dan/california

It is worth pointing out that Rommel himself eventually got quite sick, and had to go back to Germany to recover, if I remember correctly. I would assume some percentage of his command were likewise afflicted.

It is my general impression that the same size ammo truck is following all of the different size mortars around. A a bigger shell translates to fewer rounds per truck. The range advantages of the bigger shells are not obvious in CMSF. I am also fairly certain that CMSF uses the book ammo load-outs. 155s get much bigger trucks.

If Steve would sneak wire into CMSF that would be a lot easier to do by the way.

I have read several of the documents posted about this fight, the Times article is less than brilliant in IMHO, and the overwhelming tactical issue was that the bad guys got a LOT of people into RPG range before the battle started. The patrol base was too close to the village and the insurgents were able to open fire in mass from well within there effective range while in covered positions. The screw ups at higher levels that led to this mess are too numerous to list. The raw courage the actual soldiers showed to avoid being overrun is beyond mind-boggling, and the fact that some bad command decisions put them in that situation in no way detracts from it. If some of those decisions were the platoon commanders, well he paid in full, and died trying to protect his command. As far as simulating it in CMSF is concerned, an initial setup that allowed 10 or 15 RPG teams to fire into a platoon sized position in the opening minute might result in a red victory in a matter of minutes. Someone should write a scenario about it.

How many years does the retail model have left anyway? BFC has already pretty much gone to direct online sales, and I can't imagine the bigger players don't want to increase their margins and degree of control as well.

Wife is leaving town for a few days Sunday, any hope of being able to take it for a spin before she gets back?

Just out of curiosity how much artillery would you give BLUE if it was designed to be played by the AI? With the player controlling RED. How much would give BLUE to optimize for a H2H scenario? Is the imbalance due to the speed of BLUE artillery response? Or the tendency of player to blitz the obvious spots on a maybe? You are two of the best scenario designers out there, I'm trying to get a feel for how you do it.

Is there any consensus on what the assumed kill rate of TOWs and javelins should be. My rule of thumb would be along the lines of 70% of the supplied missiles taking out a vehicle in a defensive scenario, after accounting for both misses and combat losses.

Just to confirm, you are thinking about a full company of Marines? And with how much AT support? Unfortunately it is difficult to sort LOS from screenshots but the map gives defenders a lot of options for combing dispersion and mutual support. Thats good, since it makes target for the opening artillery less obvious.

In an urban situation with side shots for even the light AT stuff the Syrians would almost be better off with some RPG 29s instead of armor. George Mc's "Circle The Wagons" also gives some insight here. It happens to be one of my favorite scenarios, too.

When might this wonder be revealed? Could you be persuaded to post the map to further the discussion?

There is no question that ENOUGH artillery makes this doable. But to a large extent it becomes a less interesting scenario as either side is provided with truly overwhelming fire support. If the Syrians can hide, coordinate, and effectively employ that much artillery they have already won the engagement. That would imply they are better than the Iraqis were by a factor of 200 or so. From a game perspective it is better to assume that most of the Marine fire support is busy incapacitating most of the Syrian fire support, leaving the issue to be decided by the grunts on both sides.

The third scenario of the Marines campaign has a platoon on the defense, in terrain I didn't like much. I kept thinking about how much easier it would be with some sort of decent reverse slope position. You can extrapolate from there.

Who is going to buy me a computer that is able to RUN the test scenario.

So who is going to write a test scenario?

"A human player will launch Kornet missiles into marine-occupied buildings." Would the Syrians start with these in place or would they have to set up under observation and fire? It changes the number of them you need by a factor of three or more.

The presence or absence of choke points in the terrain would also be hugely influential. If the Syrians could crest an entire company of Turms at the same instant they would have a chance at establishing superiority of fire with good combined arms tactics. If they have to dribble in its a shooting gallery.

It depends a LOT on how artillery you are willing to give the Syrians for an opening barrage. Three modules of MLRS would go a long way to making an attack doable, especially considering the current limits on fortifications. In the absence of said opening barrage, and assuming good defensive terrain, you are basically looking at having to attrit away the heavy weapons at an exchange rate that would be mind boggling. If the Marines in question had even good mortar fire support, much less anything heavier, you would have to be willing to stack a HUGE number of bodies and burning wrecks to get anywhere. Whole companies of Syrian infantry could just vaporize. flamingknives is certainly correct about one of the minimum standards though.

Air Power... Speaking strictly in game terms, airpower is both less responsive and much more inclined to friendly fire problems than artillery. Therefore it is often wise to call it as early and as far forward of your own troops as possible. At this point helicopters and Fixed wing get very different in my experience. For fixed wing assets they tend to have massive overmatch against point targets so if there are building that are obvious problems and/or objectives, just flatten them. An JDAM into the bottom floor usually brings the whole thing down. No building, no problem. I get excellent results with helicopters by giving maximum size area targets specifying armor. But this is a blunt instrument and requires a LARGE separation between the specified area and your own troops. This has frequently resulted in the choppers killing AFVs I hadn't spotted yet. The chopper will also provide a certain amount of recon. Helicopters are much less effective against buildings in my experience.

Would any Hungarian really want to be reminded of the Eastern Front? Fighting for the wrong side, badly, doesn't make for the most rousing story after all.

I'll just go spray Round Up on all the landscaping now. It will be kinder than letting it die slowly of neglect. The cats are looking quite concerned as well.....

Google earth is going to be so confused about the sudden interest in northern France.

The far bigger issue with gun based AA is it has a fairly serious altitude limitation. And you can drop most precision guided weapons from a lot higher than said limitation. If your opponent can't afford PGMs they probably can't afford the zillion other wildly expensive things it takes to run a real air force and probably aren't a real threat anyway. Two of the most important expenses are fuel and maintenance support for sufficient training by the way.

I seem to recall the historical version of one of them being based entirely around a bridge the English got caught on both sides of in marching, as opposed to battle order. Unfortunately the movie was unable to get, or make, a bridge, so they just fudged it.

A few of them have been posted as such. Pooh is one of them, I thought.