Combatintman

What type of IED is it? I've always been able to get CWIEDs to work with the AI.

Well dial down the enemy then - you then achieve the same effect.

Hi, Of course the Brits will play differently due mainly to the equipments and TO&Es. Javelin for instance is not as prevalent as in the US Army but is comparable (roughly) to USMC issue. On the other hand British Rifle Sections in numerical terms are closer to US Army ones vice USMC ones. Challenger 2 is roughly equivalent to Abrams but you will have to be more careful with the former. Warrior and Bradley are very different - protection-wise about the same but firepower very different because Warrior has no ATGM. Bulldog and Stryker are roughly comparable in terms of firepower and protection. The CVR(T) series is different altogether - you must avoid the temptation move your Scimitars into vulnerable positions thinking their firepower will save them - it won't.

I meant to say Rifle Section!

The British rifle still has a lot of firepower - but clearly its not in the same ballpark as the USMC equivalent - so yes you will have to think about how you employ them - but if you keep to the basic principle of fire and manoeuvre you'll be half way there.

The Warrior capacity is correct - the Section Commander is also the vehicle Commander and therefore sits in the turret. Whether or not he dismounts is his choice.

CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMSF, Marines Module ... got them all. Did I enjoy them all - (once CMSFwas patched up) - yes. Do they play differently - of course they do - that's how warfare works. I think we have to accept that it is horses for courses however I would like to know what your definition of a 'worthy' opponent means? For me it means anybody who has the gonads to take you on. So that means anybody who is up for a scrap. So on to odds and sods - the King Tiger was effectively the Abrams of its day and the Sherman was the T-55 of its day. How many drips have we heard about overmatch in WW2 games? A lot ... I've seen them but a lot of people seem to be far more forgiving of WW2 overmatch. Ask yourself why that is ... simple its their comfort zone and there is nothing wrong with that. So onto the CMSF experience - I wholeheartedly agree about how bad you feel when one of your blokes goes down - despite 'overmatch vs the opposition - the opposition still does things to hurt you - as somebody vaguely famous once said 'the enemy has a vote'. Is the enemy 'worthy' ... as in real life ...of course. I am glad that you feel bad about every casualty ... because despite 'overmatch' and the implied ability to strike targets at minimal risk - the bloke with sandals and an AK will (regrettably) always have his 'say'... so yes he is worthy.

So - not too many suggestions for a Helmand Campaign/missions from what i can see - is anybody interested or not?

Keep plugging away with it - the AI for me is the hardest part of the editor. The best advice I can give is to make notes as you go along and maybe take screenshots in the editor of your painted AI zones and orders so you can track your progress better. If you don't make notes the whole thing becomes a major headache.

No what he means is open up the map in the editor and then where you see trench tiles just put a distinctive colour terrain tile on (don't use marsh though because it will make the tile impassable). A good example would be if the trench was on a sand tile and the map was generally sandy you could change the sand tile to a grass tile to make it stand out. Your problem here though is that trenches and walls in editor view look the same! I'd have a run around the editor and just see what you can do with it. It takes a fair amount of trial and error but if you've got the time it is well spent.

Why don't you PM him?

Just NE of Sangin then.

Depends what period you model - Op HERRICK 4 and Op HERRICK 5 barely touched the narcotics problem and Op HERRICK 4 had lots of 'defend the base' situations. There is a lot of scope here, the trick is turning it into a workable campaign.

Is it? I certainly never got that impression - I bought it on the basis that I had played the CMBO, CMBB and CMAK titles but am at heart interested in the modern period. To me therefore the combination of a publisher with a good reputation and 'previous' publishing a game in the modern era seemed to be worth a punt. Although far from perfect, CMSF is a punt I'm glad I made. Infantry behaviour is far from perfect as an example but expectation management is required here. This is not an FPS it is a wargame yet people want CMSF infantry to behave like that in an FPS. I've been a fan of OFP, ARMA and I'm sure I will be a fan of ARMA2 - the first of which was rightly recognised as being the outstanding game of the genre. Having played the first two and read the reviews of ARMA2 the AI still gets slated. I've lost count of the times I've ordered a squad member to do something and they've taken about the dumbest means of accomplishing that task - and this is an FPS remember. So its a wargame - remember as little as 10 years ago we were playing games in two dimensions and our infantry were rectangular counters - in fact Gary Grigsby is still knocking games out in a two dimensional form. CMBO, CMBB and CMAK were released in 3D and what a difference that made. I remember putting together a scenario in CMBO depicting KG Peiper's attack on Stoumont during the Bulge. This is a place I have visited. Playing the scenario and locking my view to the lead Panther barrelling down the La Gleize-Stoumont road made me think ... its like I'm actually there. What a leap forward. Infantry modelling in those games was a move forward but was still not perfect. So - remember this is a wargame not an FPS and CMSF is an improvement on anything that was done before.

Bigduke6 I was there on Op HERRICK 5 done the tour, got the T-shirt and the medal - trust me I know how Helmand works - however a good informed post nonetheless. The intent of my post was to highlight that there are nations other than the US fighting in Helmand which your original post totally ignored and to drag us back to thinking about some Helmand-type missions/campaigns for the game.

If you mean poking your head around before moving ... I doubt it very much due to abstraction inherent in the infantry behaviour.

Pretty sure that's the case for the Challenger 2 - so it would be unusual if the Abrams couldn't do it.

While I concede the boots on the ground are not what they should be - your figures are incorrect as they totally ignore the other nations operating in Helmand. There are approximately 8500 British troops in Helmand with the Danes stumping up the next largest contingent including Leopard 2 tanks (Battlegroup Centre). Other contributing nations are the Estonians who field at least an armoured infantry company (which considering their size is a significant contribution), the Czechs and one of the Arab nations (Jordan I think). I think Cpl Steiner generated this thread to explore the possibilities of putting together a Helmand Campaign involving the eagerly awaited British Forces Module and possibly the USMC Module.

Afghanistan - yes, Helmand no - this is report is about Eastern Afghanistan.

Err I doubt you've got the Brit one ok - it hasn't been released yet!

Without picking deeply into the mechanics, getting the balance right will be an issue against conventional forces. I think it would possible to do a COIN ops campaign with some sort of CMC interface because even though there is the ability for Blue to overmatch, by weighting friendly force casualties and the impact of collateral damage and tardiness in rebuilding infrastructure as key elements in the campaign construct it would throw up interesting possibilities.

The Mk1 version will have the horns pointing inside. 60 Million quid and 3 years later they'll figure that horns on the outside was a better idea. Add another 60 Million quid and another three years, they'll change pink to camouflage colours and we might have a helmet that is fit for purpose ... by which time of course helmets will be obsolete.

I think this subject has been raised before somewhere - from memory I think the deduction was that setting up crew-served weapons in buildings was a waste of time - probably for the reasons you state.

Not going to see them in the British Module though - the equipment list hasn't changed since the first announcement.

No problem - its a bit like reading the British Army Review these days - whereby lots of holders of the Queen's Commission (had to get it in) are now writing articles about how we bashed natives on the NW Frontier or got bashed by natives in Afghanistan in the last two centuries in an attempt to prove they understand contemporary Helmand. Clearly many of them still don't based the mission rehearsal exercise I went on - lots of explaining required to make them understand that the enemy is quite difficult to find when he wants to stay hidden. The musket thing ... is that what's holding up the release of the module?