jenrick

I've had good luck with the unit itself being given a target command on the structure and then moved via assault on the ground floor. As others have said, having additional units suppress while the primary units moves at quick into the building works well too. -Jenrick

The wife's computer went down, and as she runs her business from the house my machine is currently not a gaming rig at the moment. I managed to sneak on here for a bit though. I'm going to try to sneak some more testing in later this afternoon/evening if possible though. Initial thoughts on things: I agree the MGS system should have a HEAT round as the round in the pipe for the reason's listed above. I'm curious if it's an TAC AI logic bug or something a little more insidious. If a HEAT round CAN get a first round head-on kill on a base model T-72, is the TAC AI that wrong for hammering HEAT rounds into a T-72 repeatedly? It's got 3 times as many to try to get a good kill with. I'd prefer to see the crew switch to a APFSDS round as the second round out, but I can sorta see the logic of keeping that in reserve for something like a late model T-72 or a T-90. I haven't seen a repeat yet of the HE before APFSDS issue that I saw previously, but I haven't had a red tank be a mobility kill and sit there and be hit repeatedly again yet either though. The MGS does have spotting issues compared to an Abrams of whatever variant. Not sure why, I'm going to do some research on the MGS system to see exactly what kind of SA tools the commander/gunner should have to work with. The MGS also seems to have gunnery issues as well. I know a stationary Abrams in a hull down position at 2K yards is going to have 95%+ chance of first round hit. The MGS seems to be averaging around 85% or so (haven't bothered to count and do math, just looking it at), currently. Am I making an incorrect assumption that the MGS doesn't have a FCS similar to the original M1 at a minimum? Far as a HEAT kill on T-72 frontally, my data indicates that a frontal hull hit on an early model T-72 should have a reasonable chance of success with modern HEAT munitions. Now start throwing on ERA, and upgrading the armor and there shouldn't be a chance of anything other then a mobility kill. Well if nothing else this has turned into an interesting look at capabilities of the platform. -Jenrick

I'll respond in detail more later, but a fast answer to orwell first. The magazine on most modern rifles is curved due to the rounds being narrower at the front then the back. It allows a simpler magazine spring and follower design then trying to make it all line up square. Older rifles like the SMLE that use a rimmed cartridge will have an even more pronounced curve or slant to the base of the magazine. -Jenrick

Okay preliminary testing shows the following: At the 2K range the MGS defaults to firing HEAT rounds no matter the target, T-55 through T-90. I haven't managed to get one to live long enough against a T-90 to see if it'll pop off HE or APFSD after that point. The MGS HEAT rounds will one shot stop any T-55 or T-62. I need to do some more testing on the T-72's to check which variants are one shot kills and which are multiple rounds kills. Now after looking at it, the TAC AI behavior makes a little more sense. The MGS has only roughly 20 rounds available, and the default load is 10 HE 6 HEAT and 2 APFSD. With such a limited supply of APFSD rounds it makes sense that HEAT would be the primary engagement round. I would think however that when the T-72 drives on after getting whacked, that you might break out that APFSD round. I'll post further results tomorrow. -Jenrick

Piispa: You've either got WAY bigger hands then most, or you're doing something different then a lot of us to hit the safety on an AK without taking your firing hand off the grip. If you're using your off-hand to hit it, then I understand. Can be quiet effective and fast (seen a lot of folks in 3 gun who run AK's use that style). My main issue with AK mag changes, is that you have to hit the lever and extract the mag out, then rock the new on in. For a "basic" level of skill on the reload, that requires your support hand to: release and strip the mag, grab the new one, and lock it in. Where as an AR requires your support hand to: grab the new mag, and insert and lock it in. As I said with a lot of practice there is probably only a few tenths of second between the reloads, but at the "basic" level there's a little more manipulation for the AK platform. I've been smoked before by a guy using an AK in 1-reload-1 drills, he'd just practiced a whole lot. I agree the AK is a simpler weapon, and the new push to piston driven AR's is people gravitating towards that. However Stoner designed the AR-180 as using the best of both the M-16 and the Ak-47, to bad it didn't get picked up. Sucker is basically the AR equivalent of an AR, and was dang accurate too (well the 180B model I had was at least). However take a look at something like the M-1 Garand, not exactly an unreliable weapon. It has roughly the same number of major sub assemblies as the AR when broken down, and for a detail cleaning has more. Overall I think the modern AR is as reliable as the solider it's issued to is willing to keep it. I also agree that in combat ranges over 150-200 yds shooting iron sights are a very rare occurrence. However the AR platform can reach out to 600yds quiet well using irons if you take your time and know how to shoot, USMC qualifications requires 500yds, and High Power shooting goes out to 600yds. ACOG's, EoTech and Aimpoint magnifiers, and the like extend the ability to engage out to 3-400 yards with out it being a waste of ammo if you've got good shooters on the line. The biggest thing the M16A4 has over the M4 is the ABILITY to put rounds down accurately at 300+ yds. If the enemy already knows your there and is hitting you with MG fire, the more lead you can send his way the better. Sure the 240G and 249 are going to put rounds down, but why not have the rest of the squad and platoon get some trigger time too? I'd much rather have the ability for in my opinion a negligible increase in bulk and length then not have it. -Jenrick

NP, I'll do that right now actually. Was going to set up one where Red enters after 5 mins or so for the first wave so I can pop off all my HE rounds and see what happens when I've got APFSDS as my ready round. -Jenrick

Your MGS can successfully take out a T-72 with a frontal shot. The problem I have seen is that they shoot HEAT and HE rounds first, then APFSDS rounds. I set up a test scenario just to see how well the gun system worked. The 105mm gun on the MGS is basically the same gun that was mounted on the M1, which should be able to punch through everything from the T-72 and older when using good ammo. My test scenario was at 2K yards from a hull down position versus successive waves of enemy armor, each improving on the last (T-55, T-64, T-72, and so on). The HEAT rounds work fine against the T-54/55 and T-64. Against a T-72 you'll likely only get a mobility kill. The annoying thing is that the MGS will fire in order: HEAT, HE, and finally APFSDS when engaging enemy tanks. I watched one of my MGS fire off it's last few HEAT rounds, then it's entire HE load at an immobilized T-72, before finally killing it with an APFSDS round. Brewed it up with on round from the direct front. I haven't bothered to setup a scenario to let me get my MGS down to APFSDS rounds to test how they do against the newest Red tanks, but I imagine they aren't going to fair all that well. It also doesn't matter much, as in game they will fire the improper type of ammo anyway, unless they are down to APFSDS rounds only. So with all that said, the advice everyone else has given is spot on. Don't use them to tank hunt, use them as assault guns. They are great for APC/IFV's (though I did lose one to a BMP 3 the other day in a shoot out, which makes me wonder) and for blasting bunkers and suspected enemy positions. I imagine if they would use the proper type of ammo, they would be a good long range light AT force, primarily of use against older MBT's. Far as going hull down, I fervently wish that the waypoint gave you details of being HD/partial HD/etc. in the direction your looking before you set it. I hate have to jiggle the dang things back and forth a few yards to get it right every time. -Jenrick

Lol, nice John. Would have made clearing rooms a little easier, one HE round to each floor and call it a day. -Jenrick

M4's are handier and lighter in a CQB situation. Short stocking a M16A2 was not a practice I particularly enjoyed using when I learned how to do it. -Jenrick

M4/M16A4 vs the AK platform: The biggest thing the M4/M16A4 has going for it is the electro/optical sights that are now issue items. An Aimpoint, EoTech, or ACOG provides a tremendous boost in terms of acquisition speed, ability to get back onto target after firing, and most importantly the ability to see/use ones sight in a low light condition (such as a building interior). The Soviet block has produced several good electro/optical sights for the AK platform, but they were almost exclusively for Spetsnaz, and lately for the export market. Syrian units equipped with such a sight are roughly on par with the M4/M16A4 platform. Next up is ergonomics. The M4/M16A4 platform both allow the use to toggle the safety off and on without difficulty or breaking the shooting grip. Magazine changes can be accomplish swiftly with minimal practice, and extremely fast if you practice. The rifle is easy to shoot and recoil cause very little muzzle rise when fired semi-auto. The AK safety requires breaking the firing grip to toggle, or a lot of practice. Magazine changes are not that much slower if you really practice them, but a basic level of proficiency is going to be about 30-50% slower then an AR magazine change. Recoil and muzzle rise is going to be fairly similar to the AR platform. Overall at MOUT ranges the rifles don't matter too much. The level of the training of the operator matters far more, and US combat personal receive FAR more MOUT and CQB training then most other basic combat troops. Shoot most US combat troops receive more then most non-superpower special forces units receive. -Jenrick

US forces, specifically Marines are some of the best basically trained infantry in the world. Additionally they are also the best equipped, armored, supported, etc. You're squads just been ambushed, you're pinned down in the open, rounds are snapping over head. Your fire team leader has all ready been hit once, he's on the ground trying to get his first aid kit open to treat the hole in his arm. Your pretty sure you stopped a ricochet or a grenade fragment off your body armor already too. You're bodies thinking about calling it a day and just curling into a ball, I mean s**t your taking fire in the open from an entrenched enemy! The voice of your basic training drill instructor however is going off in your skull even louder then the enemy fire about what exactly Uncle Sam and the American people expect you to do in this situation. Even your 21 year old ROTC wonder Lt. is on line putting down rounds, and calling in some fast movers. Your rifle is getting back on the line to pin the SOB's down until an F-15 can drop a JDAM on them. You are then going to march over there and kick on of them in head for making you fall and crush up those cookie you're mom sent you that where stowed in your MOLLE gear. Contrast that with... You've just pulled of a perfect infantry ambush, targets in the open at close range. Line up the post and notch sight on your AK, squeeze slowly and smoothly to the rear, and watch another American fall. The only problem is they just roll over to bit of cover behind a rock and start shooting again. You're squad leader stood up into a burst from one of their machine guns. The officer in charge of your platoon is a floor down and a building over "co-ordinating manuevers" so he doesn't have to worry about getting shot. You only had the basic military course a decade ago, and now you're back as a reserve infantry solider. The only thing you recall from basic was how scared you were that the instructor was going to beat you again, worse then last time. The American fire is accurate and now you've got a flesh wound to you arm, the arm still works, but it looks bad. The American's take prisoners... -Jenrick

Thanks Gunny, great work. A couple the guys on my shift are devil dogs and get a kick out of your stuff every time. -Jenrick

Field Marshal Blucher: Not sure what the offical USMC doctrine is for them but battle taxi is in my experience what they work well as. Think of them as basically big Strykers w/o all the techno gadgets and you'll be pretty close. Each AAV carries a full platoon by itself, so basically you've got a high-speed land-and-sea Marine delivery system (well compared to humping it the long way or paddling your rubber boat). The M-19 on them works very well to suppress or recon by fire potential safe unloading points, and to counter an ambush while all the Marines in the back bail out. As you noted though they are not heavily armored and should not be used as an assault/fighting vehicle. They are great to get Marines to the area of the objective, and possibly support them onto the objective if there is no AT threat. Marines are leg infantry, and fight best as such. Remember all you have to do is gain superiority of fire, maneuver, and destroy. Use the AAV to maneuver on a large scale, on a small scale they're there just to help you get to the fight faste. Only if the threat environment is low use your AAV to help gain fire superiority. -Jenrick

Hmm so the all inclusive Marine patch isn't all inclusive then? Oh well I'll go ahead and do the reinstall. -Jenrick

My question with regard to IP's is how would the be integrated in RT? For WEGO it makes sense to charge them for discrete actions, almost as activation counters with stored actions in later turns. What the refresh timing in RT? In WEGO if you approximate that each HQ has enough IP to issue 3 stored orders per unit under it's command per turn (continually refreshing, not out of your initial IP pool), that means you can't get too complex without restricting other units. Sure no problem, that's kinda the point. However what's the refresh schedule for RT? In a WEGO turn your can conceivable issue orders that will carry on for the rest of the battle to every unit that will then be set in motion in 1 minute increments. In RT there are a finite amount of units you can click on in one minute and issue orders. Probably still less then the total amount of IP your get per refresh if you're working with smaller formations and simple movements. Unless you pause the game, set them all at in the permission setup, or use the pause command army wide (and I'm not sure you can even do that) setting up convoluted strings of orders for each and every unit causing your IP to seriously decrease isn't likely to happen. In my experience RT tends to be a much shorter simpler of "move here, cover here" fire team style orders rather then the more elaborate WEGO op-order style orders with multiple way points with different commands and pauses linked to them to effect what we want. Is this going to result in IP not being used in RT, making at an exclusive WEGO item? Is RT going to stay around in the first place? Steve regarding your earlier reply: The issue with units going to ground when out of C2 contact is to limit a player from using a single unit cut off from the rest of his command to launch a lone wolf style attack. Has it happened before? Sure, but in general I'd say most small units when cut off momentarily from there leadership with no further orders are going to sit tight. They might move a couple of meters here or there go get out of fire, or to engage and enemy they saw. They are probably not going to go charging down a road solo no matter how undefended it appears to be. That may be where the next artillery barrage is headed for. I do however agree that a unit that has been issue orders already is not going to cease following them just because they are out of C2 contact. No worries, I know that until I front some dev. capital I don't really get to be too picky on what goes in the game or not I personally would prefer seeing more adjustment to the orders and way point system for those of us not familiar with the WEGO system. Maybe if I'd played CM1 et al I'd be more comfortable with it. Right now it's an exercise in frustration. As it stands to me it feels as though WEGO requires far more micromanagement then RT, but unfortunately of the interface and the orders system rather then of the units themselves. In RT if I've got a unit that's a little more exposed then I'd like (or with the way my luck goes sitting in the middle of a featureless open plain), I can immediately move it to go hull down etc. In WEGO if that unit moves to that unexpectedly exposed position (say just a hair to far up a ridge line so the belly rather then turret face is exposed) that I wasn't anticipating in the first second of the turn I have no control of it for the next 59 seconds. Sure fog of war, s**t happens, etc. However I think the platoon sergeant, Lt, etc. would most likely take note of that issue and have them move. If the game is going to simulate company command or higher then I'd say the fact your ordered that platoon into the open is your own problem, but your units should automatically find cover in the nearby area (in the ridge line example maybe a meter or two) automatically. If we're simulating individual vehicles then I should be able to move to a hull down position with ease as I can use my crew mates to tell me when I'm there if I'm near an earea with cover. If it's platoon level I should expect my squad/vehicles to be able to handle stuff like that when given an area to move to just like at the higher levels. WEGO as it stands requires the player be every TC, platoon sergeant, Lt, FO, CO, etc, but doesn't give him the tools to do so effectively. Learning to read terrain and use it is a critical skill for any solider. WEGO to me makes it very difficult to do so, as a rolling series of sand dunes should provide a lot of good firing positions, but a click a hair off can leave a unit totally exposed or totally out of the fight for 60 seconds. A real tank would simply creep to where ever it needed to be to get a good firing position. A halfway competent tank crew is going to know that unless they are order to sit in the open exposed by the LT after he's been given orders by the company commander, that they are going to need to find a hull done fighting position in the general vicinity of the area they are order to stop in. Same with infantry. US doctrine at least pushes initiative down. WEGO doesn't seem to do that, or perhaphs it pushes ALL the initiative to the player. Without a way to see a head of time if the location I'm moving a tank to is a hull down spot, or to issue the order to do so, it feels like the tank crew is a bunch of FNG's at armor school. The reason I harp on the hull down issue is to me it's sort the general issue I have with WEGO. If something as automatic to a tank crew as preferring a hull down firing position to an exposed position if one is available in the immediate area is not easily ordered then everything else is just more complex to get accomplished. RT still requires the same amount of micromanagement to get those tanks into hull down positions, but at least I can do so immediately when I find out that they're not there already. -Jenrick

Hmm, I've got the petradon boxed version with marine module tacked on. Only campaigns I've got are TF Thunder and the Marine one. Suggestions? -Jenrick

I had the same question so that makes sense. The manual also references the Yakima training campaign which I don't have as a choice. Where'd it go? -Jenrick

HQ and C2 could be used like it is in the SP series (well at least SPWW2). Simply put units out of HQ contact can only move short distance and shoot at units that they have spotted them selves for direct fire. No indirect fire, no charging across the battlefield etc. Visual contact with another unit of the same formation gives a chance of being in contact with HQ, as does having a radio, visual HQ contact is the only surefire way. This of course is simulating WW2 units, where radios and all the other sophisticated toys didn't exist, and a loud voice and maybe a whistle where all folks had. Now that we've apparently got a fairly detailed simulation of C2, why not use it the same way? Units that aren't in contact with higher go to ground and only engage self spotted targets. They'll follow any previous orders but won't just suddenly decide to charge the objective by themselves normally. Unit's in C2 can act normally of course. The main thing is going to be units that are out of contact when it's time for new orders. Basically w/o the CO telling them what to do they're going to just sit tight and put some rounds down range as needed, rather then initiating movement on the objective and what not. It wouldn't be critical to keep units in C2 at all times, just to make sure they can talk to each other once things get time sensitive, like assaults, ambushes, etc. Just like RL. Just musing, -Jenrick

I use the LAV all the time in WinSPMBT, good speed, good vision, cheap, good gun for what it should be up against, and not going to take half my infantry with it if it gets hit (since it can't carry a platoon). -Jenrick

I'd simply split movement into a speed and a tactics options. You'd have sprint, double time, normal, and crawl. The faster they are the less attentive they are, there's no way to really hunt for a target and sprint that's as effective as moving at a normal pace and looking. Additionally they have a much more obvious profile, aren't as stealthy etc. Sprint is obvious hair on fire running (the good old fashioned 3 second rush), double time is a fast movement when not under effective fire or just needing to get there in a hurry, normal is a walking pace when you're paroling looking for trouble or administrative moving, crawl is kinda self explanatory. Then have a tactics choice assault, move to contact, scout, sneak. Assault is move to the location designated through enemy fire if neccesary, do not stop unless the unit breaks or pins. Move to contact is move forward, but if you make contact with the enemy stop and engage (the hunt command currently in use). Scout is move till you make spot an enemy, then go to ground and wait for orders do not engage initially. Sneak is move until you spot and enemy then back up till you can no longer see them, do not engage. Having these options be mixed and match creates some great options for movement. Crawl/assault under heavy fire in thick brush, great way to close. Sprint and sneak, trying to move a missile team to flank as an ambush. No point in getting them on the flank if the enemy knows they're there. Shoot you could set generic formation tactics so that all units are going to normally move in movement to contact or sneak as you want them too. Set your dismounted scout squads to Normal/Scout and have them work forward and then stop and hide when the find the enemy, no need to set the tatics on each move command. missinginreality: just saw your post. I agree if the animation protrayed a unit under "move" orders as being on patrol it would make sense. Also the description of the movement states in the manual make move sound less then useful. Right now "move" just looks like they're getting ready to load in the 5 ton to head out for their FTX, rather then in a combat zone. -Jenrick

I've tried WEGO in CM:SF and it drives me batty. If I'm going to micromanage every element of my force, it feels incredibly limited and difficult to execute orders that any self respecting solider should be able to accomplish after graduating from his MOS school. I shouldn't have to lay out convoluted way points and timing orders to get a tank to shoot and scoot, or spend 20 minutes trying to figure out where to place my waypoint to let my tanks go hull down when they get to a hill crest. A whole plethora of other titles have handled these issues much better and in RT, Steel Beasts for instance has a very very good orders/routes system. It's very detailed, allows you to be very thoughtful with you're orders. M1A2 tank platoon had battle drills for contact. Tacops 4 has postures and ROE. Where the heck is this stuff in CMSF?! Currently my tanks can drive forward till they make contact with an enemy and then either: 1) keep driving 2) stop driving. Call me crazy but there are several other immediate tactical choices I can think of. I don't need the complexity of SB necessarily, but something a little more diverse would be nice. I whole heartedly agree with theVulture that WEGO needs more commands/interface options. salwon's example of thinking of RT as being in charge of a company with a bunch of moron lt's is dead on for me in all regards of the game. The problem I have with WEGO is that I know have up to a minute of forced inactivity from the time I spot my Lt's being moron's till I can try to get them out of trouble. If I had the ability to issue more carefully scripted/plotted orders it wouldn't be nearly as bad. "Lt, your orders are to move down this road using your fire teams in bounding overwatch. If you make contact with an enemy who appears to be a serious threat fall back to the nearest position of cover and establish a base of fire, if they are not press forward." With a real infantry platoon, I should just be able to give them the order to "advance down that road but keep your platoon intact." I can still handle working with a moron Lt though as it forces me to be explicit about my intent the mission. I'm sure there is a way to get the AI to do that if I messed with it enough. Having a separate speed/movement type and reaction options would go a long way. What I end up with now is that my platoon will either stop at the first round fired its way by a lone vehicle crew member, or it will continue to assault towards an entrenched HMG with a clear line of fire. If there was a way to issue realistic orders and have them carried out in a realistic manner w/o needing to micromanage the interface, WEGO would probably be my favorite way to play. I love eye candy as much as the next person. However WEGO for me currently is nothing more then 1 minute blocks of watching my intentions and orders turn into a shambles where even a platoon of freshman ROTC cadets could have responded better. I don't mind micromanaging my units, it's having to micromanage the interface that drives me nuts. -Jenrick