Dietrich

Speaking of post-Pooh missions . . . in the course of Pooh, one of my M1s got bogged in the terrain and was "immobilized", while the other three suffered only light damage and were still combat-effective at the end of the scenario. During the next mission ("Milk Run"), the other three M1s "reported for duty". Should I (or should I not) expect to get this one once-immobilized tank back at some point? I'm not asking for a spoiler of the campaign itself (which I haven't finished, obviously), but I would really appreciate some kind of a hint at least as to what degree of recovery-and-repair work is simulated in the campaign. It's understandable that my infantry casualties are irreplaceable during the time frame of the MEU's mission, but surely an MEU has the means to recover a bogged tank and get it ready by the next day or shortly thereafter, right?

Yes, but in the first scenario of the USMC campaign the sniper teams are (IIRC) used to simulate Force Recon soldiers. As such, they're better trained, better motivated, and more experienced than the soldiers one would find in the sniper teams of an Army battalion or in the Scout/Sniper platoon of an MEU. By contrast, in playing the USMC campaign I have found that the worth of the teams that make up the Scout/Sniper platoon is more in providing tactical recon than in inflicting casualties, though there have been times when a sniper has taken out a machine-gunner or a guy with an RPG.

Sounds like an apples-to-oranges comparison to me. In-game the US Army SDM doesn't even have an SDM-type rifle (i.e., such as an M21 or a SDM-R http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Squad_Designated_Marksman_Rifle ), let alone an actual sniper-ly weapon. How do you think the British sniper teams compare with their US Army and USMC equivalents? (I mean this sincerely and respectfully, since I, for one, am very much looking forward to putting the L96A1 and even more so the L115A3 to effective use. )

"When I joined the Corps, we didn't have any fancy-schmanzy tanks. We had sticks! Two sticks, and a rock for a whole platoon—and we had to share the rock!" Sergeant Major Avery J. Johnson, USNC Marine Corps The amount of non-recce-type, non-support-type infantry available to Blue in the scenario in question is definitely not a case of "three-to-one numerical superiority in the attack". Not even a complete company of regular infantry. I would have preferred: —a complete company of infantry —two full sniper teams —three CR2 Enchanced —one battery of 155mm howitzers —two batteries of 81mm mortars But that's just me. Of course it was great to finally command British forces. Such as they were.

I suppose so . . . but just because a guy sees his buddy get cut down by an MG and goes berserk and charges the MG position doesn't mean he doesn't get cut down as well. Rather than pitting my hopes on some guy once-in-a-blue-moon charging the MG position and happening to not get hit, I'd rather rely on my men doing the tactically wise thing and taking cover, while a second squad or fireteam discreetly works round to the flank, sneaking up to within 25 meters of the MG position and then lobbing half a dozen grenades into the pit.

Oh. Well, there you go.

I still think the announcement of the release date won't be until early next month. On the bright side, when the announcement of the release date actually arrives, then it won't be long time till the game actually comes out.

Come to mention it, why is there no surrendering? Is the absence of surrendering based on an assumption about the theater of operations, i.e., Syrian troops (not including uncons) would most likely either fight to the death or flee (turning into a three-dimensional exclamation point and then disappearing)? If one is willing to consider the assertions of von Clausewitz and John Keegan (to name just two), then the greater amount of casualty-suffering happens when one side takes to flight and the 'victorious' side pursues them with fire.

I'm no beta tester, so I can offer no snazzy British-ness, but here's a recent instance illustrating the quality of CMSF's damage modeling. APFSDS round from T-72M1V scores direct hit on and passes through M1134 Stryker and comes to rest in dirt in foreground. Same moment from Stryker's perspective. The APFSDS round's trajectory was nearly horizontal but the Stryker's stance was somewhat nose-down. As indicated by the damage tab, the APFSDS round tore into the Stryker's upper hull to the right of midline, damaging the top right part of the engine (such that it was a write-off), passing through the commander, causing a shrapnel spray that wounded the gunner, obliterating the base of the dual TOW launcher (such that it the launcher itself was ripped from its mount), before passing through the serendipitously empty ammo storage compartment (the Stryker had been busy firing its TOWs before it was knocked out) and missing the leader, who was just about the stick his head up to reload the launcher when the vehicle was hit. As indicated by the following shot, the leader was unscathed, and he bailed out with the other two surviving crewmen.

On the one hand, the existing WIA/KIA animations perpetuate the Hollywood-istic falsehood that getting hit by a bullet knocks you backward. (If a very small supersonic projectile has enough penetration power to go through your armor vest, it is plenty capable of simply going through you, and thus it isn't going to do any knocking over.) "Hey Sarge! I found 'em!" "My leg, my leg!" On the other hand, the existing WIA/KIA animations look right for getting knocked off yer feet by a concussive blast.

That's what I would have said while playing the "Pooh" mission, had I been provided any fixed-wing CAS! lol While playing the second mission of Webwing's "To Catch A Ghost" campaign, I sent a full-strength rifle squad Hunt-ing up to the top of a minaret, and halfway up the squad got ambushed by three or four Uncons and took 50% casualties. Having learned the hard way that there were insurgents in there, I sent a second intact squad Assualt-ing (as described in the "Assaulting a building fierce and agille" thread) up through the minaret: I assigned a waypoint in the overall Assault move order to each floor, and starting two floors below the one where the WIA/KIA from the previous rifle squad were, to each of the two following waypoints I assigned an Area Fire order to the floor above. This made the second rifle squad in effect practice room-clearing drill and, using their grenades as well as their carbines and SAWs to good effect, they took out the lurking insurgents without loss, then tended to their wounded comrades. After all that elaboration, though, it confirms TheVulture's point that the building in question, though multi-story, was tall and very narrow.

At least they got the explosions right-er (i.e., more right) than in the vast majority of movies (including many war flicks). If you're gonna make a movie about US Army troops in Iraq, makes sense to make it about EOD personnel, since IEDs account for most of the casualties the troops suffer.

No more than four men on a tile? Even a fireteam of five men? Is there a fireteam-splitting command I was unaware of all this time? :confused:

Both. Seeing each and every man in a squad, and being able to tell what each man is armed with, is cool. Seeing several men hurl grenades at close-by enemy troops while the others in the squad dish out suppressive fire on not-close-by enemy troops is cool. Seeing two guys crumple to the ground and their squadmates cower is cringeworthy. Seeing a tank take a knock-out hit and only one guy get out and immediately get KIA by a cook-off is cringeworthy. Not seeing blood and such makes sense to me. Vehicle damage isn't depicted (except for flames when a vehicle brews up), so it's no big deal that infantry wound-age isn't depicted either.

Beardo1976, thanks for creating this scenario. =) ******** FILMED IN SPOILER-O-VISION ******** I was about to say I had fun playing this scenario, but I think it's just a tad too challenging to be as fun as it could be. In several times playing it, I tried a number of tactics, but I always ended up with as little as a third of my force combat-effective and still several buildings away from the objectives by the time the time ran out. A few questions: - Why are the Fighters all Crack? I know the Combatants are "merely" green, perhaps to balance things out, but it seems unrealistic that the insurgents are more experienced than the Marines, who are already Veteran. - Why do the Red forces have "full" ammo? This, combined with their Crack experience, makes them all the harder for Blue to dislodge. - Why do the SMAW teams have so little ammo? Sure, the rifle squads themselves each have three AT-4s and three M72s, but as often as not some of the guys carrying them get WIA/KIA before the squad itself has a chance to use them. That said, I think the scenario is well designed overall, and I look forward to playing it again, especially a revised version.

True, but Hummers can do wheelies.

Am I mistaken, or are even direct-action-oriented SOF units actually not squads of Rambos, contrary to the popular [mis]conception thereof? I find Elite-experience units quite capable if used correctly. For example, if when busting into a building you send your Elite USMC engineer squad (simulating an ODA geared for direction action) into the structure with the Assault move order without a simultaneous Area Fire order on the structure so as to suppress the enemy therein, then the moving half of the squad will, upon entering the building, be cut to pieces no worse than a Regular or Veteran squad with merely Normal morale. To put it in perspective, I have played the first mission of the USMC campaign several times and consistently inflicted dozens of casualties without suffering a single casualty because I handled my handful of troops judiciously.

What's the point of a "jump shot" that goes wide, even at minimum range? I doubt even the Leopard 2's gyrostabilization can take into account the tank hurtling through the air at 50 mph.

ideal infantry engagement range = handgrenade range To put a finer point on it, whoever throws a volley of grenades first wins. That's been my experience anyway.

While it's satisfying to see my Crack-experience-level Tiger knock out one M4 or T-34 after another, it's even more satisfying to see my Veteran-experience-level Panzer VIJ knock out more than two M4s.

Relative to Yair Iny's comment on Chad Harrison's comment: I think that perhaps part of the 'problem' is how we're much more aware of the relative kill/casualty ratios of the various armies in WW2, whereas to a great extent the calculation of OPFOR/insurgent casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003 is a matter of guesswork and hypothesization. I play Blue 85% of the time. In general, my forces inflict much heavy casualties than they take. (I won the second mission of the TF Thunder campaign with only 3 WIA.) In short, I concur with Yair Iny's observation.

*shrug* Doesn't seem so much like hair-splitting to me. While I would like my infantry to hurl their smoke grenades in a particular direction at a given time, since there isn't a corresponding "Target Frag Grenades" button, I don't mind that there isn't a "Target Smoke" command. Sounds plenty good to me.

Random hypothesizing here... Why has infantry smoke-popping not improved so clearly as to warrant including a "Target Smoke" command? Because (I reckon) there is no corresponding "Throw Frag Grenades" command. *shrug*

I concur with DaveDash. While I am really looking forward to the first WW2 CMx2 game (and perhaps even more so the Eastern Front CMx2 iteration to follow), I applaud and respect BFC for having the guts to create and thereafter consistently develop a game which they knew would not be met, so to speak, with unanimous cheers of elation.

Or what it will be like to watch your MG34s mow down a couple battalions worth of Soviet infantry as they doggedly charge your dug-in depleted Schützenkompanie... Will certainly different seeing no-man's-land strewn with a few hundred dead and wounded, rather than just a couple dozen.