Ryujin

Idk about breach, BANG, clear... but a breach and frag should be easy enough. Hugging the wall should be standard for any move into a building, but if you were to say issue an "assault" order, it seems like it would be possible to have them throw a frag or two in first to prep the building. Probably err on the side of more frags as it's just one big room.

Probably mirrored as I don't think there are left handed K98s. Not that I know of anyway. Also why is the labeling of it as German footage wrong? except for a few questionable bits it seemed German.

Very true, the T-50 could be good enough to strike at will within a less well equipped country, but a stealth bomber like the F-117/B-2 would be better suited to that role. However as long as the T-50 can drop some kind of guided bomb it would work. Not to mention what it could do to Georgia's air force. Threaten the F-22 is probably not the best role for it, I doubt it can compete on the avionics/stealth front. Specificly hunting and trying to shoot down the F-22s would seem to be a waste considering the damage it could potentially do to something like the F-15. I'm sure it would get better results in a more traditional air superiority role where it might have an edge against other modern fighters. Well, it seems they've never applied stealth technology to an aircraft and high end avionics haven't been their strong point. Their first attempt might be decent, but I doubt ground breaking. The US on the other hand has been making and operating top end aircraft, including stealth aircraft for a while now and in combat with a huge budget. Russia has some catching up to do. The T-50 is probably just getting their feet wet. Very true. A lot of combat experience, a big budget for training, and plenty of logistics/support goes a long way. Even if the T-50 was superior to the F-22, it would only be part of the picture. In a world war 3 situation I don't think a few downed F-22s would ground the rest of them them. Not to mention this is assuming the T-50 can even find and shoot down the F-22 much better than any other Russian made fighter, this gets into radar technology and avionics. The F-22 may have a harder time finding the T-50, but the T-50 probably won't be finding the F-22 too easily either. It's also foolish to be preparing for the last war you fought. Maybe not preparing for WW3, but you have to be careful not to become too narrowly focused. Not buying any more F-22s makes sense, but buying and keeping around the initial inventory of them was a good idea. You get technical experience/training on the aircraft (for when upgrading the F-15 inventory becomes necessary) and you have a few around "just in case". The F-22 is good to just have around like nuclear subs, just to carry around the big air superiority stick. I'm sure it's also great against any potential opponent who is nowhere as well equipped as Russia/China. So the current US inventory of F-22s is probably more than enough.

It'll be interesting to see if this T-50 actually lives up to the "hype". If I remember correctly, Russia has no real experience in developing and using stealth aircraft. They also mentioned it as "cost effective" and cheap doesn't tend to mix well with super high tech aircraft, you tend to get what you pay for. Will it probably be better than what Russia/India currently field... sure, but I don't think a single fighter will destroy the US's ability to project power, air superiority involves a lot more factors than just one good model of fighter and I'm not too sure Russia can build a true, cheap, rival to the F-22 without much experience in this kind of aircraft.

Well, the 73mm low velocity gun on the BMP-1 fires rocket assisted projectiles very similar to the rounds fired be the the SPG-9 recoliess rifle. They have an initial low pressure launching charge and a small rocket that ignites later. This allows the rounds to pick up a lot of speed despite being fired from a very weak gun. They're far from missiles, but I think this is what your referring to.

target light should then use the coax I believe. Target light seems to be 30mm and less. Target is "I want the building dead NOW!", at which point they throw the most firepower possible at it (the AT4 being by far the best anti-structure weapon on the BMP). There is no "medium" order. Now of course people might say "remove ATGMs vs buildings from target!", but then some one will be complaining that they can't get their BMP to flatten structures with the AT4, so far it seems like you can't win.

I think the "equipment bonus" from being in a FISTV applies to anyone in it, but I think the FOs are the only ones who can push it to it's full potential. However a XO team could probably use it well enough for most tasks. I personally like to keep the FOs in the FISTV, especially when playing against another player, as first round FFE is 10x more usefull in multiplayer. Being able to accuratly drop fire across the street from my troops with no warning is an immensely useful capability, obviously offset by the increased risk to the FISTV and FO team being exposed to ATGM fire. For the REDFOR I believe that the comms gear in the PCs and more recently the UAZs does give a slight bonus to their FOs. Not in accuracy obviously, but response time.

yeah, I think C2 is factored in moral. I've noticed that Syrian rifle squads that have seen little or no contact will often take a moral hit if the C2 is badly damaged. Western squads can easily keep sharing info with other units if the PHQ is taken out, they all have radios and often FBCB2 gear. Many Syrian units, especially with poor equipment are completely dependent on the platoon RTO for contact to other units and up the chain of command. I think even if the platoon leader is alive, if the RTO goes down they lose contact. On a related note... Something important for a guide, but that does not seem to be widely known, is the effectiveness of western FISTVs like the BFIST/Stryker FSV. Many people don't seem to realize FOs in these have first round fire for effect capability (emergency calls are fast and extremely accurate).

Nope, that pretty much explains why it won't work

I totally agree, improperly used M1s are relatively easy to pick off. For example I've played people very new to CMSF and the AI, they open the M1s up to be hit and killed by T-72s and RPGs. Killing an experienced player's M1 is a whole different task. The basics apply, but ambushing with side or rear shots becomes extremely hard if they're mutually supporting other units with the M1(s). Other units find contact and protect the M1 so it can kill what they find. That is always a though nut to crack as they just don't expose the M1s much and are looking for ambushes.

I think it's all pretty much down hill from when you start the mission. I don't think I've ever seen moral go above what it was at the start of the mission, I think its pretty much based around the squads status (leadership, casulties, suppression, comms) and if you side in general is taking casualties. I don't think individual events like an taking out an enemy tank or losing one really have an impact. Losing a tank will factor into your overall casualties "modifier" as far as I can tell, I don't think the units who saw it get hit will lose more moral or anything. As far as killing an enemy tank, I haven't seen any effect. I do think the condition of troops carries over in campaigns, I don't think wining or losing battles effects it. This is just my observations, anyone know the details?

I've had some luck with javelins, SMAWs, and tank cannons. Snipers reasonably close work too, I've had them slowly pick off the crew. Though takes time and a lot of your nonrefillable sniper ammo.

Ah ha! I must have hit that by accident, I didn't even know about that key combo. Thanks, I would have been going crazy trying to figure out what was wrong.

I have no smoke dust, but I have upgraded my 4870x2 drivers several times between playing CMSF. The current and previous drivers both show no smoke/dust and it's difficult to go back any further without effecting other games. However, this might not be an ATi bug as I don't see any other ATi users (or anyone) posting about this issue (that I could find). Ideas/suggestions? Thanks

Speaking of Flamethrower... will there be flamethrowers? Also after skimming the thread, I have few questions/comments about calling in fire missions. It seems that landmarks play a a major role in locating targets, it seems that buildings over a certain size and bridges, etc, should work like TRPs. That is if I call in my area target on something big enough to be on a map, I'll get a "bonus" of sorts, probably a faster call and more accurate initial spotting rounds. I'm however assuming it would be more work than it's worth to be able to reference "100m south of the bridge", but at least being able to use the bridge it's self would be better than nothing. I don't know WW2 firemission SOP, but would it be possible to call a firemission via the polar method from a landmark or other feature? (That is if the FO knows where he is with a good degree of accuracy (probably only when on a landmark), he call tell the guns where he is and give locations of targets in directions and distance from his position.) In terms of WW2, if you put your FO in the town church, would he be able to utilize this to call in fire on "nondescript hedgerow #3256" with some degree of "accuracy". This seems like it would be more code-friendly to implement then referencing off some object the FO isn't in/on as it could be easily abstracted.

I think there is something like a 20% that any WIA left on the field when the battle is over will count as KIA, which will hurt your score, but generally not enough to make any real difference, depending on how the mission maker has it set up. You could probably get away with leaving all your casualties, but it just seems strange to do so as a BLUFOR commander and helps make the game a little harder for the BLUFOR, trying to extract the WIA who's laying in the road in the enemy's field of fire.

Well the Javelin is the duct tape of armored warfare, if you have enough of em (which the Stryker units do, I think they have the most CLUs and missiles), you can't go wrong. Combined with the MGS/TOW/Mortar strykers, I've found that's usually enough for any mechanized opposition. Generally I fight armor with the infantry and the infantry with Strykers. However in close urban combat some M1s would be handy, for close armor engagements and digging out infantry. As a sort of mechanized/motorized hybrid of sorts, Stryker units can hold their own, but they're not really well suited to taking on massed tanks unless you can hide the Strykers and effectively use the ATGMs.

A bit of a side comment, but the fact that you only see things in the "tactical" perspective as opposed to the "strategic" probably effects player's opinions of a lot of the equipment. Arguably the AAV's most important function is as a boat. It gets lots of Marines and basic equipment from ship to shore while providing tracked land transport without the logistics of even larger separate landing craft and such. It's primarily designed around those requirements as without them it would be rather pointless. You see almost none of this at the tactical level, especially without any water... So it's a decently uparmored and well armed truck with tracks that moonlights as a boat. I certainly think the USMC needs a new and improved vehicle for this role, but it's not as craptastic as it appears in CMSF when you consider what it's role it's really playing. Similar stuff applies to the land rovers/jackals/etc.

I'm not saying it's rock steady when firing, but even in those videos it's not rocking nearly as much as it does in CMSF. In CMSF the M1 completely rolls back on it's suspension and then forward. In the videos it recoils back and up only a couple degrees. Here's a real good video, compare it to the CMSF tanks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-25BjbKm-8&feature=related It barely shifts at all.

I don't think you can really wear armor down like that without a LOT more hits (I'm guessing 50 to 70 on the same panel). While maybe you could some how put one round exactly where the armor had been hit before, I think any degradation of armor from multiple spread out hits would be so minimal as to possibly not be worth modeling. Also keep in mind it's a mix of layers of ceramics and metals with a DU mesh (on the front anyway), so I don't think it would degrade in quiet the same way your thinking of. As it's layered I'm sure that how deep the hits are going would also make a big difference. That's my unqualified $.02.

I was under the impression that a lot of the energy was released through heat and deformation of the penatrator/armor. Not to mention the force imparted on the KE round should be roughly the same as the force imparted on the gun via recoil. While yes, the KE round focuses that force into an much, much smaller area, I'd think that overall the tank shouldn't be rocked that differently from firing the main gun.

"Crew psychology" is certainly a bit of a fuzzy area both in game and reality, I've seen plenty of my crews bail out of only moderatly damaged vehicles into certain small arms death and such. Some times a lone guy on a HMMWV gun mows down some 30 guys under insane fire. As far as the technical aspect, the auxiliary sights were probably still up and the turret can be hand cranked. I also don't think the 60+ ton M1 would be rocking around when hit, CMSF vastly exagerates the rocking from hits/firing on the MBTs. So if the crew were up to it, I think the tank could pull it off.

Yup, no pistols are modeled, AK74(PM) or M4(M9) "placeholder" models are used to avoid new animations/models. I don't think Bradley crews use the firing port weapon, it can be attached to the CLAW with a 90 round mag, but I think they carry M9s/maybe a M4.

Yeah, DU is pyrophoric, so DU dust in contact with the air causes a very hot flash fire throughout the compartment it hit. Very nasty mix with autoloader propellant bags or crew members. I don't think DU rounds would really fragment on penetration of the compartment, there would certainly be armor spalling, but the DU rounds are generally self-sharpening and would probably stay in one piece and instead spread DU dust. The effectiveness is probably strongly related to how much DU dust is thrown into the air on penetration. Really thin armor might not shave off that much. But really I don't know the details of all this, just passing on what I've heard/read.

I wouldn't say it's cheating, you just get to get to "what if?" your campaign after you finish one branch.