Erwin

And of course this is why female soldiers are now encouraged due to increased ammo storage space.

We seem to be in love with the concept of a few high tech warriors beating up on the unwashed masses type warrior. 15+ years ago it was bad biz to produce a (cardboard) game from the Allied POV. But, it's an interesting shift in the demographics of wargamers that now people want to play Allies. I wonder why that is? Younger players less aware of the history?

For what it's worth, I am an immigrant and from immigrant/displaced parents. I know first hand the struggles when you arrive with nothing. But, as said earlier, when you have such a large number of people with alien cultural ideas to enter so quickly, it is easier for them to stay in their ghetto-ized communities and not integrate. I see this when I go back to the UK to visit my mother who lives in an area now dominated by Islamic types. Quite normal to see women in the streets wearing full cover, shop signs in languages I don't understand... I ride public transport and it's not pleasant to feel like the foreigner. It's not a London that I recognize from my youth. I am not sure what is the difference between this and invasion. And seen the same thing help bankrupt Southern California now. Well, anyway... rant over. Not appropriate discussion for here I am sure. Don't mean to offend anyone here.

Ok... Thanks... Wire – shortest distance (about 100m), 10% failure chance Radio – medium distance (about 300m), requires line of sight, 20% failure rate Cell phone – long distance (about 600m), 10% failure chance Unless the guy is hiding close to the bridge, he must have been in the town with a cell phone.

This is really helpful to see how others plan tactics - especially for newbies, who I think have a hard time getting started (and for me too heh). Thanks for all your work!

It's very interesting to see the change in wargamers' demographics over the last decades. As an old-time boardgamer b4 computers could do all this cool stuff, I swear it used to be hard to get anyone to play the Allies. EVERYONE wanted to play the Axis as they were the FUN side(!). 95%+ of the wargamers would drool over the cool white on black SS counters and typical conversation by wargamers was of the nature of "Just wait till I unleash my 10-4 SS Leibstandarte Division on your units hehe..." It still amazes me that now people actually want to play the WAllies in WW2.

You can also put about 45 rounds up your a**. (Em... or so I am told.)

If the western powers can't control being overrun by Islamic immigrants and getting Sharia law in their systems, I doubt they'll have the moral strength to go to war over tiny countries like Estonia, Latvia etc. The NATO forces cannot logistically support themselves that far away. It's bankrupting us fighting stone-age hill-billies in Afghanistan. Going up against Russia???

Can anyone confirm that the triggerman only has to have LOS to the IED and that he doesn't have to be "close" which I define as within 100m.

Never played Solid Gear Metal whatever. Was it any good?

"but they won't risk all out warfare for three marginal states..." Well, would we? We didn't for Poland in WW2 either. These places are too far away re logistics and only a hundred miles or so across. Russia could literally walk to the Baltic in a few days. Would Russia risk war with the US if we created a revolution in a Central or South American state to install a friendly government? Oh, wait, we already did that. There is the real issue of the massive Russian population that has settled in the Baltics. A political situation could arise where a large % of the pop of these tiny countries appeal to Russia for help etc. I am not saying this is likely, but certainly my relatives have a real fear of this.

Glad you said that. Yes, some of the early briefings in CMSF were very hard to understand as they were filled with masses of info of no real value to playing the game (kinda like the manuals).

Well, I accidentally demolished a wall of a building in the "green zone" and after saving and cease-firing to see what the result was I STILL got the bonus points for no damage to the protected zone buildings. Is this a sensitivity thing that a designer can select? Jonny: It may be that when there are a LOT of buildings, getting one wall demolished may not be a critical thing???

In this mission there doesn't appear to be any triggerman or any enemy unit "nearby." How close does he have to be - or is LOS sufficient regardless of distance? The weird thing is that (after a number of tests) sometimes I can run vehicles over the bridge with no explosion, other times it will explode every time. So, no way to detect, or mark or disarm?

I did try and run an inf unit across the center of the bridge, and they blowed up. So, inf at least need to keep to the bridge edges to not trigger the IED. Anyone here have guidelines as to how to best deal with IED's?

Well, my Canadians shot two Gustav rounds at a small building with enemy inf and I was "underwhelmed" at the result. The other AT missile the inf carries (like the LAW) is supposed to be effective vs buildings as well, but when I use TARGET for max fire, the inf wouldn't fire em. Any ideas?

Good point Praetori. Likewise, the WW2 Tiger was built around the 88mm flak gun.

Well, they are programmers... so as Skynet said, that speaks for itself heh.

You are all ignoring the very worst problem - that the ZSU's radar dish isn't revolving like an an insane Dervish. If this appalling oversight isn't fixed in the next patch I can't possibly play any more CM games and will demand a refund!

I find it hard to imagine anyone going to war with Russia to save the Baltics this time around - any more than they were saved last time. The problem is that the Russians have always had the hots for the Baltics, their ports (St. P gets frozen in during winter), strategic location etc. Both my and my wife's families come from there (and still are there) - Estonia and Latvia. The social problem is that the countries were resettled by hundreds of thousands (millions?) of Russians, so there is a built-in 5th column and desire to have Russia take over again.

Thanks for your informative post. Always a pleasure to be educated by someone who's been there.

gibsonm: I did use TARGET for vehicles with 25mm-30mm, so they were firing max. But, I restrict them (with movement orders that re-establish target arc) so they cease firing after maybe 15-30 secs (depending on how many AFV's are firing at the same target/building at the same time). The trick is to ensure that the total number of HE rounds fired is less than the "one vehicle firing to 2-3 minutes which would create visible damage or bring the building down." I presume that the trigger to lose points would be if a building wall was demolished(?)

I found this somewhere else on this board. Thanks to whomever posted this: The term "danger close" is included in the call for fire when there are friendly troops or positions within a prescribed distance of the target, specifically 600 meters for artillery or mortars and 750 meters for naval gunfire. This is simply a warning and not a restriction to both the maneuver commander and the fire direction center to take proper precautions. Minimum safe distance (MSD) is defined as the distance in meters from the intended center of impact at which a specific degree of risk and vulnerability will not be exceeded with a 99% assurance. MSDs allow for the maximum use of indirect fire while ensuring the safety of friendly troops. MSD's and not "danger close" distances should be used when in close contact or as a planning figure when echeloning fires. Minimum safe distances are computed by adding the maximum pattern radius plus three circular error probable. The 1,2,3,4,5 "rule of thumb" is a good guide. This translates to: 100 meters - M203 & 40mm 200 meters- 60mm mortars 300 meters - 81mm 400 meters - 105 mm 500 meters - 155 mm/naval gunfire Nothing contained in MSDs precludes the furnishing of close fire support to maneuver combat elements. The supported maneuver commander submitting the fire request is responsible for the decision to call for fires when those fires are less than minimum safe distances to friendly positions. The warning "danger close" is given by the requester to indicate friendly troops are within danger close distances to the target. A recommended techniques is to initiate fires at MSDs and to then "creep" fires onto the target. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/indirect-comp.htm

If actual destruction of a building is what loses points, one can restrict the amount of 25mm-30mm fire onto any one building. I have been doing that for several missions now (as well as using 60mm mortars and helicopters on built-up areas for many turns in a game). So long as everything is set for "light" and "personnel" type of munitions, damage to buildings seems minimal. It seems to be a successful method of keeping enemy heads down until one's inf can get into position. In mission 2 of the Canadian Campaign, it seems very difficult/almost impossible to get vehicles across the river unharmed due to IED's. So, I left them on the starting side while the inf go on alone, with only helicopter and 60mm support in the "protected areas." Of course I use 155mm and heavy airstrikes on other buildings. Not realistic, but it's just a game. As someone said: "Of course in real life you would not do that... but if the game limits you in one area, exploit it in another." So, far only a couple casualties.

Don't forget India-China. One of the few strategic decisions the Bush admin made that made sense was to help India with nuke tech. (ie: Let these two competitors for global dominance destroy each other.) India and China are already tense as they are direct competitors re massive amounts of people and cheap production, and need oil (from the same places).