Secondbrooks

TOW-missile starts to guide itself with wings in direct line at the same moment it goes out of tube. It will not rise as sight's IR-tracker has to able to see it's IR-pulses or it can't give guidance to missile (there is minor deadzone before missile enters IR-tracker's viewzone, i think it was just few meters). Same applies for atleast AT-4, which was another missile system used in our army (recently has been replaced with Spike). Altough i haven't used it, just wathches videos about it and talked to Spigot trained guys. Gunner's Manuals aren't easy to get anymore

I agree quite complitely with Michael Dorosh's post. But. I do believe that man is herd-animal, which has to have alpha-male, in (western) military maybe in platoon/squad scale. If previous Alpha-male was removed from strenght then there are quite good changes that someone else will fill his boots as a alpha-male (in military unit in war this would be to be best fighter of his company/platoon/squad). Few our veterans from Winterwar 39-40 and Continual War 41-44 have wrote something about this. So basically: one good fighter WIA/KIA -> one "reqular" fighter takes his place. This, however, is just what i've read from viewpoints of veterans, there (to my knowledge) hasn't been study about this subject. [ February 10, 2008, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Not once i've faced same thing. With quick-order (i'll return to assault later) couple of casualities was enough to bring squad hugging ground. What was you mission setting? I used following: -No wind -Time was 12.00 (sun in north -> no sunshine to eyes of machinegunners :cool: ) -civilian density set to none And what do you know! Fire was quite effective at 400 meters. I gave them waypoints moving back and forth so they remained in range of 400-500+ meters from machinegunners. 2 minutes was enough to cause 15 casualities to company with quick order. About 20-30% of troops was hugging ground If those mission settings were in default: -small wind -time 9.00 (sun in SE, slightly shining to machinegunners eyes :eek: ) -Spare civilian density. Then accuracy was much more worse. 6 minutes caused 17 casualities, and all of them were still jogging. I gave them waypoints moving back and forth so they remained in range of 400-500+ meters from machinegunners. I don't know what changes did have effect on accuracy but it seems that there was an effect. Assault has effect on morale, but bad leadership (-2) + couple casualities was enough to bring squad to halt. Squads with normal leadership (0) were much more able to take casualities. [ February 10, 2008, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Yup. We are there. I find this version to be heavily pleasing. BFC has made some good tweaks.

I've had few instances when ATGM-team won't open their fire even if target is clearly visible. Usually seems to happen with reverse slope-thingy (which seems have quite random effect in general... I don't understand it even closely).

Why not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4 EDIT: Besides the picture of scope just points the fact that soldier is trained marksman (scope visible).

It seems to be more like 50/50, Critizal part is when TOW goes back down in CMSF -> it hits soil and KA-BOOM. I don't know why BFC choosed to make ALL missiles go up and then down at launch (maybe smoke blocks visibility to target? Most likely there is a reason). Higher elevation seems to give better results atleast with AT-3 and AT-4 in CMSF, there's no ground so close -> missile don't hit ground so easily when comming down -> it gets time to stbilize in it's flight path (that straight line from launcher to target). This is my brainfart however, so i'm not 100% sure :cool: I bit tried TOW out at 500 meters in flat ground and results were not very good. Worse than Sagger on tall hill or roof of one story building. So i would say that put your missiles on high ground.

I know only 6 launches. Those worked well (atleast i haven't heard complaints), this failure happened to guys before us, missile crashed to ground because wires got cut or got loose. This is what i understand as a TOW failure. What you do mean with word failure, that it misses it's target or not able to defeat it's target? Or same thing as me? That could make 7-8 launches which i know, one of them being failure. But overall i don't know that many guys who have been in TOW-squads, so no much possibilities to share experiences about the system, we have quite few of them. Yup. It ain't nice thing to think this happening is real situation, but then again your rifle could fail you, your bullet's fuze might fail you. Mortar round blowing in tube etc. I haven't used it much in CMSF, so i'm not sure, But if i remeber right, it behaves like Javelin at first: fly high and then go down. Which is kinda wrong. [ February 08, 2008, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Yeah. That ain't too strange, more like truly bad luck. I know one TOW failure as well from livefire exercises. I don't know how frequently those happens, but they happen sometimes.

OH! I get it! i get it! Usually atleast another AT4 is fired by marksmen, that explains the poor results. Also another thing: AT4s are fired in fast phase (as they usually should be), problem might be smoke. If that #@%¤$! marksman would give AT-specialist first shot, then our handsome and manly AT-specialist might hit even better than now. Now that #@%¤$! marksman fires his AT4 and misses as usual, grenade hits ground in between them and target -> we have dust cloud not enough to block visibility but enough to make visibility worse. AT-specialist have much more harder task to hit... This was causing problems with Syrian ATGM's accuracy in earlier versions if i remember right: dust cloud from ingition was blocking gunners view. Tried out with regular US squads again today and when i managed to spot that AT-specialist is handling the pipe, they usually achieved pretty good results. Well done, i say. As a sidenote: Best part was that when one Syrian platoon was able to take out usually 2 out of 3 Abrams (one 100 meter away, another 150 meter and last 200 meter. Showing their vulnereable arses to Syrians), US Stryker Platoon's riflesquads didn't manage to do this. Rearely they managed to cause mobility kills and i think that after multiple test runs only once crew bailed out. Abramses also spotted Redfor US troops after first shot. With Syria i'm not sure did i see this happening so requlary... Reason might be bigger amount of misses (tank have more time to react). Another thing. Tried also with Syrian squads and noticed (at least i think i did!) that RPG-teams hit worse than riflesquads. I bet this is because of lacking binoculars. Riflesquad were much more capable to hit tank to 200 meter than RPG-team. Can someone verify? It's the small things that matters, ain't it? (or i'm dead wrong)

Pandur: Did you do multiple runs on that test? I perfomred rag-tag test with AT4. Not to be taken too seriously, as this was just a quick test repeated 6-8 times without too much analyzing. I tried at ranges 100, 150, 200 at BTRs. There was 5 stationary BTRs, two in 100 meter, two in 150 meter and one in 200 meter. Overall results could be from way ****e (one hit out of 6 shots!) to somewhat good (4-5 out of 6). Usually BTR at 100 meters was hit, but BTR at 200 meters never. There seemed to be major random factor in here and i believe it affects to all infantry weapons (accuracy dropped) Worst shots crashed ground half way to target... Has someone replaced part of powder with mold? That would explain their low bang voice... Soviets did that, but Sweden as well in CMSF??? I'm shocked! ...yeah... Back to test. They were regular US-troops, sadly i'm not sure were some of AT4s fired by not-AT-spezialist. Overall results seemed to be quite poor. Well usually for US it's not problem as they rely on other gear like Javelins, Abrams, TOWs, MGSs. Syrian squad has more grenades at it's disposal, so it's not that bad for them either. Today played with veteran Syrians and they did hit quite well with RPG-7s, so i'm not complaining... Well i haven't led greens with spare ammo yet, so my opinion might change [ February 07, 2008, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Still haven't had time to try out 1.06 properly. But i thought that 1.05 was already filling almost all my (realistic) expetations, I could have lived happily with 1.04 already. Hard to think that 1.06 would give me any major "YES!"-experiences but that remains to be seen. Atleast people seems to be liking it very much. And i do like the changes in change/fix log... They have made lots of moves to right direction.

Stationary targets?

I think so too. Usually it gives impression that almost allways RPG-teams hits their targets, but when watching closely at RPG-team taking out vehicle there are quite many misses, even at closer ranges. I haven't tested it so can't tell how much more accurate RPG-7 is than AT-4 in CMSF. But what i've seen gives impression that 100 meters seems to give almost 100% change to hit with AT-4 and to 300 meters (moving target) AT-4 usually doesn't hit, which should be quite fine. And ofcourse i'm more furious about missed AT-4 than PG-7, because usually there is just 1-2 of them, while squads have 5-7 PG-7s.

AT-4 has ironsights. RPG-7 can have optics (i have understood that all CMSF's RPG-7s have optics). This has quite big impact to longer ranges and expacely to moving target. AT-4 can use just it's poles in frontal sight for rough lead (how about night vision device's scale?), just like M72. Also RPG-7 might have flatter trajectory (i'm not sure, havent' seen AT-4's specs), which increses possibility to hit target if range extimations have gone bad. What i've looked at optics it seems that when aiming tank with 200 meters mark, one can (theoratically) hit tank's profile to ~0-350 meters distance. I don't think that RPG with good quality rockets, which have been taken good care, would be considerably unaccurater than AT-4. Effect of crosswind seems to be pretty hard, much more than AT-weapons which i'm familiar with (usually wind isn't effecting that much). But i don't know can tranined gunner handle that (or is rocket prone to go somewhat unstable).

That is true. I don't know why CMSF forbids infatry to move slopes. Their waypoint can be positioned in slope tile (vehicles can not have waypoints there), but they can not enter slope tile.

Bradley can be tough in 1.05 also (haven't had time to test 1.06 yet). My whole platoon wasted all it's RPGs (3 RPG-7 + 4-5 grenades for each)) into two Bradelys. They just got hit and hit and hit, finally both Bradleys lost tracks and crews bailed out. Good thing if Syria can finally pick more grenades, as it's has always been weak point for them against same sized mechaniced US troop: They run out of grenades eventually, even if they manage to lure US into trap. Yesterday i wiped out 30% of vehicles of Stryker company + Batallion's leading elements + MGS platoon with my infantry company + SPG-9 platoon. And after that i was complitely out of AT-grenades (after that i had to lure them into handgrenade's throwing distance ).

It truly sucks as whole first page is filled with threads about it! That was before it was even released! It like teen going to get drunk (liquor stolen from parents) first time in his/hers life... Most likely teen's stomach has to be flushed at end of the evening. This is kind and caring word of advice

I know tankers who thinks that woods offer cover and upper hand. Roll your tank forward and then backward, that already clears quite open angle for cannon to move. Flanks can be vulnereable (if enemy can manuver there) and for that infantry sticks close to tanks. And besides enemy manuver and fire usually is as restricted if it enters flanks (=forest). Same reason why we seek our positions mainly inside forests: Forests brings some problems when operating ATGMs (mostly with wires), but same time it gives us better camoflage and survivality from enemy's spotting and fire. Same idea with tanks. It would be nice if tank's cannon can't turn more than trees allow, but that would require that trees can be pushed down and TacAI knows how to "prepare" firingpositions by using forward and backwards movement. I'm quite happy with current situation. [ February 04, 2008, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Our tankers do work in woods, some even thinks that it's safe way of doing things (expacely in tall pines) By them tank in woods wins tank in open. It also gives them better camo and cover against infantry ATGMs and such. this is purely in combatsituations, marches are ofcourse another thing. Ofcourse there is difference between defence and attack. But also during attacks tanks can go off from road to woods and work closely with infantry and close in enemy infantry (tanks in front of own infantry). This can be done, it's not best way to use tank but many times it's the only way to give support to infantry, if there is no high hills to give possibility to fire from longer distances. In CMSF 3 trees per tile there's basically just 3 trees 8x8 meters area (bit more than 300 trees per hectare), that is not much. It's like scattered trees in CMx1. EDIT: My squads Nasu (like Bandvang) moved alot in forests. It's not tank sized, but it doesn't weight 60 tons either. Every time we hauled ATGM into firingposition we drove deep into forest. same applies when we were given alert that "enemy" airforces are in area (better to get in cover and do it fast). This was daily routine for us. [ February 04, 2008, 03:25 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I ran some tests and it sure seems to be that effect isn't that powerful. It seems that i've been on bad luck when trying to get thru mud forexample when evading mines in road. Or can there be some "unknown" factors effecting to this besides ground wetness. I had one self made scenario (don't have it anymore) which seemed to be poisonious to vehicles, but just minute ago i couldn't get even closely same results in muddy&wet conditions.

It would look like sacrilege... I just have to start battle from point when unit is already starting it's assault to objective. Most manuvering has already been done. Well, i quess i was dumb when trying to add earlier phases into it.

Tank drive in forests and wood in northern (un-arid) heights. Forest is not obstacle, tanks are using it to gain upper hand in many things, like enemy tanks and ATGMs and AT-launchers. Basic thing what i've heard is that tank in forest wins tank in open. I use mud to simulate swamp where infantry i able to walk, but vehicles can find to be in trouble quite fast -> bogged down and then imobilized. I usually set ground to wet (has worked pretty well) Maybe infantry should be able to cross steep hills slowly and with curses, but why has that been left out?

SgtMuhammed: Sorry, i don't get this: 'Try using objective points at opposite ends of the area you want to attack'. You mean that i put objectives in corners of area i wish to attack? I think i will have to make map more tunnel like, restrict player's movement to avenue of approach.

Yeah. I've tested i too, no luck this far with dynamic-behaviour. Well i have to skip that mission idea. System doesn't fit to forests at all, yet.