snake_eye

Finally downloading with Gamershell. Luckily I have download lightning advertised by BF. When the download server quits I can connect and resume again. Moon what about the setup-1d.bin file ? It comes from the download or from that file ?

BF is doing better games than they do communicate. They raised the tension to the highest point it could be all these late days and it all crash down considering the difficulties to download the PC demo, while waiting to do it for the pre ordered one. They should have thought of that before. They had ample time. So to summarize Filefactory is not worth a penny, Playworthing works for me only on the USA mirror site (the one they asked not to use !) and the file is at the end corrupted . It happened twice. What do they say to that and what is going to be done ? It is rather their problem, than to have Ratdeath very kindly proposing to provide us a way to get the file. Hope that one is not also corrupted.

Thanks Ratdeath

I am unable to connect to the German site ? The >Us one works butb the file is corrupted and that on two attempts

I have tried it, but the download was not so fast at the beginning so I closed it. Seems secure, but up to what point ?

As I wrote elsewhere, it is not worth a Penny. Playworthing with Lightning download works good, about an hour, but the PC file was on 2 attempts corrupted that is the setup-1d.bin If BF can have a look at it.

Filefactory is not worth a penny. forget it Playworthing doesn't respond for the indicated German mirror site, but works with the USA site (the one we should not use ?) 2 attempts made. It takes around an hour to download, with lightning download. Infortunately the extraction of the RAR indicated a corrupted file, that for the 2 attempts: setup-1d.bin Could BF have a look at it. A bit disappointed. i hope that it won't be as difficult to download the game that our elders hard time to land on the beaches !

Erwin, Thanks for the compliment and if they don't last, I shall try to be up the needed standard. After all if a scenario is taking in account what the designer might not have seen at first, it benefits to the scenario, the players and the designer. Your remark about the specialized units is right. If they are specialized, they should normally be to a better standard than normal units, thus to set them as crack is not abnormal at all. Now the question is, will CMSF make that difference felt in the game in such a way that it makes a certain difference? That I am not sure, since, what we would need is at first, for snipers and or recon a certain ability in stealth moves and in seeing without being seen. The Engineers should be able to detect IEDs, minefields(they don’t do it in CMSF) and blow walls (they do it), besides that they act like infantry.

No Erwin, I don't play that fast, I had just forgotten that the Khabour trail was part of the Canadian campaign. I played when I got Nato. I don't have with me the external HD where I save usually shots and results from the battles I play. But, I think I went up to the 5th or 6th battle of the campaign. I liked the one (within the first ones to be played) with the only bridge that could be crossed to get to the objectives. I think that it is the one with IED on the bridge. But as I wrote it, the objectives points and mostly the casualty threshold parameters were disappointing. You could finish a battle having reach the objectives, mopped up the all place and be beaten only because that damn threshold was saying so. It also happened in a battle, just because 3 Reds WIA, were still there! To this day, I have not understood how the game parameters got to that result. I think that the Canadian forces used in the campaign have less fire power than what we usually find with US armored infantry and USMC units. Don't you think ?

I played only once JOKER 3 and enjoyed it a lot. Got in trouble, trying to ex filtrate with the Bradleys the squads stuck deep into the houses, once I got there. However everything else went the way I thought it should. Pretty amazing scenario and astonishing map I played quite a few times ROAD to DINAS. I have written before what I thought of it, but the designer clearly did not understood what I meant and took it as an offence and rather badly , judging by his harsh remarks. You can praise someone and yet point out what problem there is, if that is a benefit for the game. When, I don’t like a scenario or if it is badly done, I keep it for me. When, you made earlier, Erwin, some wise remarks about a HELLUVA ROAD OPENING V1, I looked at them closely and worked to see, how it could be improved. V2 is the result. A good one, I hope. You will tell me. To end with it, in a campaign, if you are systematically unable to go to the next battle, because the point’s parameters are preventing you to do so, that is not fun. Why the designer is he taking so much of its time in effort to finally prevent people to discover the good work he has done ?. The maps are well done, the scenarios are goods but the parameters are the problems. They still are to a lesser point in the Canadian campaign (I have played it up to the 5th or 6th, till the parameters kicked me out). I only hope that they will be good in the Montebourg battle of Normandy campaign. I know that the parameters are not easy to set and I had myself problems with them. That is exactly what happened in a COUNTER ATTACK at EL DERJINE V1. The Reds had a certain tendency to surrender, when the reinforcement where coming. That was due to the casualties’ threshold. It has been corrected in V2. You can almost play it to the end, with still a lot of Reds around and finally win.V1 was a 2 hours scenario, V2 is raised up to 3 hours and more. The Red’s attacks spears have been modified and their axis closely watched during the numerous testing with BLACKMORIA. The attack intensity is better than the previous one. You don’t have time to sip on your favourite drink. Some assets have been added, to had more realism to the attacks. The initial sets up zones were not sufficient and obliged the player to stay on the front line or close to it. Now, with the added numerous sets up zones, he can move its units wherever he wants and out of harm, if that is its intent. A HELLUVA ROAD OPENING V1 is unchanged at the time being, still played with Marines. The set up could be changed to the ones found in V2, when I get some time available. A HELLUVA ROAD OPENING V2, as written above, is played with Marines and Nato and has its sets up zones enlarged and new ones. Zil’s truck, Mtvr’s for the ANA as suited, 2 X Marder’s and one Fenneck. The Fenneck to provide AT launcher to one of the team carried in the Marder’s (a way to counter the default of V 1.31 absence of launcher in the Marders, till the correcting patch comes)

First preview saturday, if I get home on time. Had a quick look at Cid250 link.

Will some of you be interested by scan parts of Normandy road maps made by Michelin in the late thirties ? These type of maps where also used by the US and USAAF forces being reprinted and as well by the German forces during their retreat from Normandy. Their interest is unvaluable, when you compare the road existing at the time and the size of the small towns and villages. When you look at the road net, you are able to understand why the axis of some attacks was done the way it has been at the time. I could at the end of the week, being back home, post the Carentan, Utah beach exit causeways areas if you want it. Cheers

Thanks for all Erwin and specially for the information about the Khabour trail Canadian campaign, I shall give it a try.

A copy of the short overall description of recon tactics as written in the scenario folder in the Helluva road opening V2 post after answering to Erwin questions. About the recon tactics: It is difficult to get into them in details, since they depend of the countries, the forces doing them (Infantry, Mech Infantry, armor, airmobile…….) and mostly from the type of grounds on which they are done. There are broadly 2 types of Recon. The one against unconventional and the one against conventional armies (I won’t get into it, since it is a huge program involving many different tactics). Against unconventional : Stealth is the key. Insert, see, report and exfiltrate without being seen. If you are about to scout through an open and more or less bare ground, if enemies are known to be around, you are not going to do it on foot and or mounted on a track in full day. You don’t want to be zeroed in with a recoilless gun, MG and or mortars. You are going in at night to a predetermine ground feature on foot, on a quad (engine muffled, torque modified…) inserted with a parachute wing (which permits a long distance drop and glide path) or with an helicopter (with rotor blades and engines muffled –special ops operative). However each of these has advantages and the contrary. If the ground features do not allow some cover and if the area is more or less populated, the helicopter is not going to be used, then the chute either since it might not be easy to find accurately the LZ, specially, if no one is there with a beacon. An insertion on foot and in some case with quads is mostly chosen In areas with ground features having orchards, lush vegetation, streams and or rivers with swamps areas near them with villages scattered around. Depending of the area stability, day patrolling either on foot and or mounted on tracks can be done, mainly on the roads and or tracks (if supporting tracks). Night recon can be done on foot to reconnoitre possible ambush sites and have an eye on them. Night insertion by helicopter on peaks can be done for team of scout that will provide an overwatch security of the movements being done on the road use in the morning by a convoy. The use of scouts to patrol on foot, seek the enemies and engage it, is not what they are meant for. Many peoples think that a Green beret, a ranger and or a seal team is inserted to seek and destroy before being exfiltrated. That is right if it is on a known objective clearly defined and that should be treated accordingly to the intelligence that has been gathered. That is, what was done for the Geromino action that took place some days ago. Before that assault, undercover actions were made at different levels, with different means and not a thing was done to alert anyone. To scout is primarily to seek the whereabouts of the enemies, to evaluate its forces, to reconnoitre the ground features of the grounds that could be a real asset when known for a near and or future use of tracks, tanks and or Infantry deployments in that area. The scout gathered intelligence on the ground is invaluable; No satellite intelligence will be able to verify on the ground if what is seen on pictures is what is found on the ground. Electronic intelligence however gives a certain view of the environment that could be verified by a team infiltrating the area. More, they might discover units that were not suspected to be in, due to their maintained cell phones and or radio silence. These are some of the real uses of Recon deployed against unconventional threat. They can be of some help while playing with CMSF, but they can not be simulated as written earlier. A game like ARMA II and its military version can reproduce stealth Recon in a human against human environment. Some limitations have to be accepted. Some gamers even fared better against military teams in very closely watched evaluation scenario. On the ground I would not have given much success to the gamers. For me it does not matter, how much you know of how the recon teams should be employed in the game, since it does not fit in it the way it does in real life. Luckily, that is not the same with over forces use. There are still some limitations, but we are closer to reality than before. That is, close to real situation awareness. To end it I would say that SITUATION AWARENESS is what Recon is all about

Is that a CMA campaign battle ? If not where does it stand.

Try the scenario "A Helluva road opening" and its Nato version "A Helluva Road opening V2" and discover By yourself the different deterrent that could be used against IED. "Spoiler"..........................."Spoiler".............................."Spoiler"............................. I have foot soldiers moving along the sides of the road, with their tracks staying on the road farther back. The foot soldiers are that way drawing fire from taliban's hiding some place away from the road.If they can spot them, engage, suppress and or kill them, with the help of the tracks weapons, they can prevent the trigger man to fire the IED. The IED are cell phone triggered and or wire triggered; In the last case the wire could be damaged preventing the firing. I try to move tracks and or men, very cautiously on the road and even in the ditches, specially on bottleneck location. The less available space to deploy the more risk to have an IED. I have never had the same result while opening the road. yet, I know where the damn things are. Cheers

In a scenario making, the surrender of either side can be triggered by the threshold of authorized casualties. If you set that threshold at 75% for the Syrian, they will quit once it is reached. If you don't set it up at all, they will have a tendancy to fight till the end or until key objectives set in the game have been taken by the Blue and therefore lost by them. You don't have to put in the game reinforcement (set to come at the end of the scenario, thus never coming) to augment the number of the enemy and preventing that way, the Blue to reach the threshold that has been set up. The Blue won't be able to inflict casualties on troops not getting into the game. It is better to remove, has written above, the Red threshold entirely. Don't forget to set the Blue threshold at a level you are founding acceptable or eventually to remove that threshold entirely. What works for the Red, works also for the Blue

To Erwin, Your advices recap is right. Rightfully, they are intended mostly for the CMSF game and in particular to that scenario. About the AT assets : The Javelins are heavy for a small team. The AT4 are lighter but fare better at a range under 250 meters. Their uses in open ground necessitate being more or less exposed till the threat is at close range. However, the Javelins are permitting a long shot while being safely away. More they are able to destroy a tank at the first shot, which is most of the time not the case with the AT4. Javelins are perfect against ground and hardened targets, like houses, bunkers and troops in trenches. They have been used that way in Irak in particular in the Fallujah 2 battles. Depending of what the teams are going to do the Javelins and or the AT4’s are an evident choice. If the teams have to move on foot a long distance, the AT 4 is better, but not necessary, since the teams should primarily avoid contact. They must find the enemies emplacements, not fight them. About the HQ: The HQ should to my sense, in that game (but also in RL), stay always with the tracks or close to them. They can that way maintain a watch for the tracks which remain safely farther back than the front scouting elements. It can from there, overwatch the teams during their forward move and provide a Fire base if necessary. The tracks will move forward to rejoin the teams when they have found a suitable emplacement. The team’s tracks move first and when in position the HQ track will come along. Then, the HQ dismount. When the perimeter is set, the teams scout forward on foot, providing each over mutual support and overwatch as needed. The HQ remaining at the new fire base follows their move and gives support, with all available assets when necessary About the recon tactics: It is difficult to get into them in details, since they depend of the countries, the forces doing them (Infantry, Mech Infantry, armor, airmobile…….) and mostly from the type of grounds on which they are done. There are broadly 2 types of Recon. The one against unconventional and the one against conventional armies (I won’t get into it, since it is a huge program involving many different tactics). Against unconventional : Stealth is the key. Insert, see, report and exfiltrate without being seen. If you are about to scout through an open and more or less bare ground, if enemies are known to be around, you are not going to do it on foot and or mounted on a track in full day. You don’t want to be zeroed in with a recoilless gun, MG and or mortars. You are going in at night to a predetermine ground feature on foot, on a quad (engine muffled, torque modified…) inserted with a parachute wing (which permits a long distance drop and glide path) or with an helicopter (with rotor blades and engines muffled –special ops operative). However each of these has advantages and the contrary. If the ground features do not allow some cover and if the area is more or less populated, the helicopter is not going to be used, then the chute either since it might not be easy to find accurately the LZ, specially, if no one is there with a beacon. An insertion on foot and in some case with quads is mostly chosen In areas with ground features having orchards, lush vegetation, streams and or rivers with swamps areas near them with villages scattered around. Depending of the area stability, day patrolling either on foot and or mounted on tracks can be done, mainly on the roads and or tracks (if supporting tracks). Night recon can be done on foot to reconnoitre possible ambush sites and have an eye on them. Night insertion by helicopter on peaks can be done for team of scout that will provide an overwatch security of the movements being done on the road use in the morning by a convoy. The use of scouts to patrol on foot, seek the enemies and engage it, is not what they are meant for. Many peoples think that a Green beret, a ranger and or a seal team is inserted to seek and destroy before being exfiltrated. That is right if it is on a known objective clearly defined and that should be treated accordingly to the intelligence that has been gathered. That is, what was done for the Geromino action that took place some days ago. Before that assault, undercover actions were made at different levels, with different means and not a thing was done to alert anyone. To scout is primarily to seek the whereabouts of the enemies, to evaluate its forces, to reconnoitre the ground features of the grounds that could be a real asset when known for a near and or future use of tracks, tanks and or Infantry deployments in that area. The scout gathered intelligence on the ground is invaluable; No satellite intelligence will be able to verify on the ground if what is seen on pictures is what is found on the ground. Electronic intelligence however gives a certain view of the environment that could be verified by a team infiltrating the area. More, they might discover units that were not suspected to be in, due to their maintained cell phones and or radio silence. These are some of the real uses of Recon deployed against unconventional threat. They can be of some help while playing with CMSF, but they can not be simulated as written earlier. A game like ARMA II and its military version can reproduce stealth Recon in a human against human environment. Some limitations have to be accepted. Some gamers even fared better against military teams in very closely watched evaluation scenario. On the ground I would not have given much success to the gamers. For me it does not matter, how much you know of how the recon teams should be employed in the game, since it does not fit in it the way it does in real life. Luckily, that is not the same with over forces use. There are still some limitations, but we are closer to reality than before. That is, close to real situation awareness. To end it I would say that SITUATION AWARENESS is what Recon is all about Cheers

To Erwin, Find the copy of my answers, following the same questions you ask me for a Helluva Road Opening V2 scenario post Two shots from the Recon teams and MGS tracks First of all, to rely on stealth, the 2 recon teams should be deployed without their strikers, at least in that scenario. However, CMSF does not simulate that too much, besides it would take few hours to move a team forward. More, as soon as the team is seeing the enemy, in the game they are most likely seen in return. The stealth effect is immediately lost and they don’t have a fire power sufficient to disengage from a fire fight while keeping the enemy heads down. For that reason, we have to consider the game and the RL differences. In RL, we have 2 mode of Recon that could be used. The Stealth one and the armed one. In the stealth one, the movements are most likely made at night and without the Strykers. At least these are left at a point where they can be safely guarded by a team and the HQ. From there a team is infiltrating the area to be reconnoitred. It should maintain a constant link with the HQ. That way it can pass on information and ask for air, artillery or mortars support. In case of trouble it should fall back to a spot , located somewhere on the way out (that exfiltration way is different than the way in) where the other team might wait and provide a fire base to slow down the enemy on the heels of the retreating team. In the armed one, the recon is made mounted in the Strykers over long distance and using them as a solid fire base while one team is probing grounds around in a cluster pattern. The HQ stay with the Strykers and the 2nd team move with the 1st one keeping constant mutual support and or overwatch between them.The MGS is or are staying a bit farther away keeping an overwatch on the Strykers and if possible on the teams. If trouble comes they can be deployed close to the Strykers, or these can fall back toward them. The 2 teams must fall back at the double behind a curtain of smoke shells and mortars rounds, toward a predetermined spot, from which they can hold back the enemy and direct (or ask for to the HQ) air, artillery or mortars fire.. In that scenario, I am using the 2 scouts teams with the javelins (to dispose of MG’s nests being seen) mounted on the Strykers. Javelins would not be carried on a RL infiltration, since weight is the first enemy before the enemy itself (Anyway, Air being called, would take care of tracks and or tanks being most likely lased for laser bombs drops). I move the Strykers and the MGS (which are kept at a wide pace behind) toward and on the flanks of the supposed enemy concentration. I never have them attack head on. I try to find spots where the tracks will be partly hull down and to establish a solid fire base. The teams and even the HQ disembark. The 2 teams move to another spot providing mutual support. The HQ stay with the tracks. Once the teams have sufficient intelligence of what is forward and around, I have the Strykers rejoin them if it is safe. To summarize, I am using the recon teams : 1st To draw a more or less clear picture of the enemy in the area. 2nd To call all available mortars and or MGS being able to give support 3rd To provide a solid fire base for an Infantry platoon mounted on Strykers, which will disembark the closest to the enemy concentration under suppressive fire. Just a remark, rather important. The Strykers and the BTR are rather prone to get damaged and or destroyed by RPG’s and recoilless gun’s. The bradley’s and their inter active casing fare better and their quick 20 mm link belt fed gun do marvel. The Strykers in that scenario have 50 cal HMG, they don’t get the same result to say the less. If I can use the brad’s to attack a village I rather do it. I hope to have answered to your 4 questions

To Erwin, Two shots from the Recon teams and MGS tracks First of all, to rely on stealth, the 2 recon teams should be deployed without their strikers, at least in that scenario. However, CMSF does not simulate that too much, besides it would take few hours to move a team forward. More, as soon as the team is seeing the enemy, in the game they are most likely seen in return. The stealth effect is immediately lost and they don’t have a fire power sufficient to disengage from a fire fight while keeping the enemy heads down. For that reason, we have to consider the game and the RL differences. In RL, we have 2 mode of Recon that could be used. The Stealth one and the armed one. In the stealth one, the movements are most likely made at night and without the Strykers. At least these are left at a point where they can be safely guarded by a team and the HQ. From there a team is infiltrating the area to be reconnoitred. It should maintain a constant link with the HQ. That way it can pass on information and ask for air, artillery or mortars support. In case of trouble it should fall back to a spot , located somewhere on the way out (that exfiltration way is different than the way in) where the other team might wait and provide a fire base to slow down the enemy on the heels of the retreating team. In the armed one, the recon is made mounted in the Strykers over long distance and using them as a solid fire base while one team is probing grounds around in a cluster pattern. The HQ stay with the Strykers and the 2nd team move with the 1st one keeping constant mutual support and or overwatch between them.The MGS is or are staying a bit farther away keeping an overwatch on the Strykers and if possible on the teams. If trouble comes they can be deployed close to the Strykers, or these can fall back toward them. The 2 teams must fall back at the double behind a curtain of smoke shells and mortars rounds, toward a predetermined spot, from which they can hold back the enemy and direct (or ask for to the HQ) air, artillery or mortars fire.. In that scenario, I am using the 2 scouts teams with the javelins (to dispose of MG’s nests being seen) mounted on the Strykers. Javelins would not be carried on a RL infiltration, since weight is the first enemy before the enemy itself (Anyway, Air being called, would take care of tracks and or tanks being most likely lased for laser bombs drops). I move the Strykers and the MGS (which are kept at a wide pace behind) toward and on the flanks of the supposed enemy concentration. I never have them attack head on. I try to find spots where the tracks will be partly hull down and to establish a solid fire base. The teams and even the HQ disembark. The 2 teams move to another spot providing mutual support. The HQ stay with the tracks. Once the teams have sufficient intelligence of what is forward and around, I have the Strykers rejoin them if it is safe. To summarize, I am using the recon teams : 1st To draw a more or less clear picture of the enemy in the area. 2nd To call all available mortars and or MGS being able to give support 3rd To provide a solid fire base for an Infantry platoon mounted on Strykers, which will disembark the closest to the enemy concentration under suppressive fire. Just a remark, rather important. The Strykers and the BTR are rather prone to get damaged and or destroyed by RPG’s and recoilless gun’s. The bradley’s and their inter active casing fare better and their quick 20 mm link belt fed gun do marvel. The Strykers in that scenario have 50 cal HMG, they don’t get the same result to say the less. If I can use the brad’s to attack a village I rather do it. About the Marder being immobilized, well it is rare to have all units fit to a 100 %. Now days the tracks need a day to day close look due to their mechanical and electronic gears which have become more and more complex There is nothing comparable between an M3 half track (WWII vintage) and a Stryker, besides the mutual use of the 50 cal HMG. That one has the easiest mechanic parts to be care. For the rest there is nothing comparable. You could almost say, that the M3 could be taken care off with a screw driver and that you have to call an electronic and or a mechanical engineer for the Stryker. I hope to have answered to your 4 questions

There were no precise real events about the positioning of the Recon elements on the right of the airfield. One of the reason is mainly a tactical one, deriving from the situation found at the airfield at the beginning of the game. But before explaining that reason, let me point out, that all you wrote about the employment of Recon and or Attack forces is right. That is the theory. On the ground, it might be different for many reasons. The first one, is that troops that have been either patrolling and or in contact earlier, need to rest at a determined period. Usually, they are manning static positions, where their alert status is not at the highest level. That way , they are freeing other troops going in active patrolling and or mission.That is the same for Recon and or attack troops. On the right side the Recon have a good field of view on the approaches to the airfield. That is from the village and the right far side. They can watch that area, until it is necessary for them to probe the village and why not the ford gateway and maybe the orchards lying beyond. They can be deployed elsewhere, if the player feels like doing it. The mounted Strykers platoon is the one to use if an attack is to be made against a localized red element. They can assist and or relieve the recon. However, the recon teams should be used to identify Red elements and will try to avoid being heavily engaged. Once they are engaged, If they can not breakaway from contact, they should stay in defence and call the attack elements. The attack elements should attack by trying to outflank the enemy, while the recon provides a fire base. The recon team can, also call the mortars to lower the enemy fire. However, the recon task is mainly to probe and recon main ground features. In that scenario, it should be the high grounds from which they could see Red elements near and or not so far from the MSR. In real events the recon teams are inserted by night by helicopters on peaks and or hills from which they have a clear sight of the road that is going to be used the next morning. They are overwatching the convoy road, before, during and after it goes through. If someone wants to use them to get to high grounds prior to move the convoy is up to him. He just has to decide which high ground seems fit for that and how he could get the team there. That simple fact is not an easy task and the recon teams might not be able to get it done without calling for some help. That is why that scenario has been made and believe me it is not that far away from real issues an officer had to face. It does not mind, if it was in the 50’s, 60’s and up to these days. All the technological tools being provided won’t be available necessarily at the right time and you will have to rely to the bare thing an infantryman has, that is its gun and his feet.

Good guess about the Fenneck. That was necessary, till the patch correcting the absence of the launcher in the Marder is released. Hopefully someone mentioned the Fenneck had such a launcher available in V 1.31

To Steve, Do the best, even if it difficult for us to wait. Every thing to make the release best is highly acceptable. Meanwhile, I cool down doing some gardening. Cheers