Secondbrooks

So number of AT4 to shoot is that high. Yeah, my experiences comes from peacetime only.

True. But what i've noticed by my 1 year experience in AT-works is that riflesquad's M72 wielders which are regular jaegers are not as good with M72 as AT-trained jaegers in AT-team of platoon (using both 112mm Apilas and 66mm M72). What we AT-guys had over riflemen was that we had shot tens of innerbarrel bullets and small practicerockets shot with each weapon (+lots of drilling) while riflejaegers trained more in... well using rifle and acting as part of jaeger squad, they had AT-traning too but in lesser forms. Then again our system seems to be somewhat different. We have so called specializement phase (lasting 2 months) after basics where many troops get deeper traning to their weapon system(s), drills and stuff before they are sent to their jaegercompanies etc. Only after that companies can start training as a whole unit, before that they are just bunch of riflesquads and transportvehicles. Well this was how in my brigade sorted things out, hard to say is/was that national way of doing things or not.

It's about honesty of the one who got hit. And mostly when wearing heavy(ish) clothes only way to tell that one got hit is by sound. Atleast half of hits i've got from paintball didn't break, it was upto my honesty to "die". Infact you find airsoft weapons absolute range to be much greater than paintball markers, because of "antigravitation" powers of pellet (search internet with term 'airsoft hop up'). Practical distances however be quite the same. Well high-end airsoft guns with heavy pellets (sniper rifles) i think can hit human torso at 50 meters reliably in good conditions (no wind) which, by my understandment, paintball markers are not without 'indirect fire'-mode Then again paintballs are stablie due their heavier weight.

What! Your did read manual :eek: That is so gamey :mad:

What i don't know is that do CMSF simulate time of aiming. It seems that they are quite fast with their AT-moves: they have rifle, during next second they have AT4 and inside that same second they have already shot it (and usually missed). Also: Usually both AT4s are shot same time, another by AT specialist (if alive) and another by someone else. How big impact specialisation has on accuracy? Seems that it's quite big, atleast with Syrian squads. Another thing is that if non-specialized guy shoots first, how much this affects in specialist's accuracy (dust, smoke etc factors)? As sometimes AT4 seems to be quite accurate and sometimes not accurate at all. Could be luck... Or maybe some other factors.

Hmm. Granted i don't know much about BMP, but asked from someone who knows quite well and he finds it to be bit odd. Problem being how to take it off? On field conditions that might be bit tricky. And doors might become bit heavy to handle when filled with sand. More info on subject would be welcome.

My thoughts. True: Formations would be good for some situations. True: Stances would improve infantrysquad's behaviour and survavility for some situations. With alot of micromanagement i think player can stretch the gap betwene him and AI even more. With alot of micromanagement player can boost actions of his troops even more. Still: No more micromanagement. CMSF already demands lots of it. My personal feeling is that micromanagement-level is already too much, it's not most immersive wargame to play because of relation between scale and micromanagement. CMx1 had much more right combination in scale and micromanagement, i think. Still: Expacely with present movement commands i'm quite unhappy. 'Hunt' is broken, 'move' is silly. Platoon leader and other teams are unable to use assault... Overall i have feeling that CMSF's platoons are machines which have not been syncronized to work as a one machine. Am i only one who thinks this to be silly that platoon isn't capable to move as one machine when assaulting? Getting my Syrian/US company and platoon to move at enemy lines (underfire) feels giganting and sometimes undoable task as my RPG-teams, MG-teams and Platoon leaders team/squad (with quite a firepower incase of Syria) can't use it's fire when moving and they move in different speed than riflesquads when they assault, quick being too fast and slow being too slow (and tiring).

These came into campaign along with patches if my memory serves me right, 1 mission in campaign does this as well for me, so-called reiforcement of emptiness. I quess those are reinforcements from where actual troops got deleted or moved to another reinforcements along tweaking campiagn by patches. Atleast i think that is the answer. Or then unit(s) which was to reinforce you got killed in some earlier mission?

Question: What good does experience in Iraq or Afganistan kind pacification operation give in ways of hot conventional war against Syria? Opponent is totally different case, reality of battlefield is totally different. What i see to be similar are possibly terrain, own organization(from squads to brigades have worked together alot), tactics and gear which have been tested in "crisis" condition instead just peacetime training and most of stuff has been done alot. But rest of reality is pretty much different from what US troops have done... Well i don't know much what US troops currently does in Iraq or Afganistan, so right now i'm acting like drunken shotgun, i quess. My county's peacekeepers have not been in war, they are forexample in afganistan doing some peacekeeping. Most of them to which i've talked (some of them have done peacekeeping tours in southern parts of world for even several years) to are saying that what they have seen, done and learned doesn't help in conventional war. Reality is just so much different. There are some things like radiocommunications, vehicle's maintance and their reliablity, but in big picture lessons learned from low intensitety conflicts are not much. I don't know what high ranking officers are thinking, these viewpoints are from lower rank men, NCOs and junior officers. Again i presume that Peacekeeping is bit different with what US troops are doing, but basically i could think that they have alot same characteristics. Use of lethal force is biggest difference by both friendlies and hostiles ("hostiles" in peacekeeping). Reality after conventional war would be far more relative to US and also to British troops, i think. But i'm not claiming to be expert in this area. I've not done peacekeeping tours, not enough age when i was willing (i'm NCO so higher age standart applied to me) and when having enough age to go, i already had wife and kid comming. Any thoughts from those who actually has done it and been there. Ps. ****e. I wandered biiit offtopik. Well, i mentioned drunken shotgun.

All questions has been given answer then? My German is bit rusty... I've watched Der Alte last time few months ago from TV. I quess this is n00b question aswell so it's ontopic: I'm having T-72 Iron Warrior... Balkans on Fire patches are not working with it. Is T-72 Iron Warrior some local version? And are those two T-72 BoF and T-72 IW 100% samething? Atleast when comparing BoF's demo and full version of IW they seem to be pretty much same. This has been bothering me for some time, but i just havent' been able to dig anykind info from internet conserning this.

Is this feature or bug? I can see some strongpoints on it... As well as some weakpoints like the fact that i (+ many others, i presume) didnt' know about this. Was this mentioned in manual?

:cool: Thanks. Shame that i can't use more than 3 smileys ... It's too few, way too few for my current mood

We be here. Looking good and now my default password was approved. Good. no need to ask new passwords for forgoten ones so often anymore. Now hold on a minute... hmm... Do i have to type smileys now? ... Can't i just add large (unnecessary) quantity of them to my texts with my mouse, like good forum protocol demands? ??? > < ___ Just Look how poor my selfmade smileys are in guality!!!

****e. I didn't even know they existed

hehe, but for the most time you can pause the "game" to unpause the unit. if you mess up with control in RT multiplayer, than thats your fault </font>

I hate pause command already. I quite commonly manage to accidentaly issue pause 15.00 to unit, then i end up into few seconds lasting fierze but nerve cracking engagement with 'P'-key to get the pause off. But yeah i'm gamey RT-player.

This is what Steve wrote: So i desided to shut my trap and started to produce test scenario. Scenario including just 2 T-72s and platoon of styker infantry (without vehicles). Trenches: Trenches were in optimal angle to T-72s which means sideways. Each trench was 2 tiles (=16 meters) long and there was empty space 2 tiles inbetween each "trenchesystem" (not very important). Each "trenchsystem" took one squad or two teams. Situation: Two T-72 engaging platoon of infantry from 200 meters which are hiding in trenches. Squads and teams were forming 16 meters long line in each "trenchsystem" Result: Direct hit to trench was required to cause severe casulities. Basically crater touched trench clearly. Usually half squad was wiped out, which means that 8 meters long section of trench got cleared. When crater nearly did touch the trench or touched just little, lighter casualities were produced (yellow circles in trench) Even few meters away from trench and infantry survived. Closest not-wounding crater seemed to be about 4 meters away from trench. Me: Im going to corner of classroom wearing hat which tells me that i'm an ass. A complete one.

In CMSF However tanks capability to wipe out infantry in trench (most lying down away from fragments) by hitting ground 4-10 meters infront of trench is something which i feel to be wrong. Atleast it seems to be pretty certain thing to happen with (atleast) 125mm HE that squad gets 80-100% wiped out. Anyone can confirm this to one direction or another? Do i just act like dramaqueen or am i after something? I could be thinking about things happened in older versions of CMSF. Above 1.05 anyways. Getting stunned for even long time from that kind feat is okay, but getting dead and seriously wounded if lying in trench (or behind anykind hard cover) is something i find hard to digest.

Is there screenshot from 53_0 Street Sweepers v05 -mission to be seen anywhere or description of mission? I've have ugly feeling rising under my chest that i don't remember seeing name of that mission... which then is suggesting to me that i haven't actaully finished the campaign succesfully. :eek:

Agreed. Altough i see this as universal trend. When looking at battles fought in ww2 as well it seems that when my contry's generals and colonels wrote down that they secured their objectives and prevailed (complitelly or partially) opponent did write down the same. There is pretty much always bright side on even something which basically was a faílure: Forexample counterattack was able to grant one extra day for reserves to arrive and regroup (main goal was to repel enemy attack)... I don't think that my contry's militaryhistory from ww2 inholds many failed battles or such, basically just one at -41 (blame on Germans natrually!) two broken defencelines during june of 1944 and maybe something small from between 41-44. And Soviet then again seems to have pretty much same point of view, they won many battles (if not most at their point of view). Same during German offence to east during -41. To me it was eye opener to read certain Marshall's (from Soviet Union) writings from times of which i've had just "Western" point of views (which are prone to take German point-of-view). Year -41 was showed to me in whole different light. Also word 'destoryed' was too easily used when AARs talked about fights with enemy. Most of sentences saying "Our unit destoryed enemy force" should be "Our unit repelled enemy force". Same applies to opponents AARs which i've read. How many battles North Vietnamese thinks they have actaully lost? I think it's not even nearly as much as "Westerns" (taking US point-of-view) would think.

This is purely Wikipedia, but: Forexample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_A_Shau Ofcourse it naturally was because of ARVN Here is list of battles in vietnam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_and_operations_of_the_Vietnam_War I did check just few battles. There were few defeats and few useless victories. Do we count operations as well? EDIT: Yeah. Pure US defeats as well. Or are US Marines counted to be US if Marines lost a battle? [ June 10, 2008, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Sorry. Pretty strong headache ain't best thing for already low IQ, so: Does this mean that there are large amounts of missiles in supply? like 30-50 missiles per squad (=quidance unit)? If this is the case, then i feel that i'm getting highly jealous.

Is it true that each (styker, mechaniced) rifle platoon would have 4 Javeling guidance-units and 12 Javelin missiles in reality? Because i bit doupt it. One thing would be supplylevel. Should even mild lack of ammo (anything good and below) reduce amount of Javelin missiles and guidance units? I think it should. There must be regulations of how many Javelins one should keep in reserve for actual need of them (=enemy tanks present). If we take standart US versus Syria/US fight we can expect that unit would end up having less than 10% of Javelin-missiles it had in start of the battle (rest have been used)... Think that this same unit would use it's missiles in each battle in Thunder-campaign it goes thru -> tens/hundreds of missiles used by single company at end of campaign which lasts just short amount of time! Can US keep on supplying it's troops with all those missiles? Yes. I think amount of missiles should be dropped drastically (to 1 or even 0) if unit can't have full supply level. Think about it ... Better yet make it optional to have missiles! [ May 30, 2008, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I don't think that CMx2 supports additional lights (no facts, just feelings)... Atleast yet. Forexample burning vehicles doesn't seem to light the area around them for AI to see better... However i don't know for sure. Just impression i'm having.

CM: Times When Just 25% of Men Discharged Their Personal Firearm in Combat. Btw... How will BFC simulate this (not that i would actaully believe in that, just being curious)