[Holiday Bones, Norman Style]

Well, as we all know, Wikipedia is the be all and end all of well-researched articles on obscure military facts.

Sources on the Chinese experience with both bolt action and semi-automatic weapons would be interesting. The fewer variables to consider the better.

Umm... How about Finnish thing i posted earlier?

Here's bit what i could find:

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/RIFLES4.htm

Finnish troops captured over 3,000 SVT-38 rifles during Winter War. Additional 17,000 SVT-38 and SVT-40 were captured during early part of Continuation War. These rifles were very popular among Finnish troops (hundreds were estimated being taken home as war souvenirs), which often took immediately captured Tokarev rifles to their own use. Sniper versions of both Tokarev rifles were very rare finds among weaponry captured by the Finns. However shortage of spare-parts was constant problem with these rifles, so before end of Continuation War over 14,000 of them had been handed over by the troops that had captured them and warehoused. Most of these rifles had ended to warehoused because of worn barrels and/or other broken parts and waited repairs, which were never done. One of the reasons behind these numerous breakages might have been Finnish ammunition (with 13-gram/200-grain D166 bullets), which most certainly wasn't designed for them. January of 1945 Finnish military ordered all not fit-for-combat Tokarev rifles to be scrapped. In 1950's remaining Tokarev rifles were used for training and some were repaired. Even plans about using their parts for new domestic automatic rifle surfaced. But as intentions focused to assault rifles the whole plan for domestic automatic rifle was buried. Year 1958 remaining Tokarev rifles were declared obsolete and sold abroad around 1959 - 1961.

While Tokarev automatic rifles seem to have been popular among Finnish soldiers during World War 2, Finnish Army wasn't quite as impressed about these rifles. Official wartime Armed Forced Ordnance Department report notes that while benefits of automatic rifle (vs. common bolt-action rifle) are obvious, durability and reliability of these captured rifles for combat use was still considered poor. The report lists following details:

Structure of the rifle stock is very weak. Almost all of these rifles handed over by the troops that captured them have broken stocks.

Receiver of the rifle is weak, it bends or even breaks easily.

If the cartridge chamber is dirty or corroded even in minor extent, the weapon will fail to extract used cartridge case. (Writer's note - rather harsh text, failure to remove used cartridge case is the typical problem for these rifles, but the harsh tone suggests that ammunition was not necessarily correct or gas-regulator setting may have been false).

Piston rod may slip from the piston preventing the bolt closing.

Sod and other remains of burned gunpowder will make the gas piston very dirty and (without proper maintenance) it will rust, making its removal impossible.

The gas-regulator adjustment may move on its own.

If attachment of the gas-regulator is too tight, it may distort the barrel.

Parts between individual rifles are not compatible.

When very worn, the rifle may go full-auto when fired.

Reliability of the rifle depends, how strong it is hold by the shooter. If hold loosely the rifle tends to work less reliably.

Finnish Army captured also few hundred select-fire AVT-40 rifles (mainly in summer of 1944) and as with other Tokarev rifles Finnish troops usually took them immediately to their own use. In Finland these rifles got the same fate as Tokarev semiautomatics. Finnish troops captured also small number of SVT-40 sniper rifles. As Finnish troops suffered constant acute shortage of sniper rifles these were pressed immediately to their own use. As usual the soldiers, who captured them also took many of the captured SVT-40 sniper rifles home as "war souvenirs".

Underline added by me.

[Holiday Bones, Norman Style]

Secondbrooks I'll see your rifles and BAR and raise you an MG-42 an MP-40, the odd MP-44 and Kar 98K's all firing smokeless ammo. Talking of the M1's effectiveness is there any data to show its superiority over the bolt action models?

What's that Secondbrooks? You'll see my MG and raise me a Platoon of M-4's a battery of 105's and a brace of P-38/47's!! But that's not fair!!

Looking forward to seeing if and how BF simulate the different tactical doctrines of the opposing infantry and will we have beaten zones for our MG's? Essential if you are to replicate the typical German defensive bocage layout. Talking of that will we have the infantry able to dig firing posts through the earthen banks? Oh and will AT guns, who have been pre-placed, have a concealment bonus? Oh and.... etc etc

I don't believe that MP-44 did have any considerable impact in Summer -44. If i'm wrong that changes the balance some what.

Semi-automatic rifles were loathed weapons, SVT Tokarevs left in field end up in hands of Finnish soldiers pretty much as rule (having same cartridge in their service bolt-action rifles so switch was painless).

Simple scenario: MG-42 gunner is shooting. Some guy with M1 spots it, takes aim and starts to fire. MG gunner understands that he has been spotted and shot at. He takes cover. Rifle guy keeps firing that spot. MG gunner either presses down in his cover or changes place. M1 guy received temporary superiority over MG-42 guy, while MG-42 is temporarily out of action. Ofcourse this is simple scenario. Determed MG-gunner might "ignore" threat and keep up firing and changing positions in haste manner and even survive that.

Theory behind it:

Rifles are accurate enough to have good point target effect to close ranges (lets say under or bit above 100 meters). Scoped ones has that to long ranges. Suppression is gained by rapid accurate enough shots in few seconds. Best and pretty much only description i've had for it: few shots with if few seconds (gaining suppression at target), after that one shot in every few seconds (keeping suppression up). Semi-automatic rifles can achieve that easily, bolt-locked rifles can keep up suppression, but gaining it will be harder. And German rifle has to be reloaded quite often.

MG's are good in area and point targets. Up to long ranges. But in Bocage guys are mostly working in close ranges. So pretty much every guy if he isn't armed with pistol is capable to deliver enough fire at point targets.

So that is the math. Naturally there's motivation stuff and human-mind stuff involved. Reason why most fearsome soldiers typically are favored to man weapons with most firepower (or as their leaders). I don't expect Germans to be different, so that MG might come back into firefight in rather fast tempo.

If we take CMSF approach it is rather clear (atleast to me) that weapons such as PK, M240 or M249 aren't that super when they get under fire from close range, user will be rendered useless atleast for sometime. M1 isn't that great as AK or M4, but i'd say that it's almost twice as effective as Kar98 when it comes to rate of fire for short moments. So i don't think Germans would have any considerable edge in firepower but both sides are rather egual. German might have superiority if they manage to keep up MG-42 firing but if they loose it then US side has edge.

My answer is that i necessarily won't need M-4s or 105mm or planes. But they would do good for me... If i have capacity to use them safely

[Holiday Bones, Norman Style]

Don't forget the effects of the bocage on CAS, both calling in the strikes, aquiring the targets from the air and conducting basic BDA's. Also the thick foliage and high banks severely reduced the effects of shrapnel and blast from any HE weapon.

Tanks became trapped in such terrain denying them the ability to manoeuvre, and what is a tank without mobility, useless. If they did try to flank any MLR they had to be escorted by infantry and Normandy showed how basic the allies doctine was, in that respect.

It was not just the horrible terrain the Allies faced, it stripped them of their weapon superiority, in terms of close support, all but eliminated their advantage in numbers and exposed tactical failings in terms of combined operations. Not only that, it concealed the Germans lack of close support, mitigated greatly the failings of the absurd command structure the Germans operated under, playing to their Kampfgruppe ad-hoc specialities. Finally it played to the German superiority in terms of MG's, with their high rate of fire ideal for engaging the fleeting targets typical in such terrain and thie disposable anti-tank systems, that required point blank engagement ranges to be effective.

Finally, talking of MG's and the bocage, I remember the famous GI quote about how close the Germans were to them, in such terrain. "Oh we're close enough to reach through the hedgerow and put the safety on, on their spandau's".

I'd expect it behave similary like MOUT in CMSF. Small combat zones which has restricted LOS/LOF outside, restricted movement of heavier weaponsystems restricted indirect firepower etc. Like Sergei said. In historical context bocages aren't that different. Stalingrad's urban areas, forest combat etc.

Personally i'd expect US small units to do rather fine in game as they have automatic rifles which does double their rate of fire compared to bolt locked rifles. I don't know what will German squads be, probably one LMG and one SMG while rest having mausers. Heck would be interesting to see how Soviet SMG squad would fare in CM: Normandy's tight bocages You have like 8-10 guys with drum magazines and foul attitude giving ugly amount of lead to short distances in short amount of time. Hmm... Steve what about some extra-features like this?

[Holiday Bones, Norman Style]

Well, I just hope that CM2 Normandy comes out soon and helps me forget CM 1. CMSF just never did anything for me.

Yeah. Tell me about it. I got digital copy. A digital copy! That doesn't bring me my shoes or make me lunch.

Anyways trenches with FOW and all does sound really nice... And i'm late from work because i finally read this thread thru. Feck.

[Crazed idea for AI improvement?]

I disagree (and agree with Plugger) that trigger would be eventually require considerable AI (re-)programming.

What basically is needed:

1. A trigger with certain area (or not area at all!) with condition to get activated.

2. What it does when it gets activated.

3. Will it repeat it self or execute it self just once.

4. Possible timer which counts to zero and then trigger gets activated.

I've personally played around a lot with this kind triggers in games and those fill most needs. Main problem which is see arising is that does CMSF have somesort "open" scripting language which scenario makers can use? But then again CMSF shouldn't require very complete scripting language. Maybe it doesnt' need such at all as scenario maker doesn't need very complete control over the game... Like turning T-90 on it's roof, or wait that M1 looses it's track and then blow it up. No need for sophisticated victory or loosing conditions either, or ability to create cut-scenes. CMSF's trigger would just need to tell that something should start moving to somewhere when some condition gets fulfilled... [i'm having massive brain-surge here!] Maybe trigger might have just it's own AI plan which it adopts to desired group when it's condition gets fulfilled? Cant' get simpler than that! We have groups and we have plans, now we would need just trigger which works as locker for additional plans. My God I'm Genius!

I don't expect that this kind simple trigger structure would be made overnight, but in a week?

[Current state of CM:SF (AI&quick battle)]

Problem with QBs mostly, from what i can tell, is that there's only one group handled by AI... So rifle platoon and Tank platoon will move across same route or set up in same area. Which of course generates quite odd results. And usually QBs are more or less saddening experiences, atleast i don't remember when i last time felt enjoyment of playing QB.

Without increasing AI groups and making them "dedicated" (forexample: Group 1 being tanks, Group 2 being infantry, Group 3 being AT-assents... Or something) i can't see that system could be much improved even with smart AI planning: How does one plan well when he has to issue same setup positions for tanks, APCs, IFVs, ATGMs, riflesquads, MGs etc??? Just hoping that future titles will tune QB system to this (or similar) direction.

Or am i (once again) ill-informed about fact that QBs uses just one group in it's plan?

[Infantry/Tank cooperation in CM Normandy.]

Take combined arms principles directly from leadership rating? Seems okay solution.

I must admit that i really don't know does CMSF have somesort information sharing between different formations (like Syrian SF Plt HQ and Mech inf BMP) if they have time and enough short range... I think there has been talk about it, but really can't tell is it in current CMSF.

On the other hand, CO's that are poorly rated, have low morale or the tanks are buttoned, cannot communicate with the tanks. Therefore the tanks have to acquire targets on their own or use area fire.

Basically this is already in game, which you probably already know (my apologies in that case). Hiding and buttoning are one of many-many factors which affects command radius' quality and range. Platoon hiding in buildings possibly being slightly suppressed from enemy fire are not able to communicate at all from ranges where in open (being not hiding or suppressed) they could communicate very well, see and hear what their PL and SLs do and say/yell. Opening hatches and sticking head out improves lots of situational awareness for vehicles + there ofcourse are radios for vehicle's crew and vehicle's cargo and then those radios which infantry carries when they are dismounted... If they happen to have any radios for dismounts. In which case best spot for PL could be in vehicle overwatching his troops from there. For Syrians that is usually only way for company's/battalion's headman and platoon's headmen to communicate with each of other and keep situational information up-to-date. So it's already pretty complete.

Things which possibly are not are that units from different formations doesn't communicate. AND that, by my understandment, each '?' mark is just '?'-mark without any kind special characteristics... So there won't be 'Tiger-?'- or '88-?'-marks in current game code.

[Night Advantage]

Secondbrooks thanks for that insight on your experiences with NVGs.

Id love to get my hands on some thermals just to look at the world through them,must be a cool little feeling of excitement when your about to whip those bad boys out.I wonder what other kind of "visions" are in the makings and could be applied in today's world.

As for the game,you brought up a good point.I would love to see flares in game somehow for night battles.Maybe as an option for artillery or maybe when a squad comes under fire or spots the enemy they can automatically pop a flare up in the enemy direction.Flares could be different colors also.

Just dreaming but it would be a cool feature.

I've seen just armors to halt, wait for a minute of two and start moving again as laser-missile hits their laser-receiver and tank crew gets informed they just got hit and they need to take break. Everyone lives happily ever after. I don't wish to pretend that i'm some sort of combat veteran.

Aside of common NVGs and thermals, there's also UV-specter which is being used. I don't know is it used in any other form than in flying vehicles for recon porpuses. Basically it's good in sense that it shows things in different color. Camo-net's color and pattern might seem to fit well in terrain for normal vision's wavelenght, but in UV-spectre it might stand out like sore thumb. So generally it means that camo-nets and paints needs to be researched and developed with bit more thought... Or increasing use of natural materials to camo stuff.

[Night Advantage]

Well in theory yes and I'm sure the Allied forces would and are taking full advantage of night time conducting raids and assaults and all kinds of operations.At night in some cases all they need to do is point a laser at the target and instantaneously everyone knows where to shoot including gunships, no need to yell out the position.

But from some stories some soldiers say the NVGs are a pain in the ass and could be better.Maybe there's some soldiers on these forums with experience that could answer that question with some good facts on the advatages and disadvantages the Forces must deal with at night.

Cloudy night already can be enough to give almost zero advantage from them based on my experiences and what i've read and hear. Blackness with some shapes and shades turns just to greenness with some shapes and shades, then "ooopps i'm falling down from cliff". Well i didn't see much reason to use NVGs much. They are either not much better to bother (enough light to see decently, or not enough for NVGs to give anything. If there was snow i could see enough well even at cloudy nights), sometimes it was just laziness and most of all i had thermal-optics next to me when i needed really to see something

Yeah gear i mostly used wasn't most modern. Some early-middle 90s stuff. No attachments to head, so it was held as binoculars. Some drivers had more modern one in testing which could be attached to head and offered tube for one eye only. They were somewhat happy to have those, but tunnel vision and problems with distance estimation were downfalls. Those were put into test just before i finished my service so i didnt' have opportunity to test those. I don't know did drivers use "war-lights" which offers small amount of light to see bit better which then again boosts NVG's abilities.

Best NVG-stuff i had were hand held thermals. I mean i actually could lead my use of fire by my gunner during nights. With typical NVGs i saw few hundred meters of pure greeness with some shades, with thermals i did see opfor tanks in 1 kilometer clearly.

But yeah, forexample in urban setting (in darkened barracks ) NVGs were pretty nice. Mostly problems in field were that we might have had one open sector to which ATGM was pointing with it's thermals, and other directions were cowered with forest. My place of service has big deal with it: If there was snow it gave enough ability to see with bare eyes and binocs, during summers sun might be on sky 24/7. No problems there. Snow was on ground for 6 months. early falls and late springs with cloudy nights did offer major problems to see with bare eye (but it wasn't that rosy with NVGs either). Lots of factors there, ofcourse size and position of moon is one too. Plus we didn't do as forexample Russians are/were expected to do that they use spotlights at sky which then mirrors to ground and offers enough lumination for their NVGs.

So some sort of experiences i had with them, which are mostly from one role as ATGM SL. So for me they had limited use, at nights i liked to double-check ATGM's firing sector with them when scouting for it's next firing position. I'm sure current NVGs which are in service are much better.

EDIT: As i was part of jaegerplatoons (=rifleplatoons) during NCO-course they used flares etc when they were issued ones (not too often) and those were great, and it looked funky when such slowly travels over trees and throws shadows in creepy fashion. Ofcourse their use is limited for enemy contacts so they offer great visibility boost in limited situations and one needs lots of them, one "pipe" (something like 5x30cm pipe or larger ones) lasted merely 30-60 seconds. Flaregun's flares much less. Never saw what kind flares mortars have. But lack of those is major reason why i don't see reason to play night-time battles at least as or against Syrians if expecting some realistic(-ish) out of it.

[Area fire option]

well i didnt said i have a solution to a certain problem i just said how he can get almost the same effect in the game right now. i never said its compftable or perfectly made for that!

Yes. It's not THAT important, but it is one of the features i'd like to see to improve. My sin is poor fire-management, lately as Bradley's and such are good on causing friendly fire i use it even less.

Well if speaking of total overhauls and total wishful thinking, i'd like to see similar system for direct fire as there are for indirect fire. I set area's. point targets, linear targets at which TacAI chooses by my choices (lets say heavy here, light there, bit of peppering there) who fires at what. Dunno how it would owrk, do i need to assign firing units or can TacAI make those dessisions so that i can be mostly pleased with them... It's probably hard job to code that ability to TacAI, but i think it could be somewhat doable if player assigns firing units.

So basically i could put companys vehicles and MG's to their position assign them as firing units in base-of-fire (or something), then plan targets lien linear target with light firepower to this three line, circular area target with heavy firepower to that field, point target heavy to that building. And then give them order to fire... Yeah... I guess it wouldn't work, but hey i can dream that they would use their fire mostly as i'd like (which in reality probably wouldn't happen).

[Area fire option]

well thats quiet simple to do allready. i call it the "area fire dance".

looks like this, depending on armament you can give less(105/120/125mm)or more(12.7/14.5mm) pause in between target changes.

As a sidenote i don't like to dance, even in CMSF. Going straight for business is nicer.

So ideal case would be that i don't need to insert those waypoints, less button-clicks. I could make my T-72 to fire multiple targets for minute(s) and they could use 12.7mm MG at one target and maingun and it's coax at another. By that way both targets are under fire all the time. Or firer could be swifting it's fire between targets based on TacAIs choosings and available armament. So forexample MG teams or Strykers might swift their fire between targets and riflesquad might use teams to suppress different positions. Or something like that.

I don't know is it really that important (not counting easiness of use here). As Blackcat i too am bit sceptical about it's ability to suppress and kill anything. So end results might mostly just be loads of powder burned with minimal results. Syrian tanks are up-to it, thanks to their HE-load and 12.7mm MG, but are they only ones?

EDIT: Oh! many have written before me (i such a slob) and all seems to have same feeling about firepower. Oh yeah. 40mm is pretty vicious... Haven't player with Strykers in long time so i have already forgot how vicious the are with 40mm.

[Area fire option]

Was about to say that it's not good because firepower way too easily gets distributed to large area than it's capable of suppressing, but came to different conclusion. Could be pretty useful. Most tanks have lots of firepower, which doesn't get used (atleast by me). And many times they use too much fire at one particular position.

Or maybe it could be possible to give multiple area targets?

[Urban Warfare > opinions with latest modules]

I love it. Played some of the scenarios for original CMSF and urban fighting is really hellish because of all retreating enemies. Even when I have two platoons pushing forward with Stryker support I keep entering empty houses where I previous engaged enemies, only to be shot at from across the street, making any kind of offensive movement quite hazardous. I can't put suppressive fire THROUGH a house after all.

I've even started taking to putting down (retardedly) danger close fire missions, shelling the next row of buildings into dust while I assault the enemy's previously occupied building, hoping to either catch them in the street or kill them as they enter the next house.

Yup. At best it's time blood and ammo consuming process to try to clear enemy from mazed city-blocks. Much-much better than before.

[Sniper Team Idea]

Interesting question... I'm highly supporting for implementing heavy and light cover arches. heavy and light indicating what weapons they would use. There are lots of cases where i really would like them to either use their fire more heavily or less heavily. But i can live without it. Cover arches are best for spotting, ambushing and overwatching jobs, when firefight is started i tend to use just face commands and let them to pick targets on their own. In turn-based mode using cover arches has backfired quite often.

[Terrain vs cover & concealment]

Lets face it. Cover values are a fudge. Why should the 1m sq under a soldier matter more than the 300m to the shooter? In CM1 that's why it was there and why it could be displayed.

In CM2 the bullets trajectory from shooter to shot is tracked through all the intervening objects - this is what has the greatest effect.

Yup. I often get Kornet's missile to blowup about 10 meters from launcher, which isn't funny as it can be lethal

One advice for OP: Do not issue them target orders if there trees in way of shooter and target. Let them make their own decisions, because they know much better that does projectiles have change to hit the target or tree in way. They still will hit trees more or less often, but if you see that forexample ATGM-team doesn't open fire at tank which they see, they very likely does have good reason for it.

I've also managed to decimate my own Syrian special force guys by setting them into tree line and forcing T-55 behind them to open fire thru that line of trees.

EDIT: Okay going back to topic from semi-off-topic. I'm finding that CMSF doesn't offer such cover as CMx1 does offer... Sure partially it is because of increased firepower, but i still am not totally sure is 1:1 scale really good thing in modelling realistic cover&concealment stuff. Partially because AI isn't that bright to use it. Sure 1:1 scale has tons of good stuff which comes along with it, so it's not reasonable to ditch idea just because cover&concealment doesn't work that well. Just wondering this... Or do people see that 1:1 is great or even perfect system also with cover&concealment stuff?

[Terrain vs cover & concealment]

And trees forms excellent anti-tank cover. If you face armored vehicle inside woods, expect lots of branch hits from AT-projectiles.

Overall forests are much more hard to use tactically than with CMx1. I guess i', getting enough experience to counter most draw backs, but i remember that right from start they were headache.

[Rocky Terrain question]

Haven't used them much. But there was one quick battle i took last week and because no other cover was available i set my men (=Syrian airborne) into rocky tiles. Men were able to take fair amout of beating. One team managed to take minute of shooting from T-90 and BMP-2 without casualties!, after that they evaded and remained full strenght. They even had BMP-3 cooking off behind them

Sure they were in top of the ridge (slightly behind it's top) so hitting them overall was hard, distances weren't that great, around 500 meters. One thing which i wonder is rocks and extreme heat. I had understrenght company worth of men on that ridge, distance ranging from 400-700 meters from enemy's front and they remained invisible to enemy for about 30 minutes (except that one team). I really wasn't counting on it, but were sure that they need to pull back from that ridge soon.

[Artillery absurdity]

And, FWIW, I suspect Secondbrooks was wrong about the OIF thing too ... or perhaps misunderstood what he read. Adjusting with 1 RFFE is not the same as "artillery and mortars were used usually with out spotting rounds, so FO called fire-for-effect instantly."

Yup. That is probably my mistake. actual sentence used was: "1st round FFE" and "1st Round Fire for Effect Was the Norm", when describing about Paladin and FIST.

Blackcat:

There were mentioned in document named:

Fires in the Close Fight:

OIF Lessons Learned

[Small Arms ammunition sharing...a idea !]

All i would desire are ammo caches. So light infantry troops without vehicles could fill their ammo also.

I agree that for realistic modelling sharing or even carrying some ammo for others would work well. I've read after action reports where there has been company's worth of men running between "ammo caches" and assault element (size of platoon) for several hours. Hauling hand greandes and already filled drum magazines for SMGs as assault element slowly works it's way thru network of trenches. But is it practical for game? In wargame that assault element would have died very soon. Besides i hate the concept of managing fire of my teams and squads, so need of ammo refill is smaller (USMC squad filled with ammo from AAVP or truck doesn't seem to run dry ever under my command)... In that way i'm pretty common gamer i'd presume.

[Artillery absurdity]

"The mission was to inflict maximum blue personnel casualties, so I aimed a full basic load on the blue dismounts, emergency, heavy, immediate, area target, 75mm radius."

You called an emergency fire mission and think it is noteworthy that the resultant strike was 150m off target? Jeez, I have never had an emergency mission land on-target and I only play blue against the AI (I am not sure I'll ever forgive Battlefront for dropping WEGO TCPIP).

I have also had a majority of bad experiences using 60mm mortars. Nine times out of ten they are are off-target by 50-100 metres.

Which is somewhat funny as from what i've read from OIF it seems that artillery and mortars were used usually with out spotting rounds, so FO called fire-for-effect instantly.

Even poorer equipped mortars (no computers) and FOs (no GPS) seems to be enough accurate without spotting rounds shot. I'd quess thatit's rule of thumb that 100 meters is the maximum distance which impact zone's center will go off from target. Well that depends of distance and naturally map's accuracy and scale (1:50 000 or higher might not be ideal anymore for getting accurate coordinates ) if i recall correctly. So that rule of thumb might closer to optimal than sub-optimal conditions.

[Artillery absurdity]

I understand that every spotter in every game is not going to be dead on with all fire missions. But two in a row in a pbem really frustrated me. I guess my question is should I expect this on the majority of my games using the Syrian forces or is this a stroke of bad luck with 2 misfires back to back. I just want to know how much effort I should put into relying on artillery when playing the Red side. Any input is appreciated. Thanks.

I think that with Syrians and with some US troops (lack of GPS or something) also it's good idea to get rounds into area where FO can clearly see.

-If there's just small visible spot in forest at which FO uses as target there are changes that rounds go off.

-Same with landscape, trying to target rounds into high hill peaks which other side in not in LOS of spotter has same issue.

So one should try to judge that does FO see area around desired impact zone enough well. This is my belief because in both cases i've seen sometimes that rounds can land to totally another location. It could be due other factors, like smoke and suppression which i have not been aware of. I can't tell.

But i can say that lately i haven't seen misfires anymore, because i try to evade situations mentioned above. Well i don't much use Syrian arty anyways, because when FO can give fire-for-effect for arty battle usually is already finished. And if it's quick battle with 35 minutes time limit i don't have time for waiting tubes to respond anyways.

[A different CMx2 "problem"]

Nah, for invasions we prefer Estonia, which we've been raiding for the last 18 years for Finnish export beer. The good thing about Estonians is that they understand Finnish IF YOU SPEAK LOUD.

Estonian spirit. Man goes to Estonia for one day trip and doesn't see clear day in a month. :cool:

[Noticed something remarkable on RAF Regt. and RM Commando Ma Deuces]

Does M2 have changeable barrel?

NSV is quite a beast also. From what i've heard dedicated MG-gunners should be able to nail oil barrels from 1500 meters during their few weeks lasting training time on it.

I never had change to fire live rounds with it.

[1.21 Fast and Quick moves]

To put a little perspective on this in terms of numbers:

Average speed for a marathon winner is about 42,000 / 7680 = 5.5 m/s

Usain Bolt averages about 100 / 9.5 = 10.5 m/s

Granted, grunts are neither marathon winners nor the lightning Bolt, and an average jog is quite a bit slower than a winning marathon run. My opinion is that speed and fatigue are OK in CMSF for game purposes, whether completely realistic or not. Also remember that the same parameters apply to both sides in this case, so there isn't really any advantage either way. Like playing football in the rain, you can't really complain about it because after all, it's raining on the other team as well...

I was abou to post this earlier but decided not to. So i'm gonna post it now

I'd think that encumbarance affects more to sprint than jog/run. I dont' have anything to prove it, but that is my understandment. heavier the load, more tiring and slower the sprint is (it's not spring anymore ). Unlike with jogging/running, there one will not suffer as much from heavy weight. Atleast that was my impression with various weights.

But here is one thing and because i've been whining so much lately i decided to not to post it. But now i do post it, however not in whining mind: US grunt probably has weight around 30 kg on him as plain combat gear and water. M203, SAW, AT4 guys has more, i think it's even over 40kg. So he is heavily loaded. Uncon or Syrian grunt has load around 10-15. They technically could sprint (heavily on anaerobic level) much more faster and longer based on my speculations.

On quick (which i see as running on border lines of aerobic-anaerobic level) there might not be such big difference, US troops suffers from 30% penalty on fatigue while Syrian suffers penalty of 10-15%. While they still move practically at same speed: Syrian runs around 220 meters in minute, while US guy bit less than 200 meters in minute. Not much isn't it? If US guy tries run faster (for example 220 meters in minute) he will exhaust much sooner but at that rate they both will exhaust as fast. This if they both would have similar physical fitness level. Kenneth H. Cooper anyone? Yeah i applied bit theory about overweight and it's effect on Cooper's famous test.

Naturally this on track. Wilderness is whole another funky thing

[Artillery absurdity]

One thing seems clear: If you order up a quick battle and play Red special forces, the engine will give you a crappy FO, and only a crappy FO. This is questionable from a TOE POV, but it might explain why it's taking so long for my Syrian commandos to call down fire.

Organic 81mm mortar with elite experience with Elite Syrian Special Forces FO (in company level)... Time should be around 5 minutes. We are talking about cream of the cream here with great kit. If they would be veteran and i'd expect time to rise to 7 or 8 minutes.

Mean while regular US marine grunt (his team leader died) will be able to call his battalion's 81mm mortars faster. Company's 60mm mortars much faster... Compared even to Elite level Syrian special forces FO.

Problem here is that most of part of time which takes time in requesting fire comes from firing unit. Put lowest kind of Syria FO or rifleman to lead US mortars (yes it's possible in mission editor, just change sides from missions parameters to BLUE before buying mortars and back to RED when buying FO) and you see what i mean. Fire for effect wills land in around 5 minutes if talking about light 60mm or 81mm mortars. As fast as Elite Syrian special forces FO lead fire of his organic 82mm mortar... Can be that this has changed due patches but i doubt it.