Alan8325

Yeah that was confusing. I finished Pooh after a few save-reloads with 30-something casualties and a few AAVs taken out, but nothing too bad. Started the next mission with 2 LAV-25s, 2 sniper squads and 2 scout squads and thought that that was all I was supposed to have for the first hour of mission time. Kind of a long scouting period IMO but oh well. Then once some more time went by and there was only 20 minutes left with no reinforcements I finally said WTF. Haven't played the campaign since either, mostly because I've been playing the smaller scenarios. I usually play in RT, so the micromanagement in large scenarios like Pooh gets a little tedious.

I recently modified the Al Huqf engagment scenario by making the Syrian squads roughly equivalent in experience, leadership and motivation to the U.S. squads. This consists of 1 regular, 1 veteran and one crack squad and a veteran HQ on the U.S. side, so I made the Syrian AT squad veteran, one rifle squad regular and the other crack, and the HQ veteran. Both the Bradley and BMP were left as regular. After playing from both sides, it is still extremely difficult to get anything better than a draw with the Syrian side, although I did achieve a major victory once, while with the U.S. side I can almost always achieve total victory with little or no casualties. These results, given roughly equal experience on both sides and short engagement ranges, lead me to believe that weapon quality is a little unrealistically biased towards U.S. superiority. I haven't served in the military, but I have a little trouble believing that an M4 with upgraded sights is THAT much better than an AK-74 at short range and in equally capable hands. The U.S. does have a small advantage in numbers in this scenario, but it shouldn't give that much of an advantage. Anyone else feel the same way? Also, is BMP armor really that crappy? It is shown on the protection tab on the bottom of the screen to be even worse than that of an up-armored HMMWV.

Yes, upon closer inspection it is a PSL. Romania does have troops in Afghanistan, but I'm pretty sure that this is a U.S. soldier.

Those are some great pictures. I liked the one with the firing 155 and the one with the mortar (smoke?) rounds detonating. Also I thought it was interesting that one of the U.S. soldiers was using an SVD rifle.

Each piracy scenario seems like it could be prevented with nothing more than 2 M2 machine guns - one on each side of the ship, with no more than 2 paid mercenaries to operate them. If one M2 is pitted against a small boat with ANY amount of rpg's or ak-47s, i'd put my money on the M2.

That icon is used for red force AGS-17 grenade launcher teams.

Don't forget, also, that the way the infrastructure in the U.S. is set up makes it much more dependent on oil than other countries. Go to any town in Europe and you will see everything from businesses to residences within walking, biking, or short motorized driving distances. Everything is denser but transportation doesn't take nearly as many resources. Also, the areas outside of the dense urban areas take less of an environmental impact because there is less suburban development. In the U.S. people value personal space so much that the norm in many places, especially in places like Los Angeles and San Diego, is sprawling suburban residental tracts with fenced-off 1 acre lots and 25 mile commutes to and from work. Most people can't walk even to the nearest store in reasonable time and even biking is often unreasonable given the distances involved. What this effectively does is enslave the economies of these areas to foreign oil and make it very difficult to get out of because the very structure of the civilization itself requires oil to be consumed for anything at all to be done.

Doesn't sound like a very exciting scenario. Substitute the SOF teams with an elite MOUT squad with "+2" everything vs. a few fighters, probably less than squad strength, and regular experience, at best.

Just like leaders of any group, there are good ones and bad ones. If he was good, he will take longer to replace with equal talent. If he was incompetent, he will be replaced fairly quickly by someone better.

Is that a SMAW round?

The "Ambush Tutorial" scenario has a good MG setup where the two teams cause probably 80% of enemy casualties on most of my playthroughs. Just make sure you set them to deployed status in the setup phase.

Actually China has quite an interest in Africa for its oil, among other resources. Their current strategy is to offer infrastructure improvements like roads, bridges, etc. and jobs to locals in return for oil deals. http://www.cfr.org/publication/9557/

I have wondered about this myself. The AK-47 bursts look spread out like you would expect bursts from any automatic weapon to look, but machinegun bursts are in a straight line.

In the grand scheme of things, yes. There was a replacement for Zarqawi, there will be a replacement for Bin Laden, there will be a replacement for whoever it was who was killed in Syria. With that said, killing/capturing does work as a tactical obstacle to the enemy in the short term. Remember that killing somebody takes what they have to offer off the table and sometimes it can take some time to find a suitable replacement. I think the mention of Generals Petraeus and Odierno proves this as an example that some people have TALENT and some don't. If we kill a highly capable bad guy, they can't just get another highly capable bad guy right away, although eventually a highly capable bad guy will likely fiind his way up the ladder to that position. In regard to our dependence on foreign oil, I agree with Pickens and others that it is currently one of the biggest, if not THE biggest problem our country faces, both economically and in foreign policy. Having said that, I would actually rather see the U.S. TAKE foreign oil right now, as opposed to buying it, before we significantly tap into our own oil supplies. You think we are hated now, imagine what the jihadist movement would look like then! But let me explain my thinking. We do not have as much oil as the middle east, bottom line. Tapping into our own oil supplies would increase our economy and relieve some of the need to have such a heavy hand on middle east stability, in the short term. However it does nothing to address the fact that oil is a limited resource, globally, and it will run out. Once our (U.S.) oil runs out, and we still haven't overcome the need for oil for things like transportation of all types, then our new, greater dependence on foreign oil would make today's dependence look like a minor inconvenience. Then you would see operations to occupy and take foreign oil fields, but at the same time other countries are also trying to occupy and take oil fields. Wars like this are eventually going to happen, inevitably, but we don't have to be forced into them with so much at stake. Without going into the technical and chemical details of why I believe battery and hydrogen storage technology will never match the energy storage ability of a liquid hydrocarbon (nature's battery), I will say that I believe the future is in liquid hydrocarbons, made from either solid biological matter (plants, garbage) or synthesized with CO2, H2O, and an energy source, such as a nuclear, solar or wind power plant. Gasoline without oil, basically. Ethanol and biodiesel have shown some promise, but it is difficult to produce these fuels in sufficient quantities. Also, they cut into food production. Unfortunately, the liquid hydrocarbon synthesis technologies are only in the fetal stages of development so it will be a few years before they are viable as real alternatives. Until then oil dependence can be relieved by using nuclear, solar and wind energy for non-transportation energy needs.

I don't think many people are expecting AQ to fall apart after Bin Laden is captured or killed. I look at the war against the jihadist movement as kind of like the war against drugs or the war against gang violence in poverty-stricken inner city areas. You can be "winning" or "losing," depending on how conditions are trending towards your favor or against it, respectively, but the war will be ongoing and never won or lost by either side. If by some method, all gangs in Los Angeles are eliminated for example, I could go up there right afterwards with 4 friends and call ourselves the New Crips. Killing Bin Laden is more of a symbolic victory against AQ where we can say that we delivered justice against the man that coordinated the attack against us on 9/11, even though he did his best to hide from us. In regard to the special forces operation in Syria, however, I would imagine that it was to severely degrade some function of those who organize the infiltration of fighters to Iraq, as opposed to a symbolic or justice-based attack. I do not know enough about what Zarqawi actually did to know what effect killing him had on the insurgency in Iraq, but do remember seeing a lot less AQ-in-Iraq claims of responsibility for attacks after his death.

Just off Yahoo News... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_syria_us_raid;_ylt=AnvjlrCqrjXu838GUTA_i6HLLJ94

Actually it was me who brought that up. I'm 27, and turn 28 in May. IIRC the maximum age for special forces, though, is 28 which would make me borderline if I decide to do that.

Are the differences between the shorter-barrel m4 (used by Blue in Al-Huqf) and the ak-74 really that great at MOUT ranges of 50m or so? I've played Al-Huqf from both sides and noticed that it is WAY easier from the Blue side, but I think the biggest reason for this is the "-1" motivation modifier that all Red units have here. This means that once they start coming under fire they very quickly degrade into "panicked" status and become pretty much useless. Secondly it would be the fact that all Red units have regular experience while Blue has a mix of regular, veteran and crack. What i've found that all this translates to is that you don't really have firefights in Al-Huqf. What happens when Red sets up an ambush, as the original poster has, is that they open fire on Blue in the open, Blue takes a couple of casualties, the rest go prone or find cover and return fire, Red is very quickly suppressed and remain so for some time, Blue knows Red's positions and can move about freely while Red is still suppressed, even once the fire has stopped. The whole thing lasts about 10 seconds, with only 2 seconds or so of a back-and-forth firefight. This might repeat a few times over the course of the scenario. If Blue then does area fire on the buildings that Red occupies, it is only a matter of seconds before the "-1" motivation Red squads go into a panic and rout. Playing as Red I've found that even when I'm "winning," as in I've caused some enemy casualties and forced them to take cover while taking no casualties of my own, the small amounts of fire that I have taken have already caused my squads to be rattled.

Bigduke6, Thanks for all that info! I definitely saw some things that I found interesting, particularly the JAG and medical training and your personal OCS experience. Do you happen to know if it would be possible while enlisting to get an agreement in writing that says my enlistment is terminated if I don't pass OCS? I'm confident that I can pass as I'm also a pretty physical guy, but it would be nice to take some kind of control like that while enlisting. Regarding aviation, it is definitely something that I've always been interested in and still consider. Even if I never join the service I still plan on taking flying lessons and eventually getting a pilot's license. One catch there however, is that I'm 6'10". That means no fighter flying for me, as the primary concern is the ejection process taking off my kneecaps! As for other types of aircraft, I haven't tried sitting in many, but I actually have sat (and fit!) in the cockpit of a V-22 Osprey. The pilot told me, too, that his CO is 6'6" and flies it just fine. This is a Marine aircraft, but I would imagine the cockpit layout is similar for Army large fixed and rotary-wing aircraft. Aviation might actually be a better fit for a guy my size than Rangers or Airborne. I don't want to imagine who an enemy sniper, looking at a platoon with me in it, would aim for.

I haven't served, but I imagine you will do just fine as long as you prepare physically first, especially running, as others have said. I've heard that some of the best marathon runners are in their 30's and 40's. As long as I'm in this thread about joining the service, does anyone have info on how officer candidate schools work for those who have never served? I've considered both the Army and Navy OCS's but have only talked to a Navy recruiter who told me to take the aviation selection test battery (ASTB) first, before discussions on officer positions. Apparently it started as an aviation-only test but got adopted as a general officer aptitude test for all kinds of navy officers. I haven't taken it yet but have looked at some online study guides. You can take it a maximum of 3 times total. I am 27 and have graduated from college, twice. Once with a bachelor's in high-tech business management with minor in computer science and then a master's in business.

I have definitely seen the AI pursue buddy aid, both within the same unit and with members of a different unit, however it is only within the same action spot. A few times it looked like a fallen man was right next to my squad, but it was the next action spot over so nobody went over to give buddy aid until I moved the squad one spot over. Doesn't matter much unless you have to move your squad completely out of cover! I've also seen events turn WIA into KIA, the most spectacular of which was when one of my strykers with squad still inside got knocked out and set on fire, but not blown up. Just after the squad exited the vehicle they got cut down by machinegun fire and most were WIA, but unfortunately right next to a burning vehicle. As you can guess a secondary explosion soon turned most of those red circles brown.

On almost every scenario I've played I've found that KIA outnumber WIA on both sides, which seems opposite of real-life situations. KIA outnumbering WIA in armor vs. armor battles makes some sense realistically, but it seems to be this way in every scenario. Only when I actively spend the time moving troops around to give buddy-aid to the wounded before the scenario ends can I get a KIA to WIA ratio of like 1:2. Anyone know what real-life casualties would look like if medical aid was not administered within 10min or so of debilitating injuries (red casualties in game)?

I play RT primarily and use pause frequently for exactly the reasons you mentioned. As soon as a firefight starts I usually pause the game to get the tactical situation of all of my units. I make some adjustments, if necessary, then continue while my units carry out their orders. I pause the game again to issue new orders once the old orders have been executed. Each series of orders is usually only 1 or 2 orders per unit, each time I pause the game. What this actually amounts to is sort of a 15-30sec WEGO, but without the replays. The main reason I don't play WEGO very often is that during that one-minute action sequence there are times when I'd REALLY like to issue or change orders and it seems like an eternity once stuff hits the fan. With that said, my particular play style really chops up the sequence and it doesn't feel like that much of fluid situation anymore, which is what battles really are. Many times, after I've played through a scenario once in RT, I play through it in WEGO with the same plan i used in RT so that I can watch the replays and watch it "flow." So yeah, keep both. Also, add replays to RT if you can.

IIRC some special ops HMMWVs have 7.62mm miniguns on the weapon mount. I'm not sure which special ops use them, probably Delta. It would be cool to see those in CMSF or CMSF2 if special forces are included. Below are some pics and videos. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=76452&highlight=mini-gun

If you are playing real-time, there is a pretty foolproof way to "cheat," like I did for this particular scenario. Basically just save the game rediculously often, and reload and replay each and every single little decision you make until you get the outcome you want. There is some luck involved with everything so even if you are using really bad tactics, with enough replays they will eventually work. Even an AT-14 with crack crew and 99% hit probability, for example, will miss that 1 out of every 100 shots, so when he misses, save it! Another "cheat" is to save and then click "ceasefire" from the menu to display the positions of all enemies and then reload the save. I don't personally do this because I find it less fun to know where everyone is and it removes the prospect of enemy ambushes. Good luck!