Dietrich

In my experience it's rather a "six of one, half a dozen of another" thing. A recon vehicle is way more apt to get spotted than recon dismounts simply because it's a vehicle; but it's spotting capability (generally) is much greater than that of dismounts. Recon dismounts can Hunt/Slow into position without getting spotted and can remain there for pretty much as long as they like, but their spotting capability often leaves something to be desired. If the indicators (in the game and in the manual) are anything to go by, the Fennek is no better armored than an up-armored HMMWV (UAH). But unlike the typical UAH, it has IR optics plus a laser rangefinder and (depending on which army it belongs to) an M2HB, an MG3, or a grenade launcher.

When someone who calls himself "the Health Ranger" writes an article of which the title describes "criminal elements" of local, state and federal government conducting a "raid", I reckon it's wise to add, not a grain or two, but several sprinkles of salt. Could I be forgiven for preferring to spend my time reading simple reportage (what little exists these days) rather than sensationalized quasi-propaganda? But yeah, it's all a conspiracy. 'Cause nobody likes to be out of a job.

I reckon that profligacy with arty and air assets would tend to obviate occasion for using grenades. Aren't there relatively few scenario designers? And if their mischeviousness were truly unpredictable, wouldn't some players cry foul and claim, say, that the briefing was shoddy or misleading?

Canadians Vehicle-mounted 7.62mm MG is labeled "M240" (when actually manned by pixelsoldat) rather than "C6" Nyala armament is labeled "7.62mm MG", but weapon model is that of M2HB CF-188A is listed in editor as "F/A-18D" C15 uses same sound as SVD and .338 Lapua Magnum-chambered rifles (which have the same sound whether suppressor-equipped or not) And why the base C9 rather than the C9A1 or the C9A2?

:eek: When they posted that video today and added "not for public eyes", they weren't kidding! "Vorwärts, Männer! Den Letzten beißen die Hunde!"

[delayed reaction syndrome] Only 600 meters maximum range for the ERYX?!? [/delayed reaction syndrome] Well, at least the Canadians have a good variety of other AT assets (like the LAV III TUA). And hopefully the ERYX's deploy/pack-up times are rather less than the TOW-2's. =P And neither the Germans nor the Canadians nor the Dutch have Javelins? I didn't see such listed in the manual supplement.

Looking forward to it, PT! Doesn't help that it's Sunday, I reckon. (Uploads to the Repository are cleared by BFC personnel rather than automatically, correct?)

Disclaimer #1: I am not a small-arms grog, nor am I an infantry tactics grog. I'm simply interested in how WW2 infantry combat actually happened (vis-à-vis how small-scale infantry tactics are described in manuals or depicted in movies). Disclaimer #2: This thread is not for the purpose of arguing against any established principles (such as that most Western Front infantry casualties were caused by artillery) or promulgating much-ridiculed misconceptions ("MG42 wuz teh oober MG" =P). German squad-level tactical doctrine held that the squad's MG was its primary weapon and most significant source of firepower and that the riflemen were to generally support the MG rather than engaging targets themselves. But does this mean that in actual combat Schützen/Grenadiere actually only rarely fired their rifles? True, it would take several squads' worth of riflemen to equal the firepower of a single MG42, but would the riflemen in any given squad generally refrain from firing their rifles aside from in the critical tactical circumstance of protecting the MG or the squad itself? Would a German rifleman's training make him disinclined to add a few aimed shots per minute from his 98k when the squad MG was meanwhile hard at work? Just for shots and goggles (i.e., not with a view to supporting any claims about the weapon's capabilities or effectiveness), here's an MG42 video that some of you may not have seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N59msUnyy1g I know much less about US Army or British Army squad-level tactical doctrine, so I won't presume to comment on such.

Indeed it is possible. Just give the Blue tanks' experience to Green and their leadership and motivation values to -1 or -2; then set the Red tanks' experience at Veteran and their leadership and motivation values at +1 or +2.

Inadvertent inaccurate terminology on my part. In hindsight I realize that when I wrote "CAS", I meant "aircraft operating in the vicinity of troops in contact". Agreed, the Allies had air superiority, and most of the Luftwaffe's resources were devoted to fighting the heavy bombers; also, the Germans simply had few radios, such that the typical Heer rifle company had only one, for the company HQ (whereas the typical US Army rifle company had enough radios for each platoon as well as the company HQ). That said, would it be more reasonable to infer that the Germans should be effectively be disallowed aircraft operating in the vicinity of troops in contact (similar to how in CM:SF Red has no air assets) or that any sort of German air support ought to be extremely rare? Donald L. Caldwell's JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe notes: So the Luftwaffe wasn't entirely (or as near to it as makes no odds) a non-factor. However, any German aircraft which weren't knocked out by medium-/heavy-bomber attacks on their airfields would have to slip through squadron-strength Allied fighter sweeps at any given time to even reach the vicinity of troops in contact, where they would as likely as not draw the attention of other wide-roving enemy fighters and probably be driven off or embroiled into low-level dogfights before they could do as little as deliver a few strafing runs. Thus I suppose it's reasonable to reckon that any German air assets would be definitely few and far between, with only one aircraft per scenario (if that). Yet, according to Caldwell: "By the evening of 7 June, there were only six Gruppen of single-engined fighters left in Germany; sixteen Gruppen were in France." However, Caldwell does clarify that thus: [good-natured sarcasm, not directed at anyone in particular] Wait, don't tell me... Caldwell's book has long since been debunked as yet another load of Germans-lauding rot, even though he, unlike the sort of author that some would disregard as a matter of course, correlates Allied and German records to elucidate actual losses vis-à-vis the various claims of both sides. [/good-natured sarcasm, not directed at anyone in particular] =P

Ok, so the Allies' ability to employ something at least resembling CAS improved dramatically over the period covered by CM:N and its modules. Now what about the Germans? Surely there are certain "principles" which can be agreed upon: CAS much rarer than Allies, no Stukas, etc.

So after three pages the consensus is... no CAS in the typical sense in CM:N? Just one fighter or fighter-bomber (maybe two) -- if any at all -- passing overhead at random and engaging pretty much at will, with avoidance of "friendly fire" corresponding to a/c skill? I'm okay with that. I'm inclined to suspect that modern perceptions/impressions of communication capability have bled back through the decades, leading to the misperception that because the German blitzkrieg doctrine called for fighter-bombers/dive-bombers to act as "flying artillery" and because the Allies had lots of radios, troops in contact must have been able to call on planes for support. But no doubt someone far more grog-y will correct me on that. =P

A few times while playing CMSF I've thought, "Yeah, it'd be nice if I could move waypoints* around instead of replotting move orders"; but the degree to which it would improve my enjoyment of the game is so little that its absence is hardy noticeable. I can't fathom forsaking modern Fallschirmjäger for it. * I understand that the inherently greater complexity of units' interactions with their environment (i.e., action spots; how vehicles actually do avoid certain obstacles) precludes just slewing waypoints around as in CMx1.

Last spring I was helping a friend clear a bunch of long-neglected stuff (wood planks, plant pots, etc.) from his backyard when I felt a tickle along the back of my right ear. Absent-mindedly I flicked my ear forward with my finger, and from where I had felt the tickle I saw a not-all-that-small black spider hurtle down to land in the grass at my feet. Sent a shiver up my spine, let me tell you. Don't think it was a black widow, though. For some reason in my neighborhood the population of a certain species of not-small partially orange-bodied spider has practically exploded in the past couple months. On non-windy days in the front yard there are as many as 8 or 9 of them readily visible in large webs between the gutters and the hedge (right alongside the walkway up to the front door) or between the hedge and the lawn or between the lawn and the tree.

[aside] I think he meant "mod" as in "module", the implication being that modules are little more than collections of new textures. [/aside]

You're certainly not the first one to ask this. I've asked it myself at least once. Some rules of thumb: 1. Cobras have either cannon plus rockets or cannon plus missiles. Apaches have (usually) cannon plus missiles plus rockets. 2. The A-10 and the USMC Harriers are the only fixed-wing air assets that have on-board cannon plus bombs and/or missiles. British Harriers have bombs and/or missiles but no cannon.

[à la Jeremy Clarkson when introducing The Stig on Top Gear:] "Some say it's one of the best tactical computer wargames since the original Combat Mission series. [shrug] Others say it's an atrocity liked only by those whom the game's publishers have brainwashed. All we know is... [pause for effect] ...it's called Shock Force!"

[Russian super-villain accent] "In United Soviet States, possibilities see you!" [/Russian super-villain accent] Another good use for the "Syrope" mod, I reckon.

*shudders* *draws MEU(SOC) .45 and blasts sizeable hole in Lecter's anterior cranium* *clears throat* Moving on... Is it just me, or could the approaches to this "question" of C2 modelling in CMx2 be grouped into the "real"-wargamer "everything must be in accord with discrete rules that can be memorized" school vis-à-vis the "actual combat is much more 'fuzzy' than hard-and-fast rules allow for" school?

Some would use the inclusion of the Shilka as yet more grist to the ever-grinding "the asymmetry of this game is ridiculous" mill. They would assert that in any given scenario that includes a Shilka either the Blue player will have multiple means of taking it out (Javelins, super-accurate artillery, fixed-wing CAS) or any Blue rotary-wing CAS will be "gamey-ly" omitted. Am I overestimating the tactical capabilities of the Apache and/or Cobra, or could at least an AH-64D Longbow engage a Shilka at a great enough distance to be considered relatively safe? (Yes, I know that the scene in Generation Kill where the Cobra flies to within 800 meters or so of the Shilka to launch a Hellfire at it is unrealistic.) In any case, I look forward to using the new Blue long-range AT assets against any Shilka that I come across, just as I look forward to making good use of the Shilka.

The first two of the new screenshots may show more than one Gruppe's worth of men -- apparently a Panzergrenadier squad is 6 men, so maybe the soldiers pictured here are of some sort of light infantry unit -- but you can see that one Pixelsoldat is carrying an MG4, whereas another is carrying an MG3. In any case, they look to be a pretty well-armed bunch o' Pixelsoldaten.

Concurrent questions: Will Shilkas be able to deter/shoot down enemy helicopters? If not, then Blue air defenses need not necessarily be included. Is the engagement range of the Apache/Cobra/etc. greater than that of the Shilka? Well, according to Wikipedia the Shilka's maximum horizontal range is 7 km, maximum vertical range 5.1 km; whereas the Hellfire's maximum operational range is 8 km. Is Syrian CAS against Blue realistic/likely? I would reckon not. Wouldn't Syrian helicopters and/or fast-movers be interdicted before they got within engagement range of the typical CM:SF battlefield or destroyed on the ground in the first place? Besides, I surmise that coming under sudden sharp air attack, even if a few helos/jets and fuel bowsers remained intact afterward, would be quite an inducement to forgo taking off. In my view, CM:SF's omission of actual anti-air stuff is fine, because it's beyond the game's intended scale. What happens on the map (i.e., exclusing air support and artillery) is in the <2 km range, whereas tactical air support (even just in terms of helicopter gunships) happens in the 2-8+ km range. That said, I look forward to Red-versus-Red scenarios involving air support for one or both sides as well as Red-versus-Blue scenarios in which I (as one who plays plays Blue most of the time) have to keep my pixeltruppen moving and/or in cover to minimize the risk of air attack. =)

Die Kunst des Krieges (The Art of War). Ohhhhh yeahhhhh. :cool: "Vorwärts, Männer! Den Letzten beißen die Hunde!"

I don't mind it all that much that you can't drag wounded pixeltruppen to safety before administering buddy aid. What I do mind is when you run into a "house from hell" sort of situation where you enter a structure, suddenly take several casualties, then hotfoot it outta there to not lose any more guys, but you can't then call down arty or a GBU/JDAM on the building because the wounded are still lying where they fell. Then again, in the archetypal "house from hell" situation, they actually had to throw more men into the indoor meatgrinder to get the wounded out, rather than just dragging the wounded to safety and then calling in a D9 bulldozer to collapse the building.

Or at least they thought they knew more about D-Day. Contrary to the snide and bitter claims of some, CM:N isn't being prepared under a massive deception plan à la Operation Bodyguard/Operation Fortitude. Then again, those snide and bitter contrarians would assert that CM:N actually isn't being prepared at all.