dan/california

I am thinking that accuracy might be improved a bit if the latest digital tricks were applied to the FCS. I am talking about a true mortar type FCS where the grunts call in the grid square and the computer does the whole thing from there. You could of course argue that a true mortar with the same automated fire control system would then make more sense. I am just speculating on something that could be a relatively simple retrofit as opposed to a massive new project with all of the pitfalls that go with said. The actual computation is almost trivial, I would be very curios about the cost of the actual sensors if anyone has those numbers laying about.

There is a screen to select mission type in the artillery interface. Its is the fourth option after general, personnel, and armor.

Scenario design can definitely be an issue. What the AAV needs is the FCS to use its grenade launcher in an indirect fire mode. The you could park it behind the nearest hill or shack and rain 40 mm on anything that said boo, and all you have to expose is a set of eye balls. Or better yet a mini UAV. It carries enough ammo to be truly effective in this role and the 40 mm already has a low velocity, high arc ballistic profile.

It is not like most of the force is unfamiliar with X Box controllers after all.

There are a number of smaller UAVs that are used at the company and battalion level. The really hard part is A) Figuring out what they would or would not be able to see. Deciding whether to give the Syrians the the ability to target them or not, and if so how? C) It would be a huge tweak in game balance. You just think artillery is deadly now. The all seeing eye in the sky calling down 155 is BAD thing. Red armor becomes totally unviable without some ability to hide and get the first shot. D) Last but not least it is not required for Normandy, and thus is on the second tier list. More generally There is an enormous value to even basic UGVs if they work. You send it it into the house, if some one shoots it, make the house go boom. If it hits a trip wire and the house goes boom, it is no big deal, not compared to writing letters. The actual ideal would be to have truck loads of small, cheap ones and treat them almost like ammunition. DARPA is working hard on them , down to the size of pigeons and rats, literally.

I don't think CMSF models this, but even if your eyes start the battle very night adapted, it is not going to take many fireworks to greatly reduce that once the shooting starts. The flash bulb effect is going to be quite severe in some cases.

I will point out that all Hezbollah has done this round is employ a lot of harsh language and swear to fight to the last Gazan. I am firmly in the camp that Israel's execution, and perhaps strategy, stunk in 2006. However Nasrallah seems to have ZERO appetite for another round. It is a significant issue in this whole mess.

They will get hammered just as bad when they run out of ammo. That may or may not be more realistic.

There have been repeated discussions about the Russians selling lower grade stuff to their client states. EMP hardened electronics might be one of the very first things to drop off of the spec sheet.

I have a feeling the real answer to that question is so classified that classification level is classified. It depends heavily on the extent to which the electronics have been intentionally and expensively hardened with this eventuality in mind. Which brings me back to answer #1. You also have to specify the amount of electromagnetic energy the bomb can produce at various wavelengths. Again, see answer #1.

TAC-OPS has this handy trick where you can copy orders you have given one unit and paste them into another units order list. That alone would help a lot. It just takes a lot of clicking to get several vehicles down the same road.

1) Infantry formations, maybe stretchable infantry formations that let you set the frontage for the squad/platoon. 2) A CONVOY command, some way to tell vehicle A to follow vehicle B exactly at a controlled, or at least fixed spacing. 3) Attack axis for air support. 4) An exit victory condition. 5) Some sort of If-Then behavior for the AI. Troops retreating when there position starts to fell too hot is an excellent start, by the way. It has improved game feel immensely. 6) Medics, even if nothing else changes about the way the game handles wounded. 7) The ability to move a casualty before performing buddy aid. 8) An advance to hull down position command, you can get there now but it is very fiddly. 9) More control of various vehicle and squad weapon systems, especially things you don’t have much of. 10) A fire one round command, for heavier weapons. It should attachable to a way-point like current target orders. This can be approximated with pauses now, but requires massive micro management.

" But I'm sure the soldiers being in a 120 environment for the first time would appreciate their commanders already knowing that running 100m up a hill in full gear at 13:30 in full sunlight at 8,000 feet isn't going to go as well as running across the old familiar training ground back home Ft. Benning in the middle of May " Since you brought it up, does CMSF adjust endurance at 2000 meter plus elevations? I used to work on ski lifts for a living and trust me, most people WHEEZE at 3000 meters plus.

Isn't their supplied ammo match grade? Which is not to say they wouldn't take the regular in a pinch. In game terms I believe they can re-supply from anything with 7.62 available. It is just a little fudge on the micromanagement.

They were literally in the next action spot over. My point is there is no way to detect this little hornets nest before or after you have poked it with a stick.

Yes, they grenaded the bleep out of it. Along with everything else they had. It was one of the very smallest buildings.

I have a a situation to contribute. With save games available. In the first Marines campaign mission I get a sniper team to the windowless wall of a small building. I deeply suspect that there is a Syrian unit inside but there no indication at all. I area fire through the wall. This kills or wounds about half the Syrians, but I still don't get so much as a ? icon. You would think that much dying would make a little noise, maybe result in a weapon discharge or two and some shouted orders. The team does not spot the Syrians until they Huint into the building. This may or may not be the same issue as above. It is the small house closest to the far left observation point objective by the way.

They may be compensating a little for the way that squads bunch up more than they would in real life. Just a guess on my part.

Seriously cool addition for smaller UAVs! http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Mortars-from-Aircraft-The-Shadow-Knows-05226/

The guided rounds were introduced to late to make the original game, and I think that they are coming for the Brit Module. The unguided cluster munitions have a danger safe distance of about the same size as a CMSF map, and an area of effect of approximately a kilometer square. It is just to large a scale for CMSF to handle well. Many threads on this.

For a training sim, as opposed to a game CMSF's primary utility actually seems to lie at the company too battalion level. It would require adding coplay. But given that it would be an extremely effective method for improving communications and team work for everyone from platoon sergeants up. especially when you account for infinite variability and realistic fog of war. Platoon level field exercises are orders of magnitude easier to set up than battalion level ones. You might try loading a large scenario with ironman rules and pondering how little info most of the platoon commanders have. If they had to get everything else over the com-net I am fairly sure most of them would find it good practice. Almost no one plays the game that way because it is a bloody pain when you have to issue orders to so many units, but a training sim has different goals and more than one person to issue said orders. The battalion commander could always make them practice their letter writing if he didn't think they were taking it seriously.

The Israelis blew it in 2006, I don't think anyone is going to disagree with that. That said, they inflicted enough pain that Hezbollah has been notable by its absence in the current round with Hamas. And the current Israeli mess is only sort of related to this thread. Although the difficulty of spotting insurgents before they shoot at you is certainly part of it all. The Israelis have been very restrained about recon fire considering their operational goals. Whether those goals are valid is a COMPLETELY different discussion. One that starts in 1948 and appears endless, unfortunately.

It was a deliberate exaggeration and meant to be a little silly. I perhaps should not have made that kind exaggeration when many of the participants in the discussion are taking the time to participate in their second language. Such things are among the hardest to translate. That said, does anyone think that there is a truly high priority target in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Gaza for that matter, that would not be a smoking crater a half hour after the coordinates hit the com-net. The ability to identify targets in a counter insurgency situation is another discussion completely. I will point out that the Russian solution to this problem is inelegant but effective. It is also somewhat messy. The best example of the difference between Vietnam and now is the ability to drop bridges. Even for most of the Vietnam war it was almost impossible to do reliably. Now it is one sortie for two planes and considered absolutely routine.

The Vietnamese had 1) Generally favorable terrain for their tactics, strategy ,and doctrine. Including Strategic depth. 2) Were very well led at all levels 3) Were willing to absorb truly massive battlefield losses and stay in the fight. 4) Had a blank check for Soviet logistics. 5) And had the good fortune to be fighting before every tank and plane in the U.S. inventory could shot the wings off of a fly in the dark at 5 kilometers. In some cases by remote control from CONUS. 6) The war occurred before the all volunteer, all professional model was adopted by the U.S.. None of these applied to Saddam, and none of them would apply to Syria either.

I had not considered heat shimmer, that would make the first hints of motion much more difficult to see.