Code13

Without wanting to hijack this thread (or is it shanghai?) into one about linguistics, when you spell check a document created on MS Word you will often see a stat called Flesch grade or Flesch-kincaid grade, these are reading scales developed for the US navy to allow them to write training manuals at a level their sailors would understand them.

Hmm How many MOUT units in the field carry 30' ladders? Maybe thats what the slatted armour on the sides of the Strykers really is, ladders... What if there is enemy infantry on the bottom floor, isnt climbing up a ladder past them, like, suicidal? Serious question, why attempt to gain entry by the second floor into an enemy held building?

Erm, dont breaching orders exist now in CMSF? Personally, I think some people are wanting a totally different game in a different scale to CMx2 in some of the things they ask for. Try Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare. That has all the things you want.

Heh The only time I get annoyed with infantry is to avoid blaming myself for my own stupidity since 99% of the time when they do stupid things its cos I told them to. Interestingly, AFVs also suffer from this "bug". In my experience CMxx is deeper, more complex, more involving and gives a better "real world" feel than any other wargame I have played and it is not mystery why I am still playing CMBO still. Given that they have said further modules will include the units I want to play with, then fantastic. Just get on with it already

Very true MickeyD, it would then be onto the next perceived flaw that made the whole game unplayable... People surrendering might be cool, but I am not that bothered. The only think lacking really for CMx2 is more modules (give me my Brits for heavens sake ) and the little rules that were in CMx1 such as move to contact etc

hehe I also want to know why I cant have my Gunship support on the battlefield and not off map? Anyway, I like CMx2 and will keep playing it, longevity depends on the modules, but when I get bored, there is always CMBO or CMBB... Actually I guess the real reason I want to see NATO v Pact action and gunships is playing old Avalon Hill games in the late 80s like Aircav and MBT. That and I grew up with the distinct possibility of seeing tank battles across the Rhine.

Personally speaking, CMx2 is pretty good, ok, I havent been playing it for too long, but it is a lot of fun. If I want anything more from it is is to see more force choice, i.e. I want more than US Mech Inf or MOUT vs Syrian regulars or UNCONs. British, French, German forces, Russian etc would all be great to see. When I first started playing CMBO I loved it and wondered if ever we would see a NATO v Warsaw Pact game in this engine, CMx2 is maybe as close as that will happen, but hell, I'll take it.

If you want a 7 hour game, why not make it a mini campaign - just over the same map?

I occaisionally toggle the trees just to make sure my infantry remains on the right side of a ridge line that I otherwise wouldnt be able to see, but that my men could. Toggling smoke for the same reason would be handy. Otherwise, dust clouds are actually damn useful for spotting enemy movements and so stay on

I do kinda miss smoke orders for artiller/mortars

Hunt & hide?

Great scenario but very frustrating when 3 of my 4 tank crews dismounted instead of advancing then wouldnt fire when they got back in...grr But yeah, first time any of my infantry squads ran out of ammo! Also a learning curve, flight time of a javelin is long enough for the targe to spot the firing unit, traverse the main gun and kill the firer before the missile hits. Ouch.

Similar wierdness from tank crews, 3 M1 crews all dismounted and walked up the road towards 3 t72s insteaqd of moving to engage them, when I got them remounted, they refused to fire (the gunners actions were stuck on "firing" but they never actually did). The cowards spiked their own guns

I have had a similar prob, only played 1.6, but ATGM team on a roof with clear LOS to an unmoving striker and no shot.

I suspect that it would rather transpire that Hiroshima might not hav been the first city to see an Atomic weapon in that situation. Or at the very least Hiroshima would have forced a surrender from the Germans as well as the Japanese.

All these tips and tricks are fine but it still doesnt get away from the fact that the Germans clearly developed some sort of miracle armour that repelled T34 shells.

The quip still remains true though

Wasnt that what Goering said about Stalingrad?

I think 2 points. 1. This is pretty unprovable, those that think the AKx is cheap crap wont be convinced otherwise, those that think the Armalite series is over rated plastic also wont be convinced, proof is irrellavant in a matter of opinion. The weight of argument and hte way it is presented however is paramount (hence it a bad idea in specific terms to embellish your argument with insults) 2. Where were Efraims political comments? I saw a statement of fact with regards to Iraq and nothing else.

mind you, wasnt the trusty Carl Gustav RR also 94mm?

Just to throw another curve ball in about accuracy v firepower. During the falklands war both sides were pretty much armed with identical rifles, apart from the Argentinians were capable of automatic fire where the British were not. The British troops happily swapped their rifles for ones capable of auto fire, until they learned that they were more prone to jamming...

In the situation you describe Abbot it isnt about firepower, you are right, but absolutely about training. Taking a squad of professional, well equipped soldiers against rabble malitia is a no contest, always has been and always will be. Mercenary units around the world have been proving that since the Foreign Legion was formed. All the examples of the M16 being a better weapon have used the "rabble with AK v trained troops with M16" to prove their point, and gladly discounted events from Vietnam when trained AK troops met trained M16 troops and the M16 troops much rather chose the AK claiming early model teething problems caused that. The simple fact is that it is a point of doctrine, the US/UK/NATO forces look to aimed rifle fire whereas former Soviet troops look to volume fire and supression. IMO the former Soviet forces are still looking on their troops in the same way as tank riding SMG units in WW2. Add to this the talk of comparable accuracy which to me is an obscuring of the information, even in WW1 the optimal combat range for the British Army and the Lee Enfield was 300m, with a weapon accurate and lethal up to 2000m. Every one so far has indicated that both the AK and M16 are comperable in accuracy upto this 300m level. So whats the difference? A trained man can hit targets with good accuracy upto 300m with both weapons Beyond that range the M16 is far more accurate (so why dont the US adopt any of the even more accurate rifles out there?), below that the AK provides a good volume of fire without any chance of jamming or failiure, no matter what the conditions. TO me the choice is simply one of personal preference, both are equally strong in some areas, and beyond that have different strengths and weakneses

Thanks for the insult there rofq77, nice to see civility is still alive and well on message boards. Just out of interest, since you are uch an undoubted oracle, but in the British Army is the GPMG issued at squad level or platoon level, or higher?

Halftracks are great for supressing enemy positions as infantry advances, and if the enemy positions dont have any anti armour power they can be great for fast assault moves

IMHO the US army squads and platoons are much more based on the German WW2 model than anything else whereas the British Army is still based around the principle of an infantry man and his rifle.