Combatintman

Well his backside is history then! Last flight that boy will ever make. [ May 30, 2008, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Combatintman ]

Pandur, I agree with your point reference adding more arty modules to the game but I was adding context - this all started regarding really heavy artillery on the Syrian side. Red v Red - lets have it - no problems at all.

LAT 33.4824° LONG 36.1015° LAT 33.4586° LONG 36.0743° LAT 33.4464° LONG 36.0358° These Lat Longs are UTMs All D30s

Surprised to find in Janes World Armies that the number of M-46 130mm outweighs the D-30 122mm (750 v 480). Anyway - that aside there is probably a fudge factor involved in the game mechanics to account for Counter Battery Fire. Modern Western Locating Radars are capable of identifying and tracking rounds in the air from multiple batteries. They can give accurate targeting data which is passed to the guns in a matter of seconds - any Syrian artillery (and particularly towed) would be vapourised in seconds. Also if you want to see how easy artillery is to spot from imagery have a hunt around on Google Earth of Syria - I've found loads of it. A simple matter then to cue up for airstrikes or depth fire missions.

Bayonets in Iraq link here - members of 1 PWRR BG in Al Amarah: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article456052.ece?token=null&offset=0

Bayonets in Iraq link here - members of 1 PWRR BG in Al Amarah: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article456052.ece?token=null&offset=0

Bayonets in Iraq link here - members of 1 PWRR BG in Al Amarah: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article456052.ece?token=null&offset=0

Oh we're not back to the map size thing again are we?!!

Cpl Steiner, Finally got round to playing with the GE Path tool - I've got to say it truly rocks! I've done more on a map in about an hour than I have using any other method.

A number of points already made and possibly worth reinforcing. First the weapon system and cost - yes it is expensive and yes there are murmurings occasionally at the number of Javelin rounds fired but who's going to be the guy who says 'these guys died because we told them firing Javelin was costing too much'. Taking Afghanistan as an example when I was there on Op HERRICK 5 - pretty much every TIC ended with the line - Firing Point engaged with Javelin and mortars/105mm - TIC closed. Now how many tanks do the Taleban have again? Until recently in Iraq it was the same deal - the LANCS battlegroup were using Javelin to ambush IED teams at night - you can find it on You Tube. In terms of tactics - the points are well made - change your tactics to overcome the strength of the US Force - it might mean replying the battle a few times but there will be a way of getting a better result. As to the numbers thing - wait for the British Module - we can't afford to give Javelin to every Rifle Section so there should be less of them about if Battlefront get the TO&E right.

Guardsman, I've never played this campaign because my rig won't cope with the framerates - so I knew my statement lacked some context - however I felt it was worth adding a reality check in there as well before the thread degenerated into the 'this game totally sucks' mode. Point taken however - a touch too far indeed.

Cpl Steiner, Great spot - will certainly be giving the first one a spin.

Two sides with identical equipment, marginal command and control, some poor quality and operating in the dark. Its like putting a wet finger into a plug socket.

We do need to remember that in earlier versions of the game - the fact that vehicles didn't auto evade well caused people to b1tch until their keyboards wore out. This is very much a case of be careful for what you wish for. All of that said - if it were easy to have a happy medium then I would prefer that - I suspect however that it would be a nightmare to code for the reasons that Steve has stated on many other threads relating to AI behaviour. If it isn't possible then I would rather the pendulum stays swung exactly where it is as recce elements are too valuable to lose at any time but particularly in a campaign context.

Well as the module schedule has been quite clearly explained to you - it seems pointless discussing it really doesn't it.

Pandur, Indeed it is interesting to see other viewpoints - I'm easily pleased me

Enemy Destroys - yes Occupy with % - not sure - I disagree with your default setting of 100% for exit objectives but if it was set at a minimum workable combat effectiveness which generally is anything between 40 and 60% depending on the troop quality then yes I agree. I am less convinced of the occupy with a percentage because that depends on the effect that needs to be achieved as set out by the commander. The mechanism for doing this realistically right now is to stick something in the Mission Briefing along the lines of 'TF 1/23 Inf is to secure Objective Gold in order to block enemy counterattacks from the west' Then stating in the 'tasks' part of the op order immediately following the mission - must not fall below 70% CE (or whatever the desired figure is). Then as part of the victory conditions you set your percentage - in this case 70% - so if you fall below that you lose. Enemy Touches - yes - this is particularly relevant for scenarios where the mission statement says something like 'TF 1/23 Inf is to deny enemy penetration of Phase Line Apple in order to ...(whatever the unifying purpose is)' Touch Occupy with specified unit - yes - and explained a little bit later on in this post. Overall I'd like to have the ability to have more unit based objectives than currently and I would like to see objectives appear in sequence for scenarios where you have more than one phase in the operation. As an example - we might have a mission statement along the lines of 'TF 1/23 is to defeat the enemy on Objective Silver in order to facilitate subsequent breakthrough operations'. In the commander's intent paragraph we might have something like ... 'this will be a 3 Phase operation - in phase 1 enemy recce will be defeated in order to blind him prior to phases 2 and 3 (obviously we would set enemy recce elements as unit objectives in the editor first). In phase 2 A Co is to advance and establish a support by fire position in the vicinity of Phase Line Alpha in order to fix the enemy main defensive area on Objective Silver(we would then have Phase Line Alpha set as a touch/occupy objective and linked to A Co as suggested by Field Marshal Blucher). With the enemy main defensive area fixed Phase 3 will be launched which is the B and C Co assault and defeat of the enemy on Objective Silver (in this case Objective Silver is designated as a touch/occupy objective and the enemy units there are designated as unit objectives for blue). Currently because all of the objectives are there from the start there is nothing stopping the player from totally ignoring the order and conceptially he could occupy Objective Silver first without defeating recce and reaching Phase Line Alpha. What I'm not saying is that these objectives are hidden from the player - he can know where they are but in this context he can only win if he achieves the objectives set in the sequence specified in the commander's intent paragraph of the operation order. So what would happen is that Phase Line Alpha only pops up once enemy recce has been defeated and then Objective Silver only pops up once enemy recce has been defeated and A Co reaches Phase Line Alpha.

Pandur, I go back to my story about the guy on the PVCP - he was an infantry soldier and will have spent 24 weeks in his Phase 1 and 2 training he would also have done training in his unit and would have received a specialist Northern Ireland Theatre orientation package which could have been anything between 2 weeks and a month - during which the subject of staying in cover would have cropped up once or twice. After all of that he still needed a sergeant to tell him ... and I am not kidding ... every 5 minutes to 'hard target' or to get in cover. This was in Co Tyrone where there were 339 casualties during the troubles and in 1993 when there were 88 casualties that year which you would think would focus the guy's mind. Now I admit that infantry AI ain't perfect but there is a tendency to get bent out of shape about it sometimes - so if 2 guys don't line up behind a wall just because I clicked the mouse there then personally I can get over it because I know in real life that if I tell private f*ckwit to do something I have a pretty good idea that he won't necessarily do what I want him to do because he is stupid/lazy or both and I therefore have to make sure I am checking up on him all the time. Also lets just remember what is being modelled here - this is not a First Person Shooter so there have to be compromises or you will have to select every individual and give them their own paths and to be honest many First Person Shooters are not perfect - ok I haven't played anything recent but I was a big fan of Operation Flashpoint and that was recognised as being pretty damned good - even in that it was quite often a struggle to get some of the guys in a squad to take proper cover even after you specifically ordered them to in the command menu - and this was a game designed to allow you do that. CMSF is not in that genre so perhaps a little perspective is required.

'Stupid infantry behaviour' or any other arm for that matter is a fact of life. I have lost count of the number of times I've ended up miles from where I should be because some clown can't read a map. One of the best ones was my vehicle packet in a Brigade move going around a roundabout 4 times because somebody forgot to put a tac sign showing which exit we should have taken - oh how we laughed at that one. I remember being on PVCP duty on the border in Northern Ireland and the multiple commander telling one of the privates at one end of the checkpoint to get into cover - every 5 minutes - yes the guy was a dumbsh1t. Or me coming off a VCP in Londonderry - running up the road to pile into the snatch landrover - as soon as it pulled away I fell out the back - I was lying in the road on my own for about 2 minutes hoping like hell they would notice I fell out and come back for me. Once they stopped laughing they did. Its called friction and it is one of the fundamental rules of warfighting - many of you should know the Von Moltke quote about 'no plan survives contact with the enemy' or in modern parlance 'sh1t happens'. So just because somebody doesn't line up exactly behind a wall in the game is not something to get too worked up about - its usually only one or two guys and at the end of the day nobody actually dies as a result. Live with the friction and lets get back to asking for the M113!

Yup, which is why this debate shouldnt really be about adding an M113, becuase that alone will not suit your needs anyway. Instead it should be about whether there is enough demand out there for a type of '3rd World' module. Dan </font>

Normal Dude - great maps - however 'German Consolate' should read 'German Consulate'. Luckily this won't take ages to fix!

In which case then - and I don't want to use the term 3rd World in this context but why not strip the Canadians out of the NATO Module and add the French to it and then have a Commonwealth Module with the Canadians, Australians and Kiwis?

Handihoc, All we need are the Schultheiss signs as flavour objects now!

Sequoia, Way ahead of you! 2nd to last post at this linky. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=004283 Regards

I knew there'd be a catch somewhere!