meade95
-
Posts
481 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by meade95
-
-
MOUT discussions I always find useful here in CMSF -
I do split squads more often than not. Usually breaking off one small element (with the two others waiting back in some type of overwatch)....Make a quick attack on the target location with the smaller element...(usually hitting the location with small arms fire just prior to the DA element going in)....
I still contend that "elite" type units suffer far too much in CQC when clearing rooms.....But that is another subject..
-
I loved The Sheriff of Ramadi by Dick Couch - I would agree and appreciate that you are keeping your missions based off of using smaller portions of an overall map......great for keeping computers/game play running smooth.....
-
I am planning (insh'allah) at least one SEAL sniper-centered scenario for my Ramadi series (it won't be a "campaign", just a series of 2004-2006 historical actions taking place on a 1.5 x 2/3 km patch of downtown). The Sheriff of Ramadi provides excellent source material.
But who knows when that'll get done.
On a side note - Along with this topic (of needing increased abilities of sniper / elite units).....LongLeftFlank......looking very forward to your Ramadi maps coming out....
-
Does the current quality of BLUE snipers allow for such a scenario?
+1 to this - I still believe, time and again "elite" status units (including sniper) simply don't peform high enough. In terms of SA, accuracy of weapons fire and or in general efficiency of overall performance....
-
For MOUT, I have found that a big part of the problem is that the default buildings have windows on all four sides in the style of Western buildings, and most map designers never bother to change that. This is handy in that it creates an all round field of fire for the inhabitants, but sucks for the outgunned side (Red) for the same reason... nowhere to run to baby after the first shots.
Simply putting blind walls on 1-2 sides of buildings (and enclosing the buildings in walled courtyards) really increases the tactical challenge for Blue, as they either (1) have to assault close in (and Red fire gets more lethal), (2) bring in heavy weapons to pierce the windowless walls with area fire, or (3) do some maneuvering to find a building or rooftope with a good facing for a distance shot (which has its own risks). In the meantime, Red has more cover and time to rally and move about to set up the next ambush.
And guess what? That is more or less the real world tactical problem.
+1............
-
Good questions - A detailed preview of what one would expect to get when calling in CAS, via different levels of CAS (light, med, heavy / and by which aircraft type) would be much appreciated......and somewhat expected within the game itself.
-
Thanks for the replies -
I didn't (or wait, I do perhaps have a saved game, part way in now that I think about it). But I didn't have this small Recon unit travel all that far, to be honest. We are talking, in a wooded area with brush, Temps = warm, unit = elite + fit, traveling, I just checked it, traveling approx 175 meters, with several stops within that distance, for observations (multiple minutes completely stopped of movement)....they end up exhausted....and then stay that way for the entire rest of the scenario = 3 + hours (4 hour mission in total).
This was a U.S. Army Recon unit.
Not a huge deal.....was just passing it along.
As for the DEMO charges....I do understand that not all units have them....but it seems like it would be a nice feature to allow said units that don't come with them...to possibly add them via a supply truck. There are just times where in MOUT condtions you may want a small Recon team to be able to get to from Point A to Point B....with the need of a DEMO charge.....so not to have to expose themselves so much to known enemy locations.
-
I recently had a Recon team that slowly crawled its way into an observation position.....and from that stayed "exhausted" for the remaining 3 hours?? This was a unit set to "elite"?
Also, it seems DEMO charges aren't given out enough, IMO. Especially for units going into MOUT combat conditions.....
-
Has been some time since I worked within the editor for creating small scenarios. Have a question on Set-up zones (both map set up zones and issuing orders zones) for AI contorled units.
Do AI units have to be placed within the (red) shaded map zones at the start of a mission in order for them to follow their orders/plans? Or is that only for Human Controlled players in which it gives them the ability to relocate said units (within other shaded areas prior to the start of the game).
I think I'm wording this somewhat confusingly. But we have set-up zones / placement zones on the map for units. Then we also have a set-up zone for the start of issuing orders / plans. Do AI units have to be placed within one of the map shaded zones in order for them to start following thier orders I guess is my question.
Thanks
-
Of course it is competely BFC right not to offer these options - I just don't understand why they won't (unless it is engine related and too cumbersome to allow.....though I don't see why that should be the case if the weapon systems themselves are already within the game).
-
I can't help you with building customized insurgent teams that operate as teams, but I am (slowly!) working up some Iraq scenarios based on the battles for Ramadi and am getting some decent results using Uncon HQ units, which feature sniper, PKM and RPG teams of 1-2 guys each. Also, by embedding Spies and unarmed vehicle drivers with these units in their fixed positions, I can also create a "respawning" effect -- as the Uncons become casualties, the unarmed guys in the location render buddy aid (first aid) to the casualties and then arm themselves with their weapons and start shooting.
The drawback is that these respawns start with very low ammunition. At some point I might mod up an "invisible BRDM" (all textures set to alpha channel) that can sit around immobilized and crewless inside a building and then be used as an ammo cache. But using that kind of resource is well beyond the capability of the AI side.
The IED triggermen are also armed (and have an annoying tendency to blow their cover by shooting before triggering their bombs)... that's an even simpler way of building ad hoc insurgent units.
Good luck playing around with these ideas if they appeal, and let me know any interesting tricks you find out.
One last unrelated piece of advice: DON'T PUT TOO MANY WINDOWS IN YOUR BUILDINGS. This is a massive realism killer for most urban maps I've seen: the "default" layout has windows on every single wall just like an American suburban house and most designers leave it as is.
Look at photos: there is virtually NO Middle Eastern building, old or modern, that looks like this. Lots and lots of blank windowless walls, and nearly every building surrounded by high walls. Arabs like their privacy.
Blank walls and high-walled compounds totally change the nature of MOUT and massively up the realism. Read "Joker One" or any other Iraq combat memoir and you'll hear about the blind maze of city streets.
+1 to all of the above here -
Also, I would love if BFC/CMSF would allow for more modding / tweaking of units by customers. For SP play.
I think sales would increase greatly if community modding of weapon loadouts per units were allowed.
-
With CMSF having been out now for some time. Updated and patched to the point of being one of the best war games out there today...and with newer BFC games on the way... Here are some of my own personal (albeit somewhat narrowly focused) wishes that I think would add to CMSF, the single player experience as well as maybe grow the games player-fan-base slightly more even at this late stage of CMSF...(while waiting for CMSF-2 to come out).
1. Open up all campaign (baked) missions/scenarios into stand-alone missions. This would allow one to replay many of these missions, while tweaking forces structures, AI, etc, etc. Virtually adding numerous more missions almost instantly (with just a little work).
It would additionally help serve as a further tutorial for those wishing to learn more about making missions and seeing how some of these great scenarios were created / scripted (behind the scenes - while going over them in the editor). Which would then only lead to more scenarios/missions being created.
2. With a segment of today's military operations involving going after particular individuals I think it would be great to develop on this notion within CMSF even more than it already allows for.
A) If capturing / destroying unit X is part of Blue's mission. I think it would be better that this only be accomplished if said "unit X" is actually captured or destroyed. As is now, if the opposing force (in total) surrenders it automatically gives credit for the capturing / destroying of such a unit. I don't necessarily like how this works.
The AAR / map at the end of the scenario is one of the best features of CMSF (if it gave a detailed breakdown of which friendly forces were actually WIA/KIA it would be that much greater!...and from what I read will likely be part of CMSF-2 in the future).
But simply looking back over the map and seeing what units were where and trying to recall how it all played out is something I do for sometime after each operation. Also, going over the map in search of a given unit you were tasked with destroying and seeing if you actually have done so. I find myself doing this quite regularly at the end of a mission. Only sometimes to see that the given unit is actually alive (but I was given credit with capturing / destroying said unit because of the overall surrender).
Perhaps allow for a given "unit" to only be on the map for X-period of time. After this point the unit leaves the map and is considered "escaped" out of the AO. Or maybe create an out of bounds area where if a given unit reaches such a place it is deemed to have escaped from the AO. Which would add another layer to trying to locate / track down a given unit while involved in a larger battle that is happening around that.3. With today's operations having regularly cross-over of not only units but differing branches of the military and in particular SOFs working directly along side conventional forces (or vise-versa) I think it would add greatly in finding an even better way than there is now (simply creating a small force of "elite" recon Team) to allow for a better representation of SOF units within CMSF.
And not with the whole elaborate need of creating a whole new SOF branch to go along side the Army/Marines, but just maybe allowing for an additional level within the novice to elite ratings...
Possibly nothing more than novice-green-veteran-crack-elite-SOF. Where the SOF rating would just give an additional tweak / boost to situational awareness, FO capabilities, CQC weapon accuracy and maybe even a boost to fatigue levels?
This suggestion may sound to "gamey" (for lack of a better term at the moment) for some....but I think it could be used rather well and bring in an additional fan base to CMSF and CMSF-2 going forward.
I likely should have taken more time at putting my thoughts together here...as these are admittedly written down somewhat ad-hoc (as I found myself today with an unusual 30 minutes to spare while at work and looking at the forums here at BFC).
-
I don't see why this isn't an option.
-
+1 -
I wish there was the option to play as stand-alone-missions (and or tweak with new assets from the editor) all missions within all the baked campagins.
-
American forces without a doubt 'own the night' so to speak....and certainly do look to use night operations as often as possible.
CMSF does a pretty good job of simulating this reality as I find it much easier to keep casulty figures lower during night time scenarios / compared to day time.
-
Hope this works.Its my first time posting screen shots online.
Strykers and Scouts in 101st uniforms.
What map are these photos from? With the high Mtns in the background.
-
Thanks as well
-
-
Gents,
I small idea occurred to me. The sniper teams cause a bit of frustration when the security/spotting element opens fire when they shouldn't. This gives away the team position and invites a response which often has a deleterious effect.
How about coding them to only fire when under attack? That would prevent them opening up on a target which the sniper has lined up. A covered arc or target light command would ONLY apply to the sniper. Target would still be a command for everyone to open up. Otherwise, the spotter/security element would only spot and, er, provide security.
Thoughts?
Ken
+1 Great idea/s
-
Finally, you might want to consider that the insertion of the main attack force would usually not be the first "boots on ground" in an airmobile assault. In addition to aerial and satellite recon, one or more recon teams (likely SF) would precede the main body whenever possible, sometimes by a day or more, to watch the LZ and the area around it. It's also likely a small recon unit would be inserted closer to the objective ahead of the main body, to watch the approach route and observe enemy activity. Since these units probably would not participate in the main fight, you needn't necessarily include them in the scenario. But if you wanted to include a sniper or FO team closer to the objective at scenario start, this would not be unrealistic. And you might want to consider the intelligence these teams would offer the Blue commander when writing the scenario briefing.
+1 - I routinely do such with scenario's I create - Put/place a small SOF component into some "hide" place under the concept that such a unit would likely have infiltrated to such a place prior to a larger operation taking place.
-
Do you need the Brit Mod to play this? I DL it...copy/pasted the BTT into the scenario folder.....yet when I callled it up in the editor?.....It shows nothing?
-
Are you using a "mod" of sorts? I don't recall night operations looking so clear / sky dotted with stars? Perhaps I've just never looked up??
-
:eek:
SH had nothing to do with 9/11, wanted nothing to do with AQ, had no designs on the USA other than getting them off his back while still looking "strong" in the ME for purely local/ME political reaons, and was no more a warmonger than a few other dictators/states we can probably all think of.
He was entirely predictable to anyone not blinkered by the sort of stupidity echoed in the quote above!
I love it. Saddam was "entirely predictable". Classic. That is why not one, not one nation on the entire Security Council of the United Nations voted against Resolution 1441. Authorizing the use of Force in Iraq based on a variety of issues (17 or 18 if I remember correctly)...under the reality that no one trusted Saddam nor thought him predictible. But you had him pegged, right. Of course. Got it.
Though I will give you in the one area Saddam was predictible, in his support of terrorsim. This is not denible.
As for AQ and Saddam having no part of them? Tell that to al Zarqawi (AQ #3) who was in Iraq, long before OIF ever started. Fleeing Stan to Iraq. And in pre-OIF Iraq, outsiders were not there, who Saddam did not want there or allow there. Saddam new very well who Zarqawi was and his afflication to Zawahiri / AQ.
And you're right not knowing history does repeat it. Reality is, before Pre-Emption.... we could have searched every inch of every cave in AStan prior to 9-11 and we would have never found any weapons that eventually hit us.......That being our own airliners. But we would have found a Gov't supporting terrorism, with people within that country that wished to do us great harm. That is exactly the profile of Saddam (only with much more resources than the Taliban/AQ had prior to 9-11).
And if I remember correctly, we were struck by Japan in 1941.......and that was the push that made us "active" in WWII.....Vs Germany..... Not just Vs Japan.
GWB made it clear after 9-11, as seeing terrorism itself as a threat, not simply AQ. But radical Islam along with those nations / dictators openly supporting terrorism. The idea at that point became......going after those that wished harm upon us, going after them hard.....while at the same time looking to help create an atmosphere that allowed for a self-deportation away Radical Islam throughout the greater ME.
-
Any notion that Astan is worse off today, than in 2001 is absurd. It is beyond being even simply intellectually dishonest. We haven't broken anything in Stan on the whole. The place was in the dark ages prior to 2001.
Reality is dragging that country out of the dark ages (in the effort to not allow it to become a sanctuary any longer / ever again via AQ or radical Islam mimics). Was always going to be a decade long process (at a min). Removing the Taliban from direct control was always going to be the easiest task (and if you remember correctly many suggested the U.S. military wouldn't be able to accomplish that. Within 2 months back in late 01/ early 02 the word "quagmire" was being thrown around).....
COIN & FID Ops take time to thoroughly defeat an enemy. DA Ops on HVT and/or HV-AOs are key during this time period in allowing those COIN/FID operations to take root. That is what phase we are in now. The process we are in now. Gen. McCrystal knows exactly what he is doing, has a very aggressive, thorough, yet KISS type plan / strategy to see this phase through.....
Furthermore, both Iraq and Astan were part of the larger GWOT. It is foolish to think that simply because Saddam didn't directly support the attacks on 9-11 ...that therefore, Iraq isn't / couldn't be part of the WOT. The WOT was not simply a war on AQ. Reality is Saddam was a brutal dictator, who had started two wars, was a State sponsor of terrorism, had used WMDs in the past and was an incredibly unstable wild card in the heart of the ME. After 9-11 no reasonable person could allow that man to stay in power. There is no denying the people of Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam in power. Just as are the people of Astan / and the world are that the Taliban are no longer in power, there. And the American military along with our allies are the reason for this. Along with the leadership and reslove of former President GWB (like him or hate him).
Perhaps allow for a given "unit" to only be on the map for X-period of time. After this point the unit leaves the map and is considered "escaped" out of the AO. Or maybe create an out of bounds area where if a given unit reaches such a place it is deemed to have escaped from the AO. Which would add another layer to trying to locate / track down a given unit while involved in a larger battle that is happening around that.
Spliting Squads For MOUT (USA)
in CMSF Strategy and Tactics Forum
Posted
Correct - 3 man team (if US ARMY) 4 man team (USMC)......It then depends on the situation / logistics if I keep the remaining overwatch section as one unit or two.......but I usually end up keeping them as a single unit.....usually because of the logistics / dangers of finding another overwatch. Also, I have found the bigger the firepower of the overwatch more often than not comes in quite useful in surpressing any threats in a quicker fashion with the overwatch as one larger unit.....
Another question, here, within MOUT tactics....Is how much resources are given to evac/ing wounded men during MOUT operations. That is what really starts to bog down my efforts.....but without question I do it....