Secondbrooks

Will AI hunt down opponents in their objective zones? Currently i'm wondering that how i can make AI's reserve forces come and help defenders with flashy counterattack. Basically i can aproach AI positions from any direction i like and engagment and spotting distances are just 40 meters so AI's reserves literally have to hunt me down, it's not enough for them to be somewhere nearby. Problem is that defenders have 2 platoons in seperate defencepositions and i basically can take them both out one by one, when i want and in what order i want. AI should be able to act dynamically acording to situation, to make mission even somewhat tough. [ January 30, 2008, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Could be :cool:

Yup. Every game should have this featured. Bloodbowl as extra-feature.

If human can't use that many weapons effectively (as has been said), how can CMSF's TacAI do that :eek: EDIT: Oh, the request... Mine plough for tanks. Red should be kind and give them to Blue too. Engineers could have some bangalore torpedoes too... or atleast something. [ January 29, 2008, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I would like too see that untranined ATGM-dumbass who desides to lase target which is using Sthora. I can fire my fine, nice and manly TOW to tank and if tank doesn't see it comming enough early or i'm not so stupid that i actaully laser that tank, then Sthora is dead weight. Infact, if i remember right, Sthora didn't prove itself in tests against Kornet, it couldn't much distract them. This far (with info i'm having) i'm more conserned about Arena and it's likes which are using radars. Then again i've heard that they still are very-very costly. Some Russian said that they are giving 1.5 times more protection to tank (however that is calculated).

China vs Russia, China vs Japan. Singapore vs... someone. Dunno why these. Scandinavians in each of others throats, little and unimportant nations can be recuded to ashes in total war. Would sell like... 100 pieces, maybe less. I still would like to play it. No bigger than company or two per side. Tried that French operation in CMAK today (there's like regiment of troops)... I just told them to advance, watched that slaugther for about 15 turns and quitted. Yup, me likes no big fights, they give me headache.

I doupt that there is rule for such thing, it's hard to say in text book if situation can be somewhere in between hell and heaven, so i quess answer is: "It depends." But forexample this kind saying crosses to my mind: "Best aid to your wounded buddy can be to keep enemy down or drive him away" I quess this same applies in larger scale and i would highlight word 'can'.

Abrams is heavy enough already, i don't know can it take much more weight? Heavy ERA-blocks aren't fairies. No HEAT should get thru M1A2's (as well as any modern tank's) frontal armor of turret. There might be few warheads which can do this, but you gotta save weight. Even Russians aren't stuffing heavy ERA everywhere, just to most critical parts. aprox 60% in frontal sector.

I quess my bad english did the magic thing again (=misunderstandment)... I ment this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_helicopters But like said, it can't be seen. So why bother

Sounds filthy good idea!

Oh damn! I didn't know that...

Is the UN black chopper modelled as well?

Gunner wasn't tranined RPG-gunner There was notable motion in RPG to right same time he pressed trigger (launch happend shortly after). Either A. gunner didn't know his gear, B. he got nervous and made mistake or C. tigger was stiff. D. All or some earlier combined. Japanese are not using PRG-7 but M72, are they? This was either Russian or Chinese RPG, wasn't it? These were Japanese, weren't they? Btw. There was cameras around, lots of hazzle around he might have spent 30 minutes in that positions -> he knees hurts, colonel was there, his mates told that firing RPG-7 is like gettin hit from shovel into head (this was how we were instructed with Apilas Damn we feared it at start), it's his first time with RPG-7... Can't say that it would be battlefield, but overall this situation can be quite stressing.

You can make jungle (forest) where LOS usually breaks after 40 meters. It not as much as in reality could be, but pretty darn close. There are two tree types which does this (don't remember which ones), other tree types gives visibility to 80 meters. I personally love these kinds fights in CMSF. I don't have first hand experience of jungle, but from movies and games. But forexample last summer i was participating light infantry exerices conducted in similar terrain (mostly recon, harasment but bigger actions aswell while trying to gain control of small road traveling thru marsh). And during army we had batallions and bridages working and fighting in this kind terrain during exercises. I don't see severe limitations in tactical level, but most of players don't have intrest to go thru these kind fights... This usually seems to be the issue. Patrols etc smallunit tasks and fights should be left out. AI is one problem, it's pretty static. Unable to do small scale actions acording to situation. Low visibility terrain requires competent and independent junior leadership able to think with it's brains. But that same limitation for AI goes in MOUT aswell.

I'm bit everything, depends of my mood and depends of game ofcourse. Combat missions are something which i usually like to play for challenge, but for experimenting too. I like Red side more, because it's (usually) more challening. What i'm not is big battle freak. Smaller is better. company size in enjoyable in great degree, but batallion size is already starting to bug me severly.

When unit is on map's edge or near it and it becomes under fire, men are quite easy to back their bags and become missing (just ceases to be present on map). Longer the distance to map's edge, lower are the changes that troops will go missing. Few minutes being under intense fire already can cause lots of missing men if map's edge is near. I don't know are there other factors, besides morale and experience and leadership.

Treat 155mm fragments as they would be bullets (small arms fire in general). They are not 100% same from their penetration capacity, but nearly. Basically about 50 cm of sand in bags should be enough. Combining rocks, sand and wood 40 cm has same effect. 80 cm of untouched rockless soil is fine. Those should give 100 % (and maybe much more) protection from all shaped and sized fragements. But i quess one can take half of those away and still be safe from everything else but biggest and meanest fragments, this is quessing however. So, don't try at home. But fragment size should be decreasing to gain more covering "field of fragments", which then again reduces penetration. EDIT: So actually foxhole with coverhole (or mousehole, what ever) is best idea: One doesn't have to build it much above ground level. [ January 21, 2008, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Naah. They are carving mugs, lamp's pedestals, making rings, building chur-... Mosques from building materials they receive. Infidels won't come, no need to keep on digging. Damn! This sounds bit too familiar...

Yeah. That's why foxhole with topcover is much better than trench It gives even good level of camoflage against IR, as well as traditional optics. Only thing foxhole with top cover does worse than trench is offering field of fire... well that depends of how topcover is done and how well field of fire of foxhole-group is designed. Ofcourse if we are discussing about troops like Syrian militia without strong missileweaponry or MBTs, then their positions should be positioned so that US can't fire or spot them from longer than 300-200 meters ranges (at ground level atleast). Yes i've studied closely subjects which are discussing about light infantry force dealing with mechaniced opponents. My past unit is (was) likely to face this kind setup and it's trying to achieve everykind bonus it can to get, cut down enemy firepower etc. But terrain is 100% different than in Syria, so idon't know how much of this applies to our beloved Syria. Other thing: How much US will have these kinds of laser quided things? More than timed fuzes for theor tradiotinal HE-shells? I doupt it quite much and i doupt how well they will hit to spot. Good foxhole with topcover (or should we say mousehole) can be destoryed if 152mm grenade hits inside few meters from foxhole. Plus adding additional decoys, which are simple to produce. This all lifts Syrian sides capacity to face US firepower. It won't manage to overcome it, but cut down loses drastically, forces US either waste their ammo or go around (which itself won't destory defender, more effort is needed). Foxholes with topcover against trench, and out beloved foxhole will win. It gives stealth value at low cost and it's easy to achieve: Put blanket over foxhole, support it with few sticks and shovel some sand on it, then just pray that it will last (this is dirty cheap). Foxhole then can be made so that it gives good resistance to everything but direct hit from big shell, if one has capasity to put effort and resources to it. this can be issue in Syria, but there are locations where this is smart move to make. Expacely with everything which is related to AT, leaders, other heavy weapons systems which basically determes how battel turns out. And most of all: Combatant isn't forced to stay in his foxhole even if it has been constructed by using sweat(dear god!). They are not having heavy ironweights in their legs and sign in wall of foxhole saying: "Those who run will be shot. If that is not enough they will be shot again." Keep war as manuverous you want, but fact is: if there time and resources to make foxhole with topcover, then do it. When i take shovel to my hand and start digging, no one isn't taking my legs and vehicle because of that, right? But it's Battlefront's decicion. There's good reason that this ain't in top of their priority list. But still... Damn. This was long post. EDIT: And loaded with typos... As usual. [ January 20, 2008, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I just had this discussion last week. Deja Vu in english. Yes this is typical answer but i think that during last week i managed to counter that... Let's try again: Yeah. Have to admit that it ain't good way to defend several places, idea of isolation itself is bad, expacely if rest of the war is going bad. And if terrain such as in Syria, plenty of areas where vehicles can move (this is mind-set which is hard for me to understand). Capability to move out from fixed postions is important if situation seems to be such, "stand there and fight" applies maybe only to defences of Damascus and areas near it. Fortificating borderzone is truly worst idea i can think of (enemy has lots of ways to scout it for weeks or months, it can bring awful amount of firepower against it, plan carefully and use supprise). WW2 should have thought that already. Fortified postions should be deeper in-country. Example: A. Using 100 pieces of 155mm airbursts and going straight thru or B. bounding for weeks enemy positions while troops are tied down to encirclement or instead trying to break defence with assaults... Which one is more costly and timeconsuming + resource demanding to US? About 2003: Was it so that US suffered severe lack of manpower to protect secured area's and secure supply routes? Luckly for US Iraq wasn't able to use this as a advantage... Btw. What is Syria's defenceplan? Is it territorial defence? [ January 18, 2008, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Question is. How long would they have lasted if A. There would not have anykind fortifications. B. Strong enough fotification. I'm with understandment that they mostly were trenches during there. I could be wrong. Charts what i've seen, are telling that casing 60% casualities to troops in strongly fortified postions 100x100 meters area requires about 800-1000 grenades. Basically platoon would require about 1600-2000 grenades. Fortification are foxholes, with so called coverholes, enough to defeat atleast 81-82mm mortar's direct hit and maybe having also protective roof enough for fragments and bomblets (for spotters who's task is to watch the movement of enemy). + bunker were men live and having trenches enough to crawl from position to position. I don't know how old is that chart, but not from ww2 How long can supply keep up with use of required firepower, if enemy is determed and will stay in it's foxholes even when surrounded. I would quess Syria have terrotorial or local troops which idea is to hold the terrain they are given, tie down enemytroops and even fight isolated if such situation arises. Atleast during campaign i thought few times that Syria could have put better fight if it have had better fortifications than trenches, much more harder to destoy. I would have ran out of HE and HEAT of M1s and MGSs in no time. Now i could see trenches and just request indirect fire on top of it. Companyes were eliminated in few minutes thanks to that.

Problem is that those bunkers are visible to long distances. They make great practice targets (or decoys) for enemy. Foxhole with strudy roof, camoflage and supportstructres would be quite okay The kind which requires almost direct hit from big HE-shell to break. If that is undoable, then how about same kind trenches? It's unrealistic ofcourse, but they could back-up lack of proper foxholes. Does this fit to Syrian theme? Or do they use just open topped trenches?

I agree with this. If i see large amount of bushes in game i immediatly think that this is the worst kind bush-hell i've seen. But when starting to think things more carefully i come to conclusion that there are just 3 (small) bushes per 8x8 meter square. That is almost like open plain. Only thing i don't get is grain field's small impact on LOS ... Well anyways, it ain't that big thing in wide scale.

More i cast critical eye to CMSF more i find it to please me. I tend to think that battlefront has things somewhat in right order (i don't have the ultimate knowledge in this subject ) . Those few LOS issues with grain and such bit bothers me, but there might be problem with me and how i see things: 3 bushes for 8x8 meters ain't much, forexample.

Infact that might be the answer. No emotinal ties to the flag they (both) are carring in their shoulder. But heck! You don't want to be my private! ... Well you know what? That is cowardness and gets you to courtmartial. Now, AttachThatBayonetToYourRifleAndGoGetMeAMedal! GO-GO! I've earned all those medals and promotions which i missed because of that too-much-casualities-bull****... My superiours just are so miserable soft and weak.