DaveDash

Yep that's the mission. You will see in the next couple of hours after I finish the upload. These buggers defended far more tenaciously against HE and JDAMs than I remember. I actually don't mind overall lower lethality. However surviving JDAMs is a bit much.

Oversaturation of WW2 based video games, and modern conflicts sparking modern interests.

Im doing an video AAR with commentary of the Marines campaign, inspired by tyrspawn. Mission 02, I hit buildings with JDAMs, Javelins, multiple SMAWS, and the guys inside still survived, were not suppressed, and took out my guys. ><

I just dropped a JDAM on a bunker filled with reserve units. One guy survived, at the bottom of a huge crater. I make note of it in my upcoming AAR.

My bad, posting from an iPhone can be niggly at best. Changed it now.

Been watching tyrspawns AAR's, and noticed the same thing.

This is pretty much how I use them. Usually in keyhole positions down streets in order to cut the town into sections. I then use infantry to clear the buildings on either side, then move up the IFVs or Tanks. This serves to isolate parts of the town and enable my Vehicles to help overcome strongpoints, like you said. I also rely on them heavily to create breach points, since going through doors or around walls strikes me as a very bad idea. I would love to see proper doctrine in action though. The only time I can think of armour and IFVs being unsupported in Iraq was the Thunder Run into Baghdad, but that was up wide sweeping highways, and yeah there were no serious ATGM threats. Also, I believe the insurgents in CMSF represent reserve army units in civilian clothes, or well trained Fedayeen. Think Hezbollah. That explains their combat discipline and weaponry compared to the Iraqi insurgents. I did a whole bunch of tests a while back to test how armour in CMSF would fare in a Thunder Run scenario. I put them up against the poorest equipped insurgents. Conclusion was the Brads got utterly wasted, but the newer M1s, ie M1A2 SEP etc were pretty much invulnerable to the RPG-7.

On the strategic level, which we don't deal with. On the tactical level it's a different story!

How about a mechanised assault into an Urban area? Seems to crop up in the game often. I want to see how you use vehicles to support your infantry, especially against an ATGM threat. I tend to have a bunch of infantry to use as my eyes, then a vehicle in a hull down position with trees as cover, pop up, get one to fire off some rounds, then reverse back down the slope. Hopefully luring an ATGM shot that my infantry can see to destroy with artillery or Javelins. I prefer Javelins, since it doesn't give the enemy time to reposition (not a problem against the AI).

So I thought I'd revisit this campaign. I recall getting my butt handed to me in the first recon mission, so, I thought I'd try something a little different. I have quite a heavy mechanised force, so, what's the point in trying to be sneaky? It's a recon mission, so, let's recon by force! The US Army did a Thunder Run up the middle of Baghdad, so I'm going to do a Thunder Run up the middle of the road. Put all my mechanized force into formation, slow move, suppress the living hell out of everything with the Brads, and off we go! The result didn't turn out too bad. Got all my boys home in one piece, I'd call that a success. Recon. US Army style.

I agree with you on this. The game is a game, but we all play games for different reasons. I personally much prefer to play US forces (or NATO in general) for exactly the reasons you have specified (although I'm not an American or nor have I served in the Army). Each casualty I take, I ensure that they are treated with buddy aid, or their body taken care of. I will even take risks with vehicles to ensure the protection of my wounded. For me, this adds to the realism and thus immersion factor of the game. I value the lives of my pixel troops above all, even if that means hitting the time limit of a mission. I will never brazenly risk them in a reckless assault just to finish on time. I find nothing strange in what you said.

I just tried recording one in FRAPS, and even playing at a low resolution on 'Half Quality' it took up about 4GB for 20 minutes. ;o I have an external drive I can dust off and record some videos, but your commentary is significantly better than what mine would be, especially with your knowledge of doctrine and tactics.

I assume it was meant in tongue and cheek based on some "Interweb Funny", something like 'Those evil Juice', although I struggle to see its relevance in this thread.

tyrspawn, I watched a few of your CMSF:Task Force Thunder missions but I am really enjoying your German ones. The missions themselves are better designed, but also you have changed your tactics considerably. I would also highly recommend the Marines or Brits. Marines has a lot of great missions, with probably an exception on the final mission. The Brits campaign I found difficult to get into, but once you're past the first couple of missions there are some really great ones there. You have also inspired me to do my own video AAR, once I find the hard drive space.

Its not even a wall. In the Task Force Thunder mission 'Normandy' I got zero points for the water pump building and the other one after my guys fired Javelins at them, yet all the walls remained intact (there was no visible damage or crumpling sound).

I tend to hate losing any of my virtual guys more than I hate micromanaging, so much so if any are wounded I will rush a fireteam or vehicle to their position to perform buddy aid and security. Good advice on the 90 degree angle, I'll try to position my assaults with that in mind. It's not always possible though. In your video you called down hefty artillery that was pretty danger close. I imagine they wouldn't call that down that close IRL, right? AFAIK 155mm has a 150m kill radius.

It is definitely not the actual building destroyed. If you hit it with a Javelin but it is still intact you will lose points.

Based on my style of play, every time I do this mission, it's a choice of either taking unacceptable casualties or just ignoring the Special Forces building. I wouldn't mind having a go at this mission with a 4 hour time limit.

jnt62006 I've found the information you have provided thus far (along with videos) very useful. Due to lack of any formal training, my knowledge of tactics etc was patchy, good in some areas, non-existent in others. Your blog is filling in those gaps for me. I particularly found your writing on how to determine the best avenue of approach extremely useful (based on enemy fires crossing each path). Using your planning considerations playing the Task Force Thunder campaign, I managed to pass the second to last mission (Heads Up) where you have to clear urban high rises and slums, while sustaining only two wounded (out of over 150 men) and winning the mission in half the allotted time. Keep up the good work mate. After watching your videos, I do have a couple of tips for you that I have learnt purely from a gaming perspective that I feel would be used in real life. You can correct me if I am wrong: 1. When assaulting buildings, I find it always best to split squads and send a fireteam in. The advantage of this over the assault command is that you can control the bounds yourself, and also there is a bug with assault where if one team gets suppressed, the entire squad gets suppressed. Too many times in the game (especially with some of MikeyD's missions) have I sent an entire squad in to a building and found a tank,IFV, or reverse slope position waiting on the other side of the building. 2. If you give the fireteam an area fire command on the building floor you are assaulting, they will throw grenades in through the windows as they approach. This makes it considerably safer on the off chance the building has not been suppressed and enemies still are inside. These of course are in game tips that have no reflection on your tactical ability. Again, thanks for your hard work. Looking forward to more real life templates.

Does the overall level of motivation have any effect on AI surrendering? In the Marines campaign mission where you need to take the chemical plant, the AI does not surrender (I failed that mission and he had 6 men left at the end of the time limit).

I have played quite a few scenarios where ATGM's are put in places to get flanking shots in CMSF, and you CAN'T outflank them. Having played a lot of Blue vs Blue, Javelins really do create a tactical problem for your tanks. You really do have to use your tanks tactically (shoot and scoot) or just be prepared to take losses (which you would expect in any Blue vs Blue scenario). Defensively, all the Javelins in the world won't help if you don't have LOS to keyholed tanks. Offensively, well, good luck. On Topic: The role of the tank has been put into question time and time again, but after OIF especially I cannot see their role being diminished in the near future. Tanks were instrumental in OIF and many real life AAR's said they were the weapon system the Iraqi's feared the most. Cavalry has been around for thousands of years and has been the dominant force of the battlefield on more than one occassion, and it will continue to be around in ever evolving forms.

Mord has a mod for the US Army and Marines (context related) where they yell and scream when they see tanks/get wounded etc. It's pretty good. That combined with his vehicle radio chatter gives you a good ambient feel to the game. 'Get a f**king move on soldier!"

Im keen on a PBEM game at some point, not RT though. Can do a couple of turns a day most days.

With the MK1 eyeball yeah, but with thermals you'll see that tank pretty clearly. In game troops with thermals (Javelin CLU) are VERY good at spotting tanks before tanks spot them.

My impression of 'weakened' is a normal unit such as a fit unit that is sick or already worn down from heavy fighting. Unfit is well, like me.