Combatintman

I agree there could be some tweaking here - I don't know how it works in the US Army but in the British Army the Coy HQ is probably the logical port of call for resupply. The way it would work would be that the HQ does the resupplying so the tweak for me would be to have an element of the Coy HQ move to the unit that is low on ammunition rather than the other way around. I also have been caught out in the acquire menu - loading squads up with 7.62 vice 5.56 in the heat of the moment so I would like to see this changed as well.

That was the original post.

Sigh ... and the ORBAT question?

Yep that's pretty much what I would be looking for in non-warfighting scenarios.

Propaganda at best in my view - SFSG was a fudge by the last CGS to maintain 3 Parachute Battalions.

I'd still like an answer to my ORBAT question which shouldn't involve any histrionics - bottom line there are Syrian units that do not have enough vehicle space to fit the dismounts - any chance of a fix?

You may not - as a Brit I play as a Brit right now - in that I use Bradley as a Warrior substitute - which means no 'Target' command (because that = TOW) - I do not acquire Javelin for Infantry Sections (because we don't have them at that level as Flamingknives says). Trust me there are differences - fighting as a Brit will require a little more acumen than fighting as the US (not much - I agree - but it will require more thought).

All a bit emotional I think gentlemen,

15 BM-21s? Surely it should be 18?

Happy about that - I can't afford it for a few years now

Light role with a bipod a lot of it is to do with your No2 - if he gives you a bad call (talking about the firing range here) you aren't going to be that accurate. All that said though - what is this debate about? Bottom line the MG is mostly about suppression - it is like asking the question - a battery of M-109 (or Wespe/Hummel if you prefer) is firing - how is each round modelled?

CM Normandy is not going to happen for a while - There are many reasons for this - disagreements on strategy (certain partners favour the indirect approach), a lack of landing craft and the weather is a bit dodgy. In the meantime - there is plenty of WW2 stuff out there to amuse you (including many Battlefront titles). Or you could dip your toe in the water of the contemporary environment ... just a thought.

Its also a case for do we really need it - to take a grid square out - no not at all - the WW2 crossover blokes don't like it and as a modern fan I must admit I wouldn't like to see it for blue forces. The precision warhead for GMLRS I think does have a place and it would be nice to see it

I agree - the models are very good - like every model I've seen so far in the announcements - I can't wait for the module.

Sorry - forgot to mention that a lot of the fixed wing platforms operate at the same FL.

Steve, Absolutely on the nail - the - place I work at right now has a commercial sysytem which when I first used it - was bloody good for what we wanted it to do - it still does it but unfortunately the world has changed - I spend most of my time on exercise now arranging stuff offline and we are moving back to what I used to know as map tiles (i.e. going back from a simulation to playing ASL - yet the contract is still being paid.). On top of that there is only one bloke on the contracting staff that is really interested in the whole piece - he is going to showcase screenshots from Steel Beasts as a solution to some of the things wae are trying to do - he's right to do so even though it ain't the right solution for the training audience - we don't need that we need CMSF in its current form but with civilians being modelled.

Well you are in a democracy of 1 for liking the Snatch - it is not well liked and has been slated for 'unnecessary' casualties by various sections of the media over here - some of it is over-egged but a lot of it holds weight.

Back to the training audience thing - as Steve said - if you want to train Pl and Coy level commanders in combined arms tactics CMSF is pretty much ready to go as is. If you want to have ladders then you need something more in the FPS genre (Armed Assault or its military variant VBS-2. Horses for courses as they say.

Flamingknives - what I'm angling at is the platform - at the end of the day the operating height is immaterial given the lack of ground to air effects. I just think it would be nice for scenario designers in a non-warfighting battle (strike on a Bravo location for instance) to have a Pred above - pretty superficial and cosmetic but I think it would add a lot.

It helps - trust me. I'm just glad the game doesn't simulate getting beasted up and down a hill for a couple of hours.

I would like to see some limitations on the sensor capabilities - no fun if you know exactly where the enemy is in a game after all but I was thinking of it in a fairly basic way - change the AH-64 icon for a Pred, delete cannon and rockets and Robert is your mother's brother as they say.

Just thinking - I know CMSF is more geared to warfighting but wouldn't it be great if we could call on Predator in the fire support menu .... just a thought.

The key question is what is your training audience? There are many games or simulations out there - but as a starter for 10 - all this ladder stuff - I accept the realism point but will having it sell it?

The Bren tripod? Good god no.

Simple ... when was the T-62 first deployed? When was the Abrams first deployed? You can retrofit as much as you like - bottom line ... you are doing National Service - you will serve in the armoured corps - you are offered a choice T-62 or Abrams?