Dietrich

True, there's no indication of an artillery asset's organic-ness while playing a scenario. I recommend exploring the TO&Es in the editor. Double-click on a formation; any artillery that shows up in the right-hand window is organic to that formation. For example, when you "purchase" a HBCT battalion, you'll see a few 120mm mortar sections at the bottom of the list; these are the battalion's organic heavy mortars. M109 self-propelled 155mm howitzers are not included in the HBCT battalion TO&E because such are brigade-level assets (purchased separately). By contrast, an MEU has a organic 155mm howitzer battery. Thus an MEU's HQ-level Fire Control Team has big-green-plus-sign comms to the MEU's 155s, whereas an HBCT FSO has small-red-X comms to the HBCT's 155s.

When a squad/team suffers casualties, I have that squad/team tend to its own WIA/KIA. Thus I only occasionally come up against this 'problem'. Even before this change was implemented, as often as not the squad/team doing buddy aid would not pick up worthwhile weapon(s) from the WIA/KIA. Even when a SAW gunner was WIA/KIA, the soldier doing buddy aid on him virtually never picked up the M249. So now, I guess, any M249 not in an unwounded soldier's possession is as good as a write-off. :-/

But what about when the firing of multiple AT4s (or M72s, for that matter) all at once is simply a TacAI response to an AFV/MBT coming within range, rather than a response to a specific fire order? It's one thing to knock out the armored threat quickly, but it's another thing to dish out overkill and use up most (if not all) of a squad's AT capability within seconds. Makes me wonder how Panzerfaust usage will play out in CM:N....

My two bits (two cents adjusted for inflation): I've watched the play-through of the MW2 airport level. I felt disgusted. I don't play such games to be in the role of a bloodthirsty terrorist; I play such games to be in the role of the soldier who takes down the terrorist. That's why I've never played any of the GTA games -- not because ruthless violence (i.e., repeated murder) is intrinsic to the games, but because they glorify violent criminals and all that they stand for. Granted, I know virtually nothing about the plot of MW2, and I don't know the rationale behind teaming up an avowed ruthless terrorist and machine-gunning dozens of civilians and the armed security personnel trying to protect them. Based on the voice-over at the beginning of the level, I reckon it's an instance of infiltrating the terrorist leader's inner circle (albeit at the cost of dozens of civilian lives, as per the footage) so as to be in prime position for orchestrating his ultimate defeat at some later time. I certainly hope it is. Ironically, seeing the footage of half a dozen men walking with eerie calm through a crowded airport and shooting everyone in sight makes me all the more curious to see how the player character is able to defeat the terrorist leader and his henchmen by the game's end. On a related note, if half a dozen terrorists wearing body armor and wielding LMGs and grenades attacked a major metropolitan airport, how likely is it that they would not be either outgunned or out-tactic'd by the dozens of well-armed and well-trained law enforcement personnel dispatched to combat them?

Or a field of ripe-for-harvesting crops on one side, another field of ripe-for-harvesting crops on another. :-/

As of v1.21, even in fresh-started newly-built scenarios, I've noticed that certain low-ranking Blue units are unable to call in artillery and air support, whereas up to v1.20, pretty much any Blue unit could act as an arty/air spotter. This makes sense to me -- doesn't it stand to reason that the "B" half of a SMAW team would likely not have the (for lack of the accurate military term) jurisdiction to call a Harrier for a JDAM strike?

*** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION! *** In this scenario, reverse-slope defensive positions and 40-meter cover arcs are your friends. Using these tactics, even the Syrian tanks aren't all that much of a threat. Just keep your AAVs out of sight so your Javelin teams don't get their reloads blown to smithereens.

If He Who Is Know As Former Vice President Dick Cheney were actually from Alpha Centauri, wouldn't he actually be a "small furry creature"? (Two thumbs up to whoever gets the reference. )

Bruce Willis is too cool (or should I say "cool") to charge through artillery bombardment with guns blazing; when the shell start whistling down, he would just hunker down behind some conveniently-placed barrels and chill. The Rock wouldn't need to go charging through artillery bombardment with guns blazing; he would just demoralize his foes with well-timed archings of his eyebrow. Seriously, though... Infantry units halting when artillery impacts relatively nearby makes sense to me. A squad making its way cautiously through the landscape probably wouldn't halt if artillery starts landing 500 meters or more away, but if said artillery starts landing within 100 meters of them, they would probably halt to see if the shells start landing closer, etc.

In pretty much all action movies (no matter who is playing the hero): - the good guy either doesn't get hit at all no matter how many bad guys are firing M16s/AKs/Uzis/MP5s at him, even at less than 30 meters' range; or the good guy gets hit one or more times but suffers no significant detriment to his combat effectiveness - the good guy drops any given bad guy (especially one with no lines) with a single pistol bullet (the good guy is only infrequently given anything SWAT-worthy), even from more than 30 meters' range; and the hit-by-single-pistol-bullet bad guy is either dead before he hits the ground or dies moments after getting hit

How do you accurately and realistic simulate weapons and vehicles that either haven't been invented yet or haven't been built yet? If China gets "what they may have in 2020", would NATO correspondingly get what it might have in 2020?

*** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION! *** I did fine on this scenario the first time. (In no small part -- as will become clear -- because I play real-time rather than turn-based.) I split my platoon in two and had each half assume an over-watch position near their respective roadblocks. None of the technicals or uncons got close enough to do any damage. As soon as the T-72s appeared, I ordered the Warriors at the right-hand roadblock to reverse out of sight. I pulled the platoon back to the Baghdad Café (out of LOS of the uncons as well as the Syrian armored formation). When the Challengers arrived, I sent them in the direction of the right-hand roadblock, and they knocked out the Syrian tanks and took out the various BMPs and much of the infantry.

Gavin, schmavin. I'm simply resigned to losing any given IFV of mine (whether Warrior or Bradley) to the first RPG that hits it. Despite the evident real-world survivability of the Bradley and such, especially with ERA, 19 times out of 20 I suffer an IFV "destroyed" even though none of the crew are wounded and none of the vital systems (tracks, engine, etc.) are even damaged, let alone destroyed. I knows there's under-the-hood stuff going on to equal a knock-out from a hit which doesn't immobilize or incapacitate the vehicle, but I can't help but feel that either RPG rounds are more effective than I've thought or that there's some abstracting going on that seems to weight factors somewhat in favor of RPG rounds. It hearkens me back to my recent playing of "Red Stream" in which a T-62 of mine suffered its cannon destroyed (among other parts wrecked) and two crewmen wounded with two or three hits from enemy T-55s but was not only not knocked out but remained mobile so I could order it to reverse into defilade. I think tank-versus-tank battles will be more interest come CM:N, because (usually) tanks were for various reasons not able to just one-shot each other. Regarding the Warrior-versus-MBT question: In "Recipe For Disaster", after losing almost two platoons worth of Warriors to a single T-72M1, I finally sent a Warrior charging around a low hill to attack the immobilized tank from behind at less than 50 meters range, and after a dozen rounds into the rear of the hull and turret, the Syrian crew finally bailed out.

Why is a cover-effectiveness indicator not the way to go? Because cover involves more than the type of terrain a unit is on or the type of structure a unit is huddled behind. Don't get me wrong, I've very much enjoyed playing CoH; but one of the numerous reasons CMSF can't really have a color-coded cover-effectiveness indicator is because CMSF -- unlike CoH -- simulates (among several other factors) the effectiveness of cover relative to the angle of incoming fire. In other words, a rifle squad kneeling behind a low stone wall has fairly good cover (from the chest down, that is) from an enemy squad in the first floor of a building on the opposite side of the plaza, but the same squad has less-good cover from an enemy squad on the fourth floor of the same building. Since a cover-effectiveness indicator is not as viable as it might sound, we're left with what we've had all along: Applying sound tactical sense when determining which spot affords an infantry unit the best cover in a given situation on a given part of a given map. For example, a single-story shack-type building may afford decent cover against 5.45mm rounds from 200 meters but may well afford insufficient cover against larger-caliber fire from the same range. But I'm not disagreeing with the general assertion that some aspects of CMSF's UI could be improved.

*** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION!!! *** After my first attempt at this mission in which I suffered heavy losses, I hunkered every vehicle behind a building (thank goodness there are so many buildings on the map), pulled my infantry well back and assigned 30-meter cover arcs to every unit, used my AS90s like indirect-fire anti-tank guns (if you're patient, the T-72s and such will remain stationary long enough for your artillery to score consistent hits on them), and deployed my late-arriving Challengers in a wide right-ward flanking maneuver to attack the Syrians from behind. Thus I inflicting heavy casualties while suffering few myself. Also, right at the beginning of the scenario, rush the lone Challenger to the right flank so it can smash the Syrian penetration from that direction -- that helps a lot.

Um, don't soldiers in pretty much all Western armies look at least mostly like US troops? How different-looking could they really be? I, for one, like the Bundeswehr infantry garb. And they have the successor to the MG-42. As regards the other train of conversation in this thread: Let's state it outright and then move on -- for numerous and complicated reasons, the rest of the world has something of a love/hate relationship with the US and with Americans. Are that fact and its component aspects relevant to CMSF? I say no. That being the case, what say we talk about what pertains to the game, eh?

Based on Moon's explanation and my own experience of failing repeatedly at this mission because either my troops got spotted or they got into grenade-throwing matches with randomly wandering Syrian squads, my assessment is confirmed: It's pure recce -- spot the enemy; stay unspotted. I look forward to having another go at it.

Vielen Dank, mein Herr! Great photos! I understand the difference between "Soldat" and "Söldner". I was making fun of a certain someone's baseless accusation that Bundeswehr soldiers are mercenaries. Hence the raspberry emoticon. Thanks for the more great photos!

Indeed. Especially since no one is calling for a boycott of the NATO module for political reasons or anything. Mehr Fotos von deutschen Söldner, bitteschön!

As often as my Bradleys and Warriors (even ERA-equipped ones) get knocked out by single RPG-7 rounds, it was refreshing to see one take more hits without internal damage or passenger casualties. The ironic thing, though, is that the Warrior in question only took that many SPG/RPG rounds in the first place because the first SPG round wrecked its starboard tracks. Quite the vid. At times I was laughing, at times I was staring in dismay.

*shrug* Once an ERA-equipped Warrior of mine withstood at least four hits from SPG-9 and RPG rounds on its starboard side, but then a last SPG-9 round made it blow up.

I should have reckoned that it would be only a matter of time before this thread devolved into... well, into something like the above ten or so posts. So in your view the Bundeswehr is only the Bundeswehr if it is defending Germany itself, whereas if the Bundeswehr is deployed elsewhere it is just a bunch of exceptionally well-equipped mercenaries? Isn't that rather like saying an MEU is just a water-borne mercenary force? But aren't such remarks made in the Peng thread?

My two bits (two cents adjusted for inflation): Having read Sean Naylor's Not A Good Day To Die, as well as having read about Operation Anaconda from other sources, I would say that the battle was characterized by Al Qaida (they put up too fierce of a fight to be Taliban, and they didn't fight delaying actions while otherwise melting into the landscape as the Taliban typically do when faced with superior Coalition firepower) on the high ground on the eastern side of the Shah-i-Kot and US light infantry in the valley to the east, taking fire from AKs, machine guns (7.62mm as well as 12.7mm), RPGs, recoilless guns, and multiple mortars. Pretty much the only non-aerial fire support the US infantry had was from their organic 60mm mortars. The several Apaches allotted to them helped out a lot. AFO recon teams situated on peaks and ridges in and around the Shah-i-Kot called in numerous decisive airstrikes, though at any given time the Rakkasans and 10th Mountain troops felt in dire need of JDAMs. The only vehicles involved in the combat part of Operation Anaconda were pickups driven by SOF operators and jinga trucks carrying several dozen Afghan militia. Not to say I won't thoroughly enjoy playing this scenario, though. Thanks for making it!

I have yet to play a PBEM scenario in CMSF, so I'm always against the AI (95% of the time Red AI). Most scenarios in which Red is provided artillery from the outset usually involve barrages from multiple sections on seemingly random spots on the map somewhat near the Blue starting zone(s) which have the effect more of temporary area denial than of an actual threat. (A notable exception to this is "Rahadnak Valley Search".) As soon as Red spotting rounds start falling (though the rounds' CEP is so wide that it can be hard to gauge where they're actually aiming for), I displace my troops (whether on foot or aboard vehicles) 200 to 400 meters away and thus suffer few casualties from artillery. And besides, isn't counter-battery fire outside the jurisdiction (so to speak) of the battalion- and/or company-level commander? Hence no "engage counter-battery fire" command.

Maybe when CM:Normandy comes out, all the people who currently complain about (or just plain ignore) CMSF will... still whine that it doesn't provide them the same (war)gaming experience as CMx1! Wouldn't that be ironic...