Erwin

AKD: Re "And all those slathering for the Normandy title right now and encouraging BFC to turn their backs on SF to get it out as quick as possible are going to really regret it when the day comes that simple fixes and improvements are added to SF2 and withheld from the still very actively played WWII games because those titles are "finished." Of course this already happened to us CM1 fans who were chanting and immolating ourselves to get the CM Campaigns product that would have revitalized CM1 for years. And there is still a very active CM1 community. (I will go out on a limb and say that CM: Normandy and mods will still not satisfy the CM1 fans if it continues to feature the relatively small tactical scope of CM2.) And I am sure CM2 will continue in the same way. So, it's all swings and roundabouts... I think that whatever new toys BFC creates for us will be different from what people have expected and that will infuriate at least some. But, most will get used to the new concepts and systems, and will adapt and carry on. (And when I see the level of passion that bugs can create on these forums, it's clear that BFC has no choice but to get their next release right b4 releasing it - even if that does take well into 2011.)

Hope this may be useful... MORS is pleased to launch the DoD Force Structure Analysis Way Ahead Special Meeting to be held 24 - 27 January 2011 at the TASC Heritage Conference Center in Chantilly, VA. Background: The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) outlined a strategy to meet a broad array of security challenges. However, the ability of the QDR to suggest quantitative force structure adjustments was inhibited by the demands of the current fights and the complexity and uncertainty of the future environment. Given the near term disengagement of forces in Iraq and the expected responsible withdrawal from Afghanistan starting in 2011, the Joint Staff, at the direction of the Secretary of Defense, conducted the Operational Availability Study 2010 (OA-10) to determine availability of currently stressed forces in the near- to mid-term. This study provided valuable insights as to the constraints on these forces, but was limited in scope to the type of units analyzed and limited in scale to ongoing current operations. Looking forward, we can expect that eliminating the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) budget and returning to more normal resourcing levels will require a comprehensive examination of force structure to ensure we properly match the programmed force to the national security strategy demands. For the near term, the question for the Department is, "How best to reset and reconstitute the force?" That means the Joint Staff and the Department must find ways to improve how we analyze the structure required for the joint force after next, and ensure that our current strategy and structure maps to this force in as seamless a manner as possible. The Force Structure Workshop will examine our analytical methods to collect the proper data, establish metrics, and develop and apply tools to examine how best to use the force we have as well as determine an appropriate force structure to meet national security objectives in the near, mid, and long terms. This workshop will describe a way ahead for force structure analysis by: Expanding the understanding of force structure analysis data, assumptions, procedures, and applications for workshop participants and the community of force structure analysis participants and customers. Developing recommendations for improving force structure data, processes, tools, analysis, and products. Workshop Organization: This four-day workshop will be structured around the following working groups: Working Group 1 – Near Term Force Structure Analysis Working Group 2 – Personnel Working Group 3 – Materiel & Acquisition Working Group 4 – Linking Near Term to Future Force Structure Analysis Working Group 5 – Analytic Tools for Force Structure Analysis A block of rooms has been reserved at the Westfields Marriott at a daily rate of $181.00. Please reference MORS when making your reservation. Please click here to view the workshop page and to reserve your spot today! We are pleased to offer a discounted meeting registration fee structure for this workshop to encourage broad participation by you and your colleagues. If you have any questions, please contact the MORS office at 703.933.9070 or morsoffice@mors.org MORS 1703 North Beauregard Street, Suite 450 Alexandria, VA 22311 | www.mors.org | 703-933-9070

It's good that one can do these quick fixes, but it's a pain and slows down making a move - esp if you are doing this for several units. There is also a increased risk of getting a movement order wrong and (say) having a unit reverse to a point that you needed it to move fast to etc.

"So for the people who play Blue: Iron skill might be easier to then Elite skill due to Red having a harder time staying in C2!" Interesting point. As a corollary, I wonder if the AI does a better job of keeping a unit within range of its HQ than us humans.

Am still unsure how engineers work with mines in CM2. Can they now spot em BEFORE they get blowed up like in CM1?

Based on value for money (and savings in other games not purchased) I remember setting a (personal) bargain price of around $250 for the 3 CM1 games before CMSF existed. I would estimate about the same for CM2. So, based on the fact that all modules including CMA still don't amount to $250, I would happily pay more for another module, (say) the French plus some more of the most frustrating issues aired in these forums fixed. The interesting question is what additional features will CM:SF 2 attempt to offer over the existing CM2 engine? Will it be worth a 2-3(?) year wait vs getting more CM:SF and/or Normandy modules every (say) 6 months or so. Gameplay is the main thing, so I would be disappointed if CM:SF 2 was primarily an enhancement of the graphics. BFC has proven that they can bring out amazing product and most importantly that CM1 wasn't a fluke. The only issue is time and how long do we want to wait for... well, what?

Thanks. Amazing video. Bohemia has come a long way. So even in single-player mode the action is relatively realistic - ie thoughtful rather than running around in wrist-twitch mode like in (say) Call of Duty etc?

Yes, thanks again for all your work!

Thanks for the interesting AAR. I prefer the minute turns, partially cos I like to replay aspects of the battle, but also it's quicker to play a scenario (leastways when I played RL, it seemed to take forever with the micromanagement, and I was always missing something important in another area of the battlefield). Anyone been successful or have suggestions re playing this scenario WEGO?

Thanks for the screenshot of Arma 2 MeatEtr. I really should get this, Maybe I asked this before, but does it have a good "solitaire" campaign, or is it primarily multi-player online (which I'm not keen on).

Useful data. Thanks.

Lovely. Thank you!

Am pretty sure that ammo swapping is a new-ish feature. Lots of chat about it on the CMSF forums a week or two ago. Have to check if it's only for heavy weapons as I thought it was for all ammo. BTW PAZ: if you are new, you should check on the CMSF forums as thre is always something new been found. Re snipers, you can resupply the 50cal/12.6mm ammo from a very few vehicles for example.

And hey, maybe it's time for an "ordinary person President" like Palin. The (almost all wealthy) political elites that we now have in govt are so separated from the problems of working people we have bizarre situations like the poor tax-paying sap having to bail out the super-wealthy who lost their $ in the stock market. <Sorry... rant over.>

Yeah, I agree with you and Lanzfield. It's frustrating when it fires a valuable missile, when a few rounds of HE would do. I also hate having to do a waypoint dance to restrict the number of round fired. But, then I realize that we're lucky to have ANY game company developing amazing quality entertainment games like these for us grognards. I often feel sorry for the BF staff for all the flack they have to deal with. It's HARD to design and program games.

Thanks for the clarification, akd. (NB: I got the .228 Lapua ref from your message 11-18-2010, 04:49 PM, so you may want to edit it.) Re possible 50 cal/12.7mm resupply vehicles in CMSF and all modules... Are there any additional supply sources other than the "M2 Humvee (Brit module IBCT Assault platoon)"? Hopefully, designers will put at least one of these in a scenario with snipers. Seems not quite right that a sniper would run out of ammo so easily (or is that to avoid imbalance?). I think that ALL games have problems depicting snipers. In all games (I can think of) other than CMSF, snipers are depicted as a very powerful unit, safely taking out gobs of enemies at long range. Why do you think that is? Anyone?

That sounds very exciting - you have a talent for really good-looking maps and situations. Am confused re your plan. You said a Syrian assault vs NATO (sounds interesting) and with Marines? The Syrians have Marines? (Or is it a NATO assault using UK Marines?) I always enjoy the missions where you have to defend one area, while attacking elsewhere. Hope you make your new one some sort of rescue/resupply campaign.

I been using those icons too. But, not sure they are worth the trouble. I liked the mod which showed which direction your units was facing. And yes, Alex, it IS easier if you've played it b4 and know what is going to happen lol. Nevertheless, even with a do-over you still have an impressive score. BTW: I always supplyl my men at the very start with all suitable ammo in case BMP's blow up. I didn't notice until you said it that I have exactly the same units in mission 3 with whatever ammo is left over. I have to see if I move a unit with high ammo next to a low ammo unit if they'll swap some ammo.

I do understand what you mean guys, but having the god view is still way easier than RL communications - although with the new systems they seem to be getting there. I was simply proposing that making a game "harder" to play doesn't necessarily equate to it being more realistic... it's still a game. The CM systems created by BF are brilliant because they create the illusion of reality - verisimilitude, suspension of disbelief, call it what you will. When players actually believe that they are learning how to command real life units, that is what makes a great entertainment wargame.

When I say simulation, I mean to training standards - as in you will learn something that you can use in RL. I don't think that any commercial game has met those standards as DoD tried investing on COTS (commercial off the shelf) games in the 90's thru a few years ago, but wasn't very successful. Most of the $ now goes to big research outfits like USC's ISI labs in Marina del Rey etc.

AKD: I tried to summarize the discussion on sniper ammo and resupply. See if the following is accurate plz: "There are four sniper rifles that use 7.62 NATO: the US Army M110, the USMC M40, the Canadian C3A1 and the Brit L96. Sniper rifles using 12.7mm/50 cal ammo can only be resupplied if there is a suitable (rare) source of 12.7mm/50 cal ammo resupply (NOT integral vehicle ammo). Eg: An M82 team that has depleted its second column ammo can enter a dismountable M2 Humvee (Brit module IBCT Assault platoon) and acquire 12.7mm AP-I. The second column will fill and the M82 sniper will resume firing. Non-standard caliber (.300 Winchester, .228 Lapua) sniper rifle teams do not show their ammo in the second column and there is no source for resupply."

SLR: When I worked for DoD agencies designing sims I sensed a real bias against special forces/special ops including snipers. I think that spec ops upsets the average military mindsets that are only comfortable envisaging conventional actions with formations of tanks streaming along plains accompanied by Mech Inf and covered with Attack aircraft and Arty barrages. They HATE the concept that one guy can snipe the commanding generals of the other side, or perform some other magic that can completely ruin their detailed simulations and make a mockery of all their expensive hardware/toys. It's akin to the Maginot line mentality - training to win the last war when all you have to do is look around and you can see where things are going (eg: Cyberwar etc.). If you look very, very hard, you just may catch a glimpse of that attitude in discussion threads not a million miles away lol. There are some forward thinkers who are aware of all these problems thank goodness. But, it's uncertain if they have much traction as there is SO much money/profit in creating and maintaining conventional forces. It was a fascinating but somewhat disillusioning episode in my life.

I hope Alex can give us more detailed pointers re what exactly he is doing to have such low casualties. Is the trick to order the BMP's to LIGHT area fire at ANY contact? (They do have lots of MG ammo. But, you'd run out of HE ammo fast if you TARGETED.) Getting at least a 3-man team to the bridge for spotting purposes (only) is essential I think. But, let the BMP's do all the shooting and keep the spotting inf heads down - at least till you sense the enemy is running out of steam. As for saving ammo, my tactic was to use the inf (mostly NOT hiding) to spot the enemy as the BMP's wasn't that good at spotting, then use the BMP's as my arty to kill anything as far away as possible. But, I rarely let my BMP's AREA fire in order to save ammo. I also rarely allowed my inf to fire over 100m. Went to several turns overtime and had ammo left. Felt a bit cheated by the system as the scen ended with the enemy making one last suicidal attack that I could see coming and I was prepped and sure to massacre them all. Of course I had still suffered lots of wounded and 2 dead BMP's... So Alex... more detail re exactly what you did plz... (And am assuming you played on Elite level?)

I agree, I dont understand the logic or when HE or a missile is used when targeting (say) a building). And control over the number of rounds fired too. Seems insane to have heated discussions over some very trivial issue of RL vs CMSF when there are glaring issues like that in existence. CMSF is a very enjoyable game, not a great simulation, so I don't worry about the above (much). It's much harder to create a fun game than an accurate (means boring to me) sim imo. But am amazed that some of the other threads make one think CMSF is supposed to be an accurate DoD sim.

Am curious. Since you can still have a god view of all your units when no unit is selected, doesn't that make Iron a bit pointless/misleading. It sounds like you need a sim where you can't see anything other than your HQ unit when no unit is selected, and go from there.