average

Pandur, Played it through. I repeat the previous comments about not getting point for destroying town hall. In terms of the victory conditions, I had a minor victory. 1500 points to 1134 In doing that I accompolished all my objectives, suffered casualties amongst my special forces units but otherwise accompolished all my objectives (other than the uncons getting points for town hall that was levelled by the T-72). I liked the scenario all up, although I'd think it would be more plausible if it was republican guard and/or SF conducting the raid, rather than low quality regular mech infantry and a single plt of SF.

Rollstoy, dude,the M2A3 is actually in the way. Move the BMP 2 forwrd or change the area fire command to the right of the command squad.

Poor dale, he doesn't like descriptive words. They got him into trouble in high school english, and maybe with the police. Cherry picking - picking - all sort of a related concept. You can pick in CMSF - just you get a formation with a certain range of tools. You just want to be able to play with the purchase screen. If you really want to do something, like pick very specific units, you can do that in the Editor. If you want a Plt of M1A1HC's supporting a Styker Plt with some M240 armed M1114s you can do that in the editor. You should try it sometimes dude. Let me translate, you'd pick an armoured bn or armoured RCT (more likely), then lets assume its ww2, you'd pick the light tank or scout company, then you'd set the equipment to excellent and you'd get M24's. Now assuming you want the infantry, you delete away the RCT infantry elements till you get a Plt. Want extra Bazookas, you could leave in part of weapon plts allocation for instance. You want the German esertz battle group, you do the same. Then you set an AI plan for the Germans, they attack the road block, or maybe flank it. Not like CMx1 where they do what they think is best relative to the flag. Then you set some parameters for what you think a win is for both sides. Off you go. If you can't be asked making a map, steal someone elses and modify it. Not real hard. Now N00b skool is ova 4 2day. I don't think you'll find many people crack out and break cover during bombardments. Its the exception rather than rule. Not that I've ever traded shots with anyone, but typically a breakdown in combat invovles someone staying in situ. Running is more what happens when a fall back order turns into everyman for himself. That or someone thinks the order has been given to retire. So I'd suggest the circumstances where people do the bolt is where they are asked to disengage or the TACAI decides its bad to hang around. Otherwise it should be the exception, not the rule.

Poor Dale. He can't really cherry pick across formations in QBs anymore, and he is very very sad as we can see from his posting on the forums. I'd like to see a realastic TOE and OB for both sides together with most of the other stuff above. Personally, don't particularly want to see units fleeing when broken. No one leaves cover to retire when heavily engaged by running across open ground ala CMX1. What should simply happen is they go hell for leather till they find cover, and fall back thereafter if not under fire or if/when they have cover, refuse to budge. Would like to see is surrendering personel modelled.

Sgt Goody, for a man who claims to be Sgt you don't seem to understand that when berating someone you don't have to make any degree of sense. At least that's my experience with Cpls. Where did I berate the poster for having an MBA other than to suggest he must have skipped the economics classes that come with that course ? What I want is a coherent, cogent answer to how BFC can force retail pricing without running into legal problems ? I also want to know about this paying double question. To be ripped off means you didn't get what you paid for, which you did. You got CMSF. You might not like it as much as you thought you did, but you've got it. That the price subsequently went down means that in retrospect you struck a bad deal based on imperfect information. Welcome to the real world 101.

Actually, now I come to think of it, I paid a lot for my last desktop PC, and I saw the same parts cheaper six months later. I am off to write to Nvidia about ripping me off by introducing the 8800 series cards. What I'm suggesting is that if your crying a river over the workings of the market you should:- a. Go to those classes where they teach you coping skills; b. Get a job that pays you enough so that the $64.05 doesn't get you posting on internet boards with sad emicons; and c. Learn about how the free market works. It is pretty simple. It is not BFCs fault the game is being sold at a discount by retailers and even if it was BFC's fault indirectly, it couldn't do anything about. Aleader - wow, you have an MBA and a B.Eng, dude, wow !! Double wow that you paid double for CMSF. You didn't pay double. When you purchased it the best price on the market was what you paid for it (maybe paradox cheaper but no goodies). So no, you didn't pay double, unless you have two copies. My tip - next time get an MBA go to one of those skools where you do economics and stuff. Incidentally, I'm an Australian, so my AUD's are worth less than USDs, CDNDs and Euros).

CMSF FTW !! Cid250 what is your malfunction ?

Yeah, you are all right, Battlefront should engage in illegal and restrictive trade practices like price fixing (maybe with or without paradox) so you guys don't feel ripped off over what is a truly piss ant amount of money. It is like their is a free market or something operating to control prices. As it stands, those of us who pre-ordered decided we liked the idea of the game more than out $70 USD. We made a rational decision, although our information wasn't perfect. The essence of any transaction on the market. So we should be happy that the free market works and rejoice in our economic empowerment. Maybe that or you guys should spend less time checking the best price, more time figuring out how to get to grad school to get paid in proper money. If the moaners really are skint, you should spend less time talking up how unplayable it is. That way your copy would retain value. That said, maybe you guys don't think like that so that's why you are skint to start with. Oh noes - Catch 22. [ September 25, 2007, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: average ]

CID, I WANT BLUE BAR TOO. MAGIC. I KNOW WHAT IT LIKE BEING TALIBAN. NOT FAIR PPL DON"T THINK THEOCRACY IS VIABLE CHOICE OF GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC STONING IS HUMANE. SAME LIK WITH BLUE BAR AND WEGO ONLY. IT MIGHT BE VERY SEVEN YEARS AGO BUT BUT BUT BUT LIKE BLUE BAR IS BETTER. LIKE THEOCRACY AND SHARIA LAW.!!!11!!! Seriously CID, you are a muppet. You deserve all the abuse you get for your absolutely f*#%5ing stupid perspective on a range of topics from computer science to gameplay preferences.

Yeah. I'd have to say I didn't enjoy it, mainly because you can only win with gamey tactics. Your set up zones are in part under direct fire from a tank company, and you've got sweet FA support. Then once you get past the company of T72s you find yourself getting shot at with AT-14s. The briefing says something about a tank companies battle for Baghdad as well. Its one of those really gamey scenarios. I suspect M1A1 Commander was making some point about the SCBT's combat power.

Birdstrike, Excellent scenario from my play last night. My only question is about the unarmed M114s. It seems based on observations of the current conflict in Iraq that most of the M114s are armed. Together with the Farm, I'd have to say I've enjoyed you scanarios the most out of the ones I've donwloaded thus far (not to take away from the truly excellent village of trouble series).

O'rly, close combat turn based ?

Three observations. The waypoints are a long way off. Why do you want the guys to take the exposed route all at once ? Other than that, it does look the tac ai decided they liked the covered approach better than straight across the field at a jog. Only problem is the tacai doesn't think about bunching or funelling. If they had crossed the filed and got heavily engaged you'd be bleating about lemmings not reacting in all probabality. Maybe play RT, that way you can correct on the fly.

You shape the battlefield any number of ways, but if you want to shape the battlefield in shockforce you use fires, spotting and manoeuvre (no i'm not an American). In shock force you need a concept of the mission your executing. Look at the terrain, what affords the best mixture of cover or space. Both keep you safe from threats, but both can be a hindrance. If you have lots of open space, consider the threats your likely to face. You need to consider if you want concealment and methods of bringing the AO under direct observation. Get a mental range card. At 300m-400m your IFVs are outside the effective range of most RPGs and are vunerable only to ATGMs and AFVs and the SPG. Therefore, before I move inside 300m I want to know what is there. I also want to know what fire lanes I'm going to move inside in crossing that ground. Work out the likely/probable and confirmed locations of your threats. So the first order of the day is to get an idea of the disposition and composition of my foe, what his scheme of defence is. Best way of doing this is observation. Second way of doing it is by fires (ie shoot at suspected enemy locations to try and provoke a respone). The third is to try and draw fire. The forth is to probe, that is start an attack with the aim of only drawing fire. The worst way of doing it is simply closing the range and hoping that you can react and overcome the resistance before you suffer losses. So that sounds fine, but how to do it in game terms is to wait at a range outside of their effective AT weapons. If nothing is doing, then consider any one of the following:- a. dismount, move infantry into cover; b. fire at suspected enemy locations; c. conduct a limited advance on a ratio of 1:3, that is 1 unit moves, 3 provde overwatch. If still no response then consider conducting a rapid advance to cover through the suspected fire lane. That means get a stryker, depending on ammo state have units fire in the movement, and dash through the firelane into cover or through and back. A fast moving stryker is hard to hit with an rpg at anything other than point blank. Assuming you provoke a contact, get fire onto it if possible. If its nasty, break contact, but that means everyone has to shoot to cover the bound back. Once you've got a contact, consider if you can eliminate it with your available fires, if not consider indirect fires.If you can't eliminate it or your saving your munitions for another threat, can you move around the contact, is there any more favourable terrain given the contact you've bumped. So you come to a cross roads, do you press the contact, do you break it or do you remain in situ. Remaining in situ can work, it wears down their ammo state and allows other elements to operate without being particurly concerned by it. But assuming your feeling aggressive, you shape the battlefield with your fires and by manoeuvre. Consider the airfield mission. You want to shape the battlefield. Well you can do that by opening up the distances, picking approach march, destorying strong points, cover and concealement. At the most basic level you might simply change the axis of your thrust and knock down the partially demolished building on the corner while occupying the control tower. In that example you shape the battlefield by deciding the terrain, deciding what elements are committed to contact, denying the enemy movement, denying the enemy use of the terrain (ie the partially demolished building). If you do that without knowing what your facing, then you are in the classic sense shaping the battlefield because your denying the enemy the intitative and use of his plans or contigencies. Also remember to keep your units in contact with each other and in touch with supporting elements. Don't leave them isolated, the more guns you have in any given area, the more fire you can respond with to point targets. You want to gain fire supremacy and freedom of action, not just die the death of a thousand cuts.

Well, old tanks and equipment should be able to kill all your AFV's from most distances in game most of the time. The only exception would be M1s in the frontal arc. I actually think if anything Strykers and Bradleys get off too lightly when engaged by 30mm AC fire from BMP2s. Re bailing out, I haven't seen that trend except where vechicles are in an untenable situation, the crew are rattled and/or its taking penetrating hits occasionally and the crew think its time to leave. Best example is a 50cal m1126 Stryker meeting a BMP 2. The BMP 2, unless it fires the AT4 is unlikely to get a catastrophic kill on the Stryker at the moment, but its rounds will penetrate and the 50 won't get through the frontal arc of the BMP. Naturally enough it seems the Stryker crew decide the Styker is a bad place to be and bail out. I imagine MG fire could have the same effect as the BMPs, especially NSVs, and that if you did something silly enough with the Styker for the crew to really be uncomfortable with their situation into the bargin (isolated, side on, surrounded even). With tanks, mobility kill, lots of effective incoming, crew casualties and no supporting combined with poor tatical employment will cause them to bail out. I personally have seen maybe M1 crew get out of a mobility killed but intact tank. You are doing something stupid with your AFVs if you are doing this regularly. The other thing to check is what damage the AFV in question has sustained. If the engine, optics, tracks, fcb are all knocked out then its probably a mission kill, and the crew will get out.

Bigduke, The irony. The cliche. Your spelling, your nietzschean philosophy. Best laugh I've had all day. Still a well thought out post despite me not having the same sort of will to power you do. Take issue with the idea force protection is not important, political will is the key part of the national effort militarily. American public don't hold the lives of their soldiers as cheaply as say the Chinese. Too many body bags, the political will evaporates in anything other than a national emergency. Second, all volunteer force isn't likely to be happy about going to die like cattle to cut your taxes. Ergo, you'll create even more problems with retention, training and hollowness by trying to save a few bucks on equipment and make life uncessarily spartan. Continuing on, M113 was designed to surrive indirect fires and provide mobility in a storm of shot and shell cold war show down. Even with the Gavin upgrades, its still going to be hot, smelly, uncomfortable, probably break your back if a mine goes off under it and will melt when hit by a basic RPG-7V grenade. Its kind of like a Stryker, just tracked, older, probably not as surrivable, and if its anything like the M113s I know, uncomfortable. [ August 29, 2007, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: average ]

RT only, WEGO is ok, but RT rocks. Whoever hasn't tried Rt should give it a go.

Jason, you have the most unreal, screwed up sort of ideas about combat operations out of anyone posting in this thread. Don't you get that the SCBT isn't a HCBT ? Accordingly its not the same, nor is it given the same taskings, and for most things other than high intensity warfare the SCBT is better in most respects (ie low intensity warfare like Iraq, weak milita based opponents). I think Jason's problem is he has never got himself any time in service. Hence he deeply doesn't get that an extra rifleman is not just another M16 and that a 5 man rifle section is a lot less useful than a 7 man rifle section (once you factor in someone injured/understrength to start with in the first place). You also don't understand that you have to compare the SCBT with infantry units, not armour. The SCBT does have a lot of firepower. Incidentally, just so you know, the M198 and the M109 fire the same shell, and unless you've got counter battery, the M198 does everything just as well or better than the M109 and can be airlifted and towed into spots the M109 can't be. He also deeply doesn't get how hard it is to nail dismounts in depth with cover using tanks, and assumes your going to be fighting in nothing more than a a long skirmish line, and your aim is to attrit the enemies heavy formations rather than bypass them. You keep coming back to troops in Strykers might die if they hit a fanatical first line armoured unit in the open by themsleves. This is assuming only the SCBT is on hand, and assuming that SCBT has been sent to confront a first line opponent by itself. Assuming the enemy armour is prepared to go combat ineffective afterwards, and the US commander was determined to stand his ground and fight in place, then maybe it could crunch an isolated Styker Co. What is actually going to happen ? None of the above. For what its designed to fight by itself, the SCBT has a lot of firepower. Lot more than light infantry, lot more than most motorized formations as well. It is not designed to fight the Soviet Shock Guards formations in Germany in 1989. You think everything with wheels in the US Army should be designed for high intensity conflict against an equal or superior foe. That's nonsense, and taking the heavy party pieces to Iraq and using 25mm as a contact breaker has cost more american lives through second and third order effects than it has saved.

Frenchies know how to fight, and are good at it when the political and command aspects are sorted out. No one would say the french grunts have ever baulked at a fight in a serious way when properly led. Indochina, Algiers, Syria during WW2 and then the Free French, WW1, Franco-Prussian War. Frenchies stuck it, suffered appaling casualties, fought with bravery and considerable skill. Often man for man the French have been more than a match for the Germans, just cursed with poor staff work and a poor political culture. Seriously, if you think the French grunts are cowards, read anything about Algiers or Dien Bien Phu. I'd love to see a French module for CMSF, they aren't afraid to be different.

Blackhorse, excellent post in response to a rather unreasonable question. I am suprised at the amount of organic firepower the brigade brings with it (compared with say Australian 1st Armoured Brigade which brings 12-18 M198s (think its currently 12), 12 81mm mortars without attachments), and that is really a heavy formation. Also when you see the math for the distrubution of ATGMs, I would hate to think what it would be like trying to dislodge it from a firm defensive position and then given the speed and mobility of the entire force, try and fix and flank them. So so much lovely combat power, all of it strategically and tatically mobile. Hardly a speed bump on defensive operations for anything short of a couple of nato standard armoured brigades, even without factoring in the supporting arms the USA brings to any serious conflict. Offensively useful as well.Also useful for operations other than war, stability ops all the good stuff. I'd still like Jascon C to reply to my earlier post about the Syrker being a better IFV for the wars currently on foot than the Bradley.

Yes...there is already a very similiar poll thread. Someone just wants proof that they are not a whiner.

Static defensive ops in complex terrain typified most of Korea between 51-53, and Pushan was a static defense. Inchon was USMC, the breakout wasn't classic blitzkreig, it was a pursuit.

So Bigduke asks the question, what conflict can a IFV Stryker do better than a M2, M113 or a helicopter. Iraq, Afghanistan. The wars we are fighting. The wars we aren't winning. 3rd ID, Heavy Div, Baghdad 2003. They stayed with the platforms while the law and order situation got out of control and broke contact with civilian friendly large calibre automatic weapons fire. IT didn't win hearts and minds. 4th ID,heavy div, notorious for ****ing up their first tour. H & I fires from 155mm is not part of COIN ops as practised by western armies. It is according to 4ID. Show them who is boss. On the other hand the 101st seemed to have got it right. As for the Marines in Fallujah, they didn't go looking for that fight, and they did the hard yards in that conflict. They did well to keep the casualtity rate down to 10% in their rifle plts. If it had been heavy div dismounts, they would have suffered as badly, probably worse, the marines are better light infantry then most of the army formations. Finally, how often has the US army gone blitzkrieg since 1945 ? 91 and 2003 ? How many conflicts since 1945 ? As to winning wars, well maybe, but you havent seen the US stretched yet or having to bail out an allied nation. Look at the success of the USMC and their force structure. They are expiditionary. If Australia ever gets into a blue, well they better not call me up anymore, but it will be MEU that charges to the rescue, not a heavy division. Let me illustrate thus:- The King Tiger was a superior tank, so long as you didn't have to travel more than 25km, had ready access to resupply, and the terrain was flat, firm and open. In the same vein, its not point having toys if they don't get to the fight. You fight with what you can deploy. Better a LAV then walking. It gives you mobility, protection and firepower. Not as much, but then you don't need as much unless your fighting the 3rd Shock Army circa 1985. As to A-stan. US army doesn't have enough light infantry to put boots on the ground. Heliborne assaults haven't worked out that well. Tracks don't cope with A-stan particularly well, and they are doing milage they are not designed for. Considering the dispersion it would be interesting trying to operate and maintain a heavy brigade in Southern Afghanistan. Lavs seems to work though. Beats Helos that can't operate in some parts of the country because of manpads, or bradleys that can't get there, or buckets that have less armament, protection and mobility than a LAV. I think all of you M113 Bucket chaps need to work with M113's for a bit. Nothing like sitting in back of the bucket, internal temp is about 55-60 degrees on a bad day, dismounts have no idea whats going on, and you know that the armour will melt if an RPG-7V so much as looks at it and the spall lining won't stop HMG AP rounds. Then you have the suspension. Also try not to go around corners too quickly, it will roll over.

Yes

1 to 1 can work. What holds it back is that at the moment the AI don't have SOP's, and drills. This is an individual and section problem. Second, the orders are limited. Sector fire, area fire and the like need to be included. As an adjunct to this, if you could specify a stance for your sections to take, that determines what their response is on contact and what their tatical stance is before and during contact. That is the biggest problem at the moment, they get a contact, they don't react, and often they are poorly set for contact. This means the AI needs to at least be able to recognise fire lanes and react to combat indicators short of taking fire or visual contact. As much as I am going to be howled down, you should probably get a little bit less control over what each individual section is doing. In my experience,diggers won't just stroll down the street casually if they are expecting contact. Once they bump contact, they will execute the appropriate drill and the seco is going to try and get them into cover or out of the kill zone. Abstraction is a work around. If you could sort out the AI (and Close Combat was pretty good in this regard), then it wouldn't need to be abstracted to three man squads. Finally, i've never had any interest in trying to fight a Bn using individual sections. It just doesn't appeal to me. Company command is about as much as you can do in real time without very heavy abstraction.