[While We Wait...]

Can anybody tell what MWiF is?

[Battle video]

I think Steve said there would be an imbedded CNN camerman with the US forces and we will be able to rewatch the battle from his perspective.

Aren't they biased.

[Questions.....]

Other Means

Using mg at distance seems consistant advice. I like your tactical thinking to get the most from it.

[Getting really sick of those tanks...]

Is John D making a valid point? Is there a grain of salt in what he is saying?

My first experience of CM was CMBB Blitzkreig campaign, and I remember getting a short sharp lesson about German tanks: I overestimated their capabilities, and my tactical nounce to. I had along gap without CM, but when I came back to it I saw it as the best tactical game to date. Yes I'md sure it's not perfect, but the little WW2 reading I've done sugests CM leans towards the realistic side.

So is it that many players overestimate tanks or their abilities? Or are there major flaws in CM that make it way off the mark with realism?

John D By the way have you tried pbem? If not why don't you try pbem and perhaps your oppenent could point out any obvious mistakes.

By the way what scenario or campaign are you playing?

[Questions.....]

Jason C

Ok I'll play around with those ranges and circumstances. Before I was tempted to wait until the attackes were a lot closer.

By the way I just started playing pbem and your infantry advice has given me more confidence to take the fight to the opposition.

[What sort of missions would you like in?]

LtCol West

3) Clear in zone

Would that be like a company/battalion sweep along the lines of a patrol?

4&5 would like to play those too; but I don't think helos are going to feature too much.

Did you forget 6?

[Questions.....]

Jason C

Thanks, another very grateful CM player.

I'm also going to paste some of this and your advice regarding infanty attacks. (Better stop before sounding like a sychophant)

By the way I did a search and could find any advice on machine gun ranges other than it's probably better to open up at longer ranges. So I was wondering what sort of range would be optimal- ball park figure- for say mg42.

[ February 04, 2006, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: vincere ]

[Questions.....]

Great info about terrain and exposure.

What do you mean by 'cover panic'?

[What sort of missions would you like in?]

It would be great if, in CM:SF, you were ordered to break off an attack if your losses exceeded a certain level. In other words, the mission objective changed mid-game from "take objective" to "exit friendly map-edge" or "defend in place for 5 more turns". The scenario designer could set the casualty/loss rate so the player didn't know exactly when it would be reached (without checking in the scenario editor of course).

IMO very good suggestion. Dynamic objectives idea could include a do more if things are going really well.

[What sort of missions would you like in?]

How would people feel about "Hammer and Anvil" scenarios.

Would be cool. Prompted me to think that this could be created in CM-Campaigns. Which got me thinking that for me thebest mission would be those created in the context of a wider non-scripted campaign like the awaited CM campaigns.

Hope campaigns sells enough to continue the trend.

[What sort of missions would you like in?]

A recon-in-force into a defended area is a CM 'Attack'

Sure, there are similarities and maybe overlap. But just thinking about it makes me think that there could be subtle differences. For example, if the objective was to get to a position, a cross roads or high point, or even several or consecutive positions and hold them for 2 turns. Add another variable, like the opfor not knowing the mission, or objective points, and maybe having their own objective like seek and destroy. Could this sort of thing simulate patrols? would it be the wrong scale, and could be add to the game dynamics.

You've got to consider what the opponent is doing - for one thing the element of surprise can be discounted, your opponent knows you're out there and the game clock's running

Yes, surprise is a biggy. Asymetric and objectives unknown to the other side could help here.

OK, how about a Movement to Contact type mission rather than CM1 style MEs if for discussion sake they must go as they're too gamey in the 21sy century?

Could you expand on that?

[What sort of missions would you like in?]

I was thinking more along the lines of Recce in force, and area denial. Like a sweep through an area of a city or valley. With way points and opportunities fo the other side to ambush or respond to a developing contact.

The patrolling side could also have a 'quick reaction' reserve that is unlocked once contact is firmly established. The kind of thing scenario that was described in the 'Was it a victory? you decide thread'.

I was wondering if that type of mission would be game worthy, or probably tricky or dull on implementation? Also what other mission types might be good gaming for the CM2 engine?

[What sort of missions would you like in?]

Reading Ellis' 'Sharp End', and came to a section about how contact was more constant because of patrolling. At first I didn't think it appropriate to CM scale; but then thinking about company sweeps in a Vietnam, Afghanistan, or counter insurgency type scenario made me reconsider.

I think Steve mentioned something about more dynamic victory objectives so I was wondering if people though patrolling could be appropriate to scale? Or would it even be playable?

And what other types of mission would be good CM fodder?

[Halftracks and the Panzergrenadier]

The fuller advantage of mech/motorised infantry should be better portrayed in the CMBB campaigns.

Mobile reserve, exploitation, flanking moves and other gaming goodies.

[Two Scales, One period.]

Steve

The capability is there only in theory. It will still take a lot of coding to get it to actually do anything but 1:1, battalion sized engagements.

Again references to battalion sized engagements after (if memory still serves me)posts and posts about how a company sized game does not require things like battalion HQ.

[Need help with CMBO and XP service pack 2]

Just used the shift key work-around to good effect. Thanks.

[1:1 representation & tac AI]

The footprint idea made sense until I vaguely remembered Steve saying something along the lines of 1:1 meaning individual LOS and line of fire.

But that was a while ago??

Bruce 70:

I'd be with you on the why represent it if it means nothing.

[1:1 representation & tac AI]

For me Brothers in arms AI messed up the positioning sometimes. Also I think it might be a different ball game with the differences in scale.

MikeyD.

Yeah agreed I dont think micro manage will be the way its going as Steve already said players wont even be able to choose formations: which makes the tac AI so crucial.

Wonder if they'll ghost how the squad will position before ordering the move.

["Civilians" in CM:SF]

and allow "civilian" units to deploy (almost) anywhere. Sure, once they are spotted they are automatically IDed, but at least you don't know where they will be.

was thinking the same; but maybe full ID when they open fire and perhaps still restrict deployment.

Also just occured to me X ammount of civ squads would have to count as actual civilians for fog of war reasons for US side.

[buddy system and pepper potting?]

from what I can make out the tac AI will decide when fire teams will cover or move.

British squads can form two fire and manoeuvre teams or break down into pairs (buddies) fire and manoeuvre. So that pairs are moving and covering accross the whole area of the squad rather than two larger groups leapfrogging (which is a little more predictable). I assume US squads can and do the same? also will pairs fire and movement be moddeled in CMSF?

[1:1 representation & tac AI]

For me the tactical AI is probably the biggest issue and have the greatest impact on the game. Other issues such as no civillian 'units', and no casevacs might result in less imersion, but probably wont make or break the game.

But playing CMBB where at times it calls for fairly precise positioning of squads got me thinking about 1:1 representation without individual control. I'm guessing the AI will work in most situations. But I hope there will not be too many, if any, occassions where the tac AI really screws up. possible examples:

1. order squad to cover cross roads from corner of building; but squad only covers from one side of the building.

2. order squad forward to behind a curved wall but several of the grunts go the other side of the wall.

3. order squad to make progress down a track but one grunt not using the track but sticks to hard terrain slows whole squad.

Others might think of better hypotheticals?

Occassional mistakes could be taken in the spirit of "well, **** happens". But too many and/or stupid tac AI decisions would be a killer.

So for me there are many good posts here about aspects that could add to CMSF, but the basics are what will count the most.

[Use of ATGM]

I don't really know what the answer is to 5.56 vs. 7.62 because soldiers can't make up their minds. On the one hand you hear them saying "I want a more powerful round, and I don't care about the extra weight" and then in the next breath they complain bitterly about how much weight they have to hump around.

Soldiers have right to bitch

I guess another aspect to factor in is that as better body armour is fielded so the need for AP and penetration increases. A little liek the trend for bigger guns on tanks.

[Use of ATGM]

akd, and flamingknives I think that you're right about that site; it is a bit tabloid like. akd the report you linked was quality, thanks. Three points I picked from it are that there were a few complaints about the 5.56 round; but generally those interviewed thought that the round is adequate if the shots are well placed (especially two well placed shots). But the report does recomend both round be scientifically tested and given ratings. Second, that soldiers did not mind carrying extra weight in the weapon if it meant increased leathalty. Thirdly, just personal interest: the whole buy off shelf slings was interesting as I personally thought one of the best things about the SA80 was its sling.

Kipanderson, I didn't know that Finland kept the 7.62, cheers. Wonder if nay other countries kept it.

[Use of ATGM]

This article is sort of relevent to wparts of this thread.

web page

Basically it says that the US army is looking at going back to 7.62 mm for thier standard round. 5.56 isn't cutting in the penetration stakes especially for fighting in urban areas. Also as may vets have pointed out not as leathal either.

I have no idea of the likelyhood of 7.62 comming back; but would be interested in peoples thoughts about it?

[withdrawl from map & pursuit?]

Bump