plan C is working out waaaaay better than Plan A and B had by this point. Incidentally none of my local friends or usual CMx1 PBEM opponents have purchased CMSF although I got them to download the demo and try it out. In any event, I would be interested in some head to head PBEM on some of the larger scenarios off the CD (I would actually prefer Red because I don't mind if my troops get annihilated when playing as Red ). If anyone is interested just send me a private message or e-mail me (I think my e-mail is listed - do'h).

LOL, heck, it's hard to even find books written on those two wars!! You might as well toss in the Mexican American War onto that list too. At least those long suffering WW1 fans get a crumb tossed at them every once in a while. Oh, and if you are in to Napoleonics then you better like refighting the battle of Waterloo over and over and over again. Leipzig? Wagram? Austerlitz? Borodino? Good luck on those ones.

Alright ya got me on that one . I meant no way without a balcony. Yeah, I just tried the Ctrl Alt click and it did indeed put doors on upper level floors with no balconies so please disregard my obviously hasty comment earlier! It must have been CMx1 pollution seeping into my mind. As far as Sim City goes - well I would like to be able to make a decent parking lot too. I can use the non striped highway pavement to make somewhat of a parkinglot but it could look a lot better. The dirt lot and the gravel lot just don't cut it when you are trying to make a parking lot for a seven story apartment complex. Also on the doodad wishlist would be stuff like picnic tables and maybe some outside restaurant seating for a cafe or something. Hey, it doesn't hurt to ask eh? All Steve can say is "No"

I knew about the balconies but I didn't want to put balconies on the inside wall of the H. However, I have to admit that I was unsure if the pixeltruppen would actually walk off the balcony into the other building or if they would be restricted to the balcony. The other method I didn't know about, although I had the rule book open and was trying everything I could. I thought the Ctrl Alt click just made the windows and doors "Look" the same (as in style). I'll have to check it out.

Oh yeah, for effects I think the most significant effect that is lacking is star shells. Without star shells night combat is really ... dare I say it ? Yeah, night combat is broken without star shells. Now I'm sure there are a lot of technical hurdles to put an object floating above the battlefield since we haven't seen any items of that nature yet in any CM game to date so I've long since accepted their absence. But yeah, Star Shells. I can't even imagine trying to do a Pacific theater CM without them (not that anything is planned for the pacific mind you - but since Japanese actively trained for and doctrinally encouraged night attacks it would be a painful absence in that theater).

After putzing around making a scenario in the editor in CMSF I did find that there were a few things I would like to see in the environment and I almost started a thread like this myself. I figured that BFC were probably already going to be making a bunch of changes though so I decided to hold my tongue. Now that the thread is here though . Buildings - with regards to buildings there is a lot of flexibility in them currently and they do a decent job of it for the basics - especially how far we've come from CMx1 in that area. However ... there are two building categories that simply can't be fudged with the current building selection in CMSF. I realize that the objective for the buildings needs to be 'generic' enough that you can simulate a wide variety of buildings but I think there needs to be three categories of buildings. The first category of buildings would be the ones already included in CMSF - square, rectangular, etc with your basic doors and windows. Another type would be some sort of 'round' type building set. This type of building would be used for items such as: Grain Elevators, really big ones for Oil Storage containers (with the roofs that float on oil), smaller ones for fuel containers, etc. There are lots of vertical cylinder type containers for storing fuel, water, milk products, etc located at train stations, farms, factories, and transportation hubs of various sorts. The third set of building types would be ... call it warehouse or industrial type of buildings. Warehouse and industrial type buildings would be buildings that could be multi story structures on the outside but optionally lacking a second floor or a third floor on the inside. They would have vehicular sized entrances and vehicles could enter or exit them. These types of buildings would be used for barns, warehouses, firestations, modern supermarkets or Walmart type structures, and that sort of thing. You could have loading docks and areas where trucks could back up to unload goods so they would have a platform of some type that was at the same height off the ground as a truck trailer so you can drive a forklift into the back of the trailer to unload it. This type of building would be necessary to simulate large factories too, such as an automobile plant or something like that. Okay, as far as doodads go - yeah, more doodads for farms and industrial areas. There are plenty of doodads available for big cities with the street lights, stop signals, and all that. Although some random road signs would have been nice like stop signs, yield signs, or no parking signs or whatever, but the areas that are lacking are really farm and industrial doodads. The pallets, sacks, drums, and tires are okay but a few more things like overhead fuel dispensors, tractors, irrigation equipment etc would be nice. One thing that I also ran into was a problem when making tall buildings. The problem is that you can't put a door onto a non first floor wall. You just can't do it currenly. So why would you want to put a door on say .... the second and third floor? Well, I made a seven story apartment complex that I put into an H pattern. Well I could elimate the end walls on the center part of the H where they connected to the two outer buildings, but I couldn't eliminate the interior wall of the two outer H buildings or you would have no walls on those parts of the H that faced each other so I had to put a wall there. However, as I could not put a door on any floor above the first floor there is currently no way for someone who is on the top floor on one of the outer buildings of the H from walking over to the other side of the H without going all the way down to the ground floor in order to pass through the center building of the H. I hope that made sense, because it's mildly annoying. Oh, and I also thought the air conditioner doodads were roof units so I tried to put the airconditioners on the roofs of my big apartment complexes but the AC units just ended up on the ground floor . Oh, and I would still like to see castles in Normandy - it would be like having a cherry on top of the chocolate sunday that will be CM Normandy. edited to add: Oh yeah, structures like cathedrals should be several stories tall but not have interior floors. Government buildings often have spacious interiors too - like San Francisco city hall with a high vaulted ceiling and a grand stairway at the entrance. Train Stations are another example. There was something else that I was going to add but "poof" it has escaped my mind

Seems like there is a lot of 'tilting at windmills' going on in this thread. Steve has already answered the questions as to the feasibility of having FOW with trenches and foxholes. Everything that followed after his initial answer to that question where he explained what was feasible and what wasn't is really just a waste of bandwidth and a bunch of whining imo . It's really just a matter of if a person that is contemplating the purchase of CM: Normandy will decide to still purchase it or not after hearing the explanation that was given. After the individual gamer sits down and makes that decision then just live with that decision and be done with it. Quite honestly with Adam and Steve going at it .... wow. I mean, Steve at least has a horse in the discussion as he put a lot of blood sweat and tears into making the thing over the course of the last ten years. Adam? I don't honestly know what your horse is here. What is it? $45 and a few years of wargaming enjoyment? The reality is, Adam, that if you check what tactical combat simulators are on the market right now you will probably not find anything that comes close to Combat Mission x1 or x2. Now you can take a break and play company of heroes for a while and have some fun with that, or you can take Steve's explanation of the possible and the impossible and accept it. I assume that you enjoyed CMx1 since you seem to rave about it so at some level you have to believe that Steve, Charles, and yes even Dan and the rest have produced some quality products in the past. Why you don't account for the years of fun that you have already had with CMx1 products and say something along the lines of "okay Steve, I've really enjoyed your games and I accept your explanation of what's possible and what's not possible so in light of our discussion here I'm going to take a pass on all things CMx2 until this issue is addressed." You like CMx1? Great, just keep playing it then. I think that's why Steve is getting frustrated. You like CMx1 so just play it. He's explained what the limitations are. Accept the limitations for what they are and move on. I didn't buy Shock Force until just a few months ago. I heard that it was real time and so I opted out. I didn't hang around the forums whining about it. I just kept playing CMx1 and Total War, along with some other stuff. I checked the forums later and saw they had We Go back in so I bought it. See, it's pretty simple stuff. Steve doesn't owe you anything. BFC makes a game and you can choose to buy it or not - it's entirely up to you. Steve is certainly not holding a gun to your head and stealing 45 bucks out of your pocket. Now then, regarding the FOW keep in mind that it is only Trenches and Foxholes ... only. Steve indicated that there will be improved sandbagged positions as well as bunkers / pill boxes that can be used in defense that DO have FOW. So, you could spend your time merrily bombarding that unoccupied trench line and then stumble into a hidden bunker. Ouch. Anyway, I just want to mention to Steve that I think sometimes you defend the game a little too vigorously. Sometimes I wish you would just answer Adam's question and be done with it. Let others continue the discussion as far as that goes because others will carry the discussion forward. If someone keeps asking repetitive questions maybe just a simple "Asked and answered" would be fine . Incidentally, I would also like to add that if any of you have been to other game forums the level of interaction we have with the guys doing the ACTUAL CODING is probably damn near unprecedented. In case anyone thinks I'm a Fanboi, just look in the archived threads and you should see that Steve and I have had some disputes - I was even forced to acknowledge he was right one time and I did actually apologize to him on the forum . Yet, overall I still think my larger point was actually correct - he did get me on the smaller point so I had to admit it (it was regarding targeting and hit probability in one of the accuracy threads).

Truth be told, there is a dramatic improvement between the first screen shot and the second one.

It's been a long time, and the most amazing thing is how many of the same people are all still here after all this time. Now, irrespective of Steve's protestations to the contrary , as far as I'm concerned there will always be a connection between Squad Leader and CM. Why? Because of how I found the BTS web site. I was snooping around on Avalon Hill's website and down in the lower right hand corner there was a little banner type link that said something to the effect of "Computerized Squad Leader coming soon from Big Time Software" so I clicked the link and ended up on the BTS website. Now it was a long time ago and my memory may be impaired but that's how I remember it so that's the way it was. I always thought Big Time Software was a bit of a goofy name and I'm glad they changed it. It always makes me think of the old Peter Gabriel song "Big Time" . When I went to the Avalon Hill website I think I was actually looking for stuff about Close Combat because they were supposed to be the next computerized squad leader but I guess there was a parting of the ways. I guess 'based on' is all relative though because CM clearly isn't 'based on' Squad Leader in the game play or technical aspects. Perhaps 'inspired by' may be a better descriptive, although that's kind of squishy too. One thing is for sure. Steve and Charles and the rest of the crew must REALLY love what they are doing because I know I would probably get tired of doing this stuff non stop for hours and hours on end day after day, year after year. Coding this stuff would have to become your life.

Actually, from a practical scenario building standpoint, I'm hoping to see some R39 tanks so I can recreate some of the battles against US Paratroopers. I think there may have been some Somuas fighting the british paras but I'm not certain of it.

Okay I’m going to go ahead and, against my better judgment, dip my toes into this thread. I hate to get into any sort of heavy debates with Steve though because he makes such fantabulous games! Ironically enough, a few years ago we were on opposite sides on similar debates although I was advocating the “Arab” viewpoint and he the “Israeli”. I suspect Steve’s motivation in this case is from a strictly technical standpoint as opposed to an emotive one or just an exercise in debating. I’m going to approach this from that angle. So Steve (and others), I just want to begin by saying that as far as the facts available in this thread and in the general media go I can’t fault your analysis of the situation. I believe that you are technically correct in your assertions for the most part if the assumptions they are based upon are accurate. Therefore I’m not going to challenge your debating points individually but rather I’m going to make an effort to shift the perspectives of those who are participating in this thread in an effort to show that the basic assumptions held by many in this thread are suspect. In other words, I’m going to attempt a ‘shift of worldview’. That will also make this a very long post, so here is your fair warning. Let’s just start off with the question of “How many missiles fired per day from Mexico into America would be an acceptable number?” If all of us who were typing away so amicably on our computers at home were subjected to even one rocket landing nearby our home we would think that was quite enough. If we had rockets landing daily for years I should think that at some point we would get fed up with it. It’s not really a question of casualty statistics per rocket fired as put forward in this thread but rather how it would affect your lifestyle. If you wanted to move would you be able to sell your home? Will you make it home from work today? When you get home from work will your home still be there? I think the case for Israeli action against Hamas in Gaza is pretty clear. However, many who might agree that Israel has a right to stop the rocket attacks can’t support Israeli action due to a proportionality argument. In other words the Israeli response is disproportionate to the actions of Hamas and their incessant rocket firing. I’m not going to debate that point because everyone’s sense of proportionality is going to be different and as a debating point it will go nowhere. For one person even one Palestinian killed by the Israelis would be too much, for others thousands of Palestinians killed would be irrelevant. Everyone reading this thread will lay somewhere along that spectrum. The casualty figures themselves though is our first base assumption which I would like to shift. Here is an interesting article about the casualty figures as reported up to now http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODY1NjNiMmQyMThlN2ZhZDhjYmYwYWM4M2ZlOTk4MDE= . Full disclosure – the NRO is a conservative website, although truth be told the democratic party has historically been stronger supporters of Israel than the Republican party and “the Jewish vote” almost always goes overwhelmingly in the dems favor. From the article Okay, so in that article she mentions the Israeli attack on Jenin. I’m really surprised that the Israeli supporters haven’t already mentioned it but here are some press clippings from the time: From the BBC you get this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1937048.stm From this unbiased eyewitness account you get this: http://www.peacecouncil.net/pnl/03/718/718EyewitnessJenin.htm Here is another wonderful account of atrocities http://www.cactus48.com/jeninbook.html Israeli dirt bags even broke that little girl’s doll!! That’s just lower than low! Here is a whole series of news articles you can check out http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51a/index-d.html . I won’t quote them all but here is a choice quote from the first link on that page A few more links for your viewing pleasure http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/66233_jenin12.shtml http://www.albalagh.net/current_affairs/devastation_jenin.shtml http://www.damascus-online.com/pal/jenin/oracle_at_jenin.htm I could go on and on, but you get the idea. So what actually happened in Jenin? This is from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/2002/jenin/story.html Wow, that’s some kind of a massacre isn’t it? Don’t like Time Magazine? Here are some more links for extra credit http://www.adl.org/Israel/jenin/ http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/operation_defensive_shield_and_the_myth_of_the_jenin_massacre If you think they just try that kind of stuff with Israelis, I would submit to our readers that the US has faced similar accusations http://www.marxist.com/MiddleEast/fallujah_massacre.html http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-8-2004-61311.asp In other words – casualty reporting is a strategic component of Arab middle eastern warfare and I would submit that anyone who views the casualty figures that have been reported for Gaza uncritically is just being foolish. I would say to those in this thread that whatever casualty figures have been tossed around are completely unreliable and should be tossed out of any consideration of either the facts or any argument about proportionality. There is no doubt that Palestinians are being killed though. However, we don’t know how many have been killed, nor do we know by whom they have been killed. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/985grouf.asp Here is a summary of several news stories on Gaza http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001002.html How about that UN organization that is faithfully reporting the truth in Gaza for the world? From this article from back in May of 2008 http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/19/defund-unrwa/ Here is a more recent article about the UNRWA http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2009/01/07/gaza-hamas-unrwa-oped-cx_cr_0108rosett.html Newsflash: for all practical purposes the UN in Gaza is Hamas. Finally, who are all these ‘Palestinians’ anyway? Extra credit reading for you all http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_right_of_return_and_the_fo.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/01/the_arab_right_of_return_to_is.html

That's always a plus

I found this tidbit of info about ATGMs in “Lessons of Modern War Vol 2” by Anthony Cordsman He then follows that up with this little insight On artillery he states the following Anyway, just a few tidbits that I found that seemed relevant to this thread.

Incidentally, I should add in the two situations I described, both squads were split into teams prior to loading onto the AAV and each team loaded onto the AAV independently, reforming into squads after they had loaded up. I don't know if that matters or not, but I figured that I would mention it just in case. I don't recall it happening with any of my units when they originally unloaded, only in the case where the three teams formed a squad while in the AAV after reloading into the AAV.

Yeah, that's how it's supposed to work, but in the case of the AAV and the Marines it doesn't work like that. It happened to me often enough that it should be easily repeatable under test circumstances. In the specific instances that it happened to me it was always a marine infantry squad (not a sniper team or a command element or anything else) and the AAV was already loaded with the squad. The first time it happened the AAV was given a "Fast" movement command to a destination that was more than a minute of travel time distant and the squad was given a "Quick" move to their destination. As soon as the We Go turn started the infantry fell out the back and started quick timing to their destination. The ramp didn't open - the infantry were just on the ground moving when the turn started and the AAV left them in the dust. Tactically there was a remote chance that a distant RPG could have hit the AAV at about 500 meters or more, but the destination was behind a building filled with friendly troops who needed reinforcements (in front of the trench filled palm orchard thingy in Radhak or whatever it's called) and I didn't want to take any chances. I had an AAV seemingly self destruct way back behind the front lines and I found no enemy infantry within the LOS of that location even after clearing every building in the area (high walled compound to the right side of route major from the blue perspective) and knowing that all the hilltops were cleared (infantry walked them and the sagger team was dispatched) so I didn't want to take any chances of having my troops sitting in a deathtrap until the full minute ended whenever they got to their destination. That blown up AAV was so mysterious and so far back in a 'safe' location that I didn't even see it on the replay because I never looked over there (after watching several replays). I assumed it was a grenade but there was nobody anywhere around. Anyway, that's neither here nor there as far as the men falling out of the vehicle, the second time was when it was pretty quiet and most of the OPFOR was obviously huddled in fear because almost nobody was shooting at me. I used the "Move" for the AAV and gave the squad a fifteen second delay with an order to "Quick" into the first building on the right side opposite the second bridge in Radhanak on "Route Major". A friendly squad split into three teams along with a scout vehicle were already occupying the buildings on the left side of "Route Major" on the other side of the bridge in Radhanak (having crossed the dry creek on foot) and were well positioned in overwatch. After fifteen seconds the AAV was halfway across the bridge and the squad fell out the back of the AAV. The AAV proceeded to it's destination and stopped outside the building I wanted to clear. The troops were quick timing up the bridge until the minute was up (very slowly I might add). So, anyway, tactically I'm not making any errors by using the AAVs the way I wanted to. The infantry just fall out of the vehicle and my tactics have nothing to do with it.

This is so. I had that happen on multiple occasions playing the Rahdanak scenario yesterday and the day before. Basically in We Go if you plot a dismount destination during the orders phase while your AAV is in motion (stopped because it's an orders phase but still with a live movement order) the troops 'fall off the back' of the AAV as soon as the turn starts and start to move to their destination. This was particularly frustrating in that battle as the destination was longer than one minute away from where the AAV was with it moving full speed. I had to watch for an entire minute in both cases while the troops started running along watching as the AAV slowly disappeared in a cloud of dust "hey, wait for us!". After the minute was over I would then have to stop the AAV and the squad and then go back to load them up again . A work around is that you can give your loaded squad a pause order while they are loaded up, but you have to err on the side of a longer pause, otherwise they will 'fall out the back' as soon as the pause ends. I have to admit that it was probably the only source of actual frustration and aggravation I've really experienced playing SF up to this point.

GSX, giving CM "to the squaddies to play with" would be a complete waste of time because as a training tool for the individual infantryman it would be completely useless. Where it would have some value would be for Platoon commanders, Company commanders, Battalion commanders, and Brigade or Regimental commanders to sharpen their skills in coordinating with each other. I don't know what it's like in the other armies in the world, but in the US army on Fort Hood and in West Germany back in the day it was a relatively simple matter for individual platoon commanders to reserve some time on post and go out and do some maneuvers out in the wilds of Fort Hood. It was a little more complicated in West Germany because the training areas were more limited and you couldn't just drive out the front gate of whatever barracks area you were at, tie up the West German autobahn and back roads with columns of tanks and trucks a mile long, and go around messing up some German farmer's fields whenever you felt like it - at least if you didn't want mass demonstrations by po'd German civilian types . It was bad enough as it was with them slamming the door of the clubs in our faces all the time. Damn, I just wanted to drink a beer and talk to a hot German babe but nooooo - we don't serve your kind here lol. I think the haircut gave us away! I shudder to think of how bad it would be if we were out galavanting around chewing up everyone's fields all the time whenever we wanted to with no accountability to anyone. Getting any sort of training done while in West Germany was difficult and getting training for an entire battalion or even a brigade sized element was pretty rare to do because of both the limited space of the available training areas and due to the fact that what training areas were available were shared by all NATO nations so you had to take a ticket and wait in line if you wanted to use one. On Fort Hood it was a little simpler to do, but even then getting an entire battalion or brigade out on maneuvers at once was pretty rare because if a brigade was out maneuvering in the wilds nobody else could be out there - both the 1st Cavalry Division and the 2d Armored Division were based there at the time. Getting an entire division out in the fields - I don't think that ever happened. So, in terms of real life boots on the ground, everyone spending time out in the field eating MREs, and having fun chewing up the Texas back country, that is generally going to be limited to platoon or maybe company sized training. Now, I believe it was once a year, we would send a larger sized element to the NTC but that was only one time a year and I don't remember what sized element it was - could have been Brigade but I'm not positive. I do know that we never sent more than a company sized ADA element out to support 1st Cavalry in any sort of maneuver so our companies would rotate out to NTC (usually only one company out of the battalion a year - if that). You also had all your attack helicopters buzzing around. Damn those tankers were always driving around full blast in the dead of night with no headlights on so I was more terrified of turning into tread juice than in following SOP and sleeping somewhere away from the vehicle. In case of air attack you don't want to be blowed up - but relative to a mythical pretend air attack, the danger of being crushed on the ground in your sleeping bag by some overzealous sleep deprived treadhead using night vision at midnight was probably a lot greater lol . Although I must admit that when I had the chance to drive the M157 it was quite the rush. Wow, the feeling of power driving around in something that big and heavy is a real experience. I think the Co Play element is probably a deal breaker for use with the US Army as a training tool because if you can't get everyone from the butter bars to the birds in the game at the same time with each one commanding their own element it's just not going to be effective. You gotta figure that your birds are going to know basic maneuver tactics for larger formations or they wouldn't be birds, so just having your birds sit down in front of the computer to play CM probably wouldn't be very worthwhile. The trick is getting all your butter bars to get the job done within the heirarchy of whatever the battle plan is as passed down by your birds. With CM you can add an opposition element that's difficult to add when having your boys driving around in the fields. Probably the only time we ever had an actual OPFOR was when units rotated into the NTC. The problem with the NTC was that the entire army was rotating through it so only a few units had the opportunity to get real world training with boots on the ground vs a live opponent at the NTC at any particular time at the brigade or battalion level. Most of the time when maneuvering on Fort Hood itself it was more of a logistical exercise for the various commanders since there was no OPFOR. One time I drove around the XO in the old Chevy Blazer and all we did was drive to various locations to see if the Vulcans were properly camoflauged. Even when you got to go to the NTC the terrain was always the same so CM would add the random terrain element into the mix. Now maybe it's different in the UK and over there you can just send out a Brigade sized armored formation with full on Brigade sized OPFOR to drive around out in the wilds of East Anglia for real boots on the ground training whenever you want to, but in the US Army there would definitely be some value that could be obtained for commanders in honing their skills coordinating their actions with other units against an active OPFOR in whatever terrain, scenario, or situation that a trainer may want to simulate. Your comment about cost though really makes me scratch my head. If you think field training doesn't cost anything extra then you haven't been paying attention. If your troops are sitting around in the barracks then all the vehicles are usually sitting around in the motor pool. I don't think there is a unit in the US Army that goes to battle totally on foot anymore - even in my day every unit had a whole raft full of vehicles of various sizes and shapes and when your main battle tank's gas mileage is measured in terms of GPM (Gallons Per Mile LOL) then just driving around is gonna cost you a little extra. Oh yeah, and usually we didn't eat MREs when sitting around in the barracks - we had a mess hall for that so yeah, the cost of food would be added into that. Truth be told though, there is no telling how old those MREs were. Most guys who were sergeant or above also lived off post so they wouldn't even eat all their meals in the mess hall. I'm sure some of our stuff dated from Vietnam. Some of the Deuce and a Halfs definitely were Vietnam vintage - we could even see bullet holes in a few!