cmfan

I was an infantry man once upon a time and I think that helps me understand general U.S./threat military doctrine and squad to platoon tactics in the game fairly well. In short, I didn't have to read the manual to know not to move units without supporting overwatch or how to use terrain to mask my movements. Then again, this isn't something a savvy gamer wouldn't figure out quickly. My learning curve was just probably really short compared to someone who has never been in the military. For example, I initially had some trouble dealing with the newer equipment modeled in the game - I was in the Army back in the early to mid 90s and things have changed a good deal since in some respects. There are also a few areas where I disagree with how the designers have modeled something, but nothing so big I couldn't adjust to. But because of my experience I got over my unfamiliarity within a game or two, though I'm still fine tuning my knowledge (see the equipment thread). I imagine a person with no military background would have to figure out each type of unit and its capabilities from a cold start (e.g. hmm, so a Bradley is not a tank like the popular press claims it is). I think I get in trouble and frustrated when I hit the limits of the game's ability to simulate the "real world" accurately and I don't realize it. CM is pretty damn good so it actually fools me into thinking I can do some things that the game just isn't capable of simulating or representing with enough detail to make a difference. For example, subtle differences between the LOS of a vehicle's TC, its gunner and its weapon system's LOF (I wish we could draw each). That's where the gaming element of the game comes in and I have to switch mindsets to compensate for limits in fidelity. That's why I agree with Wiggum; because of those limits a 13 year old gamer could beat a veteran combat soldier or a general. It's not necessarily a bad thing actually.

I got an out of memory error last night when I was trying to load the second battle of the "Forging Steel" campaign. I forget at what percentage it crashed, but it did so fairly early on.

Just finished the first mission after hours of careful play. Tactical defeat I thought I was doing okay. Then again isn't there a saying that goes "if the battle is going according to plan, then your probably in an ambush." Or, something like that. George, do you have the original maps for each of the scenarios? They're so well made I'd love to play around with them - promise not to use for anything but my own gaming.

Hehe. This campaign is making me feel like a novice. I've had to restart the first battle twice now because something happens that suddenly causes me to loose too many units unexpectedly. You've made excellent use of protected firing positions! It's the first time such a small number of red units have given me so much trouble. You maps are great too! Very detailed and realistic though your use of irrigation ditches is giving me a headache! ---------------spoiler... of sorts------------------------------------- So how are you guys task organizing your scout elements. I have two main scout groups (Bradleys and Humvees), my command post + FISTV go for high ground to get LOS on the battlefield to call in arty and my tanks are centrally located to react to contact. So far, I'm beginning to think that keeping my tanks organized as a platoon might be a bad idea. Long LOS line on the map are spread out and considering how terrain is so broken up by ditches moving my M1A2s supports often results in bogged tanks.

Can't wait to try your updated version Birdstrike. I've been waiting for 1.11 to come out to play this again as the vehicle path finding in 1.10 was getting on my nerves.

I remember this being true in CM1 as well. I can't remember why, but against infantry I usually got better results with area fire than direct targeted fire.

Cool. What does RWS mean?

Did the Bradley's automatically engage the T90s with their TOW missiles even if they were well within range of their bushmaster cannons? The bad AT-3 performance didn't surprise me in the sense that I didn't expect them to be very effective. However, I thought this would be because of spotting issues (which bore out) and inaccuracy in the terminal phase of flight. Instead it seemed that at least in ideal conditions the missiles had no problem tracking and hitting targets if they launched successfully. The problem was that so many simply flew of the rack and within a hundred meters or so abruptly plummeted to the ground. I'm just wondering how much worse this weapon system would hold up in windy, hazy battlefield conditions! The Javelin performance just sounds amazing... or unbelievable? I'm not sure which to be completely honest. I suppose I have no reason to doubt weapon's performance given that I've read that soldiers in the field really like the system and at 100k a pop, the Pentagon seems to actually be getting its money's worth for a change. Makes me wonder why we don't simply swap out the TOW rack on the sides of Bradleys and put in a Javelin launcher Well, the TOW has some extra range on it so that counts for something.

Thanks for the correction on the TUSK M1, Flanker. I wish I could change my post but I don't think the forums allow us to edit posts after a certain amount of time has gone by. Now, because I'm having trouble sleeping and Normal Dude was cool enough to give us easy to use testing ranges: AT-3 (BRDM mounted) Conditions Used Normal Dude's vehicle weapons range map to test the BRDM-2 mounted AT-3 against a series of light skinned and light armored U.S. vehicles, as well as two versions of the M1. The M1A1HC and M1A2SEP. I used the scenario's normalized testing conditions: zero wind, average temperature, daylight lighting conditions, flat terrain with short grass. Vehicles: I first tested the light skinned and armored vehicles at various ranges on the assumption that distance would not affect a HEAT weapon's penetration capabilities. These vehicles included Humvees, a truck, a couple of LAVs, Stryker, Stryker MSG, Bradley with and without ERA. All vehicles were positioned so as to be struck along their frontal armor arcs. Tanks: The M1 tanks were set up at 1k meters and 2k meters. This was done due to a spotting issue that became evident as I began testing vehicles. More on this later. At each range marker one M1 faced the firing BRDM while the other presented its side to it. Observations The most immediate and significant observation of the testing was the high rate of of missiles inexplicably plowing into the ground in front of the launcher after a second or two of flight. Looking at my notes, roughly speaking, only about 40% of fired missiles actually got airborne. Yes, only about 40%! This is more significant than it seems, because even though the AT-3 missile is extremely slow (1km/6s), it never missed a stationary target or slowly moving M1. Admittedly these were range conditions but still... As a result it took 27 missiles to destroy 9 vehicles despite no misses and ERA/Slat armor only saving a vehicle once. One vehicle was fired on three times as well (all hits). Initial engagement of targets took about 30 seconds regardless of range. Thereafter, there was a 10 to 20 second pause between missile launches. The BRDM reloaded on the run so there was very little delay as a result of not having ready racked missiles. Delays were more often than not caused by obscuration of targets by dust from missiles falling short. The weapon system had trouble sighting stationary Humvees at 500m and larger vehicles at further ranges. It had serious problems spotting two stationary M1s at 2k and at 1K! I had to begin moving my Humvees and tanks short distances, back and forth, in order for the AT-3 to reliably spot them. Light skinned vehicles suffered catastrophic explosions upon being hit. Armored vehicles such as the LAV or Bradley, while being knocked out by a single missile rarely suffered more than one casualty or brewed up on a first strike. A second missile would result in multiple casualties and a brew-up. ERA proved effective against a single hit, while Slat armor did not. The missile was completely ineffective against frontal M1 turret armor. By the time I ran out of missiles an M1A1HC had taken 2 direct hits on the front of the turret and only suffered minor systems damage. An M1A2 had taken 3 hits and only lost its IR sight. There was little other damage and the crew were not even the slightest bit concerned. I could see them pointing and laughing at the BRDM. The missile did successfully strike a slowly moving M1A1HC at a range of 1k from the side. It hit the turret and successfully knocked the tank out, but there were no crew casualties and the tank did not brew-up. The M1 apparently has Ademantium armor on the front, but wears silk robes on the side. Conclusions: If the AT-3 is having the same problems as the TOW in terms of having a predisposition for burrowing into the ground... maybe we have a bug. We should check what other ATGMS do and if this is a common problem in real life. As for the AT-3 as weapon system... My sense is that its barely better than nothing in the CMSF battlefield. Not because the warhead is incapable of hurting an APC or even an M1 from the side, but because it engages its target so slowly, has severe range limitations (target must be beyond 400m) and it can spot about as well as a bat. It's pretty nifty watching the slow moving missile fly to its target - its like seeing a drone been sent on a kamikaze mission, but if anyone spots the launch the missile crew is going to get plowed with return fire before the missile gets very far. Having said that, if you must use the BRDM mounted AT-3, I suggest you park it somewhere far from your ambush point and don't move. Wait until a target comes into view and hope that it lingers there long enough for you to engage it . Hopefully the target will not reach cover before the missile strikes or effective suppressing fire is returned. Whether you hit or miss, you should probably displace your BRDM immediately because your chances of survival staying in the same spot just went down by a significant amount if the enemy has weapons with a long enough range. So there's the key to this weapon system. Hit the enemy by surprise and pray that they don't have a weapon system capable of reaching you.

More on the M1 The way it's modeled in-game, as in real life, the tank is extremely survivable for the crew. I've only seen a few catastrophic hits on an M1 and those were the result of very bad combinations of enemy volley fire and side penetrations. So, if you see an M1 go down, be ready to try to lead the crew out of harms way. I've noticed that T-90s can indeed give the M1 a run for its money at short range, but the T90 like a lot of other newer Russian made armor systems has a lot of fire power but still lacks protection and comparable crew survivability systems. You can hurt M1 at short range readily enough, but good luck getting there! Oh, the M1 has a 7.62 co-axial machine gun and two machines gun on top. A fifty cal for the TC and a 7.62 for the loader. I believe the TUSK version of the M1, along with side ERA armor and a slat cage for the rear, has a remote controlled .50 weapon station similar to that of the Stryker for the tank commander.

Thanks for the warning. Sorry to hear that happened to you.

Good to know!!

This raises a question I've had for a while now. What does "civilian population density" do in a scenario? I don't think I've found anything in the manuals that states what it does. Also, how do you award points for not destroying buildings in a scenario? Are the two related?

My problem with the TOW systems in the game is that they're, at least for me, very difficult to use without loosing the vehicle employing them. I suppose I should have known from the start, but they're not very viable offensive weapons against armor. If you try to maneuver a Humvee, TOW vehicle or Bradley into firing position against a tank or even another APC you're more than likely going to loose that unit. Well, unless you're at extreme range (few maps give you this option) or are a master at finding hull down positions on the fly... which still don't seem WYSIWYG to me despite what others say I think you really just need to use them defensively. Sit tight and wait for the armor to fall into your missile sights. This is a one shot deal though. If, for some reason, your Bradly decides to let loose with its cannon before it fires the missile, or you have to move to get LOF then you're toast. I actually prefer using my mech platoon's Javelins over my Bradleys to engage enemy armor of any sort. TOW missiles end up coming in handier against buildings and bunkers.

Okay, I'll bite. Mind you, my weapon system description is probably more impressionistic than you want. It contains information that I found useful after playing around with the vehicle in a few scenarios. I'll edit it with hard numbers or testing information if anyone has it. BMP-3 (Syria) Crew is made up of one driver and a gunner so no "unbutton" option once troops exit. Despite this it spots relatively well considering how bad earlier model BMPs are at this. Unlike US APCs troops exit from rear hatches, the turret hatch and two front hatches. Something to consider if you're assaulting into a hot spot with little cover. The vehicle is a "glass cannon" in my experience. 100mm cannon capable of firing AT10, 30mm rapid fire cannon, three 7.62 machine guns (one in the turret, two on the bow - it does fire them). Against infantry, buildings and soft skinned vehicles at long or short range it can deliver massive amounts of fire power rapidly. It almost feels like you have a Bradly and Stryker MGS combined. However, even its frontal armor will not protect it from anything heavier than a large caliber machine gun. Oh, and when the it takes a hit expect it to explode spectacularly with few or no survivors. A "Target" command against structures will cause it to use its 100m gun. A "Target Light" command will cause it to use its 30mm cannon along with sporadic 7.62 fire. I have never seen it use its ATGM system at anything but an MBT. I'll test its effectiveness further shortly.

This sounds great! I was actually thinking of cooking up something like this for myself. Much less ambitious of course - but I keep putting off. One thing. I believe if you assign your "range target" units to an AI group and either give them an ambush command at very short range or no AI instructions at all, they'll just sit there and not shoot back at all. No need to set firing arcs. Not sure on that, but it might be worth trying it out.

I'm getting an error when I try to download it from mediafire. Could you host it on cmmods or the cmsf repository? The map looks great by the way.

Really? Share a story or two. I think all I've ever heard where the positives, no actual field reports.

Not sure why this is this case either. It probably has to do with AI limitations. There are lots of little things missing in Shock Force that we had in CM that I assumed would carry over. Then again, we also have a lot of new things we didn't then. Balances out more or less I guess. Oh, and don't forget the shiny graphics

This thread is full of sudden mystery.

I've been looking for something like this for a while as well! I'm glad to hear you guys are working on them and can't wait to play them I've been thinking of making my own, but my scenario, let alone campaign building skills are not up to par yet.

What Apocal said. I agree, as far as area fire against infantry I like 7.62 more than 5.56 from a SAW. Depending on the type of cover I think it can also be more useful than fire from a .50 cal because of the slightly higher volume of fire.

Speaking of which... why do Bradly's drive around with their TOW launchers in the "up" position? I would think that would be a minor graphic issue to deal with considering we have things like opening hatches and ramps. Is it an issue with how the game handles the Bradly weapon systems?

Quick question, how did you get Syrian units on the blue side? I'm looking at the scenario in the editor and when you click "purchase blue units" it actually shows me a Syrian TO&E. I've noticed a few other scenarios that use Syrian units on the blue side.

**Spoilers** Haha, the exact same thing happened to me. It took me completely by surprise because I can usually spot those things a mile away however this time around all I saw was some sort of movement at the edge of the screen and then the equivalent of a nuke going off! I had avoided the other one earlier because I happen to click on the spotter who was being engaged at near point blank range by one of my Humvee's and noticed his title! I could almost imagine the color flush from my troops' faces as they realized what was probably lying around nearby. **Spoilers**