Ryujin

On a related note, I did a test and they will fire AP at structures when they have no HE, I have no idea of how effective it is though.

I do agree they are short of HE, but if your going to stick to an "official loadout", the conventional warfare "flavor" of warrior makes the most sense given that the Syrian army is the primary opponent much of the fighting involves some number of mechanized units. Personally, I'd do a 60/40% split of HE/AP, but you get into strange territory when you start "making up" loadouts. So considering that it seems BF wanted only official loadouts, it sounds like the best choice given that condition.

Well, maybe I'm just unlucky, but I seem to run into quite a few BMPs and BTRs as the brits, especially in the campaign. If it were possible, I agree an option would be nice, but the ammo load does seem reasonable for engaging the Syrian army. Just need that bug fixed where they use everything but KE on BMPs.... I would say at least over 50% of the missions (stand alone and campaign) that shipped with the module have some sort of enemy APC. So I'm with Steve that this does fit the role of conventional war with threat of armor and so he pick the more reasonable ammo load.

Personally, I'd rather have a high capacity/high rate of fire cannon and ATGMs, over a large, but not quite tank killing auto cannon. Plus, only having a handful of rounds seems to cut out much of the advantage of being an automatic cannon. I think the CV9040 carries about 120 rounds for the L70 and the C can program them, which I think is a good minimum for a auto cannon. I know with the 40mm you'd need less rounds on target, but I still think the ability to put down massive area fire or engage large numbers of targets would be key in my opinion (from my CMSF/Steel Beasts Pro experience, so you can take it with a grain of salt). Still, I think it's an upgrade as far the warrior is concerned, if your not going to carry much ammo, it might as well be 40mm then. I'm sure it'll make a mess of any APCs/structures it comes across.

Well, it could give them very good intel, especially at night. While they can't control where the UAV looks and don't have the radio chatter context, it can tell them what the US is interested in. If it's used in support of troops on the ground, it can possibly give away their positions (if the camera is ever pointed in their direction) and with FLIR, this can give them a pretty good picture at night that they normal wouldn't have. Don't forget the UAV would probably overfly a lot of positions, including where ever it lands, with the camera broadcasting it. So while it may not be as good as controlling it themselves, I'd say it would be VERY useful relative to what usually is available to the insurgents, especially if they could study it for a couple months, a bird's eye FLIR view of the US operations.

There would be no extra computing for rounds hitting friendlies, I think it's not included for small arms fire as you would get too many casualties that would be avoided by real troops. I don't think the controls and TACAI is up to the fine details of firing in close proximity to friendlies without hitting them (such as only shooting at the left-most window of a building or such. So I think it's just abstracted that they take precautions and shoot around any friendlies in the line of fire. Also the AI tends to end up in positions where they should be shooting over their buddies head, but instead shoot through him. If I'm remembering it all correctly it seems like a reasonable compromise. I think it's considered a "heavy weapon" that cannot be fired safely at targets near friendlies and so can cause friendly fire. Also, I think you might be right about the shrapnel and stuff.

I don't think any 40mm cause friendly fire. At least not the low velocity infantry 40mm, maybe the high velocity 40mm from the Mk19 does, I haven't exactly shot at my troops recently...

They really shouldn't just suppress him, but roast him.... but yes, they would be suppressed or light the building on fire.

The M136, RPG-7, RPG-29, LAW, etc really don't soft launch either (keep in mind the US doesn't issue the AT4CS). The RPG-7 needs about 20m of open space (60 degree cone I think?) behind the shooter for the launching charge (the main rocket fires later). The M136 on the other hand is said to have a danger area of 100m back in a 90 degree cone. I think you might be able to get away with a wall closer that (as I haven't been able to find exact details on how much, if any, is just caution area fr fly debris). The LAW appears to need 10m or something. Generally speaking most buildings don't have rooms big enough to safely fire anything without soft launching. You can however use tricks such as knocking down walls or firing for a position where the backblast will go out a window.

It even might not have been a short round, those fragments do go pretty far ad I've seen it happen before. As John mentioned, the effective wounding radius of the shell is 100m, but a fire mission is considered "danger close" at 600m. The shrapnel doesn't magicly stop at 100m and there can be short rounds, so if you need to call in danger close, especially 300m or closer, try to minimize risk to your troops. A. Set up the target/round type to minimize risk. In your case the walled compound would have contained a lot of the shrapnel if you called in HE quick (the "general" option) and much of the shrapnel would be flying at ground level or close to it. Not to mention it does a better job on structures, if that's what you were shooting at. Using physically smaller guns (not light or slower fire) will reduce the shrapnel risk. 60mm mortars throw around a lot less shrapnel than a 155mm howitzer. B. Set up anyone, especially under 300m, with some kind of cover between them and the target area. Terrain, ditch, building, whatever. Worst case just tell them to hide, so no one is standing or kneeling. C. In those "oh crap!" moments where you have to call it in really close, make sure the relative risk of friendly fire is worth whatever your shooting at.

There is no AT backblast in CMSF, so all AT weapons can be fired from anywhere. This seems to be a concession to the fact that there are no interior rooms modeled, which would dictate where you could safely fire.

Hopefully in CM:N the blast command will work on tanks, causing a squad member to actually run out to the tank to toss the charge and run back, obviously allowing for them to be shot in the process, making them a bit more realistically effective than a 20m throw. That's how I'd do it anyway.

Probably won't be in CMSF2 unless Ukraine is featured, they bought 10 or something so far, maybe they'll buy more later. I've been researching these for a game I'm working on, it's quite the vehicle if the manufacturer is to be believed. Armament is nice, 30mm gun, coax AGS-17 and PKT, plus 4 AT5 missiles (on the GROM/standard turrets). Plus there is a 120mm mobile gun system with a 40 round (!) capacity. Not to mention the dual 23mm cannon turret. However it looks like once you've used up the ammo in the RWS turrets, reloading is a major ordeal. Also one of the turret options features the decent Shkval optics. It can mount a slat armor kit and I think the add-on armor supposedly protects up in the 20-30mm area. I think it's still amphibious with the extra armor on (maybe not with the slats). There's also a recon version with an optics periscope of some kind and command, recovery, and medical versions. Seems a lot like the stryker concept meets the eastern concept of putting crazy amounts of weapons on everything.

I think so, I don't think there is any requirement on exactly how many troops you need there. Probably one soldier would be enough.

It certainly would be nice if units could communicate to any other units within audio/visual range, reguardless of CoC. I hate rushing my AT team up to deal with a spotted tank, only for the spotting unable being unable to point out the tank. Another thing is it would be nice if the AI was a little more aware of vehicles as cover, much like they are say walls (would be nice if they were aware of corners too). But I'd imagine you'd need some kind of "follow" command for them to effectively use a moving vehicle, as it is you'd never get them to stick close enough together and at the same speed. Though I do have one question regarding communicating with units without radios. Currently it seems that you can still give orders to units that aren't really in contact with the CoC. Is the player playing as the highest ranking officer (and such should only be able to command units in contact) or is the player considered to basically be playing as every leader on a given side and so still commanding out of comms units "acting on their own"?

Yes, since you outlined pretty much what they do right now. By the way, I think if it's immobilized with no weapons it's considered knocked out anyway. But where the problem lies is it takes a LOT of small arms fire to get a pickup truck to meet those conditions and unless it's on fire the AI can't seem to tell most of the time anyway. Knocking out the SPG in the back would be more luck than anything with small arms, especially since the AI won't aim for it. Personally I'd usually rather have my ammo and not give away my position. If I really want it that dead I can give the order. 99% of the time when the vehicle is abandoned it has no more value and won't be re-crewed. I can see AI firing on vehicles they don't know are abandoned, but generally speaking telling if a technical is empty is easy enough (yes I know in some conditions/distances it might be hard to tell, but generally speaking).

You could just have it so they only fire on abandoned vehicles if ordered...

I didn't know there was an updating procedure for saved games and that in between battle saves aren't "safe", so that's probably the issue.

I loaded a pre-patch (whatever the last version was) campaign save (start of mission, before the setup phase, so not mid mission) and it turns out one of my LAV crews must not have been satisfied with their issued kit, so they grabbed a pair of .50 cal mgs (mind you I never did buddy aid with them and the CAAT platoon is intact) and a bunch of Syrian ATGMs. Just incase. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2674/4172786902_7fb9b83de2_o.jpg I have a save if it's needed.

I think the problem is not so much how many rounds it takes to kill it but the definition of killed. CMSF and the AI consider it killed when it's burning scrap. I think this is because it will not be considered "dead" until it is completely useless. 100 rounds will kill the truck, but the mounted weapon is still usable. So although the crew is probably dead or fleeing, you could still get back on the gun and start shooting. You can see the same thing with the AFVs, you can bail out of an tank with the engine fried and the AI will still shoot it up.

Hard to say is the picture was probably taken just before noon (sun is coming from high angle, slightly left of center). http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=36.154916,37.018894&spn=0.00295,0.004823&z=18 It's a very strange and useless wall if it's a wall.... shadows where there are shadows are strange, it might be roofed at points (weird for a canal or maybe I got it wrong). Pretty sure it's no wall though. Part of a smiler "thing" to the west: a tunnel entrance or shift from dirt to concrete canal? http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=36.152326,37.024543&spn=0.00295,0.004823&z=18 Goes under the road http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=36.147925,37.029918&spn=0.00295,0.004823&z=18 Strange shadows since they're on both ends of that whatever that is: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=36.150966,37.011046&spn=0.00295,0.004823&z=18 Dirt road goes over it here http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=36.140361,37.000875&spn=0.00295,0.004823&z=18 Goes under road... covered on other side? http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=36.1358,36.983124&spn=0.00295,0.004823&z=18 Anyway, you managed to find something very strange. I would say under construction drainage canal, unless I'm missing something. It could be an underground railway being built to move ICBMs too .

I did some testing, a M240B HMMWV vs a PK technical at 200m, head on. Generally the HMMWV killed 2 to 3 occupants within the first 40-50 rounds (obviously taking it out of action) However since the AI sees fit to make it extra dead, it took about 120 rounds (in total) to kill the engine (the AI however didn't know it and would keep firing, I didn't wait around to see how many hundreds of rounds it would take to set it on fire). Keep in mind the AI didn't aim for the engine, a few tight bursts happened to go in, but the bursts were all over the front of the truck. Maybe half went in the engine, or at least that area. That probably makes a big difference in the number of rounds to kill the engine, considering the AI is just shooting "at" the truck, they seem happy enough if they're just ventilating the bodywork.

I don't know how well the windshield would stop 5.56, but maybe if the angle is right or it's very far away. Also from the front people have would a tendency to duck down behind the engine when under fire which would stop a lot of stuff (I don't think that's abstracted though). On related note.. Guy charges a SWAT team in an SUV, takes tons of rounds point blank (lots of handgun cal, maybe some .223) and sustains only an arm wound.

This thread brought back memories of commanding 64 players in OFP with a paper map. If you wanted to see where that last ATGM came from, no god-like replay, you had to stick your head out with a pair of binoculars. As far as ArmA goes, Shacktac and Tactical Gamer are the big groups, there's also a bunch of smaller groups out there. Personally I've been a long time member of the 502nd (now 1-75th CAV). We make our own niffty mod packs . http://www.atasteofwar.com/ Also if you like a bit more realism and functionality, the ACE2 beta was just released. Another great game for this sort of thing is steel beasts pro, especially with the very "hardcore" community.

The low rocky terrain has some abstracted cover, some soldiers seem to get "magic invisible cover", where you'll see bullets pass through them without doing damage. The rocky ground is the best stuff short of a wall or building, a foot high rock is better than nothing for a prone soldier and is decent cover. It's also the only naturally occurring 'real' cover (micro terrain cover is modeled on almost all terrain types, just it's generally not very good). Trees work to a degree, but your troops really don't use em. I bet it also provides a little concealment, but probably not much better that laying in the open. So when your out and about away from walls and buildings, rocky ground and terrain/trenches are the only cover. Personally I've noticed my guys last quite a bit longer when in rocky ground as opposed to any other terrain type.