Secondbrooks

NVGs can easily be difference maker here. What might be the phase of the moon? Month and day has a meaning during nights. I don't think LOS tells you all. They might seem see 100 meters, but actully they might be dead blind when it comes to shooting someone dead. Hard to say anything else... You did unhide your syrians i fthey were having hide-order? As unit given hide-order seems to be bit like blindfolded when being in trench. I've noticed this if trenches are located in brush and tree tiles (not sure about anything else). Opponent might have to jump into trench before hiding guys notices them... I've seen few times that my hiding ambusher gets seen first by attacker, gets suppressed and gets killed.

The Constipation Chronicles? </font>

Should TacAI be allowed to fire on movement like move, crawl, quick? Right now it does that just on assault... Assault could be just most optimal version of it. Firing would be higly inaccurate or low in volume. Main focus is the movement and firing is pretty much for selfdefence, closer they are from enemy more fire they would use in cost of speed. I think i liked this in CMx1, where my men were capable of shooting enemies they met in middle of turn. Somehow it felt natrual (saving me from micromanagement).

CM: Nobody else did a ****.

Yes. Learning to learn game's and engine's limitations and features is quite necessary. Complaints about infanrty getting itself killed because of too accurate small arms fire has decreased quite drastically over time... Well small arms accuracy was degreased, but i think main problem here was that players have their own thoughts about what something should do and how it should perform, now many players have more experience with game and they know what to expect from something. One thing i agree quite alot with Dragon67 is Marine squad to be packed in one or two action tiles... Does that kind formation already fulfill definition of massgrave? As already this current squad 'packing in one or two tiles'-problem is one of most problematic features of CMSF to me. I don't think i much dare to play with Marines... Then again Syrian side could be much more rewarding as Hassan took half Marine squad with one handgrenad.

Okay, so we are discussing quite bit different system here than i thought. Thanks for the info.

Should they have SAPI? Anyways it should cover only small area of human silhuette, so it's effect of casualites would be... 15-10%? Prone guy gets zero advantage from it, correct? If i understand that SaPI is 20x30 mm plates covering belly and possibly sides. AK should go thru vest within it's effective range of 300 meters if it doesn't hit traumplate... Well i haven't much studied the matter much, so i quess there is change that i'm wrong. It's optics i'll be telling you. US having all their weapons equipped with optics should be very serious casuality producer to enemy without optics... I'm supprised that it doesn't give US even better effectivity of fire in CMSF.

What! ERA on US vehicles? Come on! Give Syria atleast 140mm AT-Railgun and few Terminator models (female T-1000 and female T-X) + Full grown male Godzilla :eek:

I don't know about challenge itself. Syria is hard and same with US with right combination of troops. But something isn't right. I mean if i play hard and honest battle against enemy i still end up feeling somehow let down to outcome or how the outcome was reached... It doesn't matter do i lose or win, there just something which doesn't quarantee (very) happy state of mind to me. -Maybe it's modern setting and expetations i have from performance of certain modern trooptypes and weaponsystems. -Maybe it's the word simualtion you hear quite often used these days (or is it just me?)... I notice that i have tendensy to get depressed from word 'simualtion'... Or am i barking (or lifting my leg) at wrong tree? was CMx2 stated to be simulation or wargame? Or -Maybe i'm getting cynical and hard to please... I shouldn't be that close of age where i start to dig my closet for things from my youth... like Iron Maiden's casettes and Sylvester Stallone's VHS-tapes. I think i have 10-20 years before that, indeed sad thing, should happen... But i enjoy older games (like CMx1) while their newer versions (like CMx2) aren't that good at granting me The Absolute Pleasure Of Gaming (=good feeling after game has been finished). Engine in CMx2 is good and i truly like the things it can do... But it's just something. Yes-yes, i play it, i like it, but i'm generally just not pleased to outcome of battle.

Field Marshal Blücher: Acording statics i've seen from ww2 it seems that NCOs and junior officers are prone to have increased casuality rate. This is because of the fact that they had to (and were trained to) lead by showing exmaple for their men. And many times there is no time to give orders. In our soldier's hand book there are many referings to: "if you don't know what to do in situation X, look at your leader and do as he does" (this rule is golden) I think this is atleast partially what Clavicula_Nox was after. [ May 15, 2008, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Yeah most of them are. Does the export model of the T-90 come with the IR jammer system that would work on US ATGMs? Also does it come with the AT-11 ATGM? Also can we make a map large enough so that the T-90 can use its longer range advantage over the M1A2? </font>

Oh jolly good, when my T-55 shot 100 HE-round at treeline behind which MY SF platoon was stalking... Merely half of them dead or wounded Which is ofcourse realistic that round detonates when it hits something which makes it to detonate, but they are soooo dumb in it: Quite literally they try to hit targets behind leaves, branches and trunks. I've hardened myself for things like that, but there has been few droplets which have broken camels' backs and made me howl. There could be something made to it. Maybe some A. 1/3 amount of shootingdistance or B. solid 50-100 meter shootingdistance under which (from gunner) projectile just won't hit trees and such. I don't' know would that be correct or even possible way of doing things, but i hope that something could be made. To question how forest affects on mobility. It becomes very sloooow with tanks. Here some figures form back 80's (officers quidebook which i tend to carry on my pocket... I wanted to become officer you know ) Forest with low treecount and slim tree trunks: 5-10 kilometers per hour for tank and IFV with tracks. IFV/APC with wheels 5 kilometers (usually follows tank's tracks). I however think that these are tactical (or commonsense) speeds, not speeds what they could travel. I think i've seen few pissed truckdrives who drove quite fastly and didn't bother to evade trees, but just knocked them down. Mostly it was terrain features such as rougness which limited their speed (danger of truck falling on it's side), not trees. Forest with high treecount and thick trunks: 2-5 kilometers per hour for tanks. IFVs with tracks and wheels usually follows tank's tracks. Haven't watched speed of vehicles in CMSF, but could say that it goes along the lines. LOS blocking of CMSF trees seems to be quite correct. About ability to hit trees... Well could be issue in real life if trajectory of round is so curved that gunner doesn't know that on it's way to target it will hit something or gun being inaccurate. As rule of thumb with instructions i've had: On border of forest infantry is at most vulnereable place it can be for HE rounds. we got demonstration of this: Hit of 100 mm HE in tree (few meters high) just 10-20 meters infront of squad and whole squad in normal line formation got wiped out. Problem is that in CMSF infantry's AT-power is useless when used from inside forest. Two-three tiles (less than 30 meters) of forest seems to be maximum, but after that AT-rounds starts to hit trees quite frequently. Well tanks will hit trees as well, but usually they have better succes in killing infantry than infantry has in killing tanks. Reduced accuracy is good, i have no objection against that, but it just seems to be so abnormal that gunner manages to hit tree just in front of him. For that there should be some sort "in-ability to hit trees at close distances from gunner"-feature introduced. BTW. Heavy arty barrages can and will demolish trees, leaves and branches. I once withdrew form barraged area and i noticed that enemy could shoot my men form over 100 meters distances. Ofcourse i got intrested and when i zoomed in i noticed that there was BIG hole in forest (just trunks and possbily clear patches of forest). Syrian rocketlauchers combined with company of 120 mm mortars were involed. EDIT: Brainfarts corrected. And well... I'm trying to be reasonible, so eventually it's not THAT big issue i quess. It's just down side, which would be nice to be fixed (The "tree hitting"-thing). But i can't play&enjoy CMSF as it is. [ May 12, 2008, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Ok, so use or simulated use of leaserrangefinder isn't as common in CMSF as i thought. Thanks for answering. I wondered that if it would be US battledrill to laze each target before engagement, also conserning ATGM-teams if it (the team) happens to own laserrangefinder... and this possibly would have been simulated in CMSF. Well, that thing has been sorted out. So thanks again.

Yes. I'm after missiles and lazing in general. If tank's gunner does as he should, then Sthora doesn't much do any good. But there are ATGM-vehicles as well as ATGM-teams and aircrafts, which atleast basically should/could have laserrangefinders. Then again with average maps with average engagement distances i've seen in CMSF, "Sthora's ability to turn it's turret + launch fog/smoke + and let fog/smoke affect = Not enough time for Sthora to fullfill it's job even against ATGMs". Distance is usually less than 1 kilometer, TOW would spent 5 seconds in flight + maybe couple of seconds of lazing and giving fire-commands etc. Turret should be somewhat directly at firer and yet could ask does it have time enough to get smoke formed against missile.

Well, acording papers i've read from Grozny, one T-80 got over 10 RPG-7 rounds on it's weak parts behind tracks, turret's back side, and engine space before being either knocked out or destoyed. Average under same conditions was 6-8. So unfortunate things happens from AT-guys and commander's point of view: "why. they. just. won't. DIE!"

Btw. Which units in CMSF do laze their targets? tanks, IFVs, infantry ATGMS, aircrafts? Will there be TacAI able to not to laze at T-90, even if lazing would be it's normal thing to do when engaging enemy. And under what circumstances would they not laze (not messing T-90 to T-72 forexample). Quite many armies are not expected to face Sthora in their travels (dunno is US army or marines one of them), so they leave this thing without notice in their battledrills, but atleast we had pretty strong emphasis during my service time in taking these activeprotection devices into count when working against tanks.

Such bitter flavor i got form his latest posts that i think it would take alot of self-disipline from him to NOT keep on writing in such way like he did. Then again i can see minor seeds of damage in MD's ban. Some persons just can't be replaced by others waiting in the line... Dunno is MD one of them, but i've got impression that he knows much about things usually discussed in these forums and can offer lots of info (which generally are right) about various subjects. There are some guys in other forums which i miss if they got banned, and lack of their presense is damaging atmosphere of forums in general... and can't be replaced by others. But, overall i'm new person in these forums, who just recently has started to visit here regularry.

The "White Death" part is, AFAIK, almost certainly myth. </font>

Same for current CMSF. Expacely for AI's inabilty to use what it's vehicles have (Javelins in Stryker are ignored by AI, which takes quite big edge from it). Ammosupplyposts where few guys are handing ammo and special equipment for arriving units is another idea i've been tossing around... Well not always there would be realitic space in map, but big maps would allow ammosupply to be there as well. In mechaniced units vehicles usually have sufficent amount of resupply, but infantry-on-foot would need other methonds of resupply, like ammosupplypost. Or then making it possible to make some units carrying spare ammo+special equipment and give them to units which are doing the hard job, like leveling ammoloads for tanks. 'Elites are clearing the road and greens are the mules of elites' sort of thing.

I dont' think it's just hand grenades... After all i've been taking T-72's out with them. They dont' destory it, but causes mobility kill and forces crew to get out from vehicle. Against Bradleys i think they cause mostly mobility kills. Strykers are easy to get knocked out, i think. Infact when playing forestfighting scenarios with trenches. I've noticed that it's better to let tank come close and then take it out with grenades or atleast cut it's track... Better way than RPGs are in those conditions

Why should it be massive? Sure massive 'batallion dug-in inside 500x500 meters area, and trenches running everywhere'-fortifications would be visible. But how about more realitic: 'Trenches representing individual foxholes of squad'. Or 'camoflaged fortifications', where everything has been pretty much camoflaged forexample trenches covered atleast partially. It would require lots of recon (UAV isn't enough) to spot this and i think only quite reliable way is to make it on foot. Ofcourse if we are sending whole batallion to assault, recon will/should be done first on path to objective and beyond. Then again we most likely would end up in situations where recon isn't possible or it didn't manage to complete it's job (got dead) or it hasn't spotted what it should have been.

T-55. Could be T-54 too, but i'd say T-55. early model without AAMG mount. -Ventilation system isn't visible. That is my conclusion that it ain't T-54 Just look at english wikipedia and look for white tank, if wishing to understand the thing... It should be visible atleast partially and i don't see it. [ April 30, 2008, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Infact when looking at it... Those guys could make much SMALLER targets if they would be on their belly pressing their heads and limbs totally against soil. I can see that it was not my lack of tactical eye and lack of intelligense and lack of terrain reading that made (and will make) them to die like flies... they just don't know how to offer smallest possible targets to enemy. I'm relieved.

Sounds freaking Simple! :confused: Dunno is there problem in foxholes becoming too static/cubersome to use for AI and/or player, but it sounds good. About trenches visible to long distances, how about foxholes? There would be one, two or three small holes on one tile which are blending to background (+foilage and all). Same or even smaller effort would be to move around map and listen where opponents are talking to each of other... If i'm having right set of memories conserning me using very-much-gamey tactic and listened where Syrians are and then giving them few (tons of) BIG shells. Ofcourse to player having foxholes those should be highlighted or something.

Does it suppress in any condition? Something like unit A is unaware of friendly unit B and unit B fires over unit A -> Unit A hits the deck (or doesn't like atleast). Small arms i'm talking about.