Mad Mike

Hi afreu, i just played your scenario .. quite interesting and well done. * POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW * * * * * * * * * * * Overall I found it a little bit too difficult for me. I was playing Real time, elite difficulty and suffered a minor defeat. The Syrians suffered a lot of casualties, but still had enough left intact (maybe 35% of their force) after the two hour time limit. I managed to take the village and bridge, but never even came close to the hill. I think the Syrians have just one big advantage in this scenario .. their Grenade launchers .. those were quite deadly and they also have quite a range at which they are still effective. The tanks were not a big problem .. i was also able to beat back the counterattack on the right flank quite comfortably. Overall, quite enjoyable, just a little bit too hard for me .. but hey, I haven't played CMSF for quite some time (waiting for the British module), so maybe it's just me .

Hi Rogue187, **** POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW **** Well, you don't have much to begin with (did you have rather high casualties in the last mission?), so i would advise to keep the depleted troops back (hiding) and let the Syrians come close to your lines. You could then defeat them quite easily with your superior firepower. This tactic worked nicely for me with v1.10 and in the end, after some pretty intense fighting and the very necessary reinforcements, i managed to get a Syrian surrender. With v1.11 i tried the same approach, still got a Syrian surrender, but the end result was a "Total Defeat". You ask why? The answer is in the readme for v1.11: - Surrender does not necessarily lead to total defeat. The scores for Terrain Touch, Terrain Destroy, and all Unit objectives are preserved. For the Syrians, the two objectives in this mission (roads leading off the map to the south) seem to be defined as Terrain Touch, which means as soon as any one Syrian unit touches it, they get awarded the points. If they manage to touch both, you can wipe them completely off the map and you will still lose . In my opinion, this is a wrong usage of objective type in this misssion, which did not matter for v1.10, but makes it much harder now in v1.11. What does this translate into? If i were you, i would try the mission before this one again and see if you can win it with less casualties. Also, the absence of the 60mm mortar support is especially bad, as it would help you to disorganise and delay the Syrians early on in the mission, giving you breathing time till the reinforcements arrive. With the reinforcements, a Javelin team will arrive .. this one i would deploy immediately to the small hill on you right side to deal with the T-62s.

Hi Webwing, just finished Red Pepper v1.1 and have to say .. very nice. My final score was this: Total Victory due to Syrian Surrender US Syria OK 205 103 KIA 9 216 WIA 34 150 MIA 0 1 Veh. 0 5 I took it very slow and was therefore able to quickly shift enough forces to my left flank when the Syrians tried to attack from the hill. Concentrated fire and the 60mm mortar resulted in a massacre of what i would guess was a whole Syrian company. I've never seen something like this except for the "Battle for the Old City". I never advanced any further then the first houses and kept quite a lot of my force back for the first 40 minutes or so. The AI FOs were quite accurate, but luckily i always noticed the spotting rounds and was able to move my platoons out of the danger zone. For me, the first part of the battle was recon / defense followed by a counterattack .. I would advice against attacking too soon, because then the Syrians might catch you in less favourable positions. Last but not least i have to say i am always playing Elite / RT and never before have i paused the game less .. maybe 3 to 4 times total in one hour of play. Great work .. totally captivating .

Hi George MC, just wanted to say thanks for a very enjoyable campaign with excellent maps. I managed to get a Major Victory in the end, but had to Save/Reload a couple of times . The last mission (defending the Bridgehead at Brandenburg) was actually quite easy because i managed to keep the whole two M1 platoons from the previous missions. Cheers, Mad Mike

Thanks dischord, i've downloaded the fixed scenario and will try again .. but only after seeing the LAV ATGMs fail miserably the first time around. I had one LAV ATGM in Hull Down Position and it even spotted the Syrian T55s moving into position. For some reason, the crew then decided to pop some smoke and retreat .. not really what I expected from an ATGM platform:D. After moving them back into firing position and getting of 2 TOWs, I could understand their initial reaction .. both TOWs missed and the LAV got hit twice, resulting in the destruction of both TOW launchers. At least the vehicle survived.

Hiya all, I usually don't post here, just lurk in the background and wait for 1.11 to arrive .. but today, while playing the scenario 'Just around the bend', i witnessed a rather funny pathfinding oddity, involving some fine driving by a LAV crew : The original intention for the LAV was to arrive at the waypoint using a FAST movement order coming from the direction indicated by the red arrow. Somehow they must have missed the exit:D. Not to worry, just do another revolution in the roundabout .. This took about 4 to 5 seconds and was accomplished in a rather hurried fashion. Overall, not too bad .. at least nobody got hurt:D. Anyway, I don't want to bash the pathfinding here .. just hope 1.11 will be worth waiting for (not that we have a choice, really).

The issues about LOS/LOF got me confused as well, but i guess i am closer to understanding the basic principle now. LOS, which is a prerequisite to LOF checks by each individual entity in a squad, is abstracted to the 8x8 grid. This is the abstraction bit, if the unit (the centre of it in one grid hex) has LOS, more detailed, 1:1 LOF checks will be carried out. So the more detailed 1:1 "simulation" is based on a still constrained abstarction, which leads to situations like the following: Sniper in the second floor balcony of a building, my squad storms the second floor, two or three soldiers arrive in the second floor, but the "centre" of the squad is still in the first floor (checked by manually trying to target the sniper, which i could "see" due to spotting by a third unit). Therefore, no LOS from the abstracted squad and consequently, my squad members already in the third floor are not even beginning to think about shooting the sniper. The sniper on the other hand sees the three guys and starts killing them one after another. In my opinion, the order of abstraction and 1:1 representation is the wrong way around. If LOS is a prerequisite, then it should be checked as detailed by every entity as necessary. The actual LOF (firing of weapons) could be abstracted. For example, say only the three entities in my squad which succesfully calculated LOS then engage the enemy, all the others keep doing what they are doing. At least, that is how I understand the current implementation based on the information provided in this forum and on my playing experience. If todays computers still can't handle the combination of 1:1 LOS AND LOF (i think Steve mentioned this in one of his threads about LOS/LOF), then "realistic" LOS seems to me to be the more desireable option .. which i guess is giving some support to MDs point, this is a fundamental design decision.

I have to object. The Bundeswehr-Flecktarn-Camo is very effective if used in appropriate terrain. To draw a conclusion like "it isnt effective but i never tried in in the right terrain" is, in my opinion, just wrong.

Just to clarify some things: Any order which includes a crime as defined in the military(Wehrstrafgesetz) or civil(Strafgesetzbuch) penal code has to be rejected. The soldier has no choice to decide whether he wants to obey the order or not. Orders that do not include an official purpose or violate the dignity of the human being (Menschenwürde) may not be obeyed. In these cases the soldier has the choice to obey the order or to reject it. (Examples for the may-not orders: Clean stuff or the toilets with a toothbrush (against the dignity), clean the private car of an officer (no official purpose)) My thoughts about the Redlight-crossing thing: There may be some circumstances in which the soldier may have to follow the order(midnight, no other cars in sight). It depends on the specific situation and circumstances, so there is no way to give a general answer to this question.

Area Target: Flächenziel my suggestions: Line of Sight: Sichtverbindung or Blickfeld Setup: Aufstellung In general, i wouldn't use the imperative german verbs. As a native german speaker, i can tell you this: I wouldn't want to read the whole menu in imperative form. Just doesn't look good.

Well, a towed 15cm NbWf 41 or 28/32 NbWf 41 Battery had 6 separate launchers with 6 tubes each. So a Battery could launch up to 36 rockets per salvo. A Werferabteilung had three Batteries, 108 tubes. A Werfer-Regiment had in turn three Abteilungen, 324 tubes. The Werfer-Regiment was the highest organizational level for the Nebelwerfer-troops. The motorized Nebelwerfers, as seen at the Link posted by ckoharik, were the 15 cm Panzerwerfer 42. A battery of these were eight Panzerwerfer for a total of 80 tubes.

I played the Operation 21st Panzer Attacks a couple of days ago. FFOW was turned on. Same Problem as Cos described. I placed my 88 in the rear and it was shelled with great accuracy (at night). Of course it was knocked out, so i decided to load a saved game and place it in a more secure place. Guess what happened. Same story as before. At this point, i decided to do a little test. I placed the gun at the left and right mapedge, at the center in the rear and so on. All tests showed the same result - the gun was knocked out, even when in terrain that cant be considered a good hiding place. This leaves only one conclusion - the AI DOES know where your units are.