LarsS

I just did a test with 1- and 2-man squads, all being destroy targets worth 10 VPs. And it seems that for 1-man squads it's all or nothing: you need to kill or critically wound to get any VPs. Yellow condition awards no pts. For 2-man squads you get 0 points if one man is KIA/red and one is unhurt. You get 4 pts if one is KIA/red and the other is yellow. And (obviously) the full 10 for 2 men KIA/red.

It's probably way too complicated to implement, but I would like to see some sort of option in the ScenEd to penalize the player for letting the critically wounded bleed out and die due to the time constraint. This way the enemy wouldn't gain anything by killing already WIA casualties, but the player would be forced to do all in his power not to leave any wounded behind. (And then we just need snipers to be able to intentionally wound enemy soldiers so that he then can wing the would-be rescuers, and then their rescuers...)

Well, you need to either kill or seriously wound(red status) the unit for it to count as destroyed and get the VPs for it. Merely hitting them and getting them lightly wounded (yellow) is not enough.

IIRC the M136 AT4 has a minimum arming distance of 10 m. But I guess it still hurts to be hit in the face with an unarmed granade...

If even the US 81 mm mortar is as effective against entrenched troops in RL as in the game, I'd make sure of having some sort of over-head protection if I were Syrian. Nothing fancy, just a simple roof with a few sandbags on it would make a world of difference. And since the squads fight all bunched up and don't spread out properly, they really need over-head protection not to be overly vulnerable to light shrapnel.

I found this thread and can't help to wonder if there actually is any profanity in the game. I've never noticed any (don't speak Arabic). But my Paradox edition has the PEGI profanity (or bad language, as they call it) rating on the box.

I especially like this one as Syrians. Managing to hold on to the front VL is quite a challange. And as for "gamey" tactics, I feel no shame in hosing suspected enemy positions (trenches) with 25 mm fie. But doing it and moving the screen to the targeted location and listening for screams, etc is where I draw the line.

Just tried both sides. I liked it. Especially considering it being impossible to design a scenario that is equally as challanging and fun from both sides vs the limited responsiveness of the AI. My advice is to give the attacker more short movement orders for all plans, just to keep him from parking his Bradleys in the same spot for 15 mins (which make them very inviting arty targets - i took one out and immobilized one with my 82mm mortars). And to keep the defender on his toes and add a bit more of a dynamic feeling to the battle. This, of course, at the risk of the AI doing something incredibly stupid, like exposing his six at point blank range to known RPG positions. Anyway, thanks.

Considering how the tank simply disappears in the first video, I would guess it was some sort of new tank made from TNT. Or maybe a new, cunning veichle IED. Or maybe it was just a sales video.

Yes, if the AI setup zones include any areas, even partial tiles, that aren't buildings, it will bunch its units there and not inside the buildings. It hasn't changed.

What would be the rationale behind the parallell mounted dual-gun setup? As mentioned, why not go with larger calibre or higher rate of fire? I could understand it if the guns had their individual turret mountings so that they could engage separate targets. Maybe it's about keeping one gun going if the other gets damaged?

How about firing the Javelin from the rear fighting hatches of a Stryker? Is it too bulky to get through a hatch?

The new system is great. I would just like to see shorter response times for helicopters after they've first arrived and engaged. I mean, if a helo is close enough to engage one target with the 30 mm, why do I have to wait 5 min for it to engage another right next to the first one?

Just a quick question when you all are on the subject: what kind of protection versus ATGMs does the slat armour of the Stryker provide?

In an urban enviroment I guess you can use rows of those upright pole thingies. They are a bit of a hassle to place, though. And would look silly out in the open

If you zoom out and look around outside the map you might see them. It's weird, but has happened to me a few times (especially when I give the reds a lot of IEDs). And you can only move them to the map one by one, since neither shift + left-click nor shift + left-click and drag seem to work outside the map.

Bradleys can also be immobilized by popping smkoke. Haven't seen it with M1s. Yet.

Thanks. Well, my point is that I don't want to place the comp's units, since then I'll know where they are... I wanted to be able to mark good setup areas for the AI (houses, trenches, reverse slopes, etc) but then have it do a unique setup each time I load the scenario. I thought that was the point of having setup zones.

Me, I don't mind a .pdf manual for a game (of this calibre) when its only some $45.

When creating a scenario I can't get the AI to set up its forces properly. The red units are in group 1 (as per default), I only use one plan in the AI, I paint a yellow setup zone for the group, I make sure that zone is within the red setup zone and I place all the units within the red setup zone. But when I run the scenario the units simply stay excactly where I left them in the editor and not in the AI setup zone for that group. The computer hasn't changed anything. What am I missing here? Shouldn't the AI place the units inside the assigned zone according to the plan? The units don't even turn to face the enemy's side of the map, or nothing. Thanks in advance.