jBrereton

I'm still very much of the opinion that if your would-be killers are coming at you with body armour on, you're most likely done for, seeing as they're not going to be poorly equipped by any means. OK, actually called a Cutts Compensator, messed up on the C/K thing there, but basically it funnelled the gasses causing recoil up and to the right (IIRC) which conversely... well... compensated for the recoil in much the same system as this new gun does.

Just to add something regarding the AA12 - The old 20 round drums magazines for the weapon weighed about 2kg with normal shot (4 and a bit pounds). You're a stronger man than I if you want to carry a minute's worth of ammunition to show off, particularly if you're up for the fancier Frag-12 type affairs, as well as all of your other gear you'll need on the battlefield.

Eugh, FutureWeapons. Shows a whole range of 'new' kit, all in a completely perfect environment used essentially by those who are expert with the technology to to either inventing it or having gone through most of the testing process. Oh and as to the whole MP-7 thing : Why bother? There are a whole bunch of better PDWs already out there (the MP5K strikes me as a good one, as does the P-90). The round is too small, and the practical use of a PDW against a foe you're assuming to be armoured is somewhat limited. If they're wearing Kevlar, they're probably going to be pretty well equipped in other means too, let's be honest. As to the Kryss - how is using recoil and making it go downwards anything new? Never heard of a Kutts Compensator or something? And the 7.62mm LMG - I'm sure the UK could sell you guys on some GPMGs, we've got a whole bunch of them around and are starting to redistribute them to our regulars, as well as the Royal Marines and various special forces (neither of whom really gave them up).

Excellent find - I can translate a bit more than the fairly minimal descriptions on the site, if you want. [ March 21, 2008, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: jBrereton ]

I'll give you that, although Warriors are proving near-impossible for the Iraqi insurgency to kill with RPG-7s, mines, IEDs, you name it. Erm it has half the operational range of a Warrior, and is 5 kph slower.. It carries a larger cannon, but doesn't mount missiles. Aye, can't argue that. Nor did the CV90 until the CV9040B, which compromised turret elevation. The Puma? It's about as good as a Warrior, just with better fire control and, again, no ATGMs, as well as being able to carry one less soldier, having the same speed but about 80kms less of range on roads. Oh, plus it costs 5 million Euros per IFV, which is pretty costly, I'm sure you'll agree. I do, however, give it credit for essentially bringing back the Nahverteidigungswaffe, with its close-in 76mm grenade launcher, however pointless that may be in the field. Aye, what's the rest of the world got? The M2 Bradley, which is like a Warrior, but slightly lamer. The BMP-3 is probably the best real contender, what with its solid main gun, missiles and 3 machine guns, as well as a carrying capacity of 7 fully equipped troops. It's about as capable as anything else not from Russia, if not better IMHO. [ October 24, 2007, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: jBrereton ]

Aye, all it would take would be to play the voice clips backwards, and you have pretty much perfect Finnish

Ah, but you have to remember that a Warrior IFV is better than any other IFV in the world that I can currently think of.

No, other than the time it takes for orders to be sent through, the forces act the same in terms of morale etc. etc. as each other, I believe. The order time gets changed in August '44 IIRC, which is a pretty handy thing indeed.

Blooooooody hell! Wahey!

You'd have to steal Charles' computer he made CMBB with for that. I suggest you don't try

Marines are coming up pretty sharpish IIRC, no idea about British forces, but I'd imagine that they'll be around eventually.

You mean a wee bit like a WEGO version of Jagged Alliance? Sounds pretty superb to me - CMx3, you can't come soon enough

"Blooooody hell, look at the size of that force - chuck every bastarding peice of artillery we have near that hill!" "Which one?" "The one with all the bloody Hun on it, squire!" "Err, roger that." *French countryside generally flattened, along with entire German division* "Played, lads!" "Tea in 10, hope you make it back!" Something akin to that, I presume.

Agreed. Sounds right to me. Well I know that the 9K112 Kobra round (AT-8 Songster) has an average speed of about 360-ish metres per second over a couple of miles, and hits a target at 4000m away in about 11 seconds. That said, it's not exactly the kind of thing that Syria is going to to particularly well-endowed with, and probably makes a pretty bastardly noise, to boot.

6-37. Antitank Signatures. Some examples of antitank signatures are: •The swish noise of a missile launch. •Long, thin wires from previously fired ATGM. •The sharp crack noise of an ATGM being fired. •A soldier dismounted with an ATGM, may be within 100 meters of a PC. •Thermal signatures viewed through thermal optics. − The suspension system and engine exhaust are more visible on track vehicles. − The engine exhaust, wheels, and windshield are more visible on wheel vehicles. − A fired ATGM leaves a distinct hot spot, more visible than the surrounding area. − A dismounted soldier has the same characteristics as listed under soldier signatures. Somebody forgot to read their manual </font>

OK, well for starters remember that they're not going to have any vehicles, or much heavy kit. That said, in this kind of crazy scenario, a glider-borne assault with light vehicles and recoilless guns isn't as unlikely as anything else. I'd also advise going in with FJ Pioneers with plenty of satchel charges, for their usefulness in MOUT situations. As for US forces, have a few rifle half-squads around, before heavier kit is brought in.

OK - To get units to hold fire, use the 'hide' command, which can be useful with ambush markers (which are a bit confusing, it's true, but you get the hang of them eventually). Sharpshooters are OK, but not as useful in CMBO as they are in CMBB/AK, mainly because of a lack of the cover arcs in those two games, and because the maps are rarely big enough to get the fact that they don't get heard over about 300 metres to be very useful. Platoon and Coy HQs can command mortar assets, but they can only use area fire - you select the mortars and tell them to fire at a location that they can't see, but that the HQ in command can. You get a black line of sight, but with "area fire" at the bottom. Hope that helps! PS - CMBB and CMAK are absolutely worth it, although in my opinion, CMBB is the better of those two, due to the fact that the landscape is much more interesting, as are the units involved, and there's no bloody dust!

237 BTR-90s, and they're roughly 700 times as fuel efficient, too.

Because they're trying to simulate 'in a perfect world, where everything goes by the book' kind of kit. This is why late-war Volksturm squads get 3 MP44s. At the time, they'd realistically be feeling extremely cheery with 2, and one would be a pretty decent feat.

Loads and loads of differences. On a squad, or in British terms, section level, there was a fairly vast difference in the distribution of firepower. In US squads, most of the troops were armed with Garands, and there were usually a couple of BARs around. Sometimes the squad leader had a sub-machine gun, but this is much rarer than the movies portrayed, and SMGs were only really 'standard issue' to troops such as the Rangers. A US squad, therefore, has a pretty high level of firepower, pretty evenly distributed. A British section was made of a Section Leader, armed generally with a Sten sub-machine gun by the times of Normandy, although there were a few Thompsons kicking about here and there. There were also several riflemen (the rifleman/grenadier distinction made early in the war started to really fade out by about late 1942) and a Bren gun. The riflemen were armed with bolt-action Lee Enfield rifles, and although they were excellently trained, and kept the well-drilled and accurate, as well as fast-firing traditions of earlier British riflement, they couldn't really match a Garand-armed US soldier in terms of sheer fire output. The Bren gun, on the other hand, was a pretty decent weapon indeed, although it was often said to be a little too accurate (excellent for picking people off with at medium-long range, but the spread didn't really allow for surpressive fire in the same fashion as an MG34 or MG42). It was also pretty manouverable, and all things considered, was probably a bit better than the BAR, if a little more cumbersome. What you get in a British section is a Bren team with excellent mid-range firepower, but then a weaker team armed with rifles and a Sten gun, which although perfectly adequate for most battlefield roles, was nothing much special. Oh, plus the British were, arguably, better trained at hand-to-hand fighting, with a fairly decent level of bayonet training, compared to US forces, where hand-to-hand fighting was seen more as a means to take a weapon from an enemy and use it against them. The larger-scale differences have already been described by everyone else (all of whom know more than me on that kind of level).

Erm a Schmeisser was the Yank colloquial for the MP-40, right? (which was odd, considering Schmeisser only really worked on the MP-28 IIRC) As per almost everything, the Germans didn't really have one. See also the whole 'Brummbär' thing, a name invented by the Allies - the Germans called them the Stupa if they were using a nickname at all.

Just keep in mind that Special Ops guys are neither some kind of super Ninja detachment, and, much more to the point, that they're not some kind of shock infantry type affair. The way they'd be implemented would be more around them stirring up resistance movements, as far as the USSF goes, and as far as the SAS/SBS/SEALS et al go, it'd be more about long-range patrols. Keep also in mind that the various UK special forces are under direct MoD command, and hence NOT the kind of thing that a general would be likely to command - no idea how similar that is to the system in the US and elsewhere, though.

You buy them in the "unit editor" section in the map editor, and then you click on 'Preview', at which point you can move units around to wherever you choose. Hope that helps.

Ok, when in the editor, right-click on a unit. There will be a "padlock" command. If it's already padlocked, then clicking on the command again frees the unit to deploy. Note that padlocking keeps a unit from being deployed anywhere else - for example if you want a bunker or sniper in a certain place (which can be outside of the normal deployment zone).

I thought that tank-riding was pretty much made stupendously hazardous nowadays by ERA, no?