Secondbrooks

I believe airforce didn't perform very well. Combined arms principles worked between artillery and infantry at most. Choppers and Airforce are said to fail to support troops. With choppers problem was lack of training and working with ground forces, could think that Airforces have doe that even less. My small mind tried to read one article about it, it stated that Airforce was infact airfarce in Georgia, it was rather long article, covering about one A4 paper :eek:... Well i'm not interested of such things, so i didn't bother to read more that half of first and half of last sentece. Talk about throwing pearls to pigs. :cool:

Yes. I'm just hoping we could dive bit deeper than that, sure it's probably pointless as well... What is average training and what is higher quality training than regular, who gets it, what are requirements etc. For a starter.

Okaaaaaaaaay. Now as CMSF is moving to model other armies than just US and Syria. We will get brits soon, and might have Germans and so on in the future, so this issue has started to bubble in my mind. I've been wondering under which conditions i or someone other could determe which experience level to give to units. Back in days of CMx1 this seemed to be much more simple, nowdays with all these training aids like Miles kits, other simulators and much longer and better guality training give to units, even to conscript ones. Well Syria might not be the case... But that ain't Western... Oh yeah. Western basically can mean anything other than Syria. I'm referring more to training stadarts which i'd believe atleast in west are rather equal, but i'm not saying that west is only place having such. It's just that i'm so damn lazy and word 'western' is so short and easy to write. Sorry if someone's blood pressure raised because of that. What are requirements for unit to reach level of veteran? Does it necessarily need combat experince or can nowdays training standarts and training aids be considered to grant veteran level of experience? How long, intense and effective training they should have behind them? Is there some basic requirements by how veteran unit should be determed. How abut regular experience in western army? Western regular sounds like unit which has been deployed in middle of it's training, or it has been severly lacking resources in training. Right? And I believe Syrian regular is typical Rebublic guards which has had good training in Syrian standarts? Maybe some Mechaniced infantry units too? What would be western green army? just 10-15 weeks of basic training or reservist unit not trained but few days while it has been years from service? I belive Syrian conscript is unit's have had their poor level training several years ago and after that spending in reserve and then just maybe few days of training in new wartime-unit at dawn of war? Personel have not been able to create much anykind ponds between each of other, officers and NCO's maybe knows just name of their men or their commanders. Maybe they even haven't had change to zero their rifles. How about crack units? How many western units could be condered to reach crack level? in CMx1 this was stated to be rare, but after that training standarts have rised and armies spent much more effort to create solid squads etc... yet there probably isn't as much combatexperience to be gained as there was in WW2. With Syria i'd believe crack level is pretty rare, mabe few squads from Special Forces reaching that. No? And elite still remains as elite, only creme of the creme reaching that, few squads from brigade, division, corps at most. No? I dont' know how professional armies handles this stuff, how their personel leaved their unit to move back to civilian life and how often and in how big "heards" fresh recruits comes in. Would it be possible to sent units (squads, platoons even companies) which can be considered to be green to conflict zone like Syria is? Or would that result WW2 German kind veterans and "wet-ears" getting mixed into one unit. How about Syrian SF or Airborne, these guys are better trained and selected than Rebublic Guards, but still after all what has been said about Middle-Eastern militaries it seems odd that they could reach veteran level. 50% veteran 50% regular... Right? Anything other or corrections points of view etc. Am i giving veteran status far too easily, basically not requiring anykind real combat experience at all? How about familiarity to ground and terrain etc. Could think that Syrians or western on defence in terrain to which they have had time to familiarize with for days or even weeks would get major(ish) boost to experience level? This seems to be lacking in CMSF or in CMx1 for that matter. To me it seemed major improvement if we were able to spent night in particular terrain, run guard duties, practice few times how to move into positions, or to back-up positions, getting familiar with kill zone, fireposition cards etc. After another night it got even better. Ofcourse same stands for going into attack, how if men are prepared well they get change to study the terrain, ask questions from their paltoon leader (or whoever was getting familiar with terrain where their attack will be conducted), maybe they have tried failed attack earlier etc. Bonus from this however should be smaller than it's for defender. Or what do you think should these kind soecial bonuses be used at all? In campaign it's impossible to do for players core troops, but for individual scenarios?

Dear Diary: Today My M1A2 took three or four hits from T-54 distance being about 50 meters, and T-54 was in front of Abrams. Barrel of M1 wasn't pointing directly at T-54 but bit right to it. Ofcourse that didn't mean anything as M1 took T-54 out immediatly it understood where those hits are comming from.

About Syrian crap. Which isn't problem, but the way they are supposed to work: Poorly. With few exceptions, such as Kornet and other modern gear. Alteast i can't say that realisticaly we could expect bunch of older Syrian crap to perfom any better they do. Under creative and skillfull use of syrian equipment against dull and unskillfully acting US they might perform even well (getting flank shots etc), but that isn't always possible as terrain and opponent might have something to say about it. I think most scearios designed to be played as Syria also are hard but playable for Syria. It just requires lot more of understandment in how to put gear into good use. And maybe few retrys However there is alot changes made in game. I'm re-playing campaign with newest version and it seems to be rather different experience when comparing to days CMSF was released.

Sergei: Flamingknives gave good link for that. It seems to be many faced subject, but basically might be said that it's illegal to use WP, napalm etc at any location which has "concentration of civilians", like villages or camps. then again village or part of city cleared from civilians (and only combatants remaining) seems to be legal case. If one has signed that part of deal. Or atleast what i get out from it.

Yup. WP and I'd believe it's illegal to use only at civilians. Smoke screens and fellow soldier from opposite sides are legal uses for it... Not that i've heard anything official about it.

SGT Joch: I ran little test where infantry were in trenches while my USMC snipers (crack) were overwatching them. Syrian troops hiding in trenches covered with brush and in bare gravel ground. snipers were in top of multistory building. All spotting happened in one minute, after that i waited 20 minutes and nothing new got revealed if i didnt' fiddle with hide command which Syrians were having issued. Snipers might see more units when i un-hid Syrians (they raised to their knees), but when they went hiding again snipers lost them. I'm not telling distances where enemies got revealed and such as i dont' remember them too well but spotting ranges were from 200 to 800 meters. Not very great test but made in 100% controlled and observable enviroment, with nothing interfereing it. But Maybe vehicles are different then infantry... Ofcourse it might also be that vehicles suddenly moving little (=turret turning), driver pressing gas pedal or something was involved. If it was regular combat scenario you played?

Did you check that there are no hostiles in objective area? I believe i've failed to fulfill occupy objective as there has been few enemies hanging around in some building. I'm not sure but it feels that CMSF requires side to have 'occupy'-objective 100% clean from enemy presence.

Would be interesting to hear how it has changed. One minute seems to be maximum time spotting needs to be done, after that spotting doesn't get anykind bonuses. Can't say that is hard tested statistics but that is gut feeling i'm having. So basically (if my gut-feeling is reality in game?) sitting men around on hill for half an hour is not optimal solution. More optimal solution, even if not most optimal, might be to move men some amount of distance, pause them for minute and then move them to another spot where they again halt for a minute. I believe most optimal solution would be to move men 6-12 times shorter amounts of distances while halting for 5-10 seconds. But that goes way too much to micromanagement for my liking

Happened with Marines too, regular-veteran level. Some dismounted HMMs teams managed to participate into humanwave three times until bitting the dust. They always reached one trench which i controlled from side with .50cal MG and 40mm AGL. They either died there or pulled back (to try again). Now Javelin-teams doing that wasn't so funny. Took out many machineguns and hummers. When receiving fire they pulled back, but only to come back and try again.

Yeah i finished it, on vacation and being sick so i have time... But not without retrying few scenarios so i can't take credit from beating it in fair-play. Should try at some point of time. About victory conditions. Well they offered me few supprises, as i expected to get something like major victory, when i might get just draw or tactical victory. But when thinking about it more closely i can understand why i got rated like that. i failed to meet commanders intents. Like hide size and nature of force from enemy, or destory/locate enemy units. I probably wouldn't deserve better rating than that in the first place. I managed to get major victory form campign (last abttle was draw) but ain't that more about caused/suffered casualities than success during campaign? Spoiler**** With retrying worst situations i was able to keep half of my tanks and 30% of Bradleys operational for last fight, granted without retrying my tanks and all bradleys probably wouldn't exist anymore, couple of time Kornets and Saxhorns managed to get whole platoon of tank into sights, result usually was very-very ugly). Last battle was supprisingly easy because of i had enough tanks and they had good positions which i found in previous battle. Lone M1 Abrams took whole company of BMP-3s and infantry inside them in about 2 minutes! Then again without Cobra-team i wouldn't been able to retake northers side of bridge, which i left it undefended. All my core tanks which were alive didn't have functioning optics or targeting system. and my few Bradleys couldn't cross bridge as platoon T-90s and about abotu comany of BMP-3s were sitting behind it. Cobra's M1's found and destoryed them one by one and after that mech platoon from Cobra took enemy occupied position back to me from bridge's north side. My tanks and artillery basically won all battles, infantry was performing rather passively mostly doing just recon or fighting in villages and towns.

Very good campaign that was. Thanks. Earning victory seemed pretty harsh some times, but i guess that is the idea.

Yeah. M1A2 SEPs seem much more fragile than before... I don't know why. Sure i don't have much experience with T-90s in CMSF (been playing other games and enjoying life in general after release of Marines), but few scenarios where i've played against them they seem to be quite thoothless against M1s. if facing them face to face. Now i've lost several them in situation which i would consider to be favoring me. It seems that ATGM's and HEAT-warheads in general are able to deal damage better, i dont' recall losing those tanks as easily against modern AT-weaponry (feck i'd say that i've lost them even by ATGMs from BMP-2!)... Could be just scenarios i've been playing with, as Syria is top quality in training and equipment. George MC's new campaign Forging Steel.

stikkypixie: I've suffered horrible loses when experienced Airborne squad opens up at close distances. Opening fire can cause few casualities in first second (usually point, rest of guys staying behind crest of hill or something other cover). And if not forcing unit to hide but to return fire i can expect to lose men even more. When it comes to ranges around 50 meters. Situation probably was different from stikkypixie's, i sent them to move with hunt-order (=slow moving targets) directly at ambushing enemy. I'd still expect US perform better in same sitaution, if CMSF takes optics into consideration (don't remember hearing anything official abotu it). As the saying goes: aimpoint raises accuracy to moving target 1.5 times and to stationary about 1.25. If i remember right the procentages.

During same battle i aw same action. I lost many riflemen because i thought building was already empty, while actaully enemy was just opposite direction of building, then before reaching building they appeared back into windows... Or atleast i think it went like that. From time after time they seemed to reappear, and few times i gaught them by supprise as they pulled away from windows because heavy fire they received from vehicles and i immediatly rushed my men into building. I was storming building with engineers supported by Bradleys, which unleashed hell. Syrians pull back (severe casualities). I take the badly damaged building. After pulling back from building behind near by fence Syrians have still their RPG-gunner alive. My engineers opens fire from building, Syrians fire back. After short moment *CRASH* building comes down, there went two squads of engineers. :eek: I quess that was the change positions feature.

Hmm... Those would be my pixeltruppen, losing M1 Abrams and Bradleys like flies.

I don't know is it patch 1.11 or am i getting worse in CMSF, but... I've lost company worth of M1 Abrams and another company of Bradleys today. And some small numbers of infantry... Earlier it was possible if i behaved reclessly, but i'm been trying to keep casualities low and behave cautiosly. Well Syrians seems to be at veteran level while my imperialistic pigs are just regular, so maybe that is reason. I can't remember mission where i would be doomed to play Blue force with lesser experience than Syrians. When skillful Syrians handles modern ATGMs results seems to turn very ugly for me. Btw. Just how accurate SPG-9 is in reality? It seems that good quality crew manages to hit targets past 800 meters quite accurately (i'd say 50%) in CMSF. I've understood that it's accurate range is closer to 500-600 meters in optimal setting when it comes to reality, not that i would have checked that from anywhere.

Hmm... Well i guess all the quide books i've read are benefiting me. But that is just hobby of mine, not training received. Those books consist range from individual soldier and weapon systems to leading batallion. ... I'd believe they benefit me not that i've much tested them against other humans... I could suck too. Less "bonus" comes from received traning (i'm sqadleading NCO, so my knowledge of things is more in scale of shooters than wargame). Maybe even zero... Hard to say, most of things which might benefit me probably are enough simple to discover by anyone with enough experience of game and sharp mind. If we have blokes who lead companies or batalions in reality they might offer better point of view than single pesky low-level NCO who's knowledge of things is rather theoretic when it comes to leading armored or mechaniced platoons, or all kinds of companies and such.

I ripped a old military poem to celebrate this event and translated it (more or less successfully) into English: "Old guy departs, sht remains, from sht arises a head of new guy" Not referring to biological age with word old, but to time spent in service. And i'm not very poetic so please try to understand that my skills in rhyming might not be most beautiful.

For that i'm not to keen to use word information, just were too lazy to dig up right word for english, so i guessed word 'filter' would make it up. Information is that unfiltered slob of things which we need to filter or pay attention to get attention of right... err... is the word facts? Those facts should be pouring down to laptop. Quite frankly i wouldn't give this kind tech to single rifleman but just to squad leader-level. Hell i've used to not having radio communications in between SL and PL, so i quess one laptop per platoon would be well enough if SL and PL are being able to communicate thru radios and having piece of paper, map and pens as SL's "laptop". But i've probably got used to too small and simple things, not understnading full potential of having source of info which is there just to give you more and more (mroe or less correct) facts of situation and not fear of blocking radio communications while you are at it.

I like the idea of Singaporean system. Grunts usually do need or would like to have more info than they get. Then again leaders nightmare are grunts from squads and platoons who are always hanging in his sleeve asking questions when he has to keep all the strings in his hand. Principles of good order easily breaks. I've read situations where whole divisions advance has halted because one of regiment commander didn't tell his troops enough, troops didn't execute his order (which seemed to be too idiotic and result seemed too much slaugther), few executions which had zero effect on discipline of troops. Day or two waiting until they are told by division commander (who came to see what is going on) that they get plenty of support from artillery and other units of division, after that troops executed order in motivated fashion. All that could have been evaded if regiment's commander would have told his men in the first place that they get plenty of support. And outsider have even told that the leader wasn't bad, but quite good infact. That is extreme example, but i can think this happening on regular basis in platoons which don't get enough info from higher up, PL might not have opportunity to share info to his men, of check the latest news. Too many steps to deliver info down, too much time consumed and so forth. Squads and platoons having flood of (filtered) information at their hands indeed sounds great thing.

In Close Combat? How one can tell that?

Just how much free jail-time one gets from that?

Also it's easier to notice conventional opponents if there is no worry of civilians hiding behind each tree and bush. Changing civilian density from spare to none gave massive spotting bonus to my men when testing things in "laboratory conditions" (=specially crafted test scenario). However it's been awhile since i did test it so it can be that there were other factors affecting to this, but which i don't recall.