DaveDash
-
Posts
539 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DaveDash
-
-
More tests with the Leo 2A6 on 'Excellent' equipment to see if it made any difference, and no it doesnt. It's very unlikely it will survive a hit from the AT-14, however being behind a berm offers it considerably more protection. Still too risky to use them if you don't want to lose them in an AT-14 rich environment.
-
Further testing:
I stuck the tanks behind a 2m high berm, so each tank was 'Spotter is in hull down'.
Results:
Test 1
Leo2 Survived
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Test 2
Leo2 Survived
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Test 3
Leo2 Destroyed
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Test 4
Leo2 Destroyed
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Test 5
Leo2 Destroyed
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Test 6
Leo2 Survived
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Test 7
Leo2 Survived
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Test 8
Leo2 Destroyed
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Destroyed
Test 9
Leo2 Survived
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Test 10
Leo2 Survived
M1A2 Survived
Challenger 2 Survived
Leo2 Survival Rate: 60%
M1A2 Survival Rate: 100%
Challenger 2 Survival Rate: 90%
Observations:
1. The Leo2 only took 2 direct hits that it survived. The other shots hit the berm. The M1A2 SEP took a lot of hits and survived them all. The Challenger 2 also took a few direct hits.
2. Spotting ability is reduced from the Tanks being in hull down (It seems to LOS is drawn from the middle of the vehicle)
3. No mobility kills, although bad track damage, even though this part of the tank was protected by the berm.
4. Leo2's are too vulnerable to use in an AT-14 environment. Best just leave them back or in keyholed positions until AT-14's are cleared out.
5. M1A2's have no need to fear AT-14's
6. Chally 2's can be used to support your troops from hull down positions, if you are willing to accept a 10% (or there abouts) attrition rate.
7. Unless it's a M1A2, never move your tanks out of hull down while AT-14s are around. And you shouldnt move your M1A2 out of hull down anyway, but some situations may require it.
-
Actually, I would prefer the VP locations be hidden to both players (or at least the intended human player) and the mission brief contain everything the player needs to know to accomplish the mission. This of course, puts a burden on the designer to write a thorough and well thought out brief but I think it would do both parties good to get away from the "drive as fast and hard as you can for the green spot" and actually be forced to think through the scenario and conduct a good mission analysis (on the players part) to really grasp what he has to do to win.
I like this idea, and I actually think it would help make those of us not in the know better tacticians.
Because instead of focusing on these big green squares on the map, we'd have to think more for ourselves about the key terrain and objectives. Also as mentioned, the big green squares give a metagaming like clue to where the enemy is going to be focusing at least some of his defences.
-
Oh yes and its Challenger 2 (Enhanced).
Woops! Ridiculous typo on my part.
-
After a discussion in the I Love NATO thread about Tanks getting waxed by ATGMs, I decided to run some tests.
I had 4 firing lanes, at one end of each an AT-14 (Special Forces).
At the other end, I had a Leo 2A6, Challenger 2 (Enchanged), M1A1 SA, and M1A2 SEP all sit with their frontal armour facing the ATGMs. I let the ATGM's have at them from about 900m.
The Leo2A6 and M1A1 were the least survivable. Often being destroyed on the first shot.
The Challenger 2 was destroyed most of the time on the first shot, but in some occasions survived two or three shots. The crew would 'panic' or go 'shaken' quite a bit.
The M1A2 SEP on the other hand, is very difficult to knock out with the AT-14. Mobility kill, certainly, loads of damage, certainly, but in over 20 AT-14 shots (in separate runs) not a single M1A2 was lost. Also the crew never panicked and they spotted the AT-14 almost every time after the first shot.
The ATGM's also missed probably 1/5 shots.
Conclusion: AT-14 is deadly even against Leo's, M1A1's, and Challys even from the front. However, the M1A2 SEP is a different beast.
This strikes me as inaccurate/overmodelled, given in 2006 it was widely reported that the AT-14 was ineffective against the frontal armour of the Merkeva, and that tank has less frontal protection than all three tanks in game. I also get the feeling the Challenger 2 should be at least on par with the M1A2. There is a definite observable and measurable difference.
Queue Damien....
-
Apache: Airpower set to LIGHT and PERSONNEL can be sent in over the largest possible area and will locate and fire at any enemy spotted (and they don't do enuff damage to buildings to lose "preservation" points even after many missions).
I see almost all CMSF games as having more or less the same process:
1) Send in eyes to spot ATGM's - ie: Infantry ALWAYS goes in first.
2) Kill ATGM's with air or arty, or missiles.
3) Only then bring up the fearful and vulnerable tanks to blow up the helpless enemy.
With this formula I find one can win 90%+ of all CMSF games first time thru without restarting etc., and 100% of all games if I do restart.
I used to think that Strykers with the 105mm gun were a joke. But, CMSF shows that they are a much more cost-effective solution for a modern battlefield that is deadly for tanks assuming an enemy with access to modern ATGM's. If I were a tanker playing this game, I think I would transfer out (unless my only oppo was third world without modern ATGM's). (Of course it's a game, not an accurate sim, so who knows...?)
Tanks are far more effective at dealing with ATGM's than infantry.
1) ATGM's will not always spot infantry and thus will not fire at them. Infantry will generally not spot a hidden ATGM until it fires.
2) One ATGM will wipe out half a squad.
The frontal armour of most BLUEFOR tanks can withstand ATGM shots, or return fire and destroy most ATGM's (Except AT-14s) before the missile will reach the tank.
Of course it depends, in an urban setting, infantry first on the flanks, tanks down the middle. However, on many of the wide open maps where you have a mechanised force, running your infantry across the open ground is futile when your tanks can shoot and scoot. Some real examples:
1) George MC's 'Hammertime'. Definitely infantry first.
2) USMC Campaign Milk Run. Definitely Tanks first, using bounding overwatch in teams, or hull down positions, can take out all the ATGMs.
You also have to do the math. Up against regular Syrian infantry? OK, they like have 6 ATGM sections that are generally useless against your armour from the front. What about Syrian Airborn? Ok, they will likely have 4 sections, that are much more dangerous. RPG-29s? Stay back 500m+ RPG-7s? Stay back 300m+.
The only weapon I fear with Tanks is the Javelin. That one would make me want to pack up and go home.
When I first started playing, I lost tanks, but that is because I was being stupid with them. Once you master them, they are simply the most effective weapon you have on the battlefield. They can take a lot of punishment, which saves the lives of your boys.
-
I generally don't play to the time limit in scenarios. I like to apply a 'realistic' approach (based on what I know) as I get more fulfilment from the game.
This is fine and dandy in stand alone scenarios (Heck I usually edit the time limit to 4 hours), but the campaigns change this. You have to win to get to the next missions, in some cases.
-
The front armour on a Leo 2A6 has a great inbuilt ATGM detection system.
With the 'Guess' missions, some maps its blatantly obvious where they will be, and if you call them down before the mission starts, and use a single tube (or gun) you don't use too much ammo.
-
CTRL-P or ALT-P I believe.
Click on the Hotkeys button in the menu, and it'll tell you.
-
After playing RT in the very early days, I now exclusively play WEGO as I want to see what's going on all over the place. However, it takes me a long time to complete a scenario as I have to plan and plot for one minute turns every time.
But, I still remember in RT how I would get focused on one little battle only to later find disaster elsewhere. (So, maybe it's an ADD issue, heh?)
And also, if you have to keep pausing every few secs to adjust am surprised it doesn't take you guys longer to play a scenario.
Just curious: You think it's tougher to play RT or WEGO?
I started on WEGO and moved to RT.
In RT, I tend to mass my forces and work one platoon/element at a time. Generally speaking I will move one element into a supporting position, and usually they stay there. Then I bound the other two elements over or around each other and attack that way.
If you are in a situation where you are forced to manage separate forces, RT becomes a headache. Also the USMC Campaign Mission "Milk Run" where you are under -constant- attack from Artillery is not ideal.
For managing large masses of troops (Company+), WEGO is easier on the macro scale, but RT is still superior on the micro scale, especially with vehicle management. Managing small forces RT is superior. I think WEGO, for me, is tougher. I tend to sustain more casualties in WEGO. To give you an example, in RT, as SOON as you hear that ATGM fire you can order all your vehicles to hose the area down with HE. WEGO your stuck there watching your tank drive obliviously into an ambush.
-
So there is only one way to enter the complex....
Starts with J and ends in M.
-
Impressive, Dave.
Was that also Real Time, or WEGO?
RT. Took me about 2-3 hours to complete the mission due to pausing and planning though.
-
Slight Spoiler:
.
.
.
.
.
Mission 01 of the Marines campaign can sometimes have a static T-62 on one of the objective OPs. I usually wait right to the end before moving my units onto that OP for this very reason.
-
0 saves and reloads.
I lost 8 KIA 11 WIA the previous mission. I've learnt my lessions.
This mission, there are plenty of options. I ended up using the LAV's from my reinforcements to ferry troops from Waltoo to the main front, and ended up winning with 40 minutes on the clock. This mission, if any, was flexible, with plenty of time, but still difficult.
-
I don't like that tall building because of the balconies (death traps). Also I reckon if you blow the entire section of wall down next to the road with Arty, the Syrians will have no where to hide.
-
Tough mission Paper Tiger. Slow careful going, backed up with a generous amount of support assets, resulted in this:
I'm getting used to your missions now. Before I move anywhere, I get right down to the ground level and examine my avenue of approach. Definitely making me a better player.
-
Good news dave, what did you promise the enemy to obtain that surrender ? Ah, Ah !
I told them if they died fighting, I'd bury them wrapped in Pork.
BTW, I have noticed in your video that while playing RT, you used the pause quite often. Jnt62006 does it also, as I do. it is certain that the time you use while looking around what next order and or move you should do, helps a lot in keeping the time frame down. Since, I have seen your videos, I am very much inclined in doing it more often. I might steal 5 or 10 minutes that way ! whow !
Yeah you probably will gain quite a bit more time. I pause when issuing orders basically.
Speaking about the patch 1.31, I have noticed, the bad way, that when you are firing at a building with a track to help the assaulting troopers, you better switch its fire or stop it, as soon as the troopers get to the building. they got right into the path of the cannon shells and they went down seriously wounded. I got engineers mowed down that way at the taller building.
Before the support fire, If I am not wrong was stopped before we got a blue on blue. yet, that was not the case with mortars, artillery and air assets.
Another very good thing, I have noticed in one of my last scenario is the ability of A.I FO to deliver mortars and or artillery on the battlefield. During the testing, I was astonished the first time it happened, so good the shelling was.
This has always been the case. I'm surprised you mowed down your own guys though, seems HE in 1.31 is only effective against BLUEFOR.
Yes AI artillery is much improved too.
Nice screenshots by the way. I have a feeling the best way to tackle that walled compound part of the town may be to set up supporting base of fires on the hill to the east, overlooking the buildings. Either that or screw the ROE and just shell it to pieces.
Hmm actually, bringing 155 down in a line on the walls of the compound would be a good way to get in there. -
Also, I've got more Air and Arty in this mission that the entire Marines campaign, but I cannot use any of it because of the ROE
Have a wee think about those ROEs and what you need to do to get a win. You can level every PRESERVE location and still win by eliminating the enemy forces as long as you keep your casualties down to a minimum. With all the PRESERVE points, that's 15%. With none of the PRESERVE points, it's about 7%. Bringing your boys home is your priority. You get brownie points for preserving civilian buildings but you lose VPs for destroying certain structures. So...
a) don't destroy those special structures. And
don't stress about the PRESERVE VP awards. Preserve your forces first.I've come to this conclusion pretty much. My troops > ROE.
BTW, the REDFor is really poor quality in this mission. Their best quality troops are in Waltoo and they need to be taken seriously. But even then, we're talking Conscript/Green max with Normal morale at best. Take Waltoo slowly. The Nasri defenders have numbers but... well, let's see how you get on.
Yes they're quite motivated little buggers in Waltoo. But its also your building/door placement that makes these missions extremely challenging. Good thing I have lots of smoke.
-
I did tests in mission 2 after reading about the problems people were having and I indeed did get vehicles across safely on FAST. However, when I tried that later in the scenario, they would get blown up.
So, something else may have been going on. Maybe when I successfully got units across on FAST the triggerman was moving, or hiding or...?
Either way, in that situation, smoke is the way to go.
Why I am uncomfortable about using that tactic in the scenario is that we are TOLD there is a IED on the bridge.
Well, I am sure that if that were known, they would wait for engineers to disarm the thing. I find it VERY hard to believe that CO's would order their expensive vehicles and crews to play russian roulette by racing across such a bridge - whether using smoke or not.
Hah yeah. When I started playing that scenario I spent ages thinking there was obviously another route over the river. When I actually discovered I HAD to go over the bridge my initial thoughts were 'Oh sh!t'.
-
Yeah, I'm pretty liberal with the usage of HE, and in particular light ammo on Fire Missions and Air. And also I agree preserving buildings is the furthermost down my list of priorities.
I'm also getting a little frustrated though with the ineffectiveness of HE and Artillery. Ive had fighters fire RPG-7's and hit my LAV's AS their position is being pounded by HE. Had one Fighter, in the open, take about 30 seconds worth of HE. Assuming he was dead, I ran a squad nearby and he mowed down two guys instantly.
-
Chaos, sure, after the battle is joined. But in these particular missions I am thinking of (Marines campaign Milk run, for example, and Battle for Objective Pooh) the reinforcements are your main body showing up, with the AO being screened by your recon elements.
Since it's my operation, I'd want to say 'Echo company's Assembly point is here, Tank Platoon here', etc. I can see this being screwed up from time to time, sure. However a lot of reinforcements in the game aren't actually reinforcements, but rather different elements of your force arriving to start the battle, so they should turn up in the designated spot as chosen by me.
There is one mission where what you are referring to happens. It's called SNAFU, and yeah, your stuff turns up in the middle of a battle all over the place. That's why I said there could be an option for scenario designers to flag which reinforcements can be deployed and which ones can't.
Also In some of the older missions, the scenario designers are pretty careless at checking LOS to where your units turn up. If my AAVs get lit up by T-72s across the map as soon as they arrive, I'm not going to bother with that scenario.
-
Yeah, it's not worth it points wise (and also casualties are very bad, given your units are core)
I have done the same thus far. Haven't found any IEDs in Mission 04 yet.
I find that if you suspect an IED, and you have no options left, a 'Fast' move will far more than not get you over it safely. This also is a realistic tactic, or at least was a few years ago. This is only with vehicles. Obviously not much of a help in the Third mission either.
-
I just finished it with 5 KIA 11 WIA (Syrian Surrender) and about 10 minutes left on the clock. Ran into a few 'surprises' along the way.
The vast majority of my casualties were from ABEL. Seems there is no good way of taking that urban area without levelling it (The back part at least). The AI will retreat until he has about 3 squads packed into one room, and woe to your section that discovers them.
A couple of things that have happened in 1.30 made this mission a lot harder than I remember, namely, HE being much more ineffective than what it was (in fact, I'm finding that to be a big factor in the NATO campaigns as well), and enemy units surviving buildings collapsing. They've been discussed to death in another thread though.
-
Paper Tiger: Seriously, is that what RL troops do?
ie: They pour on a lot of smoke and then behave as if there are no IED's around cos they are sure that cos the triggerman can't SEE the IED location then they must be safe(???)
That's what the game demands, so if you can back that up with RL examples then I will actually be very happy (for real).
Dave: Are you talking about Canadian mission 2 - the IED's on the only bridge to get to the town? There may be different AI plans, but I found at least one triggerman in the town outskirts but no one in the buildings close to the bridge. You have to be pretty observant to know you've killed a triggerman, and I guess there has to be a friendly unit almost standing over him to ID. If you kill and long range you may never know for sure.
I got schwacked by an IED in Mission 03
I never found the Trigger man, I just put HE into all the places he could be. Screw the ROE.
don't stress about the PRESERVE VP awards. Preserve your forces first.
Tactics Tutorials for CMSF
in CMSF Strategy and Tactics Forum
Posted
The guys here can correct me if I am wrong, but it depends on circumstance. However, in a lot of cases I imagine they get significantly more intel than we get in most missions.
Those big FLIR boxes on top of the HUMVEES (the name escapes me now?) are awesome at recon, from what I have read. Before the battle of Fallujah, they examined the edge of town with these things and could see enemy infantry moving on the rooftops and through windows. They also have UAVs and so forth.
This is represented in game by early intel, but scenario designers often don't give you any of it. I assume most missions we just don't have those assets available to us. Early intel is when you start the map and you know where percentage of their forces are (Big red ?'s during the setup phase).