KNac

What we need is stronger casualtie threshold, limit ammo usage too, limit the usage of heavier stuff (arty/javelins etc.) by making civil density higher and penalize destruction of buildings. That would realistically simulate this kind of wars and it would be much harder to win the scenarios. Tools are there, now scenario designers should use it.

Hi ParaBellum, I've tried it, but only once as US (turns, against AI, elite). Once I've played it a couple of times and from both sides I'll draw better conclussions and give better feedback. Just one quick suggestion though. It would make the game uneven for H2H playing with the current TacAI/infantry combat probably, but IMO you should increase the casualties threshold to around 20% for US, or even less (5% looks a more realistic figure but I guess it's just too unfair), more than this would mean failure under any circunstance. I managed to get a total victory and I had the sense than in reality I didn't deserve it (a lot of KIA, partially cause I rushed to finish earlier). Didn't seem succesfull (this happens sometimes with included battles & campaing too). Funny to see how a RPG team was more hamfull to my inf than to the ICVs haha. In your last version still a pre-planned strike, is intended or you forgot to remove it?

I was playing it on Elite, and you are right that most of the spotting happened while enemy units moved. Yes it makes sense, but I repeat that under these premises (dusk and forest -3 tree tile-, yes as you said in the other thread to which extend this represents forest or not is soemthing the developers would have to say) I don't think it would be that easy to detect movement. Also a lot of times enemy moved "slow" (crawl of death) so it would be even difficult to spot. Well, in any case I think all that discussion pertains more to game mechanics than to your own scenario. Enjoyed it nevertheless so keep em coming Well, anyway these are game

shouldn't they aim the softest spot seen?

Yes you're right, but I was thinking about the current campaing played from the other side. It would take a long time to make that suitable, first to make the US AI attack successfully (think about mission 2 playing as the syrians, total onslaught for the US), would be actually quite difficult. But second, there aren't AI plans written even, would take some job. And how would the camping progress if you manage to win your battles? It would be neccessary to write new battles. Better wait for some user-made campaings, or play battles that are allready being done

Ok, I answered your other thread. But, on topic... Settings: dusk Forces: Syrian army (RG or regulars) as Russians // Uncons as Chechen Guerrilla None of them have superior optics and night equipment I think (I may be doing again an uneducated statement, if so, sorry, but this is not documented in the manual, as well as the terrain C&C isue but...), and they are in dusk. Now, if it seems reasonable that assuming these two premises a squad could spot enemies in dense forest up to 200m or more to the point of aiming and shooting, well then I've a flawed view of reality. If you similar behaviour in other scenarios, you draw conclussions. Is none of my job to perform tests to validate or not these points, I just use my perception, but as I told in the other thread, if someone comes and points I'm wrong, fine.

Ok thanks for the education, but check it out this: Without doing intensive testing as yours, the first (and second) impression one gets is this, after playing several scenarios. More important though, what's the real level of concealment & COVER these tiles provide? Specially to infantry? Yes, is very fine they block LOS to X meters (with the stats you wrote, is possible to simulate dense forest? Where LOS shouldn't be more than 50 or 75m?), but do they provide any real cover while infantry is there? I know is an other topic. P.S: as much as it could seem that my intention was to irrationally rant about the game, nothing farther away from reality it could be, indeed I've oen of these who have defended the game in the main forum, but if I seem to find limitations I don't hesistate to talk about them. If soemone proofs me wrong, excellent, more happy I will be that the game is better. [ August 15, 2007, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

Yes but when in QB you select "small" what map size is this?

I think Syrian army is one of the "best" in terms of training within this sort of nations (this is an uneducated idea so I could be wrong), so I don't think would be a big difference of Iran army, and not much differences in weaponry at all. So basicaly yes, I think it could be done. [ August 15, 2007, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

Abu Susah... I don't remember exactly how was it... if it's the one which has a road straigh S-N and passes through a village, and close to the road there is some sort of drain... I advaced dismounted with one pl through it, scouting, keep the Strykers in safe zone (setup), once you get sight on the nasty AT teams use arty from pl Co or dismounted FO (if it's included in the scenario) or even better, use Javelin to kill em. Once you get rid of these advance with empty strykers with hunt command, and use cover arcs even. But I recommend scouting ahead with infantry, they can advance secure through the drain. The major problem in this cenario are these AT teams, once you kill them it's not that hard. An other tactic I usually find usefull against AT teams, specially if there is good open ground and maneouver space, is to advace fast, AT teams will usually miss their targets and you will spot them. In v.1.02 vehicles will use all their available weaponry to supress them automatcly once they spot the AT teams, as well as smoke to to impede LOS (actually this is working quite well, nice addition/fixing in this patch), but you could use cover arcs if you wish. Just one thing, if you are plkaying in RT, be sure that the vehicles don't stop in the worse possible place (issue addional movement orders & target the enemy teams, with area fire if neccessary). Hope it helps.

I don't know which is the US Army "aceptable" rate of casualties for this kind of stuff, but maybe even a 5%? That would be really difficult to archive (but then if we are talking about a platoon, that's zero loses, so 10% should do it). Haven't played the scenario (too late now), but will tomorrow, looks interesting concept and I'm enoying smaller games more righ now (in RT at least).

I played it against AI, followed your advice and played it as Red. The Mi-8 guys managed to stop a couple of platoons non-stop, I suppose in a big part was due to the enemy performing the infame "crawl of death" while attacking me. Lost a couple of ICV though and some guys while dismounting (bad-ass techncials haha). Interesting scenario, first, I ejoyed to see a more greenish map, was tired of so much desert damn it. Just if we had a snow mod though hehe. You tried to simulate a forest enviorenment very well, unfortunatly the engine in its current state does not care much about trees, bushes and that kind of stuff... too bad, I hope at some point this will be fixed/included. This resulted in having a good LOS early in the game and during it, and as result a good situational awareness (not much surprises). But this is none of your fault, just engine limits your map highlighted. Enjoyed it anyway. Nice job!

Keep in mind one of the insights we had about the mechancis of the game in your other thread. 1:1 rep. does NOT have to be equal to 1:1 computation. What do I mean by this? The same way we had abstractions for this sort of things in CMx1, there will be some undergoing abstractions in CMx2. A lot of these things may not be yet included in the engine, abstracted or not, but eventually we will see them evolve and will be included either in the form of abstractions - via somekind of bonuses, penalizations or whatever - (IMO, the least, the better) or as calculations. Ie. the same now type of terrain does not affect much cover and concealment (trees or bushes are not much different than open ground), at some point it will be improved and will make a difference (if I'm wrong on this, I mean, if it really makes a difference allready, someone point out, but my conclussion so far is that it does not to a great degree), will it be adding somekind of undergoing rules/bonuses/abstractions as CMx1 or will the physical objects do a difference? I can't answer, but at soem point it will do a difference (if we want to play in other set up that is not urban/desert based to work out at least haha). Don't want to knock out the discussion though, keep it going.

Not possible. a) StratAI is allready sometimes badly done for syrian army in current campaing, US StratAI is not even present. AI doing a successfull attack, challenging at least? Not happening any time soon. Result: crapp campaing & zero fun

Talking about game mechanics that's a plainly wrong statement, not to a fewer degree than CMx1 could. And even if it that was true, it would be due to: a) bugs unfinished features (cover & concealment & infantry combat over all IMO) In short words: game engine does not prevent from that happening, if all, it's the CURRENT state of it. Mediocre released state, not mediocre wargame.

But I think this was due to the worst C2 Red Army had, or a different way of dealing with the CoC, right? Or was it an abstraction of inside-squad training? Oh, one of the first things I noticed is that there are not any delays anylonger, for any of the both sides, this was intentional? Which was the decission? Is a colateral effect of RT playing/processing? Anyone knows? An other interesting idea would have been adding an other parameter to unit stats, separating training and experience. Training would make things like marksmanship better, while experience would tell how the units behave under pressure, and how well they move around in the battlefield.

mediocre wargame why? bugs & unfinished features apart (product of early release).

I don't agree. Experience level should do for this, and should be standard under any circusntance. Scenario designers (and players too) must have a scale to compare each unit, and not the differences to be hardcoded (appart of obvious hardware differences, weaponry & equipoment I mean). If you want to model poor training in syrian army then make the units "green" or "conscripts", and if you want to model US superior professional training then make the units "veteran". This is how it works. So US regular = Syrian regular (or, in effect, whatever army regular), TO GAME EFFECTS (off course).

in addition which is the physical size supposed to be?

Hi George, No, I used your original set-up, and the Bradleys with the eng squads got whiped out when the game started (few seconds later), I tried it two times for checking out. Now, we know LOS/LOF is a bit broken right now, so maybe this should not happen. One point is, now that you said it, IMO the setup zone should be a safe zone, wherever you place your units enemy shouln't be able to kill you. I repeat, this is my opinion, not a fact. If this means smaller set up areas (or fixed units), be it. I know too that currently, with modern weapons is quite difficult to make it, specially if you don't make large maps (which are more job for the designer and for the most part don't contribute to strategic options or real maneouver space, just a longer movement to contact stage of the battle, or whatever), which seems that make the game fail more apparently. Thanks for your scenarios (played Brandenburg allready, sneeky T-72 haha), can't wait for more. You are really talented I found so far your maps the most well done and realistic looking, very cool. [ August 14, 2007, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: KNac ]

You should try blue on blue. that way we could see the real effect of trenches and if attack:defend realistic ratios/casualties are archived. as currently only US seems capable of attacking/firing while moving. p.s: i'm lazy, i know

owned!

I don't think so

If you mean ammo boxes in the special equipment section, that's the extra ammo your squads can adquiere. Same for the javelins etc. you will see there and when your squads pick them, the icons will not appeir in the Stryker menu any longer. For BMP's should be the same. If you mean the graphic models flavors yes, it's nice too see. Childress it won't happen, cause it's not realistic in anyway. BF allready said this. We all know that in any conflict of this kind the first thing that wouldbe totally whiped out would be the enemy air force.

Wilcox is broken, in the begining tanks have direct sight to your eng platoon. Please check this, is not the first time I encounter this and getting 3 ICV out of action with the mounted squads just when you start is not funny. For the rest, I like the battle a lot, very well presented and designed hehe. Now to the other.