Alan8325

I agree that he was probably ejected from the turret during the secondary blasts. Although he managed to run away while pumped with adrenaline, it looks like he will probably not survive his injuries. It looks like he's had one or both arms partially severed and burns over most of his body. I'm thinking he has a long and painful death ahead of him and the crewmembers who died inside the tank are probably the "lucky" ones of the crew.

I'm going to speculate that drones will be in CMSF2 and will function in exactly the same way as (manned) air support in CMSF. I don't see why not or how it would be different. As far as intel goes, we already have the ability to add pre-battle intel that appears as the form of contacts on the map, but hopefully there will be some new functionality that allows loitering air support (manned or unmanned) to spot enemy positions during the scenario and relay the info as contacts on the player map.

As long as they're using cameras and Playstation controllers to operate it, they might as well just turn it into a radio-controlled unmanned ground vehicle that they operate from a nearby building. Then they don't have to worry about sitting inside it getting shot at by rpgs.

I'm seeing a lot of videos of Assad's forces losing armored vehicles to the lightly armed rebels. Also, Assad's forces cannot seem to hold supply corridors between Demascus and Alleppo. One would think that there would be a distinct advantage to having armored forces and air power to hold territory against rebels with AK's and RPGs, primarily. Makes me wonder if Syrian government troops are just so unmotivated that they cannot be relied upon to fight on the ground alongside the armor, leaving flanks exposed to RPG attacks. Maybe it's just atrocious use of combined arms forces. Perhaps it's just that the combined arms forces vs. uncons ~2 hour long battles I am used to in CMSF do not translate well to slower moving skirmishes that can last for days or weeks in real life in Syria. Perhaps the combined arms are actually there on Assad's side, but over weeks of rebels sneaking in and launching RPGs they are able to whittle away the armor advantage more slowly than can be simulated well in CMSF.

IIRC, MG fire was nerfed in CMSF to compensate for troops being closer together due to the action spot system than they would be in real life. Artillery was similarly reduced in lethality for the same reason. Artillery was fixed for CMBN/CMFI to be more lethal to account for historically closer troop spacing, but perhaps MG lethality has not been toned up enough, if at all.

Bil, What is the typical experience, leadership and motivation of your Bersaglieri units?

Make air power equal and give the Russians AT weapons as mobile and accurate as the Javelin, and it should be pretty even.

The GMG and Mk19 use the 40x53mm cartridge while the UGLs such as the M203 and AG36 use the lower velocity 40x46mm cartridge. All the acquireable 40mm ammo in the Fuchs is probably 40x46mm while the GMG 40x53mm (in green) is not acquireable.

I don't know Mr. Dorosh, but from everything I hear about him he sounds like someone who actually loves the game. People generally avoid and become indifferent about things they don't like. Someone who continuously goes out of his way to find reviews on CM to make a comment about it comes across as someone who likes, and may in fact be obsessed with the game, but is very bitter about whatever happened with him here. My 2 cents on someone I don't know!

+1, as long as those triggers are based on spotting. If I move my troops somewhere and it causes the AI to react without them actually seeing me there, well that's cheating.

I've only seen them used against infantry in buildings, which is fine since it was done often in real life, but never seen them used against infantry in the open. On the plus side however, you do get lots of Javelins if you are playing as U.S. Army, especially Stryker Infantry.

One Libyan rebel has even developed an improvised shoulder-fired S-5 rocket launcher. It uses a battery from a walkie-talkie, protective shield from riot gear and doorbells for launch buttons. http://alive.in/libya/tag/s-5-rocket-range/

My guess is that MG functionality, being carried over from CMSF, has not been altered (enough) to be reflective of MG functionality in Normandy. In CMSF, troops in the open were shown closer together, due to the action spot system, than they were assumed to be in real life in a setting like Syria. MG bursts were intentionally deviant from each other to reduce accuracy against troops in the open to reflect a wider spacing between troops that would be used in real life in a setting like Syria. Artillery against troops in the open was nerfed to reflect this as well. My guess is that arty was "un-nerfed" in CMBN to reflect the closer spacing between troops in Normandy in WWII and MGs were not "un-nerfed" as well or to the same degree. Edit: The way it is now, you may occasionally get unlucky (or lucky) and have a high-precision burst from an automatic weapon take out an entire team of troops running in a single file line.

I've seen one instance of a single burst from an MP40, at a range of a little over 100m, take out 3 guys who were running single-file along a wall. Probably just bad luck, but if it happens a lot then maybe there is an issue with precision. Regarding accuracy I don't often see automatic weapons be highly accurate in CM, in other words each burst goes in a slightly different direction, which is fine. However I do often see the precision of such weapons look a little too high. In other words, each shot in a single burst doesn't deviate in direction from the previous shot very much. It is this way in CMSF too. MG's tend to fire bursts that are each very precise, but each burst deviates significantly from the previous one.

Fortunately this is easy to test with a little moving of vehicles around bumps in the terrain, in different states of buttoned/unbuttoned, to see if there are differences in LOS to various points on the map. I don't have the time to do this now. But maybe on the weekend.

Yup, otherwise you have to aim by standing behind it.

I believe vehicles in CM still have just one point of LOS generation in the center, regardless of number of crew and where sights are located. This is why vehicles in CMSF did not have working mast sensors, making many scout and ATGM vehicles virtually worthless. Not a big problem in CMBN IMO, but needs to be fixed for CMSF2.

The problem is they can't see the center of that action spot. If an enemy unit appears in one of the windows that your unit has LOS to, your unit can fire on that window despite not having LOS to the center of the action spot, however you cannot area target the action spot if you do not have LOS to the center. It was this way in CMSF and there were some threads about it in that forum, but apparently it is not an easy fix, unfortunately.

IIRC they will also start development on CMSF2, another modern warfare title, before they are done with all currently planned WWII titles. I'm not sure where in the lineup this will fall but I am sure that they do not want to wait 3 years to start it. Bad news I'm sure for all you WWII only guys, but good news for us modern warfare fans. I also recall someone saying that some of the development will be shared by Snowball (or another Russian developer?) on some title. Not sure if it was CMSF2 or an Eastern front WWII game.

Isn't the bmp main gun basically an spg-9? Somehow this seems harder to maneuver and aim than a pintle mounted spg and not a whole lot more protected! But it is funny!

What if you just make the elevation lower at the friendly edge of the map, so that there is no LOS to units at the edge except from a few meters in front? This may not solve the issue of demoralized units "bouncing" off the edge and possibly running forward uphill and into LOS again, but it would be difficult for the enemy to target stuff at the map edge unless you are PBEMing against someone who intentionally does this. But you could agree beforehand not to target map edges, which you designate "retreat areas."

It might have something to do with the 3d models in CM2 playing a direct role in LOF and hit calculations. I'm not sure if it's possible to separate the visual 3d model from the hit calculation 3d model (which presumably would be invisible graphically if visual models are enlarged).

Fear not. That still has a chance of making it into CMSF2.

I'm not sure I understand what a #1 would be. Playing the game just to watch the graphics and mechanics? Beta tester maybe?

I'd like to say I'm a do/do, however I often do not have the discipline to not reload a save after something goes horribly wrong. Therefore in practice I guess that makes me a do/don't!