Combatintman

Right. The problem, according to what I've read, is that allegiances amongst the Iraqi police are often, but not always, tribal/sectarian as opposed to nationalistic, unlike the new Iraqi army, whose commitment to the counter-insurgency appears to be more uniform. It would be interesting if this realistic aspect of unpredictability could reflected in gameplay! </font>

M1A1TC - Looking forward to this. Bahger - You'd like to think they would be Blue wouldn't you!!!

This is the one I was thinking of on my original post: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zHMh8adW8zI

Might as well jump on the water bandwagon while its passing through - I would like to see it. As to it being necessary - try Google Earth. There's plenty of it kicking around and if you work on the premise that human settlements grow up around water then it becomes a fairly important terrain feature. I have been frustrated to a degree in map creation for Syria/Iraq because of the lack of water tiles to use. I currently model watercourses in Afghan-type scenarios by using marsh tiles on the banks with some mud thrown in and some grass tiles to represent crossing points. The watercourse itself is modelled using a mixture of gravel, mud, marsh and sand tiles. If you look at some of the watercourses in Helmand Province on Google Earth - you'll see it is actually quite a realistic effect.

You could try this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/index.html I think comparing the narrative and maps with a bit of hunting around Google Earth or similar could possibly pay some dividends.

Dorosh Yes I admit I'm a new bloke around here - guilty m'lud - have I judged without knowing the whole story ... guilty m'lud. Does that mean my judgement is bad though? Maybe - and if it is ... I'm over it. As to me enjoying this - I'm not to be honest and I think my statement about being sick to the back gonads of it was about as clear as it could be. As to the read sentence one stuff ... done that. Nice selective quoting. Nice one indeed. I go back to my pub analogy - there is absolutely no point whatsoever in needling the landlord/landlady/barmaid/doorman/bouncer unnecessarily - the guy has asked you to debate more than once and you haven't. Now if that was a boozer - you'd be barred - unless this was a game and you got a lucky roll on the D10 or something. So back to the immersion thing - I'm immersed, I do lose it when vehicles merge but with 1.07 I've only ever seen that once. Otherwise what else is killing me immersion-wise - not much to be blunt in terms of the visual experience. I do struggle with the abstraction of suicide bombers et al and I would like to see civilians actually modelled as background noise for the terrorist elements to blend into in certain environments. That for me is the thing that probably spoils it most for me. How do I get around it. First tactic is to mention it on the odd post in the forums and leave it at that. Second tactic is to avoid scenarios where they feature prominently. What I don't do is launch a Jihad against the game company.

Frankly, I'm tired of the whining about the "whining". Aren't we all entitled to express our opinions about the game? The day this turns from a discussion forum to a fanboi club is the day I stop visiting. </font>

As to Javelin and the capabilities of the CLU - in a word - gleaming! There is plenty of stuff on Youtube to show you how good the CLU is. Look at how many armoured targets are engaged - not many (i.e. - none). That gives you a clue and it is also more fun than reading the $100,000 thread. So my advice for anyone asking about Javelin is to watch something like this: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VYN6mU966e8 In this example this was a pre-planned operation. Points to note for all you realism guys out there: Trajectory of the missile. The wait for clearance to engage. (edit - I was thinking of another video of the same engagement - it shows the Coy Commander checking with the BG HQ that the Javelin callsign was clear to engage). Although it is not clear from the video - the target was a group of individuals vice tanks). There are plenty more vids where that came from - watch 'em! [ April 01, 2008, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Combatintman ]

In the spirit of the wah (I think) WW2 game in 2009? Where have you been for the last 64 years? SPOILER ALERT!! Just done the beta - the last mission is hard but the Germans lose. SPOILER OVER!!

Been said a few times already but in the context of other requests I would like: Contact reports from all callsigns - in US parlance SALUTE/SPOT reports displayed in real time (or close enough). It is done of a fashion in games like BCT Commander or TACOPS and yes it can be done in this game but only if you click around various friendly and enemy icons. I have worked and will be doing so again soon as an Observer/Controller and when I did it the last time (7 years ago) - units were slaughtered in the AAR for not providing this information. Given that this game is designed to be squad level and above (and most games are played at Pl and Coy level) I feel that this is reasonable feedback. On any British net - the Proword CONTACT shuts anything else down - therefore what follows has to be important and yet it is not modelled here. I appreciate that units have to have comms (don't start me on the British Army and comms!!) but on a map size modelled in CMSF nowhere is out of comms on most maps - even for us!

Me either, though I don't come into the CMSF forum much. He makes excellent points I happen to agree with a lot of the time. </font>

Why not? Claymores and their derivatives exist, they are not banned under the Ottawa Conventions, they are widely issued and are damned useful in an ambush for starters.

I lost a few good men in my unit to that tactic as well in Iraq. I have only messed with this game really a few days. Are you saying they programmed the AI to use that tactic? </font>

Echoed. Would also like to see a sangar or sentry tower building type and fixed positions/tripod mounts for the M2 .50 Calibre Heavy Machine Gun and MK-19 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher.

Abneo - not really got too far into mission creation yet but 'protect' is good for collateral damage. Any mosque on a map I will always make a protect objective for blue and then hide it to the player because under the Law of Armed Conflict you shouldn't engage it. Obviously if you look at insurgent behaviour you'll know that they will exploit this and this is pretty much set out in the US Army's COE pamphlet for a starter. To take our own experience, the locals in Aden in the 60s were hiding in mosques because they knew our ROE wouldn't allow us to touch them. There are plenty of examples of that going on in Iraq right now and it is the classic example of assymetric warfare. So 'protect' unknown to blue added with an enemy force located in the structure is a pretty good way of simulating the problem.

Aloko - got 'this page cannot be displayed' when I tried to open the pdf

abneo - well not mine obviously - Her Majesty The Queen owns it. As to the game stuff - agreed about collateral damage although I must admit I do like the 'protect' objective concept in the editor - that does capture some of the essence of collateral damage. IFF I'm not sure about having just had a Bradley brassed up by an Apache in Mission 3 of TF Narwick (and trust me that vehicle was deployed well within safety distance norms)!

Yeah but then they'll want to compare that to CMSF!!

Nope - can it - look at all of the whingeing that's going on because CMSF isn't WW2 for starters. Also add the 'Syria doesn't work for me' stuff and I think that pretty much seals it. As someone else said - you would then get the 'serious' sci fi nuts (its made up ffs) and then I'd lose the will to live to be honest. I'd love to see them work on this game more - better Uncon modelling, a better AI and more terrain objects for starters. Think about it - how many modern period wargames are out there right now? This for me is the best one going for what it does. Its good now in terms of conventional stuff apart from the fact that we only have a limited pool of equipment to work with. Get the Uncon stuff right and then we're cooking on gas.

So ... just for sh!ts and giggles why was the original post from Tuomi inappropriate. If that is an argument then what about the thread as a whole? Stability operations have been around for years and armies need to know how to deal with them - the fact that more doctrine and training for it goes on is good. If you ask anyone in the army (well mine anyway) they'll say that warfghting is easy. Stability operations are infinitely more complex - can we deal with them - of course we can. So lets bring a game context in - are we happy with the way Uncons are modelled? Much as I love this game I would have to say no - the abstraction concept does not work for me at all I'm afraid. I would love to see civilians modelled in CMSF so that we can have 'background noise' to realistically create stability operations scenarios.

That Kriss thing - an SMG. We've got past that - its a bit like going on about WW2 on this forum. Old news and pointless.

That's soldiers for you!

I've just had a skim through the manual myself and funnily enough it doesn't seem to be. Also on the subject of mounting - if the icon on your dismounted unit is yellow when you point to a vehicle it means that the unit cannot mount it (usually because it is full already).

I'm sorry guys I just don't get why you have to pick over the model to such obsessive depths. I've got CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and now CMSF and I've enjoyed playing all of them. In all of these games I've had my arse handed to me when I've ignored basic tactical principles or gone against the wrong enemy with the wrong capability and that is enough to satisfy me. I personally would rather see and lobby for additions to CMSF such as additional building types, a better AI editor with triggers and a preview mode as well of course as the British Module than endlessly pick the game engine apart.

I'm pretty much with gibsonm on this one. My main question is what exactly is the point of the question and therefore the reasoning that follows is the apples and pears argument that's been bouncing around. In short you cannot compare the two in terms of warfare or game engines. For the first point modern infantry squads are different to their WW2 equivalents. I think for instance you would struggle to find a late war German squad that was MG-42 and MP-44 armed in its entirety. The modern Syrian equivalent is, if we are saying that RPK/PKM/RPD + AK-47 equates. Additionally LAW/RPG are issued more frequently across the board and are more accurate. The UGL adds significant firepower to any infantry squad/section (many have at least two) - no similar capability existed in WW2. SMGs - admittedly they weren't issued on the same scales as war films would have us believe but they were still fairly common in WW2 organisations from platoon-level downwards. How many do you see today - none unless you like action movies. If you take the modern British infantry section and compare to its WW2 equivalent, the only deduction you'll make is that there are still 8 of them (mech and light role) and that they drink tea. That is the only similarity. The days of rifle group and gun group are long gone - you now have two fire teams each with 2 x L-85A2 (SA-80), 1 x LSW and 1 x LMG probably better known as SAW). Each fire team will probably have one weapon with a UGL and if needs be will carry a LAW. So how does that compare to 1 x Sten, 6 x Lee Enfields and a Bren gun? Moving up to company and battalion level weapons - if anybody can find me an equivalent to the AGS-17/MK-19/GMG in WW2 terms issued at that level I'd be interested. Also in terms of indirect fire weapons - most have a longer reach, better targeting capabilities and more lethality than their WW2 equivalents. Then of course we have other factors such as body armour, improved command and control and lighter ammunition...don't get me started on vehicles and gibsonm, who has spent his life around these things has said more than I could. Want another comparison - American Civil War versus Napoleonic .... they stood row to row, wore uniforms that didn't blend in with the environment, they had horses etc, etc. Superficially they may be similar but as we know they were not. Now to the game engine - they're different, we've been told they are so why not get over it?