Calvin

OK, ordered the direct download of the British module and decided to also get the DVD as with the Marine's Module, I received both the DVD AND a printed out copy of the manual. So... paid extra again for the brits and I get a Priority Mail envelope with a DVD in it and a 1 page invoice reminding me that yes, I ordered it. I think the extra 10 bucks might at least rate a print out of the apparently solely available in PDF Brit Forces manual. No, not a big rip but I'm grousing anyway. Also, the Marine's module came in this cool plastic box. I love that box. Calvin

Great information gentleman. Much appreciated (and downloaded). Calvin

One measure of a good (realistic) wargame is that it forces you to observe the same tactical doctrines as the guys doing the shooting/getting shot at. It will be interesting to see how the new module handles this...

Interesting stuff SgtMuhammed. Can't claim the honor of being a Marine myself, but I will say that I had a lot of buddies who joined either the Corp or the Army Infantry straight out of High School (I'm from Kansas City, and in Kansas if you join the Marines or the Army, you don't opt for anything but line infantry.) One thing of note was that Basic Infantry training changed everybody. But man, the guys who came back from Marine basic were just at another level. As those of you who've been in the service know, that post-basic training intensity tapers down. Still, the Marines were just off the page. Although I have to say that two of my friends who went Airborne (the 82nd AND the 101st) came pretty close to matching the intensity. And I certainly don't mean to say that the above phenomenon is anyway to measure a soldier or a Marine.

Thanks Lebotus. Great site. Bookmarked it! Any campaigns (or missions) you'd recommend? Anybody else care to input?

I don't want to set off any inter-service food fights here but... Other than the basics, what differences between Marine Corp tactical doctrine and that of the US Army can be drawn? I am aware that US Marine's are set up to be more expeditionary and independent, have larger squads w/ generally greater, firepower, etc. What else? Both official and unofficial?

Anyone have any recommended sites/sources for third-party (i.e. user-designed) campaigns? Thanks!

1) Can troops gain experience over the course of a campaign? 2) Has anyone found the sniper team at all effective, if so, how? What tactics to do you recommend? Thanks, Calvin

Martin- Can you let us in on the NVIDIA driver option that you tweaked? Maybe it would work for the rest of us. Thanks, C.

Any chance that Battlefront could address the 169 drivers issues? My 8800GT (ASUS TOP) freezes with these drivers also. CMSF is the only game this happens in. It's a bit of a pain to rollback to earlier drivers for just one game. Maybe there will be a hotfix from NVIDIA. I never had probs in this area with CMSF before, and my system runs rock-solid with every other game I've loaded. Anybody got the dope here?

PS> Forgot to say, particular thanks to MarkEzra for the trial scenario/report he provided.

Hey all- Interesting that mileage varies here. In the scenario I outlined, the Strykers were well within 400 yards of the Syrian forces firing (from a stone building) on the MG squads. Also, I had two other MG squads already deployed within line of sight of the targets. Not sure what the discrepancy here is, but it's frustrating. I have no problem with a game that simulates the difficulty of spotting enemy forces, or punishes bad tactics (in fact, that's what I hope for!) but this is just ridiculous. I mean, there was a used car lot full of Strykers, two MG squads and an HQ team already deployed, and nobody fired a shot. And damn if that Syrian automatic fire wasn't immediately accurate!

Hey fellahs- Good input, but I think the main point (which my earlier post may not have driven home) is that AFV's and other units assigned to over watch do not open up on opforce targets firing at advancing or other infantry. In the example above, I dismounted two MG squads. Both immediately took heavy fire. Not a singe AFV or even the already dismounted squads on the right took a single step to suppress this fire, non fired a shot. I had deployed the two MG squads several meters away from the target and only a few meters away from the Strykers. I had ordered them deployed to build up the already substantial overwatch forces supporting the main assault. Those forces included 8 total Stryker vehicles. And not a single one opened up to supress Syrian fire. Instead, the two MG squads were cut to pieces over a good 4 minute period. That is simply ridiculous and needs to be fix. Maybe a new "overwatch" command needs to be added to incline such units to fire/suppress potential sources of enemy fire. Until then, this thing is a joke. Unless of course you've got Abrams to waltz in, draw fire, and waste anything that moves.

Hi all- Likely this complaint is stated frequently elsewhere, but I'll add to the chorus. That is, the infantry & spotting model. Still broken. 8 Stryker vehicles standing overwatch. Two machine squads deployed. Immediately Syrian targets open up on them and they are cut to pieces. Neither the infantry nor the AFV's are able to spot even a presumptive target. None of the Stryker vehicles bother to open fire to suppress the enemy. My one choice here is to zoom in to the physical buildings themselves, try to discern where the fire is coming from, then direct each individual unit to open up via the "Area Fire" command. This is both cumbersome and unrealistic and makes the game near unplayable.

Childress - You are right that Marshall is at least "controversial", and at worst partially a fraud (I've read David Hackworth's memoir "About Face" so I'm familiar with some of the main critiques). But while Marshall exaggerated and based much of his work on unsubstantiated evidence, other, more reliable researchers later confirmed at least his essential point: that most infantry soldiers were either disinclined or lacked the skills to fire effectively in combat. The Army/Marine corp addressed this to the point where modern infantry have both the marksmanship and the mental focus to engage the enemy at levels unseen in earlier wars (and this is true even of greener formations). Anyway, I should have included some mention of Marshall's history and sloppy, irresponsible research. C.

Hi all- Ok, actually about to launch and play the new version instead of just yakking about it. But... wanted to address Zemke's point, which is a good one. Although I have already listed the things that drove me CRAZY about the infantry in the earlier versions, Zemke got me thinking. One, he's right, and I think anyone in the know will acknowledge that American small arms effectiveness--- both in general marksmanship, fire discipline and the number of individual soldiers actively engaging targets--- is vastly superior to the majority of other national armies. It's also far higher than it was during WWII, and not solely because small arms are more accurate and effective. In recent years, the Army and Marines have implemented training regimens that (compared with WWII, Korea or even Vietnam) have dramatically increased the number of soldiers in a given infantry squad who will immediately shoot to kill in a combat situation. There are aspects of this that are controversial. Essentially, the Army found a way to rapidly overcome the innate human resistance to killing in order to vastly increase the number of soldiers actively engaging in combat. Read your S.L.A. Marshall for background--- he notes that in WWII, a handful of "natural fighters" accounted for a disproportionate number of kills, and that many soldiers either did not fire there weapon or avoided picking specific targets, instead firing in the general direction of the enemy. Myself, I'm off two minds. I have listened to enough combat vets talk about war to (truly) realize it's a filthy awful horror show to be avoided at all costs. Any war is a tragedy, necessary or otherwise. At the same time, the business of battle is killing, and while I think we should always resort to armed conflict as a last resort knowing it for the disaster that it is, once slipped the dogs of war, they better be pit bulls. Sorry to be so long winded. The research I've vaguely outlined above is fascinating. But my main point was to say that Zemke is correct that US Small Arms fire is exponentially more effective than that of the vast majority of other armed forces apart from those of the better trained European outfits (certainly the Brits, the French (like them or not, their paras remain among the best in the world), the Turks and select German units. And it's strange that a game that otherwise refuses to downplay the superiority of US Arms for game balance fails to acknowledge what Zemke points out. OK, enough bloviating. On to the game...

Right on gents--- I'll try out the new version and report back. Sound like they fixed a lot of my concerns. Thanks- c.

Or at least open one eye? I mean, in 1.04 (which I'll be trying out tonight), are they infantry able to spot enemy targets at least somewhere close to as well as their fully buttoned down colleagues inside Armored Vehicles? And do they still blindly run into machine gun fire, dying to the man (all the while unable to spot the enemy unit firing at them)? Finally, do they return fire effectively--- at least in way that might suppress the enemy? I found infantry entirely useless in the earlier versions--- even after shredding Syrian defenses, dismounting infantry meant dead infantry. Hope there's been some improvement!

All good, except installing this and any other ATI "hotfix" screws up my drivers royally. Tried using every uninstall tool I could find then reinstalling the 7.9 full version. Still screwed. (And I mean I used everything from the ATI tool to JV Power Tools at it's most aggressive-- could not clean out the problem). Finally used Norton Ghost and restored to an earlier backup. Anybody else have this problem? In addition the above, I got error messages while installing the Hotfix (no, not the Microsoft warnings that the driver was uncertified--- those I ignored). I have a newer system with an X1900 card.

Gents: Any chance we can get some idea as to what the latest patch will include? Even a tentative list of improvements would be welcome. Thanks- C.

I have to support Sonar on this one. Although I can play CMSF, I do think about the real life war going on right now in the same region. This game doesn't quite reach my threshold for being too close to reality for me to play. A personal choice. However, there was/is a tank sim called "Balkans in Flames" put out by a Russian outfit in which the player takes on the role of a Serbian tanker. No thanks. That would be like a simulation of the SS Death's Head division in Russia. Way past my comfort level. My point, for all of you clobbering Sonar, is that I think he raises an important question, and I agree with him that it ought to be asked--- that all of us ought to ask ourselves. And a man can be so damn open minded that things go in and fly right out again. Including one's brain.

Let's hope so... I'm no programmer/game designer, but it does seem like this thing could be patched into something mahvelous. Right now... not so much.

Tired topic, I know. But I like the potential of this game and am holding out for the new patch. Can I get an update?

Word.

That's a reasonable theory, and would be a realistic thing to model in the game (i.e. AFV's better comms). But I've noticed failure to spot the enemy even when the infantry squad is about 10 meters away, or even taking active fire from the un-spotted target. I think one payoff for dismounting/risking your infantry is having better "eyes" on the field. Not terribly well-modeled in CMSF, hope it gets patched!