dan/california

The two overwhelming imperatives as res are reduce the engagement range to the absolute minimum, and remember that the RPG is all that matters. If you can get flank shots so much the better, but I would take close from the front over long from the side any day. It can also be very worthwhile to leave troops on hide if you think blue is not going to be in engagement range soon. It reduces their urge to pop off random rounds that scream "kill me please! Yo over here! Yes here". This applies to MOST red forces, Kornet equipped Airborne is a completely different beast. Have you played the Pooh scenario yet? I would LOVE to play it against you as red in a PBEM.

And they are more dangerous than Al Queda!

How does grenade chucking work of these "special" columns?

I think Steve's last translates as "Brit Mod sales are excellent, and we can afford to have Christmas without getting Normandy out".

The vast percentage of small arms ammunition just gets sprayed in the general direction of the enemy, and that is for very well trained troops. The hit rate for poorly trained troops must infinitesimal. So there is a real debate to be had on the merits of both sides of weight vs lethality. The Army seems to be trying to put the whole argument off until DARPA or somebody like them comes up with a truly revolutionary "something".

Almost the entire original rationale for the 5.56, as I understand it, was that you could carry more bullets for the same weight. Whether or not this is the correct primary consideration in the current conflicts is a different question.

I just can't comprehend the mess that would make in real life. Everybody within 50 feet would be suppressed for a month.

Ouch is an inadequate description!

What is the minimum arming range for that missile again? You might literally have been to close. What happened to the BMP?

The CLU would be a wonderful toy even without the attached hammer of Thor.

Steve, the board is still trying to deal with the fact that the earth is round, and disease isn't caused by "vapors" or "humours". Dealing is not our collective strong point.

HistWar might show up before you go from blue to unconscious. But probably not.

A lot of people just seem to hate the Syrian setting with a passion. Many of them will wander back shortly when Normandy arrives. The Normandy launch should be smoother for a vast array of reasons among other things.

In fact, as I understand it the Russians never quite comprehended why NATO insisted on setting up defenses in range of Russian artillery. It made less than no sense to them. The concept of militarily stupid but politically necessary just didn't register. It contributed somewhat to their paranoia about NATOs intentions.

BFC perhaps wants to encourage the Pixeltruppen syrians to get out of their rolling coffins ASAP. Loaded AFVs are probably the juiciest target in the game. The Syrians are not usually playing with the kind of massive artillery suppression that the Russian tactic envisions. I don't think something as nasty as the Javelin was common when that tactic was thought out either.

Herr Wittman I presume?

A true campaign system amounts to an entire separate game in the same wrapper. The Total War series has done this for years. Unfortunately they refuse to properly patch or support either of the two "separate" games they are selling, so I have completely quit playing and buying their products. BFC has concentrated almost solely on the Tactical engine,and done it very well. Campaigns are just a relatively low effort way to tie individual scenarios together in a way that makes them more interesting. The outside attempt to do more based on the CMX1 engine seems to have foundered unfortunately. To produce the "real" campaign engine many people seem to want would dramatically slow further development of the WW2 games among other things. Please raise your hand if you want to wait an extra six months for Normandy.

I believe the "facing U.S. forces part" is rather important. Followed by the "sell British Module" part.

The thing about the triggers is that a few very simple triggers could do a LOT. The ability to specify a a zone or combination of zone, the forces that have to be present in that zone, and some sort of casualty threshold would go a long, long way. What I envision is along the following lines for a scenario designer creating an ambush type scenario. First be able to specify a zone and the number of vehicles that have to enter/cross it to trigger the ambush. Then be able to say stand and fight until you have expended 50% of your ammo or taken 25% casualties. Fall back to a predefined position more or less the way the AI works now. Even a very small number of triggers per AI plan would change things completely. Their are infinite possible variations, but the difference between no triggers and even the most basic possibilities is huge. Steve has stated repeatedly that a lot of what Recce wants BFC would be happy to provide, just as soon as the MOD writes a check. BFC just can't chuck their current development schedule to do it otherwise. Should we just start a new thread on AI triggers to separate what is becoming two different discussions? All the best on your next tour Recce!

I like this game rather a lot, as anyone who reads this board is aware. I do think conditional AI programming instructions are one the single biggest improvements needed in what is now a truly excellent game engine. The other complaints are really about campaign scripting, that is something that is impossible to do to the satisfaction of the entire community. Because there are actually a number of different communities, with differing desires. From a realism/training aspect all the campaigns can do is drive home the importance of preserving your forces, and the adjustable victory conditions allow for this in single scenarios as well. Much better multiplayer and co-play is what the game truly needs from a realism/training standpoint. Unfortunately, unless some government money appears we aren't getting it for a while. So unless someone is aware of a better tactical wargame........... A better treatment of mines would be nice.

"And let's not forget that the Marine Corps will not intentionally pit one of its infantry or AAV companies against enemy Armor assets, so I wouldn't worry about them too much." The enemy occasionally gets a vote on these issues too, though. Thats why they are called the enemy. Given the Javelins outstanding performance, and the fact that the CLU is an excellent recce asset regardless of what you are fighting, it seems to me that the Navies budget could stretch to one per platoon or so. Just my two cents

The Marines only give the launcher to a few specialized teams per battalion. It makes me slightly nuts but it is apparently the actual TO&E.

Every military in the world should simply have adopted the MG-42 and stayed with right thru to today, virtually unchanged. But "if its not broke , don't fix it" is not the best thing for contractor budgets. Oh well.

I have read a couple of different places that the XM-25 has been resurrected. Here http://www.gizmag.com/xm-25-us-army-smart-weapon/11807/ and here, for instance. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004440.html

When you count WIA vs KIA are you including the guys with yellow bases, that could continue the fight in game terms? If my understanding is at all correct many if not most of them would probably qualify as wounded in standard military statistics. I am almost certain they don't show as WIA on the end scenario screen.