Secondbrooks

Does Syria troops tend to freeze and is that hard-coded feature? I played own made scenario. It was dusk, and it was getting dark (07.00 PM) Syria vs Syria scenarion. ALL my infantrysquads, HMG-, AT-teams, bailed out vehiclecrews, all commanders freezed, and they didn't move atall, they just kept planningtheir waypoints. Only vehicles were capable to move around (= finishing their waypoint planning). This happened after about 30 minutes of scenario had passed. Same seemed to apply for opfor (Syrian rebublic guards), altought for them my AI plans were flawed: Reinforcement's setupzones in AI-plan didn't correspond to spot to where they arrived, freezing happened in about same moment opfor had their reinforcements. Personally i would doupt that it's those flawed AI-plans which then locked whole infantry AI waypoint system for both sides... But is that possible? I have savegame from that moment when they were frozed (if that does anygood). Scenario itself has been changed to work in daylight and flaws in AI plans have been fixed. After test run whole battle seemed to ran well, no freezing (atleast in that scale).

Hard to say. Guerilla tactics, which i'm familiar with, are this: -Bored convoy rolls along road. -*BANG* (there went mine/IED what ever). More *BANG*s and Ratatatatatatatatatat (this means sounds from guns, AT-launchers, more mines)+ Guerilla FO might be calling for indirect fire or grenades are on their way already. After 5-10 seconds Guerillas pull back, regroups and starts to humping to their hiding place (several (tens) kilometers away). While convoy's infantryelements tries to find their way thru antipersonel-mines to reach guerillas, if not reachind in short time (few minutes) then they return back to convoy. Convoy might have lost few vehicles and suffer some casualities if ambush went well, depending was ambushing element only platoon sized. Guerillacompany could have used bit different methods, even destory whole convoy if it's small enough. But if convoy would be backed up by mechaniced elements then guerillacompany would pull back quite a hastely and convoy's casualities could be marginal. That was that. Is that playable scenarion in CMSF? I doupt it. CMSF's Focus is in conventional warfare and battles, while guerillas tries to keep good distance to these, and hit when not expected (it's allways battlezone in CMSF, there's no boring 50 km long roads, but 2km of combatzone). EDIT: Of course guerillas can and will fight in conventional ways, but to they are doable in CMSF. No problems to me there. Some general things are lacking, like 'pull back', ambush, activelly changing firingpositions (this is vital for AT-teams) etc. It can be done but it requires lots of micromanaging, which i don't like. Some sort hard-coded combat drills could be good thing, or then not. [ December 20, 2007, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

CMSF's problem is campaign and setting. I don't like that after campaign casuality ratings were for me about 100 and for enemy several thousands. And 100 lost men is because i grew tired to manage my firepower and optimal movement routes in MOUT during last 1/3 of the campaign! That is not good. Syria just can't fight back. With US i can win pretty much all stock scenarios even if i do some pretty bad mistakes. Only casuality rate is which gets bigger, but not compromising success of mission. Strykers vs Republic Guard mech is only thing which can cause me slight worrying... But hey i still have Javelins! With Syria i have to do things almost perfectly and still i have to have plenty of luck! (in Allah's Fist-scenario forexample) And yet i suffer severe casulities and my unit most likely have lost all it's MBTs = unit will not fight back again. In MOUT things are different. But overall MOUT aspect just doesn't fit into game (that is my oppinion). I'm not into micromanagering squads or fireteams if i'm leading company or bigger unit. I like modern era and CMSF's simulationsystem altough i happen to think that it's bit too much consentrated to high tech and vehicle warfare, ignoring some pretty important and traditional infantry survival things. Problem is with setting: US hits hard and with sufficent numbers + with superior equipment, firepower and training almost everywhere and anyway... What if US would have LOST the war in Syria or started to pull back in middle of offence while Syria side would started it's counter offencive... Man, that would have spiced things up!

That seems to be pretty easy thing to do. My countrymen were killing each others in war and in POW camps, so-called red- and whiteterror. And also fighting againt communistic Russians which tried to support red communistic side. Plus Germans supporting white side. I can understand it. Nation was in middle of crossroads, with it's just received indepence. Hostilities were about to emerge (as they finally did) and compromises were impossible to fit in picture. I quess in Iraq there's samekind situation right now. I would count it more to be civilwar than just a war. ps. Sorry about douple post. [ November 19, 2007, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

That is just regular civilwar, nothing new Every country in civilwar and it's every freedom fighter group does the same. Friend or foe, no gray shades in between. Sadly.

I've read from somewhere official (or atleast qouting official) source that most hand-to-hand fights ends up in wrestling and then someone firing a gun. General order of what happens: 1. Melee ends up to be wrestiling in the floor or soil (no fancy karate or bayonet usage) 2. someone shoots someone. 3. Melee is over.

I would welcome idea of Syria wiping it's arse with this kind ROE and hammer capitalstic pigs as hard and long (not that long afterall)as they can.

So... HE is Anti-tank? I thought that HE would be antipersonel. Like this from that document i have: Conserning AT: Infact: I haven't found mentions about any AT rounds for RPGs. Only AT rounds i can think of would be "hardnose" HEATs which penetrate reactive cells and such with their "hardnose" before detonating their shaped charge to penetrate rest of the armor. But i have heard only one heavy recoiless gun to have these kind grenades. conserning antipersonel: so: Are you sure we are speaking of same thing? Cause i understand that round your talking about is purely antipersonel. [ October 29, 2007, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

This is what i've read. Got it from Globalsecurity. Acording troops in field (this was done by interviews i believe). Slat was averagely about 50% effective againt all types of RPGs shot at them. It was said to them that 9 out of 11 will be defeated, before they were sent to Iraq. It had zero effectivity against RGP rounds functioning like AT (= armorpiercing). I'm not sure are these present in CM:SF. Naturally slat could defeat HE round, but it posed serious threat to those who were not inside vehicle. To CM:SF I've seen M2 and M3 withstand many shots from RPG-7s, they might cause penetration, but usually Bradley keeps on fighting. Very tough opponents indeed. If my well armed platoon (4 RPGs, full loads of grenades) ambushes platoon of bradleys, theres usually 1 or 2 bradleys which are still fighting back when my men have used all their grenades. Most grenades have hit the bradleys and they were shot from high angles. I've seen Strykers survining in fighting condition against various HEAT warheads (but it's more like 5-10%). Penetration usually comes with serious casualities. I tend to believe that penetration kills cargo way too easily and maybe slat ain't as effective as it should be. Bradley might be almost fine altough, i haven't searched anykind records about it. When i do get possibility to station my men to foxholes with roofs or enable proper AT-drills (like hit-and-run or shoot-and-change-position) in MOUT, this Stryker-thing can be fixed EDIT: Damn AT and AP i always mix them together! AP != AT round but AP = HE. I shall repeat this thousands of times to make it sure that i will remember in comming days. Why do you english invent such stupid words as these. I don't know how many times i've been fooled. Back to real life: Also when Strykers were hit something like 9 times with RPGs it most likely that there were many HE (antipersonel = AP) rounds involved. [ October 29, 2007, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

My guys were seeing their own. Played Baker_1_1 (knocked out M1 and immobilized M1 during night/dusk) on elite and guys were shooting at nothing. Maybe couple of times they tried to shoot friendlies, one pesky SAW "i-gun-my-friends" gunner to be presice... Luckily he shot high above targets. But usually they were shooting to air with out any specific target: they sprayed a short but intense hail of lead to somewhat wide area. I saw this happening three or four times during mission. These "loosetrigger" fellows didn't see any action during mission, they were just watching-and-watching my other flank in middle of palmtrees... Maybe those palms tricked them or they got bored? Funny thing is that it looked like other guys inside or ontop of buildings didn't shoot like that... I have newest version. This 1.04

John Kettler: there should be system which defeats flames automatically, but of course if there's big external fueltank on fire, it might be that the system can't defeat as there's too much fuel to burn. Other thing is what chechens (most likely written wrong) were after might have been cooling system of engine. It should result as mobility kill eventually (might take minutes). T-72 should be pretty resistant against flames as it has diesel engine... Unlike early models of T-80s or other vehicles with turbine engine. But like you said, flames are not something that tankers would want to see and it might run them in panic. Well... I've read more about T-80 in grozny, i don't know much about T-72's performace in there. Infact, i didn't know about molotovs coctails... I thought that they would have used old Afgantrick: "pack of napalm attached to RPG-7's warhead" (God, i worship this idea + additional TNT packs too)

MBTs external fuelcan's were puntured with smallarms fire and then ignited. Not sure did this result crew to bail out or/and mobilitykill or/and just eased RPG-gunners job other ways, like flames and smoke preventing crew to open fire against AT-team.

I did wonder why i like to read these forums when day has gone badly. Jolly good.

Maybe Sagger teams should have RPG's but they should be sepparate teams, not directly attached to Sagger-team. SPG-teams could be another case. But still usually RPGs would be separated from SPGs. They take care of those spots which can't be reached with ATGMs or SPGs... Oh well, what do i know of Syrian ways... Nothing.

12. Foxholes with roofs. This is somewhat necessary because of mid-air bursts. 13. Men don't keep their distances in formation. Squad easily spreads out into about 50 meters line, currently in CM:SF it's more like about 20 meters line. one HE-shell kills them all or atleast most.

I think it's upto bandwitch, CM:SF seems to be very heavy already in batallion scale (atleast my computer drops to it's knees and ask for mercy or relieving bullet), how well it performs in largescale multiplayer scenarions as in RT it should be, or i don't see point in this whole thing. But personally i would be happy to lead platoon sized force aswell, as long as it's has about 6-10 subunits (teams, squads, vehicles). so even 8-12 players company vs. company would be intresting... Requesting mortarfire and airstrikes to my CO's neck.

this is problem in wilderness mostly. If we consider that each man has 5-10 meters distance to man next to him when in combat (offence or defence), we are getting quite close of actual distances. Against opponent which is using anything fragmenting things, like MBT's maincannon, this thing seems to have big importance. Not sure how important aspect this is in grandscale, but seems that it renders infantry very vulnereable to enemy fire. Don't know is this limitation of engine... Hopefully not. ps. Foxholes would be great too. That trench is so... vulnereable to those exploding+fragmenting things.

Kinda hard to understand that squad in defence is stacked in ~10 meter line, hopefully that will get repaired. No wonder they are wiped out by single HE-shell.

My left part of brain says: Yes. My dog says: Wuf. My right part of brain says: Yes.

I doupt that it would work, atleast very good. We all have our own history and own armies which have fought against other European armies... Somehow i'm bit sceptical about commercial success How many Finns (yes you who read this post!) would buy CM:SF module: A. If it had Sweden in sceptical future conflict against some third world country? B. Otherwise same as A, but now Finns are in role of OpFor? C. Sweden and Finland fight side-by-side against third world contry... Sorry... I'm gonna puke. No offence to Sweden or it's army, this is just how things are (or atleast how i think they are). -Laws of nature. -You can't foster monkey-baby, can you. -My dad is better/bigger/meaner/richer than yours. -Toyota is better than Volkswagen, but Mercedes is best. You should've got the idea already...

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for French too. Legendary French Forgein Legion is most reason for it. Equipment is intresting. In Steel Panthers II and III i mostly played with French or Soviets, i quess samething would goes with CM:SF too in my personal taste...

True, true. They pick up weapons, but only if they are near and have time to do that... or atleast that way it seems to work.

Overall our (finns) refresment traning has dragged behind the intented amount whole time after ww2. For NCOs and officers the amount is 100 days of refresment traning in whole time while being in reserves... That would mean 5 days for every year during 20 years (of course there's still lovely 20 years in reservetimes ahead, but old guys in that age aren't much fit to fight anymore). For privates and such the amount was maybe 75 days. Amount of days used in average is much less... like said earlier by undead reindeer cavalry.

Problem with Syria is also that they seem to run out of bullets sooner than US. Maybe they do conserve their fire more than US? Even Syrian SF seems to run out of bullets very soon. Jep: mostly militaries seems to be getting intrested in buying optics for their weapons. But well... Who has the money to do that in one night. Lasersimulators most likely will (or has) awaken most armies to this fact. Question is: How many more important things there are to invest? And how fast can low level officer, who sees the advantage of optics in combatsimulations, turns that old general's head (who has shot with iron sights all his life). I wrote badly about that trench thing: So i try to present it like this Dug-in platoon should be able to repel attack of company (with similar equipment, organization(?), level of personel). So: Syrian militiaplatoon in defence can repel attack of Syrian militiacompany. But can it repel attack of superioirly better opponent, which has advantage on atleast equipement (firepower) and personel (training and experience)? Does the 3x rule in defence need also better terrain (more camoflage + extra cover) for defender than attacker? this i don't know. Now when attcker is far superior in atleast two terms (equipment and quality of personel), coulnd't we consider that attacking force(US) has big advantage/overpower over defender. So basically: 1 platoon versus 2-3 companies. This is complicated thing of which i don't have education to disguss in (atleast) english or with hard based facts.

Sorry but this is blatantly wrong. When somebody shoots at that distance nice optic does not give you anything. To put it simple, US troops should not be able to defeat syrian troops. It does not matter how well trained participants are (better training does not help when your opponent do nothing but shoot you from covered position). Infact US soldiers should promptly refuse to even consider assault like this. Also, bigger firepower (Javelins etc.) does not help when your troops cannot use those weapons. Really, experience should be modelled better. No country would train militia if they would not work. If nothing else, they should be given experience bonus because it is easy to defend. I think same goes with optical sights. </font>