dan/california

I would assume the Russians and Germans were both even less worried about collateral damage, they may not have had as high a level of supply on average though.

But recon by fire is a legitimate tactic, and was heavily used by all forces in WW2. I vaguely recall reading about tank driving exhibition by a senior U.S.armor officer with WW2 experience. He machine gunned every bush in LOS and then machine gunned each additional bush as he SLOWLY advanced and it came into LOS. Anyplace that could hide an enemy was treated as if it was hiding an enemy. If you were low on MG ammo you weren't sufficiently well supplied to attack.

Not really, but moving units have a significant reduction in their ability to spot quickly and engage accurately. This varies by unit and movement type, An Abrams with an elite crew and a slow move order is barely impacted. A Syrian conscript squad with a fast move order is essentially blind and helpless, there is a broad continuum in between.

Beaten to the punch, twice, story of my life.

1) Highlight the way point, you have to get the mouse out of the movement cursor mode by clocking off the map first. 2) Be very careful, and very brutal. a) Keep your armor as far back as possible and plaster anything that even might hide an RPG/ATGM team before moving into LOS. Maintain strong overwatch at all times. c) Press the smoke button frequently. d) Except for mass efforts on positions you are sure you understand move as few units as possible at one time. e) Use some of the over-watching units for area fire to suppress suspected positions, and give some target arcs to deal with bad guys as they show up. f) Where possible hammer all known enemies into dog-meat before looking for more. g) Get observers on any possible high ground and forward positions. What you don't know will hurt you, badly.

You can give 360 degree cover arcs now, do they work the way they should might be in question. It is definitely possible, just select target arc and hit the shift button.

The M32s seem to inflict a vast percentage of the total casualties. Marines Module was worth it for that alone.

Camo nets could be an effective solution though, because unlike trenches they are relatively cheap and easy for the defender. Furthermore they don't create ready made positions for the attacker when they are left unoccupied. So give the defender a lot more camo nets than he has trenches and you can keep the attacker guessing. They don't have mesh perfectly with the trench, they just have COVER it, or its absence.

Recon Hummers have much the same issue, they really shouldn't get within a kilometer of any enemy what so ever. They are far to valuable in their intended role, and nothing but vulnerable targets in range of enemy ground forces.

The game correctly simulates the problems with using the FSV as a spotting tool against relatively short range targets. What it cannot simulate, due the limits of current computer hardware on map size, are the benefits of using it that way in a situation where you might have a 5 or ten kilometer LOS that allows it abilities to be fully utilized from beyond the range of direct fire retaliation, or even detection for that matter.

Am I crazy, or has or has Steve's position on foxholes evolved a little bit. I admit that one does not exclude the other.

Trucks and ZSU-23 come immediately to mind.

The other issue to keep in mind is that the AI takes into account reinforcements that haven't arrived yet. So if there is a big batch of reinforcements coming you can't force a surrender regardless. Someone mentioned in another thread recently that you could even set the reinforcements to arrive after the scenario times out, it guarantees the AI will not surrender. I do agree with stoex that absolutely blitzing every contact seems to take the starch out of the red side. However, now that the AI can retreat a bit it is necessary to have LOF on his line of retreat first. You don't want to blow the front of the building off until you can ensure the guys running out the back have an appropriate reception.

Planes were not very effective against bridges in WW2, not at all really.

Its is already there, it called "immobilization". It happens to my tanks at the worst possible moment. Now whether or not the Normandy game will allow variable chances for this little problem based on vehicle type is another question. Answer anyone?

The funniest part is the reference to " a GOOD computer player". I assume they meant they AI by this, and is funny in and of itself. The fact that the entire computer industry is still breaking its teeth on that little problem however.....

I love a true, to the bone , French tank grog. Warms the cockles of my heart. Drones in CMSF would warm them more however. i just had to throw that in.

Actually, Googles servers couldn't hold it. My own suggestions occupied an area approximately the size of Spain all by themselves.

There is danger close, and then there is HOLY ^^$&^$. Then again a major battle in the original Afghan op was won in large part because the the Afghans on our side were ahead of there cue, the JTAC thought he had killed them all. Instead they got into the enemy position while the Taliban were still trying to find their eardrums and clear the dust out of their eyes. It settled the whole battle basically. A lot of risk and a lot of reward in that sort of thing.

The Marines can put out a vastly higher number of grenades too, you may be witnessing the difference between 1 grenade and several.

The alternative that the U.S is vigorously pursuing is to do the first look with robots of some description. This already basically standard procedure when investigating IEDs. I am unclear how far along it is in terms of deployed capability for a straight up Fallujah type operation. The general idea being to send in a cheap robot, if something bad happens to it make the building go away and send in the next robot to the next building. $100,000 missiles are routinely expendable, robots will be too, and soon.

I would certainly agree that 200m is the maximum effective range, but inside of that mine seem golden most of the time with veteran experience level Marines anyway. Besides in MOUT 3/4 of your shots are across the street, basically. By using the SMAW to suppress buildings before assaulting them I preserve the squads ammo and attention for what they find inside. The truly long range reach out and touch them that comes from Javelins and armor are the one thing the Marines really come up short on, Although the 60mm mortars make up for a lot. I am curious about the cost of a round, I assume they are a tiny fraction of a Javelin. Also the Marines may be planning on replacing them with the new Spike missile that is in late stage development. It is still a fraction of the price of a Javelin, but ranges at least a kilometer or two. Its last test firing was a success.

The overwhelming use for the SMAW is that the number of SMAW rounds you have is the number of individual rooms/buildings that you can take for free. Target light the target structure, fire one SMAW round, and assault the room with a regular squad. All they have to do is finish off the poor, deaf, stunned, cowering *^$%$ on the floor. They can hump it back to the AAV over and over agian. In scenarios with plentiful ammo I don't do it any other way. And while it anti tank effectiveness is questionable, its anti APC effect is devastating.

Or the first Normandy module perhaps? :0

They just put up a big post about the multiplayer system in Histwar, coming soon hopefully, they need the exact same setup in CMSF. I realize it is a different engine, but the multiplayer concept is exactly right.