average

Hi, I've wasted the weekend playing Shock Force, and ahve to say, subject to a few minor issues it is truly first rate. At the moment I'm trying to complete the clearing operation at the airfield. This is not going so well for me. I note in the briefing it suggests you can create your own breach, but for some reason, no matter how long i engage the wall with 105mm and 40mm rounds it won't fall over. Is this a glitch, or should I simply apply more firepower (the Javelin perhaps ?). Second, in terms of completing this mission, I'm wondering if anyone has an tips for how its best done. I can fight through to the 1st and 2nd objectives by approaching via the runway enterance (more space, less IEDS), but by the time I've secured those objectives, my forces ammo state (especially the MGS) and casualties, mean that no matter how much fire I put onto the SF compound, the best I can do is sort of clear it out, while taking around 40% infantry losses in the process. Is there something I'm missing (I'm doing alright,but I can't seem to rachet my forces enough to do it without taking prohibitive casualties). Would it be viable to stand off and knock down the enemy strong points with javelins ? Is there some magic in advancing to unit asap ? Is there some smarter way of using the Apache's other than to neturalise strong points (should I be giving them fire light area target commands to knock bad guys off the rooftops). At the moment I'm just fighting plts through using overwatch, clearing buildings only when essential to take objective, and trying to gain cover in the lee of buildings as much as I can, because the RPGs are making life tough.

Long time lurker. So the theme of this thread is:- "OMG OMG OMG I CAN'T BUY 4 Stykers, 2 Bradleys, 3 Javelines and 7 M1A2's to have some fun with 345 T54's, OMG OMG OMG ITS RUINED, I WANT TO BUY UNITS USING POINTS LIKE THEY DO IN RL ARMY, OMG" I seriously think one of the best features of CMX2 is gets away from the gamey nonsense of buying your force mix and customising it excessively for the job at hand. No longer can you engage in the stupid process of working out which T34 variant is most cost effective and proceed to stack your force mix out for a boring, ahistorical encounter against a similiarly stacked out force. Now you get to pick roughly what type of force you want and get a proper coy, or coy+ to carry out your mission. It forces you to make decisions about how to do things, because you don't always have the ideal force mix. I'd have to say the new mechanism also helps balance. It means the Blue force can't be cherry picked, just like the red force can't be cherry picked.Its good for both sides not to have an M1A2 behind every crest or an AT14 astride every road. Nothing like going with what you've got and making do to help balance it out. Finally, some of you guys seem to forget sometimes you get the bear, sometimes it gets you holds true for these things.

All corps are equal some are more equal than others.

When has the M1 being tested against latest generation ATGMs and front line munitions ? Its like saying our tatics are sound because the army never got done by the militia in timor. Battle tested against 2nd world armies using equipment made prior to the end of the cold war. The service life of these tanks takes them well past the stage were systems like the javelin will be in common circulation. Why do all the Euro armies, most of whom hate the germans opt for the Leo ?

Gibson, they are M1A1Ds are they not ? I'm no tankie but I understood from what defence has been saying that they are ex national gaurd assets which have been lying around in inventory. We are paying something like 600 million for 48 second hand tanks. For that money you could get twice the number of leos plus spares. Australia loves America, we give you money to build overweight fighters that may not even work properly. Buy colt carbines at a unit price of close to 10 000 a pop (if you don't believe me , its true, we paid that much the m4a5s). You tell us our comms and command systems need to be interoperable and defence reaches for the visa card. Old tanks at a little over twice or three times market value and a spares package that from what i've heard is almost bait pricing. All the kiwis are good for is motivation, I look at them and go jesus , I hope Australia never goes the same way.

Good point jrcar, the regulars were basically cadre, but I always thought that Duntroon trained officers for both command and staff work. Although its entirely questionable if officers were before at least the 2nd world war schooled at all adaquately in command of sub-unit and tatics etc.

The officers above the rank of major tended to be drawn from the militia or in the early stages of the war the British Army or the Indian Army. In addition the core of the colonial defence forces were unitl a short time before the war BA. My great grandfather was head of the Artillery for instance in the Queensland Defence Force and then a Col in the gunners during the 1st world war. Thats pretty typical of the senior leadership of the AIF, although as the war dragged on increasingly milita officers occupied the star ranks. A lot of the generals and colonels were lawyers , engineers and public servants in civilian life.

Duntroon is our version of sandhurst. The first class graduated in 1908 or 1909 and formed the core of the standing army's officer corps. Duntroon or RMC-A is now the only officer training school in australia for the army. Previously the OCS school at portsea operated as well as seperate university regiments (where I went). The university regiments now fall within RMC. OCS was closed. Im not sure about why they would have been thus restricted except to suggest that perhaps it had to do with the problems of having a force draw down and the long term sustainabality of the forces.

Fox,the point of the post was, that the AIF was also comprised of pre war milita. Almost all the officers and men had pre-war service in the CMF, and all of them volunteered for active service after the outbreak of hostilities. That point you made yourself. Having read your second post you understand the formation and raising of the the various branches of the services. At the very least your posts have been inconsistent. On one hand you suggest that full time units like the ARA were involved but on the other you deny the dicotomy. Obviously I am not degrading the regular army, they are outstanding at what they do, simply having a go in a not altogether serious way, at the historical revisionism that some members of the ARA seek to perputate for a variety of reasons. If you want me lead you to the very essence of what I was suggesting, it is that the ARA does not fill the shoes of the AIF. That was posted in a very light hearted fashion. As for Battlefronts decision, I would simply state that it is for them to decide where the commercial imperative lies in running their operation. [ June 02, 2004, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: average ]

Kokoda wouldn't be something you could model with CM. I'm suprised that no mention has been made of Milne Bay, which was the first clear cut land victory of any force over the Japanese Perhaps if the ADF did have a PNG version produced, it could ship with some sort of video presentation for the Regs pointing out the formations that stopped the Japanese were all comprised of reservists of one sort or another. Dorsch, I'm not entirely sure why your so terribly upset a company you have conducted two or three transactions with won't provide you with cotent specifically developed for a large corporate customer.

I wasn't aware that one could acquire free games. Poor choko me. Sounds good.

The Panzer III was obselete by the time the Sherman appeared in large numbers in the Western Desert. I'm not especially knowedgable about AFVs but the accounts I've come across suggest that when the M3 series arrived in Africa the British tankers finally started getting the better of most german armour, if not off course the large calibre anti tank stuff. As for the use of early long barrel panzer IVs and stugs against shermans, I think its fair enough. In normandy for instance the sherwood forresters according to the authour of a recent book knocked out 13 panzer IVH's for no real loss to their own formation. I'd suggest that even the so called objective sources tend to be haevily taken with german qualative superiority, rather than looking at other factors like the poor training of junior allied leaders.

I'll go out there and suggest british bomber command for a gong vis a vis most amount of effort least tangible result. The Italians have to take the overall prize, followed by the german little mate nations like romania. The greek army was actually pretty effective.

155mm VT is an effective solution, but I think its worth suggesting that effective vertical cover is integeral to having a robust position capable of withstanding sustained bombardment. 155mm VT will certainly disable defenders in vertical cover. Phos and VT (also timed if your not planning on walking over what you've just blasted for a while) will make life unpleasent but the killing effect of the fire isn't outstanding. I think part of the angst is probably that people expect the preddy explosions to kill and maim the defenders. The reality is that point fire from 4 tubes of 155mm firing 50 impact fuzed HE rounds isn't going to kill a great many dug in defenders. What it will do is force them to remain below ground, deny them mobility and upset them. As for the suggestion you can't dig a trench in arid conditions and i mean this with no slight, I'd suggest you've maybe watched lawerence of arabia one time to many and formed a definite view of the desert as being like that. You can dig in arid places, just its hard work.

I'd prefer to have a realistic feel to the game in so far as a properly executed attack should have some chance of overcoming the defenders without resort to an insane flanking movement without any security and leaving a large part of the front undefended. The other issue is shoe horning deployments and forcing you to divide your forces and facing off against numerically superior defenders with only a counter vailing superiority in armour. What actually really gets me going as well is the failure of the briefings to disclose things you'd know before executing a set piece assault (or at least you'd want to think you knew), like the location of mg positions, field pieces, aprox art support on hand. The other thing thats never made clear is start lines, stop lines, etc.

I'm not really much of a war gamer but have conducted my fair share of tewts over the years. It strikes me as curious that in a great number of scenarios the attacker has no margin of supeiority, ie both sides have around 1000 points or the attacker has 1300 points. One particular operation in CMAK that is especially poor is the Island where 2 rifle companies attempt an opposed river crossing without armour and then have to conduct a fight through without real support. Same thing with the gustav line based operation where 2 rifle companies without proper artillery support or intially armour attempt to break into what must be someones creative view of how the gustav line might have been if the germans where monkeys. Is this because the AI is weak or is it a gamey thing. The other thing I've noticed is that scenario designers seem unduly taken with the tatical might of the german armed forces ? Once again a gamey thing or just admiration for the germans and a disdain for the allies ?