jenrick

RSColonel_131st: Not actually gonna argue that much truthfully. However for MOUT work I can see where they'd be slightly less effective, slightly -Jenrick

After re-reading Steve's list: On assets that the player supposedly has priority on (company mortars or what not), how about being able to extend fire missions? If I've got priority of fires (shoot exclusivity possibly) and I want to keep putting rounds on target, why can't I just tell them to keep firing? Currently I've got to wait for the mission to finish then shoot it again. With the changes you've mentioned I'd get less of a delay, but I'm still having to call the mission again. Rather can we just add the option of extending a barrage? Have the ability tied to the responsiveness rating. BTW anyone figured out if the responsiveness ratings actually do anything? I've never noticed any changes. -Jenrick

I think BC needs to do one of two things: 1) Abstract the system to the extent that we've got a "gods" eye view of the situation. This will basically eliminate complaints over lack of control, knowledge, and in general put the onus on the player to make the arty work for them. People will of course call it "gamey" and "unrealistic." 2) Go the exact opposite route and have the artillery call system based precisely on US artillery calling with just the exact amount of info and options on the fire call. This will eliminate any complaints people have over it being "gamey" or "unrealistic." Most will probably find it's more complex then they thought. Though really if NGO schools could be taught in a few hours it'd be included in basic training. For my money I'm going to say BF doesn't do either. Fixing the Air UI and the Art UI doesn't help them with CM: Normandy much. The Air UI is a total no go as there basically was no such thing as a FAC, and even the very limited usage of them is so far from how things work now as to make there be almost zero return. The Art UI has at least some applicability to Normandy, but the changes we are pushing for are all geared towards the modern era. -Jenrick

Convert smoke to HE? Has the DOD been notified as I think they would be interested in the ability of 60mm mortars to do so c3k: Thanks for the hard work on getting the support UI nailed down. It's probably been on of my biggest issues with the game since it's release. -Jenrick

Hmm all right lets get really out there then. Ditch the whole select your CAS platform and pick and ordinance type. We've already hashed out that there's a lot of work to be done to get that working anyway near usuable. Instead abstract it by weapon type. Instead of an A-10, have an Maverick fire support asset. Instead of an F-15E have a Bomb (of some type) fire support asset. Interface is the same as artillery, except you don't have to choose light-heavy. Simply either select point or area, length (amount of munitions expended) and instead of the artillery short-max go with 1/4-All in 1/4 increments. From their confirm and wait. I think the biggest frustration players have right now is that you be trying to kill tanks in the open and instead get a strafing run or a 500lb iron bomb instead of an ATGM, and vice-a-versa. This completely eliminates that issue, and basically the player can fill it in however they want how it works. Want a fully loaded A-10 with/ Mavericks? That's 1 maverick asset with 8 ammo and 1 GAU-8 asset with full ammo. Sure something like an F-15E is a little more complicated to simulate as there are lots of choices, but that's where research comes in. Shoot have the editor have pre-planned packages just there are other formations. Instead of having to assemble and infantry battalion you just pickone, same for your support munitions. Have ammo stack, instead of 2 4 missile maverick assets have them combine into 1 8 missile asset. Keeps the clutter down, and to anyone other then the JTAC who cares what birds there, just that you've got 8 mavericks to kill tanks with. Maybe you've got 2 fully loaded B-2's for 160 Mk82 500lbs. Maybe you've got an squadron of Harries instead carrying Mk82's for the same number of bombs. Unless the games going to start tracking the planes full, it's really the same. Is it realistic that a JTAC is saying, I need a maverick fire mission on those tanks over there? Not entirely, but that's what the overall intent of calling in WILDCAT04 on enemy armor in the open is. The JTAC knows WILDCAT04 has a bunch of ATGM's onboard, and that the pilot is going to use them to kill those tanks. So just having the player explicitly go with an ordinance type is the same thing. Give me a bunch of mavericks on that armor! Oh and I'll say it again here. AC-130's. A 25mm Cannon asset w/ full ammo, a 40mm cannon asset w/ full ammo, and a 105 mm asset with full ammo under my proposal. -Jenrick

The campaign I'm working on had to deal with the lack of gates in walls. I simply put in the readme that a wall completely around a place with a short infantry scalable wall section on one side meant that was a gate. It slows the infantry down and causes them to clump up, just like a gate. Not a perfect solution by far but the best I had. I also agree that as the game is 1:1 mostly WYSIWYG, people expect it all to be WYSIWYG. -Jenrick

All right, well how many effects are there? I'm assuming a 500, 1000, and 2000 lb bomb. A couple of ATGM, few different type of rockets, and several types of cannons. Call it what a dozen? I understand where you're coming from that a there are potentially a ton of different labels that need/could be slapped onto the weapon to indicate what it is, even though in game it's just a name attached to one of a dozen or so generic effects. Why not just use generics for now for names? I think most people would be happy with a choice of for example "cannon, HE rocket, and ATGM" as the weapon choices. Sure it'd be great for it to say Maverick if it's an A-10 and Hellfire if it's an Apache, but I'll settle for filling in the blanks myself. Shoot even just a good break down on what means what would help along with more description on the CAS unit tab. Ground attack doesn't mean much since that can range from cannon to Tomahawk (we are getting B-52's someday right?). Bombs and rockets is a little more descriptive. A chart saying that a Harrier carrying bombs and rockets has the following weapon for each attack type (25 mm cannon - light; rockets - medium; 500lbs - heavy) would be even better. I'm talking just a hard copy reference chart even, just something I can look at. -Jenrick

One thing, make the tac games either defined as RT campaings or WEGO. I'd love to participate, but having to butt heads with not only the WEGO interface but also my opponent would drive me bonkers. Conversely I know a lot of people aren't going to want to play RT. -Jenrick

I agree with you entirely c3k. Why not simply have each ammo bar tool tipped to what the weapon type is, and rather then "light, medium, heavy" just have "25mm cannon, Maverick, Mk82 JDAM" as my weapon choices. If I call for a JDAM on a tank company then it's my own fault if it's less effective then going mavericks. Wouldn't seem that hard to implement, heck just change the CAS call interface to say "weapon 1, weapon 2, weapon 3" and make use responsible for keeping track that'd still be an improvement. What I'd really like to know is what exactly was the though process behind the light, medium, heavy attack? If Air power was abstracted as just a certain "size" of attack that just varied on damage or something I can see it. But with a light attack on on AC being a 20mm cannon, and light on another a salvo of rockets it just doesn't work. -Jenrick

C3K: Okay so far I'm following your example. I'm still curious why artillery men can't fire at a target the FO doesn't have eyes on. I'm waiting for the next example (BTW I think some illustrations by Gunny would add to all of this ) I actually did some flying (first love is flight simming) the other night to see where my engagement times were for a CAS run. From the time I hit my IP and get the FAC giving me the target brief it's usually about 3-5 minutes till I'm ready to start my run. From there call it about 2 minutes or so between each pass, maybe a bit less if it's a target rich environment and I'm not too close to friendlies. This is all dropping straight iron or rockets, so no need to designate etc. Dropping precision ordinance is going to be about 5-7 minutes to from call to release as I've got get my target locked up somehow (via radar, visual in the HUD etc.) then get into my release envelope. Additional runs in the same area are probably at 3-4 minutes to get reset and slew my target around a bit. Things like Mavericks and the like though are going to be almost as fast as iron and rockets. Turn in, line it up and light it off. Maybe get 2-3 off in a pass if I'm on a good day. Average about 2-3 minutes to setup again. If everyone's flying well though, you can have a continual wheel of folks rolling in on the target hitting it at 30-45 second intervals until the FAC calls it destroyed or everyone's winchester or totally dry. My biggest gripe with the air support system currently is that no one from the mission designer to the player acting as the JTAC has a clue what the heck is on board your air support. Normally an aircraft would either check in with their ordinance, the Vietnam standard "snakes and nape," or the JTAC has the ATO to reference so he knows what the heck is there. Also he can always ask if he needs to. CAS requests are going to vary based on what you've got overheard. Got a F-15E loaded down with JDAM's, go nuts on buildings, bunkers, trenches, any other precision targets. Got the same bird but with CBU's? Well hit anything in the open or not under cover. You can use both birds in a pinch on the same targets, but each is going to be much better at hitting different types of targets. Oh and while we're on the topic of CAS, I want an AC-130 in game dang it. Light - 25 mm cannons, medium - 40 mm Bofors, heavy - 105mm howitzer. See nice and easy -Jenrick

An Abrams burns as much gas at idle as it does at full throttle almost, that was part of the reason the Germans went with a diesel for the Leopard series. As noted not running the engine at least some of the time will drain the battery and then you are SOL. If you're expecting contact, the engine is going to be running. -Jenrick

Apocal: I was referring to only being engaged by a sniper. To reference something easily recognizable, let's go with the sniper scene in Saving Private Ryan. -Jenrick

secondbrooks: Ah that makes much more sense. As a 7.62 rounds gets out past 800m depending on air density, temperature, etc. it can start to get dangerously close to transonic, and all your accuracy just went out the window. On a good day though 7.62 will go out to 1K without too much trouble (a 12' tall arc from rifle to target though). The M82 should be quiet useable against the BRD's BRM's and uncon vehicles. I'll set up a test and see how it does against them. Nothing like "remote detonating" a VIED -Jenrick

CptWasp: Exactly! -Jenrick

Secondbrooks: Okay changing civilian density from sparse to none gave me the same spotting behavior you were seeing. Good spotting out to about 400-500 yds. Far as the M40 vs. M110 I'd say they should be about the same in accuracy in practical terms. With no wind I'd say shooting on and advancing target out to 6-700 yards shouldn't be to hard. Set your BDC line up on the belly button and pull the trigger. Even if you're off a click or two you're going to get good hits. Now I do agree that toss in wind and it suddenly gets more complicated. I'd say both should be getting good hits after maybe 1 missed round. From there I agree that the M110 has the edge in ROF. I find that 5.56 at the 600 yard line does require very good wind doping skills if the winds blowing past 5-8 MPH. 7.62 is much more forgiving of average wind doping skills so long as the winds isn't constantly changing. I've never had the chance to shoot 7.62 past 600 yds, but I'm hoping to be able to go to a 1000yd range this year. For about 300 yds on in, unless you're trying for surgical head shots, there's almost no need to fiddle with knobs for either 5.56 or 7.62 to make hits. The main reason I've been playing with snipers is for a series of missions (possibly a campaign if I can get this all figured out), based loosely on Fallujah. Prior to the assault US forces used snipers as their primary interdiction method, definitely need them working up to snuff to simulate that.

Meade95,SX0, ck3: Thanks, I was the night shift QA lead/supervisor for Acclaim Entrainment back before they went bankrupt a couple of years ago. When I actually decided to let my inner tester loose it's good to know I've still got it Secondbrooks: Hmm I can send anyone who wants it my test scenario. My crack snipers are deployed on top of an 8 story building with no orders. Red force is deployed with no orders on a flat level plain. No spotting occurred in the first minute. I issued move orders to red after that just to see what would happen. I haven't bothered to rerun it and wait to see how long it takes to get some spotting happening. Back to the snipers roll in game: As I stated earlier currently a sniper does not serve as a means of area denial, mainly due to their limited ability to inflict casualties currently. I also have to agree with Secondbrooks that a HMG or a tank doesn't either as the AI is just dang stubborn. One thing I haven't looked at that I think I might is the suppression effect of snipers, HMG's, and other heavy weapons. I would posit that an unspotted sniper causing casualties should have a very large suppression effect on a unit. A spotted sniper on the other hand is just another man with a rifle trying to kill you, rather then the hidden angel of death. This would let snipers in game have a much more dramatic effect on the enemy in terms of pinning them, and causing them to spend a lot of time trying to find the sniper. Additionally good leaders and C2, should make it possible to keep moving and get out of the kill zone rather then retreating or just stopping in place under cover like a lot of unexperienced units have done throughout history. -Jenrick

The Close Combat series had outlines that were adjustable to show what ever stat you wanted at a glance for your own troops. Holding down a key toggle'd that to a a different stat, and so on. Would be great to be able to have something like that indicating C2, ammo, suppression, what have you at a glance on the unit icon. -Jenrick

To an extent I agree with you that most infantry given a flat range and time can shoot fairly well. On the other hand the whole point of a sniper is that they can do so in what ever terrain and time constraint you put them in. I would agree that an infantry squad should probably do more damage to a static in the open target at 100yds then a sniper squad, as it's easy shooting. I also agree that infantry doesn't normally stand there and wait to get shot at anymore. If you read Shooter which is based on Sgt. Jack Coughlin's time in Iraq as a sniper there's a lot of shooting he does that's against targets trying to be sneaky and take cover. However the thing a sniper has going for him, is that most of the time the enemy has no clue where the fire's coming from. Coughlin advocated and used a very pro-active in the open approach to sniping, where he was in the thick of the fighting, using his long range shooting abilities to eliminate threats from a distance and basically deny the enemy access to sectors of the battle space. Historically troops when faced with a good sniper (Stalingrad for instance), will hunker down and are very hard to get to move about as no one wants to be shot. There is no feeling of area denial here in CMSF, you can move a whole infantry company one squad at a time through the covered area and only take a few casualties. Coughlins idea was to put the sniper out in the open and let him deny space to the enemy, and give him cover from an infantry squad to let him do his work. The sniper element should be able to interdict and deny enemy movement out to 1K yards into the rear, and the infantry element keeps the folks close in at bay to let the sniper wreck havoc in the rear. How hard is it going to be to get an attack moving if you can't move you're units around without taking casulties in supposedly "safe" rear areas? The wife's telling me we need to go run errands, so I'll finish my thoughts later. -Jenrick

All right testing indicates that they can spot a moving enemy HQ and Combatant group at roughly 1K yards. The M110 and M82 engaged for the Army, but the M40 armed Marines did not. Now I can understand the M82, the sucker is good out to 1.5K easy, but the Marines actually train and teach engagements out to 1K, the Army only 800. The Marines did not open fire until the groups got inside of 800 yds. First kill was scored on about the 6-7th shot of the M82. The Marines and the M110 armed sniper didn't seem to do any damage at all until the enemy units got into engagement range of their spotters. Even then the M40 armed Marines did less damage then their M16A4 armed spotters due to the much lower rate of fire. Things to look at for blue force snipers: 1) Spotting. The main task of a sniper is normally intelligence gathering, they should have the best spotting in the game if you don't account for technology. US snipers also tend to have all the fancy toys making them almost equal to recon vehicles in terms of TI, NV, etc. Short of solid concealment (ie boulders, a dug in hide, in a building), not much should remain unspotted. 2) Accuracy. An enemy formation moving at a normal pace in the open even at 400-500 yards is not going to be a terribly difficult shot for a sniper. Out at the extremes of 800-1K yards, I can understand first round misses. However after one or maybe two misses (if you've got a bad spotter and a lot of wind), your windage and elevation are going to be dialed in, and hits should be forth coming if the targets stay in the open. At 400 yards and closer a .308 is fairly close to point and shoot with good scope and BDC on it. If the enemy was going to ground and taking cover I can understand a decrease in accuracy, but if they're still walking along they should start dropping. Currently snipers seem to have the same base accuracy as other troops, and their rifles seem to be as inaccurate as the other weapons as well. A sniper isn't the squad DM who happens to be the best shot in the squad, he's the top rifle for the company who got sent to school. Far as rifle accuracy goes I believe USMC standard for the M40 and the M118LR ammo for it is less them 1 MOA or slightly less then 10" at 1000 yards. Definitely able to hit and at least wound at 1K yards if the shooter does his job. 3) Engagement ranges. These need to be adjusted to fit doctrine and training for their respective services. Not a major issue, but something that's obvious if you're aware of it. 4) Rate of fire. The whole reason behind the M110 being semi auto is that it has a much higher rate of fire then a bolt action rifle. Currently at long range the sniper will fire a round, go to the weapon down position then re-sight in and fire another round. The weapon should be up on target with little down time. The M-82 makes slightly more sense as it needs to be resettled between shots due to heavier recoil, but still it seems excessive. The M40 of course needs to have the action worked, but the current animation seems to take too long and goes into the weapon down position as well. Targets in the open are a riflemen's dream and are going to be engage as fast as practicable to cause as much damage as possible. Even in law enforcement where multiple engagements are very rare, you fire your round and work the action as fast as you can and get back on scope just in case you need to fire again. In the military this would seem to be doubly the case. -Jenrick

I would much prefer that for unit selection, especially in the editor that I can pick whatever I want down to the squad type armed with or operating a specific weapon/vehicle. In QB I can understand choosing a formation and giving it to the player, but for creating scenarios it seems wrong to not be able to choose an exact unit easily. -Jenrick

Did some quick testing, had an Army and Marine sniper team posted at the top of an 8 story building firing on targets in the open at 100 yard intervals. I only bother to try it out to 600 yds, though the test scenario goes out to 1000yd, I'll try that tonight probably. Experience was crack, highly motivated, and fit. Considering the tools and the training these guys have I wasn't real impressed. First off they were not able to spot the enemy in the open until they either moved or opened fire. At a couple of hundred yards I'll by that, but at 100 yds in a flat level featureless plain I think that's a bit unrealistic. From there it took approximately 40 seconds to decimate the first 5 man combatant group at 100 yards between the two teams, with most of the killing done by the supporting arms and the M203's in specific. Deciding to see how they did at distance, NO kills where registered at 600 yds by the USMC team using their M24's. The Army got 1 kill and one wounded, both of which appeared to be from the M-82. The M203's guys sure where having a good time, didn't hit anyone though. I then had both 600 yd targets move fast to the 500 yd line, straight ahead. Again no kills by the USMC team. The army did manage to score 2 kills with again what appeared to be the M-82. At that point I decided to terminate the test. Both teams were not under fire, showed 0 suppression, where in good order, etc. A 600 yd shot on a non moving target in a low wind condition is not that difficult shot with a scoped .308. Remember military snipers are not going for head shots, they are going for COM shots, which will put an enemy down just as well. The Army trains to shoot accurately out to 800 meteres, the Marines 1000 meters. I'm going to see if an upright moving target at range gets some better results this evening. If you read about the usage of snipers in modern engagements, everything from Carlos Hathcock to Jack Coughlin the engagement ranges are usually a good ways. Specifically in Coughlin's case multiple targets engaged quickly at 400+ yards in several cases. At the moment though I'd say snipers are not performing up to their expected result. -Jenrick

A low velocity cannon firing a good HEAT round would have provided a similar anti-vehicle capability, with a much increased utility for general infantry support. Having the sucker be able to provide indirect fire support in addition would have been great, but not something I see foresee ever happening. I imagine the MGS will go down like the original M-60 and the Shillelagh, not necessarily a totally flawed idea, but definitely unworkable. -Jenrick

Your MG's are used as the fire base for your infantry. When both 240G's are setup and firing you can maneuver your fire teams and squads much more quickly as you don't necessarily have to have one of them laying a base of fire. As noted get extra ammo and fire away, then do it some more. Anything that has the reach to return fire needs to be hit by something heavier then MG fire anyway. -Jenrick

Deal with the Mech infantry with artillery and direct fire. Then get your Marines the heck out of the way and into cover and concealment when the tanks show. Keep you AAV's out of the way, and use the javelin team like no tomorrow. The Syrian tanks will sit in place long enough to get an artillery strike in if they don't have targets to engage. I like to keep a SMAW round or too handy as well, as from the side or rear it will get a kill. I agree it usually does get messy. -Jenrick

So did some more testing with suprising results. A MGS CAN one shot kill to the front ANY Syrian tank in the game with a HEAT round. I had a pair of T-90's destroyed with one HEAT round each within about a second of each other. Admittedly the other two T-90's then took the rest of the HEAT and APFSDS rounds without even a mobility kill. Dumb luck does happen, but sure surprised the heck out of me. Onto the whole HE before APFSDS issue that spawned all this testing. I saw it reoccur twice with what seemed a repeatable condition. Both times the enemy tank (a mobility kill already in both cases) was being targeted. Just prior to firing the tank moves from spotted to a possible contact ("?" icon). The MGS then fired a HE round, soon as the tank was back to a spotted contact, it engaged it with a HEAT round. Saw this happen twice. Now does the engine track what round is loaded, or does it just pick what the TAC AI thinks is appropriate and fires it? In the grand scheme of things it's not going to be much different, but if that's the case I can see a couple of situations where things like this crop up. So after killing a bunch of red force tanks, a MGS can one shot kill anything in the Syrian inventory if it gets lucky. Reliably it can do so all the way up to and including a basic T-72. However if you really want to be safe only the T-54/T-55's (regardless of model) never survived a hit. Had multiple occasions where a T-64 (don't recall the exact) took multiple HEAT or APFSDS rounds before it went down. After doing some research on the MGS, I've established there's not nearly as much published data as on other pieces of US hardware. The bits and pieces I scavenged though seem to indicate that at least a stationary MGS should have a very high (comparable to the Abrams) chance of first round hits. Which it currently is not displaying. Most of what I read also seems to indicate that it should be fairly close to an Abrams even while on the move. Far as tactics using the MGS, as noted, don't use them to hunt tanks. A Javelin can and will destroy any red force tank in only one shot, barring some very bad luck. A MGS can destroy any red force tank in only one shot, only with some really good luck. A MGS has the ability to put down a lot of HE fire onto enemy trenches and buildings very quickly, were as a Javelin squad as model isn't real useful for anything other then vehicle killing (which is does very well). Your MGS can provide over watch against a primarly infantry force, or against a force that has no MBT's and do so effectively. If you're not sure if the OPFOR has MBT's then dismount a javelin team or two to provide over watch, or use the ATGM vehicles to provide that overwatch. Treat your MGS as a super long range SMAW, that happens to be vehicle mounted and you wont be to far off. I completely agree with Dan/california that the MGS should have something other then it's current gun configuration for direct fire support. If a vehicle has a weapon system that theoretically can be used for something, it's a sure fire bet someone will try it rather then be smart enough to get the heck out of the way and let someone better equipped do it. -Jenrick