Dietrich

Except that in the scenarios where the enemy has AT-14s and/or RPG-29s, they usually have enough of them to leave you wishing you hadn't attempted the infamous gamey tank rush. :cool: And one usually doesn't have all that many tanks to begin with.

I'm sure I'd love playing any SBCT or HBCT scenario(s)/campaign(s) you'd make, PT. Nonetheless, I mean to finally contribute something back to the CM/CMSF community by designing and publishing scenarios of my own. I'm learning as I go (also thanks in large part to the excellent example of other scenario designers and George McEwan's design guide), and it's a slow and not-always-steady process, but it's only a matter of time...

Sounds like a scenario/campaign I'd dig playing. =) It's perfectly understandable -- what with the fairly frustrating state of CMSF before the v1.10 patch, as well as the greater interesting-ness of the USMC and British forces -- that very few Stryker-oriented scenarios have been made since, well, v1.10. Even so, I think that with the current scenario designers' greater skill and greater familiarity with the editor, the Stryker forces could use a revisiting, to see what interesting scenarios can be created using them. But since I can't just wait for others to do so, even if they'd do a far better job than me, I've started work on my first entirely custom scenario, which features a Stryker infantry company (minus one infantry platoon but reinforced with a platoon of combat engineers and supported by A-10s and a section of SBCT howitzers) assaulting an airfield in northeastern Syria.

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your question. But I reckon someone round here knows. So what's this your campaign idea of yours? I, for one, would dig hearing about it.

I predict that once the NATO module is out, there will be more user-made US/UK/CF-versus-Germans scenarios than all the previous Blue-versus-Blue scenarios combined.

Welcome, myshikai, to the forum. ^ This. Think of the modules as add-ons. To have access to all forces and to all the scenarios and campaigns, you need the base game (CM:SF) as well as all the modules. When you in turn-based mode (aka WEGO), you can review the action of each turn as many times as you like. Edit: Even slower! =P

[declamatory shout] "Lobsters . . . in . . . spaaaaaaaaaaaace!" [/declamatory shout]

Another reason RPGs can seem inordinately effective against vehicles (especially soft-skinned or light-armored ones) is the ratio of HEAT projectiles versus HE projectiles. In CM:SF, RPGs -- whether carried by regular soldiers or irregular fighters -- come with several HEAT projectiles but just one or two HE ones. In real-life engagements, RPG volleys don't result in several knocked-out vehicles (whether HMMWVs or Bradleys) because many, if not most of those are HEAT projectiles, and there are often one or two duds among them. To put it in perspective, when I played "A Gap In The Screen" a couple weeks ago, a M707 HMMWV of mine took a direct hit (or at least it looked direct) hit on its right rear quarter from a T-72 at less than 500 meters' range and suffered only superficial damage. But back on topic... It's cool to watch an M1A2 SEP score a 2000-meter first-round knock-out hit on a T-72M1V TURMS-T which then goes up in a huge explosion. But to me it's almost more interesting when a vehicle takes a hit and is merely damaged. That's when one gets to see the dynamic-ness and relative verisimilitude of the CMx2 engine.

In CM:SF, if Blue were to suffer 30% casualties in a single battle (even if Red were to suffer 90% casualties), it would be a fiasco. In CM:N, I reckon it'll be more like: "Well, we lost a third of our company, but we captured the objective and beat back a company-sized counterattack -- all in all, a good day!"

The context of Elmar's words ("we lost the shadow and the active AA fire") shows that he is referring to how air support works in CM:SF rather than how it presumably will work in CM:N. If shadows and on-map anti-aircraft assets were absent from CM:N, that would be a distinct step backwards from CMx1, which doesn't make sense, especially since CMx2 involves so much more simulating things explicitly (1:1 or thereabouts).

Give your units cover arcs at short range so that they only shoot when enemies come close.

Jon, Thanks kindly for the reply. I came late to the party (so to speak) with regard to CMSF, so I didn't get the edition of the game that came with that map. A JPEG of the map was posted here once, but it's not hi-res enough to clearly make out the unit symbols. I reckon both the US Army and the USMC would be limited (the latter more so) in terms of what forces they could deploy by the simultaneous commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But if the overall CMSF backstory scenario had transpired, there probably would have been certain redistributing of forces -- i.e., some of the units (2nd MEB becoming Task Force Leatherneck for its 2009-2010 deployment to Afghanistan is an obvious example, since 2nd MEB is the force that makes up the bulk of the USMC contingent in CMSF) that in reality ended up in Iraq or A-Stan would have been deployed for the invasion of Syria. I concur about a scenario's backstory. My aim, though, is to make scenarios that are solidly realistic and which give the player a concrete sense (yet not unrealistically clear) of their forces and the parent unit and the tactical and operational context. Normal Dude, Glad you think so. It's encouraging when one hears that a designer of great scenarios thinks that one's scenario idea sounds cool. To clarify: I'd love to make a campaign, but at the moment I'm a tyro when it comes to scenario designing. Soon, though, I'll have my first scenario ready for beta-testing.

"Gebt Sperrfeuer, Männer!" *clears throat* In the dozens of scenarios I've played in CMSF with British forces, only a handful of times has my force included GPMGs that weren't mounted on vehicles.

I think the tactical situation of the scenario in question is hardly a basis for (1) stating that the "ultimate role" of the LAV-AT is firing TOW-2 missiles at entrenched infantry or (2) reckoning that the LAV-AT isn't particularly useful in reality. LAV-ATs are designed to take out armor. In this scenario, the armor consists of T-72s. The T-72s are hull down and dug in, making them distinctly harder to hit. Because they're T-72s (rather than T-62s or T-55s), they have fairly good optics and are thus apt to spot the player's units. These tanks are better dealt with by the rotary-wing air support than by the LAV-ATs. Likewise, the entrenched infantry are better dealt with by the M1A1s or the LAV-25s. I reckon that if the tactical scenario were reversed -- with the LAV-ATs dug in and hull down on the high ground with Syrian tanks (let's say T-62s) probing forward in the pre-dawn twilight -- the LAV-ATs would have a better chance of displaying their usefulness. Also, the LAV-AT does have an M240 with which it can engage enemy infantry from beyond RPG range.

Could it have been (in at least some of those cases) that the vehicle popped smoke in response to taking a hit which damaged or knocked out its IR optics? I ask because several times an MBT of mine has popped smoke, and when I try to assign it a target and I see that its LOS/LOF is blocked by the smoke, I check the damage panel and see that the IR optics were knocked out or severely damaged.

A vehicle's equipment tab should tell you if it has IR optics. Some vehicles (like the Stryker) have smoke launchers which generate smoke that IR optics can't see through. Artillery/mortar smoke, though, is not IR-blocking.

If you have artillery/mortars, it would be wise to bombard the 2nd line while your pixeltruppen are assaulting the 1st line. Alternatively, you could drop smoke rounds between the 1st and 2nd lines, isolating them from each other so the troops in the 2nd line can't fire on the 1st line.

I never said it was the raison (let alone some sort of fruit, dried or otherwise) that imparted to me the impression of what the Peng Challenge Thread apparently is about. Besides, "Geeeesus H Buddha" sounds awfully Merkin for someone so keen to point out the supposed Merkin-ness of others. Oh, and your ellipsis is missing a dot.

The impression I've consistently gotten is that the raison d'être of the Peng Challenge Thread, in all its innumerable incarnations, is to furnish its denizens a venue for left-handedly lauding Peng, deriding Australians, and flinging snide rhetoric at each other. I surmise, tyrspawn, that not a few denizens of this thread read your initial post and wryly thought: "He's just crossed his own T."

The closer you are to the enemy, the more risk to the IFV. If there's risk to the IFV, there's risk to the pixeltruppen it's carrying. Better to lose a vehicle by itself than both a vehicle and an entire squad due to an ATGM hit. For crew-served weapons (including RPGs and the like), the weapon system's range is listed in the profile section (which shows a silhouette of the weapon system) of the details panel. The effective range of vehicle weapons is not listed, since vehicles often have more than one weapon and typically those have different effective ranges. Infantry weapon effective ranges are in the realm of 300-500 meters for assault rifles and carbines, 600-800 meters for SAWs and LMGs, and 1000+ meters for sniper rifles.

A yet-unasked question regarding the much-scrutinized screenshot of the CV: Was the screenshot taken in "1.0x" or "wide" view (hotkey C)? If the screenshot was taken in wide-angle view, that may account for some of the oddness of its appearance.

Speaking of Red vs. Blue force balance, I've wondered a few things about that. If anyone can offer some thoughts/answers regarding any of these questions, I'd very much appreciate it. 1. As we near the middle of 2010, US forces are largely gone from Iraq but are increasing their already significant deployment in Afghanistan. The hypothetical invasion of Syria was drafted around 2004-2005 (right?). Is the invasion of Syria in June/July 2008 based on the assumption that the US military's committments in Iraq and Afghanistan were the same as they actually were back then? 2. How many units would the US military be reasonably able to field for the invasion of Syria? ("Units" means brigades/BCTs/RCTs, since nowadays it's rather less common to deploy discrete divisions.) 2a. The battalions which comprise the composite Task Force Thunder are not specified. What BCTs would these units likely be from? 2b. The Highland Games campaign briefing states that 7th Armoured Brigade is OPCON to the US 1st Cavalry Division. Does this indeed suggest that at least one HBCT from 1st CAV would be in the OOB? 2c. Would the USMC have just the 2nd MEB -- with the 26th MEU (SOC) as its spearhead (as per the official campaign) -- available for invading Syria's coast? 3. What routes other than the ones specified in the various campaigns (TF Thunder, Semper Fi Syria, and Highland Games) would the invading forces be sent along? 3a. As per the official campaign, the USMC contigent's task is to invade eastward to Hims (effecting a link-up with US Army forces there) and then southward to Damascus. Would perhaps a second unit (say, an RCT) be tasked to invade east and north from Latakia to Aleppo so as to effect a link-up with the NATO forces coming from the north? 3b. Would a BCT (or maybe even two) be tasked to advance from Al Bukamal (Abu Kamal) along the Euphrates to, say, Ar Raqqah to link up with the NATO forces advancing southward thereto? 4. Forgive me if this sounds fanciful or unduly influenced by a certain mini-series, but would a Ranger battalion (mounted in Humvees with M2s, Mk.19s, and TOWs) be sent ahead along a certain route to capture key locations like airfields, bridges, etc., similar to what part of the 75th did in western Iraq in OIF? I have an idea for what I think might be a fun scenario: A company-sized Humvee-mounted Ranger task force races ahead to capture an airfield in advance of a Syrian mechanized force, and when said enemy force arrives, they defeat it with a combination of Javelines, TOWs, and air support. The main reason I ask these questions is because I'm drafting a hypothetical strategic OOB for the Coalition forces including all nations and all branches (US Army, USMC, etc.), taking into account the forces involved in the "canon" campaigns, and I'm unsure as to how many forces the various nations would be able to deploy for the invasion of Syria.

Fixed that for ya. But seriously: Signal flares (even if the animation for such is rudimentary at best) would be so cool!!!

I'm looking forward to hearing "Gebt Sperrfeuer, Männer!!" -- when I suitably mod the German *.wav files, that is.

I can understand that. In fact, when I first heard that the folks who made CM:BB and CM:AK had made a second-generation game, I eagerly looked it up, but when I found out the game's premise, I thought: "What?! Not WW2?!?" That too I can understand. I admit: after a nearly three-year period of playing CM:BB and CM:AK several times a week (for the former I collected over 1200 scenarios and campaigns, for the latter over 700), by the time I checked out CM:SF, the v1.10 patch had just been released, so I serendipitously missed the period in which (so I gather from various folks' posts) people were trying their darned-est to enjoy CM:SF but were practically tearing their hair out in frustration at the game's buggy-ness.