Peter Cairns

On the first shot you can't see what they are firing at, and on the last two you can't see the missile clearly, so even if there isn't C$ in the tank, there is no way to tell if the Tank you see explode is the tank that they fire at ( if the target is a tank at all. Also on the same sight there is film of an F-15 taking off from underwater, which is clearly film of a SLBM with an F-15 imposed over the missile. having said that the Film posted as an F-14, but actually of an F-18 bomb hitting an A-4 chase plane looks genuine. The commetary doesn't pick it up but it looks like instead of the bomb releasing from it's pylon, the Pylon comes away with the bomb..... Bomb accident Peter.

LtCol West , From what I can see, it seems to work a bit like the extended probe on a TOW, which sets a greater stand off distance for a shaped charge. In this case the probe is about 300mm and the crcular shaped charge in more convex than concave, spreading the force across the door rather than focusing it on a smaller area. The range must be fairly limited as it seems to be based on the same bullet trap principle as a rifle grenade, but for a flat trajectory. Although no doubt it might well put a whole in a roof if you lobed it at 100m or so. Of course if you turned it the other way and say used a larger calibre such as a .50 cal round used in current large calibre snipers rifles, then you might well have something that could with a similiar sized probe get round the cage armour on a Stryker, although you'd have to focus the charge, not disperse it. The obvoius counter measure is to leave the front door open and make the entrance hall a killing ground, the most simple way being to pull up the floorboards just inside the door and putting down some land mines and then stretching a carpet over the hole. Peter.

Colin, Crawler.... Anyway how talented can he be if I've worked it out.... Peter.

Cpl Steiner, pretty much how I see it too, only I see two classes. Always blocked, ie that hill will always be their and "checkable" ie, it has buildings in the way that might be destroyed. By using two classes a huge number of possibles can be eliminated right way with a flat "Never" result. The way to test this theory would be too build a series identically sized maps, with varaitions in the number and size of buildings and hills and see how long the CPU took to calculate the LOS map. Again as vehicles aren't known or fixed at the time the LOS map is constructed they can't be built in. Although Wrecks could. Which leaves us with the issue of "dug in Buildings and bunkers, which in theory should block sight, but might not if they are added after the LOS map is made. Peter.

Found this on the net, though people might find it interesting as it is probably pretty much what the Syrians might be capable of. The idea of using Dust to " blow up" your own position if attacked is interesting. Russian Desert Tactics. Peter.

Cpl Steiner, The LOS problem for buildings, might be the same as moving vehicles in a way. If the LOS map only takes in to account the physical contours of the ground, then if two units have a direct line between them then it will check for LOS/LOF and only then. At this point it will determine if a building blocks it. Thus if a building was on a hill between to units it wouldn't check as they couldn't see each other whether their was a building or not. If however it was a building between two units on hills, then it would check for "potential" sighting, and would therefore determine if the building "as is" blocks LOS. This would depend on the condition of the building it's height etc. however if this was the case, it wouldn't explain the fact that Vehicles can't do the same. I can only come up with the idea that when the CBU crunches the LOS map it divides it in to two class "never" and "Check" and that building and other deformable features are " Checkable" but vehicles aren't because they had a fixed position that could be "recorded" at the time the LOS Map was constructed. Thus Hills are "Fixed Never", Buildings are "Fixed Check" and Vehicles are " Mobile Can't". Question, do wrecked vehicles put in by the game designer, or dug in Vehicles block LOS because they were fixed at the point of map creation, and what does that do for my idea of doing the TOE while the computer id mapping LOS. AND SHOULD GROUND COVER AND TREE TYPE BE SEPARATE...... Peter.

If the game was to be designed so that the LOS mapping time was usefully employed it might not be such a problem. two possibles spring to mind. A flyover?through battlefield preview, covering objectives etc, to fill the time, or, Have it so that you can start deploying forces or organising the exact TOE options that you want after you have created the map. ie You would br making force selections( which shouldn't be that CPU intensive) while the computer was doing the difficult CPU intensive LOS map in the background. I am generally not sure if hiding behind individual trees etc is the wauy to go, as it would probably lead people too micromanage their squads too much, and CM is more about giving orders and seeing them realistically carried out than an over glorified FPS. Besides of all the bullet stoppers nothing beats mother earth, and as I recall a 12" sandbag is better protection than a 12" log, because of the way that it disperses energy. The point about being able to simulate dips and bumps in the ground, and things like ditches by the side of the road, are for me far more important than individual trees. Peter.

Just general points. The Russians do have a number of guided shells and mortar and rocket rounds, which come in everything from 120mm Mortar to 152mm conventional artillery. A fin based system would be pretty basic and not particularly accurate, but the idea is to force the US to be more careful wiyth how it uses radar. The same could be said for radio, it would probably be worth the Syrians time to fire radio homing rounds towards the US at every opportunity. As far as I am aware the russians also produce radio jamming shells. Getting any kind of communication is going to be difficult for the Syrians. At it's crudest they could go for flares or even sirens. In terms of radio what they would need is a burst code with the target zone reference which could be blasted out on a frequency that the US used, as the only way to stop that would be to have blanket jamming on a frequency you used. To work the Syrian gunners would need to listen in for US battlefield communications and then wait till one of there own units sent a signal on that frequency. Of course the other Syrian option would be to radio locate US forces by listening for radio communications. This would be passive and difficult to coordinate. As to flat pads as to obvious and not that necessary. Most modern vehicles can level themselves. A better system would be to use pre war GPS and a barcode label maker. You go about the country taking GPS readings, and then printing out waterproof labels to stick on lamp posts, fenceposts, bridges, buildings whatever. Come the war, you drive up, scan it with a hand held unit (the ones they uses in supermarkets) and you knowwhere you are. Cheap passive and reliable. Peter.

c3k , Given that CM:SF has an 8x8 grid with the likes of walls able to be placed at I mtr intervals, we could have three possibilities for orchards. One would be to build 8x8 gaps, which although 26ft gaps is a bit much would still be okay and give a good represntation of an orchard for game purposes. Second we could creat Tree walls which would be set on a predetermined ground cover and would be a bit like wire fences ( just the posts no wire) for sighting and protection. these can be set out in lines so would be an easy way to make regular lines of trees. Thirdly the last option is "empty walls" were a lane could be made through a forest, but inserting a "wall" made of thin air. This would be a way to add paths, trails or roads through dnese ground cover or trees. On a general note I wasn't particularly thinking about Syria, as opposed to best way for the new engine to deal with ground cover and trees of various types as opposed to the old CM1 three types. Peter.

In CM1 we get basically three types of trees, Pine forest, Deciduous, and Scattered. Plus scrub. However there is afr more variaety than this and it is quite restrictive. What is more depending on the type and age of wood there can be huge differences in ground cover. An alternative to wood types would be layers, where a wood was built up in 1m stages. Thus a forest cartpetted with ferms could have the first 1m very dense, and then the next three to five metres light (trunks) and then the next 3 to 5 metres dense again (canopy). This system would mean that depending on height visibility would vary as the LOS might pass through canopy or not. This system would also allow for the simulation of first contact where units would have limited cover, being partcally in the 1 to 2 m level, but would then be far less exposed when they dropped down in to the dense !m zone of ferns, heather or wheat. In a way this would add a vertical element in to LOS and spotting in the same way as we currently have horizontal one. How much the game could be designed to let scenario designers mix and match tree typres and gound cover to create more realistic and complex vegetation is open to discussion. Peter.

Sadly in war, every life has a price, thats why every GI isn't in a $1m dollar exosuit. It's about how you spend the money. The real effectiveness of things like TOW is there ability to take out a MBT at long range even if it is moving. That's something you just couldn't do with an old M40 105mm recoiless rifle. But You don't tend to engage Bunkers at that range and Bunkers don't move, so why not fit Hummers with an updated RR, for a unit cost of probably less than a single TOW round. Another option worth looking at is AMOS Amos Mortar system. This would give highly effective conventional Mortar fire, probably better than the current Stryker 120mm mortar ,and the ability to rapidly engae fixed bunkers to support infantry. The system itself isn't cheap but a 120mm Thermobaric mortar round is a lot cheaper than a TOW. Peter.

To be honest from the discription and the poor photo i'd say this might well just be a licenced version of the Russian RPG-26, some of which have been apparently turning up in Iraq. Jordan is pro west and no friend of Iraq's, but if it is a Jordanain Russian joint venture, then they could turn up anywhere. Last time i looked most Jordainas weren't exactly pro bush or Isreal, the economy was rocky and unemployment was about 25%, ideal conditions for things to go missing on route. Peter.

As said elsewher at $40,000 a piece a TOW of any type is an expensive way to take out a bunker, given that a 120mm HE round for an M1A2 costs about $250. At about $50 each for an RPG-7 round, I wouldn't be surprised is you could buy a couple of thousand of them for the price of a single Trophy system. Stryker cages may not be the ideal solution but I bet it doesn't $1m to protect a platoon, let alone a single vehicle. Peter.

I am not sure if Syrian have any but both China and Russia have some intersting rapid fire mortar systems. Things like the 2S23 is a light six wheeled 120mm mortar that at 10 RPM is not bad in terms of shoot and scoot. The chinese also do an 82mm mortar that can fire 4 rounds in 1.5 seconds. Add to that 122mm Katyushas and their is currently the ability to deliver a lot of rounds rapidly and then to move. Where their are deficiencies are in command and control and electronic warfare. What the Syrians or others need to add are firstly the ability to disperse their launchers away from to traditional lines of tubes and batterys to individual launchers that still with the ability to rapidly and accurately combine their firepower on a single target. Given that the CM:SF scenario gives the Syrians 6 months to plan what they need is a laptop system that lets them quickly calculate if a target position is within range and a target solution. Given that the don't have GPS this will as with the former Soviet Union rely on pre surveying positions. Oddly enough given things like Google Earth and the availability of satellite imagery this kind of thing might be easier than before. The ability to get the information to the guns, mortars and rockets is more difficult, but a system that let the targeting ukit just put out a call and anyone who gets it doing their own calculation might be the best they can hope for. It would mean that artillery support would be at best random, but given that it is difficult to see a conventional battlefield artillery C3 network surviving, it might be the best they can do. As to EW there are two obvious low cost possibles, one is a form of simple Inferometer system. fitted to shells or rockets in basically involves building aerials in to movable fins. When a round is fired it will be detected by counter battery radar, but will at the same time detect the radar. A round is fired directly west. If the Radar is dead ahead it will not interfer with either of the aerials. If it is to the south it will be detected by the vertical fin on the south side, and will cause it to flick causing the round to turn to the south. It will continue to do this until it looses the signal, which will be either when the radar switches frequency, turns off, or is dead ahead. The horizontal fine does the same for altitude. The second candidate would be a hand or light vehicle launched UAV, probably with a light HE sharapnel warhead, even directional like a canister round. These would be launched roughly towards the US position with a seeker set for the band used by Us counter battery radar. Such UAV's would be light, cheap, stealthy, disposible and fire and forget. They might not be hugely effective, but beggars can't be choosers. Peter.

LtCol West, And just what happens to the disembarked infantry from the Stryker when the Trophy system goes off.... Peter.

If you look on "Google Earth" at 51 50'29.29"S 58 56'56.50"W you'll find a good picture of the battlefield (type in Falkland Islands and zoom in by hand). From about 20,000 ft you can pick out almost everything from the map on the site above, and as you move the pointer it gives you heights above sea level. It would actually make a good CMAF battle with Elite or Veteran UK Paras, v Regular or conscript Argentinian ( don't know what nationality to use, maybe Italian). Of Course if BF went with my idea of letting you import an overlay to trace on too this could be a lot easier, and as for being able to import Google Earth maps so that it put in the heights as well to give accurate 3D models of anywhere in the world, well that would be a scenario designers dream. Peter.

A lot of recent stuff about the intelegence about Iraq's defensive set up suggests that saddams paranoia, did as much to bugger up their C3 as the allies did, So you could argue that they might be a fair bit more effective. I doubt that we will see huge artillery barrages, but the ability to open up and give a good minutes D-30 fire should be in there. As many people here have said about the only effective way they could use artillery would be to pre target it from concealed positions on a likely choke point and hope that a stryker unit drives in to it. Peter.

Actually I've done some checking and I am probably a fair bit off with my timings. however this is quite a good overview of the battle, and wouldn't it just make a great CM:SF scenario, even if it is a bit on the big side..... Goose Green Peter.

As I recall the Paras had less than 600men the Argentinians more than twice that. The Argentinians were dug in and had superior fire power, and the attack was dragging on and it was getting light, with the probability of daylight attacks from the argentinian airforce. So Jones went forward to stop the attack from stalling, and he got killed, but the attack didn't stall and the Paras one, taking 1,400 prisoners. You can argue that in those conditions the Paras were nuts to attack ( although some form of insanity is almost a prerequisit for joining), or that he should have pulled his men back (though that might have been even more costly given the terrain if the Argentinians had been able to use their .50cals in daylight), but what would you have done. Oddly enough I've played a few few CMx1 battalion games in my time and when the going gets tough I've found myself plugging a gap with a Bn HQ. Try reading "A Bridge Too Far", you'll see the Paras have a sort of tradition of this kind of thing, its a very lean fighting unit, as in everybody fights. Peter.

I remember watching an inerview with an Indian who won the VC during WW2 by defending his gun while wounded after most of the crew had been killed. He came across as the most rational guy you could meet. His line was "My orders were to hold my position and defend my gun at all costs, so I did", he didn't see himself as a hero. Latter on in the interview he almost cried when talking about the Indians he had killed during the war. they had sided with the japanese who had promised India independence while he was serviing in the Indian Army under British rule. The man simply placed duty higher than his own personal safety or well being, he didn't go crazy he just wouldn't give in regardless of cost. I suppose some of the elite Nazi's were probably like that in that like the japanese they placed country above their own lives. Peter.

It's like the Spanish Inquesition.... peter

In CM1 reinforcements often appear " in Sight"with no warning, unlike on board units which you can hear etc. This often happened near the end of scenarios where they either appeared amngst you and caused unrealistic chaos, or turned up in formation in the sights of your force creating an unrealistic "Turkey shoot". Given that it appears that CMx2 will create a line of sight map at the start, It like to see a system that designated a larger area for reinforcement arrival, but which did a LOS before placing so that any reinforcement that did arrive came on at a point where it couldn't be seen, or was at least in a low visibility position. It could even be that if no "blindspot" was available they were delayed or even cancelled. Another issue, is the possibility of allowing irregular or insurgent forces to melt away, by effectively exiting the game by entering a pre set area such as "The Souk" on a twon map, whwere they simply mingle with the civilain population or a "Disband" coomand. Such forces would be lost to the Syrian Player, but the US palyer would have liitle way of knowing if they had "Exited" or were just laying low. You could even lose a scenario by being held up by a force that wasn't there anymore. Peter.

Part question part discussion. The actual firepower available to a modern squad is far greater than a WW2 one ( Okay there was Soviet SMG squads), but ammo expenditure can be potentially very high. Now in CMx1 the TI regulated firepower levels when ammo got low, but in CM:SF will the TI regulate in for enviroment, ie automatically reduce firepower to lower levels in MOUT to simulate being in a civilian area. If players could control this would that be a better solution , sort of like having options for Low, Medium and Heavy fire, and how much of a problem do people feel that ammo supply and restocking from the back of your Stryker will be or should be an issue. Another issue is irregular or poor quality units. These often have poor fire discipline and carry limited ammunition. This could lead to a situation where ammo depletion could become a real factor quite early on with them shooting off to many ineffective rounds to soon. This could present the Syrian player with a tactical problem in that he would have a force that would need to be marshalled to avoid it's own tendency to go off half cocked. Comments please. Peter.

I don't think 1-to-1 will be a problem, in that in the same way as when you engage an enemy with a platoon, each of your "Three man" squads can do something different, so with CM:SF it will be a three man team. I can understand that if a team is being engaged by three targets that in reality the team might have one man firing at one and two at another, where as in the game the team will probably all fire at one target, and then switch to another. I think it should be left to the AI/TI and there would be three options. If we have three targets and weighing up threat location exposure etc, they are rated at 50%, 30% and 20%, then, 1) The team engages the 50% until it drops in threat exposure etc to lower than one of the others and then switches its firing to that target. 2) The team fires at the 50% for half the time, then switches to the 30% for about a third, and finally gives the last target a fifth. or, 3) Half the squads firpower is at the 50%, a third at the 30% and a fifth at the 20%, with different parts of the team looking at different targets. The thirs will probably look, the most realistic, but it is the hardest to do, and i think the least likely. i'd a thought that Steve should be abkle to give us an idea by now of which of the three we will get. Peter.

Depending how it is done you could wide brusn with a type of building and then edit in the detail. As I understand it there will be an 8x8 grid, but things like roads and walls will be able to be layed down to within 1m. So you may be able to build a town by brushing a large area with small buildings, then larger buildings over the centre of that, and then again even larger buildings in the very centre. you can them brush industrial buildings in a corner etc. That should be enough to let you get the feel of the thing and even do some rough play testing. You would then do the fine detail. However given that this system will give uniform heights and types there is no doubt that at some point you will need to go in and edit almost building by building. For me the best solution would be a "Down Town" model page, where people you like making maps as much as playing the game ( the technical term is ANORAKs), would simply post model towns they had made, for other people to nick and edit. Given the greater detail and flexibility that CMx2 should give, I think we might even quickly see models of specific scenes and locations with attached photos of the real thing to let you make comparisons. Peter.