DaveDash

I assumed based on what the manual says the guys with training were "Fighters" and "Combatants" were armed civilians. I was looking at cars between 50m-100m this morning traveling at slow speeds on the road. Basically I have no training with an RPG. I don't think I'd hit a moving target very often with my first shot since I don't know how fast it travels, how the wind effects it, how to make proper use of the sight, etc. If I survived however, I could probably adjust my shot to be more in line and actually hit something up to 100m (doing damage is another story entirely). However, 100m is actually a fairly long way for a moving object the size of a car (not a tank though) firing something you've had fvck all training in. I'm actually pretty skeptical about the 96% accuracy at 100m against a moving target figure given above. This is why I'd want far more randomness in first shots since these guys would be nervous as hell and not know what they're doing. Under 100m in CMSF they were just far too accurate and deadly (damage), there would be mass protests in the US against putting troops in deathtrap vehicles if this was even close to real life. This also doesn't explain the real life dismal performance of RPG's against vehicles by the Iraqi Army who you'd assume would have some level of training. So some sort of dud munition mechanism needs to be implemented or tweaked so its far more common on poor equipment settings. Overall this has minimal impact on the game IMO since you're not likely to have a Blue vs Uncon scenario fighting conscripts (what challenge would that be?) but it would be nice to get this tweaked for atmospheric value for scenarios that wanted to emulate certain parts of real life scenarios (BHD, Generation Kill type scenarios might become far more viable). I also ran some tests using the RPG-29 with combatants with no experience and these guys absolutely chewed up everything that got in their way (although the M1A2 SEP still survived the gauntlet multilpe times, although badly mauled). Experience needs have more variance I think and combatants need to suck more.

I think the accuracy is OK, when shooting is going on these guys do end up useless, however being uncons a good chunk of them probably haven't fired an RPG too many times (where do they train exactly?) so the accuracy of those first shots needs to be a lot more random. I don't imagine hitting a tank at 50-100m is too hard, but only if you know where to aim etc. This takes practice. The real problem IMO is damage and lack of duds. M1A2s should not be getting mauled by conscripts with RPG-7s or Iraq would have turned out wildly different.

Based on the Javelin/AT4 thread, I decided to see if I could emulate an Iraq/Afghanistan like situation in CMSF (IE RPG alley). I had a long stretch of road surrounded by woodlands from a map that I had. In the surrounding woods were RPG teams with the following attributes: 5 teams of Conscript Combatants Poor Quality Equipment (RPG-7V) Ambush 150m Set in various ranges of 50m to 200m out They were targeting various US vehilces going at 'move' speed with covered arcs as to not engage (and thus test accuracy) These were my findings in over 100RPG fired: CMSF Accuracy: Average Accuracy between 50m-100m was roughly 80% Average Accuracy between 100m-200m was roughly 60% Average Accuracy at 200m+ dropped to around 20% Under Fire these percentages dropped considerably Real Life Accuracy (Trained Soldiers - not conscripts) Range........Percent 50 m...........100% 100 m..........96 % 200 m..........51 % 300 m..........22 % 400 m...........9 % 500 m...........4 % Damage: All RPG rounds detonated apart from against the Stykrer (see below) Vs M1A2SEP The tank often was lightly damaged with quite a few big and small +'s. It was never once immobilized however vs M1A2 Tank was often immoblized (interestingly enough that is when they'd ignore their cover Arc and start shooting) and got badly mauled vs M2A3 Bradley (ERA) IFV hardly took a scratch (even less so than the M1A2SEP) but was sometimes destroyed with a rear shot vs M2A3 Bradley Pretty much suicide. The Bradley barely made it through the first three RPG teams alive vs Styker Often the Stryker would get immobilized or heavily damaged, but interestingly enough the slat cage stopped a lot of RPG hits (they didnt detonate) vs HUMVEE No chance. Would be rare if it survived the first team let alone the second Conclusions: Based on the data above, accuracy for low experience troops is probably a little too high in CMSF, however when under fire low experience troops tend to miss a lot more putting them more in line with how you would expect. Those first accurate shots though IMO are the killers so the key is to hose everything down with surpressive fires Based on everything I have read, seen, and heard the damage of the RPG-7 with low quality ammo is way too high in CMSF ERA and Slat Armour are very effective against the RPG-7 in CMSF Crew survivability is about what you'd expect given the information available on current conflicts Ammo reliability in CMSF is way too high for poor ammo So all in all the RPG-7 is more or less in line with what you'd see in real life, apart from damage in some cases (however I was impressed with the modeling of ERA and slat armor, goes to show the attention to detail in this game). Reliability of poor quality warheads doesnt even seem to me modelled. This explains why you tend to get a much higher vehicle kill ratio than in real life against poorly equipped troops. Given CMSF models high intensity conflict (which the game is based around) quite well, I don't think any of this really matters! However its worth considering for low-intensity scenarios.

Im trying to figure out the point in Iron mode. Does it contribute to friendly fire or do units FF each other (rarely a problem with US forces, more a problem with untrained red forces) on lower difficulties? Other than that, would the main point to this be if you wanted to play a house rule 'commander only' view mode? And thus refraining from ordering groups around that were out of C2?

I've been playing a bit of Blue vs Blue recently, USMC vs Army is pretty intense and a wildly different experience (unfortunately the Brit's don't have the firepower to compete). I've noticed the following observations after quite a few games with Blue vs Blue: Tanks: US Army M1A1HC SA tanks are extremely tough to take out without luck or Javelins. There is no wonder the Syrians struggle with these. In my most recent game I had two USMC M1A1 FEP (one with crack experience) set up in a forest ready to ambush two approaching M1A1HC SA's from flanking shots to the side (about 700m out). Not only did the Army M1A1HC SA's survive my flanking shots, they both turned around and destroyed both USMC tanks after a few minutes of pounding each other to death front on. They then proceeded on towards their objective. I managed to destroy one with a Javelin. The other proved to be much more troublesome, and only managed to take it out using 4 split USMC anti-tank squads. After a harrowing few moments of attacking this single tank on the flank from both sides, the M1A1HC SA crew paniced and bailed. The tank was still completely usable! Trying to take out two more with Javelins proved difficult at best as they are VERY good at spotting your two man Javelin team before or after launch. It's pretty much a case of launch and hope for the best. I even had one survive a direct Javelin hit. All in all extremely nailbiting stuff! Chally 2s (Enhanced) just don't seem to be able to stand up to US tanks which I think is a bit off. I had a couple of USMC M1A1 FEP take out 6 Challenger 2 (Enhanced) in a recent game in one battle (I had the advantage of flanking shots in the opening stages, but still). Could have just been luck at the time but I tend not to play a lot of Blue (Brits) vs Blue. IFVs/APCs: US Army kit here is far superior to their USMC counterparts. USMC is definitely an infantry supported by vehicles, whereas US Army is vehicles supported by infantry. Infantry: This is where USMC shines. While US Army rifle companies pack a lot of punch, they are just overwhelmed by USMC rifle companies. If you can neutralize the US Army vehicle dominance, USMC Infantry rules the battlefield. Both US infantry formations seem far more survivable than their British counterparts. Artillery: Even of course, but the interesting thing about playing Blue on Blue is you are not safe, anywhere. However given the fact that mortars can fall down very quickly and accurately, your body armour seems to protect your troops quite well. I've had a few surprises after pounding the crap out of USMC or US Army infantry formations only to assault the position and find considerable stiff resistance remains, or had the same happen to me to find most of my guys are either OK or slightly injured. Tactically I find you get good opportunities to execute planned moves because: A) You infantry has the morale to do them your infantry has the survivability to do them and C) The enemy infantry has the morale and survivability to not be routed, meaning you HAVE to do them This makes for some interesting set piece small unit tactical battles as each side tries to outflank each other. I find with Red troops they just route too easily or panic and get pinned and there is far less room for error, meaning quite often you end up relying on mass over manouver. This of course has its own reward as it requires proper planning but given the engines quirks execution can often be frustrating with red troops. There is nothing easy about it (USMC vs US Army) and it is not over quickly. In fact, I find engagements last longer than Red vs Red. In my last game, I had an to commit an entire company of USMC to close with and destroy a US Army platoon dug in a trench system in a forest, taking around 45 minutes in game time - and not to mention a truckload of mortars. Even with your own highly motivated and skilled troops numerous tactical problems exist, such as taking out that woodland reservse slope position. Arty isn't going to help as much as you think and a frontal assault is going to be futile. Finally, using two different formations that are more or less even in strength but different in flavour offers a bit of excitement you cant find with matched Red vs Red scenarios, I find. Playing as Blue you often find yourself limited in some way (lack of support assets, casualty rate, collateral damage, etc) and it after a while it starts to feel contrived. USMC vs US Army there is no such need as you need all the firepower you can get! All in all I'm loving Blue on Blue at the moment!

Also I guess Syria has hordes of RPG-29's which are from my understanding extremely effective. Not all the RPG's being fired at us are RPG-7's.

I think for me personally I play RT, so I don't notice some of the RPG misses (hear the bang and mistake it for artillery etc). Hits of course, you ALWAYS notice so it 'seems' they're deadly accurate. I do wonder though about the amount of casualties suffered due to RPGs in vehicles however. One thing though about what I have read (BHD, Thunder Run) is that properly trained troops seem to be pretty good at spotting RPG teams before the launch. If you watch the Thunder Run video at one point one of the M1A1 tanks jams on the breaks, spins 90 degrees to the left, and blasts the crap out of an RPG team hidden in a bush (at about 20m range) with small arms. In the video I gotta admit I can't even see sh*t. Maybe this can be emulated with cover arcs over sectors, or unbuttoned troops (which die quite easily). CM:SF - if guys are "hiding" you pretty much have zero chance of spotting them until its too late. This of course works both ways as Syrian armour and vehicles are hopeless at spotting Javelins (and even anti-armour teams) before or after launch. All I know is that after playing this game for a while, I am now ultra careful about finding hull down and keyholed positions for my armoured vehicles, and that is a good thing.

I've had everything get taken out by RPGs and the crew/cargo burns inside except tanks. tanks are fricken tough. RPGs seem to be pretty accurate used by Syrian forces (30-50% as stated) and can take out ERA Brads in one shot (in my experience). Maybe it's just scenario designers are giving them excellent experiance? ATGMs usually have a 50/50 kill ratio and the crew usually survives. AT4s etc usually miss 2/3rds of the time and are mostly ineffective against all but the lightest armour (they immobilize quite often). Javelins hit about 2/3rds and almost always destroy their target. AAVs are especially painful when they get hit by RPGs with 20 guys in there. Seems like no one ever survives. Basically I fear RPGs so much in CMSF it makes me wonder why NATO doesn't adopt them.

Fair enough.

95% eh? Playing through the Marines campaign again, Mission 3 where you are guarding the flank and your poor platoon gets assaulted by a bucketload of Syrians, my Javelin guy shot 6 Javelins and killed only one tank. On a off-topic note, RPG's seem to be pretty lethal in this game. The guys firing them are generally more accurate than the M136 from quite long distances, and it's rare an RPG will NOT destroy Strykers, AAVs, even Brads in one hit. This goes against a lot of things I have read (including armoured HUMVEE's surviving multiple RPG hits). "Bundermann decided to focus on holding the base and saving as many of his troops as possible. About 200 yards north of Bundermann's position, five soldiers were hunkered down in an armored Humvee, fighting to keep the insurgents off the outpost. Rocket-propelled grenades were bouncing off the truck's doors and roof. The troops concluded that it was only a matter of time before a round penetrated the Humvee's armor". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/15/AR2010051503645_3.html?hpid=topnews⊂=AR&sid=ST2010051503668 Would this because the Iraqi army and Taliban are using RPGs that are a lot older than the Syrian army would? Are non-detonations even modelled in the game? Seems they're pretty common in real life using older warheads.

Hehe yeah, I had a Syrian FO team take out two of my scout teams (8 soldiers) the first time.

I'm really struggling with the first mission in this campaign in 1.21. I've had to restart about 3 times now. The problem I am having is that the only way to actually spot units (except for vehicles) is to get them to fire at you, which generally results in far too many casualties. Even then most of the time my guys really struggle to spot enemy units even when being fired upon, at best I will get a ?. Wonder if there have been any changes since 1.11 that have increased the difficulty of this mission or do I just suck?

On another note, I breezed through the second mission in the Thunder campaign (which used to be very difficult) because all the red uncon guys ended up retreating out into the open ground. Either that or I experienced some weird placement bug where they started out there to begin with.

Right, the debate on RPG's is interesting, thanks for the info John. I don't have time to go through it right now (or dig up real life casualty reports to see if the tests match real life)... So what about IEDs?

This is semi related to this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1169238#post1169238 Are casualty rates from IEDs and RPGS over-modelled in game? In particular KIA? Time and time again I read of numbers such as 0-4KIA (and not sure how many wounded) from IEDs in Afghanistan/Iraq, but rarely an ENTIRE squad is wiped out as KIA, quite often there are survivors able to continue the fight. I can appreciate that most of the guys inside are going to be casualties, but the KIA ratio (at the end of the mission) is very high when you tend to lose guys in vehicles which makes me ASSUME they're mostly KIA. Also, RPGs and such seem WAY too strong at causing casualties inside a vehicle (particulary KIA). In CMSF you suffer MUCH higher attrition rates than that from IEDs, and the IEDS in Afghanistan have been described as very sophisticated and effective. So whats the deal with casualties from IEDS? Are they automatic KIA? Is there a general ratio? Does things like buddy aid and the victor have any consideration to KIA WIA ratio? Cheers

This is one regret I have about switching to RT. I hardly ever get to zoom up close and watch whats going on from the grunts perspective.

I have experianced the AI retreating with my own blue forces (when trying to overwhelm reverse slope defence positions, etc) and they defintely pick cover to retreat back into. So yes, it might be tied to experience levels etc.

Welcome to the internet. I predict in three pages we will be comparing everybody else to Nazis, in four pages time we will be discussing the pros/cons of piracy, and in five pages time we will be having a Mac vs PC debate, and then finally we'll be arguing over thin vs curved women.

You already have one. It's called the MRAP. The problem however heavily armoured vehicles in Afghanistan do not have the offroad capacity required by the AO. The U.S. has developed a new 'light weight' MRAP that apparently offers the same IED protection as the MRAP, and they are rushing it to Afghanistan. It's called the M-ATV. http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-11-02-voa48.cfm?rss=topstories We will see how effective it is.

Don't underestimate the U.S.'s ability to play Machiavelli on the strategic level, they've been doing it successfully for quite some time. A classic example would be pushing Egypt out of the Soviet sphere of influence and retaining Israel after the Yom Kippur War. It seems they are learning to do it on the tactical level - the hard way, we will see if McChrystal's change in strategy pays off.

Whoever controls the support of the population wins, actually. By sitting in bases, ISAF and OEF forces will not win the support of the population. Not sure if you're being serious there... ? Anyway, regarding Strykers, over on militaryphotos.net just about everyone who has actually served in one (Iraq/Afghanistan) swears by them. The problem isn't Strykers - it's getting the local population on side - that is the best defense against IEDs.

When your unit has a big FLIR optical thingie (that is supposed to have a spotting range of 15KM) and it can't see a machinegun nest ~300m away from it firing constantly, I would say the unit is along the lines of 'useless'. Having said that, the spotting in this mission has always struck me as weird. Often you can't see sh1t with anything and basically have to drive your tanks right on top of the infantry to engage them. ATGM's can get off multiple shots without any overwatching elements spotting them. Overwatching seems great in theory, however, I've always been forced to use area fire to actually get my overwatch elements to engage since no one can seemingly see enemy units in this particular mission.

I went back and tried this mission on 1.20 recently I found two things 1. The Humvees still don't spot sh1t (yes I had them unbuttoned and in overwatch positions). They can't even spot machine gunners firing at them for prolonged periods of time (often wounding the soldier manning the optics). I think they are still broken. 2. In 1.20 I got smoked pretty bad when doing this mission. Main problem I had was a lot of vehicles got immobilized and my dudes had to leg it. Almost ran out of time and suffered more casualties as a result. I remember way back in the old days, this mission was a bit of a cake walk. Not so much anymore.

I have seen things posted on this very site (A British CO doing a presentation on Basra for example) that indicate the British were NOT 'just fine' in Basra. In fact, they taking an unsustainable rate of casualties. However given the resources they were given by the government they did extremely well considering. Anyway, this has little to do with this discussion on Generation Kill.

I played the game "People's General", which was like Allied General (turn based WW2 wargame), but between China/North Korea vs US/Russia/NATO around the year 2015 I think. China invades Russia, North Korea invades South Korea, starts off a new world war. It was pretty fun, would be cool to have something similar in CMSF.