cmfan

To me it seems like since 2.0 the behavior described by the OP has been the norm. If I remember correctly, pre 2.0 tanks didn't shoot at other tanks with their heavy machine guns unless enemy crew were bailing out. Now it seems they do so until the enemy tank brews up or is listed as knocked out. I recall my first few games with the new British module where I noticed this and thought, "is this British tank doctrine?" I then played a game with American tanks and saw the same behavior.

This poor Brit took a HEAT round to the chest from a T-90

I've had this bug happen to me as well. I keep meaning to report it, but I always forget. I'm not sure if it only happens in the firing range, or if it also appears elsewhere.

I'd be interested seeing in a heavy ACR troop added to the available U.S. TOE! I've modeled it myself by cherry picking units but of course the resulting troop has C&C issues. motioned seconded.

Good point. In general because of computer hardware limitations I think we fight in maps that are smaller than they should optimally be for the type of weapons in our arsenal. This becomes most apparent with Armor, ATGMS and U.S. optics/surveillance systems.

Can you repeat this without the alphabet soup? I'm ex-army and even I couldn't follow most of what you said. However, if I get the general idea of your argument, my conclusion is that dedicated FS vehicles are pretty much useless and even a detriment in the game when it comes to dealing with scenarios that involve calling indirect fire on almost any kind of armor; or even RPG armed infantry if your close enough. Either your going to get your vehicle killed, or you'll never get a chance to for fire because of the vehicle AI's protective behavior. It's a realistic reflection of what happens in the real world, but also an inadvertent counter point to a "feature" touted by the game designers. If that's the case our FS vehicles, at least in these situations, revert back to being personnel carriers with sophisticated optics that are useful in a) getting our forward observers to good observations points, and giving us a slight edge in being the first to spot advancing armor under the right conditions. Their built in behind the scenes bonuses to FS spotters are not really applicable because of practical employment considerations.

I once had an RPG fly through the middle of a squad of Marines and detonate on wall immediately behind them. I saw the explosion, dust and debris and the entire squad go down. I thought it was going to be a massacre but when everything settled down only one Marine has suffered a minor injury. They weren't even pinned or rattled.

The problem with observers in vehicles (with FS3) right now is that as soon those vehicles spot any type of armor they pop smoke and retreat out of LOS making them completely ineffective if you are trying to call for artillery in an area with enemy armor in it. I understand this is the AI protecting the vehicle, but it really robs FS3 equipped vehicles of a great deal of their potential.

Hehe, your absolutely right. Thank you for catching that.

I wish our "brewed up" vehicle graphics looked like that.

Sounds great!

I'm probably going to screw this joke up, but: How do the Marine's take a hotel in the middle of a city? Fight house to house and conduct a frontal assault at the break of dawn. How does the Army take a hotel in the middle of a city? Lease the property at twice the going market rate.

You guys joke about those female Iranian conscripts but a pixilated RPG ain't nothing to laugh at regardless of who fires it. Seriously though, I've always wondered why Syria was chosen instead of Iran. The U.S. isn't exactly on friendly terms with Syria but Iran seems like the logical choice if your going to set a simulation in the region. I do see the developers reasoning from a unit standpoint though. In choosing Syria BF did manage to make me feel guilty when I play CMSF as one of my good friend's husband is Syrian and served in their military as a conscript. We trade "war" stories once in a while.

There's are no keyed ignition systems in Army military vehicles. That I remember. The only time your vehicle is "locked" is when it's in the motor pool or some such place. In those instances you usually lock a hatch with a pad lock or secure the steering wheel with a cable. Valuable or sensitive items that could be easily taken out are either removed or locked in brackets inside the vehicle. If you have to abandon a vehicle and there's a chance it might be captured the TC will at the very least "Z" out the radios/electronic equipment (wipes frequencies and crypto). If feasible they'll thermite it along with the vehicle's engine/weapon system. That was the proscribed procedure a few years ago. I'm not sure what it is now. I've seen a video of a Bradley being hit by an Apache after the crew bailed in order to keep it from being capture so there's always that option.

This would be great.

Yup, I think this bug has been around since 1.10.

Thanks for the heads up Mikkey. Actually, the depository seems to be working fine now too. Thank you Moon.

I just tried to download the new QB maps by Mike and I'm now encountering the same problems others have reported. I haven't changed anything on my end - I first noticed the problem a few days ago while trying to download another file. It seemed to resolve itself on its own, but cropped up again today.

I'm going to download these right now. I can't wait to play them!

Future Weapons is fun from time to time but it does seem annoyingly "fanboyish" after a while. I never get the sense that we're seeing an honest evaluation of the weapons highlighted each week but rather a long series of commercials for them. I can't recall specific moments but even with my dated and limited knowledge of military technology I've heard them give weapon system evaluations that are certainly overblown or one sided. If its new, it must be good.

The Humvees are invaluable in the scenario I think. They free up your main combat force to do their job while they perform security which is essentially what battalion scouts do when they're not performing their recon duties.

That's telling considering the U.S. has (or has historically had) one of the better military supply systems in the world. I've noticed that in CMSF supply tend to get much greater consideration in campaigns than in individual scenarios regardless of what an individual scenario might be trying to represent. In most scenarios it seems that U.S. forces are always set to come into the fight fully stocked. Personally, I tend to be stingy with my Javelins. I'm not sure why because I'll use artillery and my machine guns like they're going out of style.

I'd imagine the issue is not so much about a higher likely hood of getting hit, but about being spotted due to a larger silhouette. I think finding terrain to hide in or hull down positions is more of a pita. I would argue that in practical terms an APCs ability to survive an ATGM is more dependent on not being targeted in the first place than onany armor or counter measures it has. In that sense a large APC's size doesn't help its survivability.

Does anyone else think its more than coincidental that Israel pushes for a ceasefire and pull out of Gaza just as Bush steps out of office and Obama becomes president? It almost seems like the whole military adventure was timed to take advantage of the transition. Which is one of the reasons why I question the whole idea that this was done merely done to defend Israel from rocket attacks by Hamas.

I understand what your saying about using the Javelin to avoid casualties in real life and in the game. However, remember that in the game we don't have the same supply issues that exist in a real combat zone. The cost of the missile might be irrelevant within a certain calculus but the ability deploy enough to the troops is. How many of these missiles are stocked in the theater of operations? How many do the troops on the ground have before the next resupply? How man can be carried by the men. Within the game this rarely matters as we almost always start off missions with a full or near full load out and our logistical concerns rarely extend beyond the scenario or at most a campaign. Under such circumstance it doesn't matter how many we use. However in real life tactical and supply considerations will play a larger role in determining employment even if you have several of the missiles lying around. I can't recall the name of the thread, but a while back someone one these boards was discussing a recent article that stated that the British (I think, it might have been U.S. Army/Marines) were having trouble keeping Javelins in stock because troops used so many early on in Iraq.