Sivodsi

From Steve on the main forum: So I'm hopeful that these vehicles will get improved turret down performance in 1.2.

Thanks for answer Steve, much appreciated. Oh yeah, just had a painful experience of this. Bradley, with LOS to the only possible approach by my evil opponent at the start of the PBEM turn: Note the turret is not turned to the centre of the covered arc. Below is the same tank 36 seconds later: You can see the flash of the enemy tank's gun, a t72, but at no point do you see the tank, which apparently has developed stealth abilities. Just a couple of moves before a T72 had come into this Bradley's LOS and it went as planned, the Bradley zapped him with a TOW, and then not surprisingly, backed away. I moved him forward so that he had a clear shot down the canyon again. The worrying thing is that the turret did not move back to the centre of the covered arc. Is there a recorded bug about tanks locking into certain positions, and not moving back to the centre of an target arc? I get the feeling that my guy was not using his full spotting capabilities...

(From the 'whiskey tango foxtrot' thread) I thought this 'bone' (using ' ' because I'm not sure if its been mentioned before) was worthy of a thread of its own. I'd like to know the extent of the LOS bug 1.11 and what else the fix in 1.2 will affect. For example, does this bug affect spotting in hull down positions, particularly for TOW equipped LAV, Stryker and Bradleys? At present it is almost impossible to put them into position where only their TOW launcher is visible. They are either visible enough to be hit in the hull, or they cannot see the enemy.

Oh yeah, that would be great.

And there you have it. The next leader of NK has been announced, and this is the best picture we have of him???

yes, a big thanks for all the joy I got from the stuff downloaded there.

Well, as a resident of Seoul, I can tell you the Sth Korean people are taking it in their stride. Nobody here expects anything to actually happen, life is going on as normal. If anything does happen its more likely to be a naval action in the disputed maritime border on the west coast. The only ones who are really panicking are the Japanese. Sadly, it the kind of threat that can only strengthen the hand of the conservative right wingers in that country. This ballyhoo is all about Kim trying to beef up his position so that its his chosen one who will succeed him, not some other faction's. At least this is what I've read - beats me how he expects this strategy to work, perhaps the more isolated Nth Korea gets, the more likely he is to get his way. The sad thing is, its the Nth Korean people who suffer for his insanity.

Which Stryker is that in the photo?

Thanks for letting us know, Mark. Okay, Scipo, now that I know there's nothing more I can do, I'll let you have it. I will rain torrents of destruction upon your evil empire! Death to the honorists!

Yes indeed! Its looking like as much fun in a PBEM as is humanely possible. Yeah, that's what I thought. But give it a go yourself: open up your file as a PBEM, select a t54 and see if 'face' works. Post a screenshot of the t54 at an angle of your choosing.

Quick question: how is it done? I'm setting up a scenario and have been given some static T54s. I found a place that I like, and just assumed that I could use the 'face' command to turn the hulls in a desirable position. Not possible. Surely they cannot be stuck in one direction only? "Static" should not mean "inflexible"!!

I've had a brief go at it, and it is so irregular that it is frustrating. I was using the firing range and as far as I could work out, Bradleys don't have this capability. Only had time to try the LAV AT and they seem to have it to a limited extent. One interesting thing that I learnt, when moving the LAV AT into full LOS, it takes 10 seconds for them to get a fix on the enemy and then fire. Unfortunately to the waiting tanks it takes them only 5 seconds until the 'see' the LAV AT. If I have time I'll do tests with more missile armed AFVs. To be honest I've always found it frustrating to work out response and fire time when moving AFVs into LOS. Especially when I go to great lengths to check using the target line if they are in view or not. Many times I have checked continuously and found them NOT to be in LOS, but then am shocked when my opponent picks them. I think this area of vulnerability is the 'reverse slope - no aim point' zone.

Just read the almost entirely positive review of CMSF by 'Contact' magazine, and found a couple of interesting titbits. 1. "the orginal game... has been augmented by the release of two modules..." Did the reviewer actually have a pre-release copy of the Brits module? The public release must be coming up... 2. After extolling the virtues in glowing terms: the only negative thing he points out is the lack of civilian population... and the score he gives it is only 3.5/5! Isn't it a bit weird that he gives a game that he apparently appreciates so much only 70%, when its only default (to him) is that it doesn't do what he wants it to do? :confused::confused::confused::confused:

Have just watched Episode 4 of "Ross Kemp in Afganistan" and in the first half there is a perfect setup for a Taliban clearing scenario. It starts by showing a map of the plan, in which two platoons go through a village setting, with a fire support crew on the hill (mortars and 50 cals mounted on WMIK, snipers and javelins). They get fired on from lots of different sides, fire off javelins and call in air strikes from F15s (Ross gets confused and identifies them as "F16s"). Although they suffer no casualties in RL, the potential for an interesting scenario is nicely laid out. As a bonus, you get to see a brief shot of the handheld mortar in action near the start. I'm not a scenario maker (no time for it, though I'd like to give it a go sometime), but let me know if you are interested, and I'll see if I can get the necessary info to you. Haven't seen the last episode of this series yet, but there's a final big sortie in there, so maybe more good stuff.

Absolutely the most fun I've had with CMSF is a scenario called "The Eid Offensive" Non-stop hum dinging Red on Red fun!

I would have thought that with the modern era's deadly infantry AT assets any enemy infantry is a potential threat to the tank, and so using the main gun is appropriate. Not that I know any better than you, mind. I'd like to hear what those in the know have to say about it too.

Cool! I'm always up for a Red on Red PBEM battle. E-mail me at vulpine_odyssey (at) hotmail.com Not sure how long it'll take to finish it though. David

http://worldatwar.eu/ These guys have a ladder for cmsf and seem quite well organized.

lol Goddamn I must be a crap commander, what with all those rich opportunities for ambushes from the sides and rear that go begging when I play.

From another thread here: This coincides with my experience. I find these things infuriating. For a start, they don't spot quickly enough when moving them into position, and just about anything will kill them. In theory you should be able to get them in a hull down position so that only their TOW launchers are visible, but in practice I have totally failed to do this, and they die quickly through catastrophic explosions from hull penetrations. You would think that if they get into such a position, only their TOW launcher would get blasted, but oh no, its the hull that gets hit (maybe a problem with the target line?]. As Dave above suggests they seem to be designed for long range engagements, but even in the largest scenario I've played 'counter attack at El Derjine' at ranges of almost a couple of km they have utterly failed to spot first and die like flies. Even if they get a missile off, the TOWs seem to have a high failure rate, and run into a hill or terrain before they get near the enemy. You would think with the cost of their high technology they must be good at something, but in CMSF so far I have been unable to find their merits. Has anybody had consistent success with these beasts? How do they use them?

Well naturally REAL Gavin lovers will never be satisfied until Gavin gets in, but as this seems unlikely what is so different about the form and function of the FV432?

Gavin lovers will be able to use FV432s as a sub when the Brit module comes out. Doesn't take much imagination, eh? Just a bit of US camo, slap on a white star and you're good to go. This raises a question about Brit AVFs: will they be able to resupply US Army/ Marines soldiers?

Well, as one of the silentish who almost never contributes to this kind of thread, I'd like to say that I'm quite happy with the way bogging is handled. I played CMX1 from 2001 to this year, and bogging is a curse, but one that in no way subtracts from my immersion in the game, and the vast majority of my game time has been H2H. Since it is only the minority of CM players who actually bother to contribute to these forums, and it is only a minority of the minority who complain about bogging, I submit that the percentage of players who are actually bothered by bogging is far far less than 40% claimed earlier in this thread. Indeed, if I were to hazard a guess at the number of CM players for whom bogging is a serious issue, I would put it at closer to less than half of 1%, but have no way of verifying this figure.

I do it fairly often: 1. When you want your AT teams to tackle an AV without endangering the rest of your squad 2. If you have a wall to breach you might split off an assault squad to do the task 3. When assaulting buildings and you are unsure whether they are occupied or not you might want to send in a couple of guys to check it out while the others provide support. 4. The marines have huge squads, it often makes sense to send one squad ahead while the others are on overwatch. Its a very useful capability. I'm not sure if split squads take a hit on morale (like they did in CMX1) but its so convenient I don't worry overly much about that.

It is a mistake to confuse 'wargame' with 'game with war'.