BlackMoria

My understanding is that you don't need to restart the campaign, just the campaign scenario. Issues (like the one indicated) come up when you resume the campaign by loading a saved in-progress scenario and resume it. I could be wrong on that but I have continued my Brit campaign after ugrading to the latest patch without any issues and I am three campaign scenarios further along since the new patch. No issues to report.

It can be won decisively. I wish I could give some insight into how I did it as I played it some 9 months ago. For all my games, I record the scenario outcomes in a spreadsheet. Checking the spreadsheet, my best showing for The Flank Ground was 2 KIA, 1 WIA Blue casualties verses 49 KIA, 29 WIA, 16 MIA, 2 Tanks and 6 APC casualties for the Syrians. Sorry, I don't recall readily how I managed that outcome or what the AI plan was but it was playing through the scenario a third time, after getting two minor victories in the earlier two playthroughs. Keep at it. If I can do it, others can.

And on that note, the thread slides to a new low... In attempt to put the brakes on the slide to getting the thread locked, I offer this to the OP. Look up from the military manuals on doing the combat estimate (what we call it in the Canadian military). It is a exercise of thinking about the enemy, his resources, his probable intent with detailed consideration of the terrain, time and space, weather and friendly forces. Based on that, you analyse the options open to you and the enemy and develop a course of action that gives you the best chance of success. From that course of action, you develop your 'plan', the nut and bolts of how you are going to get from where you currently are to sinking your teeth into the enemy's neck. I have found doing a combat estimate as part of the scenario setup (I fly the camera over the ground to examine the terrain and approaches as part of the terrain study) allows me to come up with a plan. The devil is implementing that plan in the face of enemy opposition and we all know that no plan survives contact with the enemy but that is part of the charm of playing the game. I think learning to do combat estimates or whatever the American forces call it will help you in getting better enjoyment out of CMSF.

'Occupy' is not the proper military terminology for this scenario. 'Clear' or 'Secure' is the proper term as in Clear or Secure the police station and crossroads. Check the green objective zone colored area and ensure that no enemy are in the green area. So, assume that 'occupy' means 'secure' or 'clear'.

'Occupy' is a misnomer for this scenario. 'Clear' or 'Secure' is the proper term as in Clear or Secure the police station and crossroads. Check the green objective zone colored area and ensure that no enemy are in the green area. I had similar problems until I figured out that the reason I was getting the mission loss was because enemy forces were in the green zone. That means you will have to push into the buildings in the green zone and sweep them to ensure that no hostiles are holed up in some corner.

My god, that link made me laugh so hard I spit my drink all over my screen. My wife worked in PMO (Project Management Office) for the Department of National Defence. From what she told me, the 'thinking' of project management personnel wasn't far off from what the link lampooned.

Bingo. Here is a very 'possible' scenario which will highlights your point. Assume for a moment that the Pakistan extremists continue their reign of terror. Outcomes are: 1. The Pakistani military moves against the extremists powerbase and hopefully the 'political' will is there to see the job properly done. The political 'will' is the big wild card here as the extremists have supporters within the Pakistani government. 2. Assuming a ineffective Pakistani military who can't get the job done. The militants, sensing a opportunity, try to grab more ground or topple the government. That puts Pakistan's nucleur weapons at risk. Now we all know, there is no way in hell that the US is going to allow the extremists to even get as sniff of those weapons. I daresay, units like the 82nd AB Division most likely have gotten their warning orders and contingency planning is being done to deploy to Pakistan is short order. In this outcome, the US military with the Pakistani military will deal with the militants and under US operation command, the job will be done properly. Either scenario will set the militants back, victims of their own success. Scenario 1's success is predicated that the 'will' is there to destroy the militants once and for all. Scenario 2 will ensure the job is done. Either scenario should destroy the powerbase for the militant operations in Afghanistan, making them ineffectual. Then real headway in addressing security concerns in Afghanistan can be made. To defeat the Taliban/Al Queda in Afghanistan, you have to defeat them first in Pakistan.

Yes. I've done all campaigns in RT as it is my preferred method of playing. I do 'pause' frequently to maintain situational awareness or if I am fussing over some micromanagement issues in regards to unit positions on the map. 'Pausing' in RT is not a crime nor is it cheating the purpose of RT. This is not RTS game where the one who twitches the most with the mouse or has the highest caffeinated levels in their blood wins. No 'RT' gestapo are going to come to your house and bust you for not doing 'RT' right. So, pause the game, take your time to study the map and ponder your options, unpause and enjoy the game. If you are feeling overwhelmed, issue your orders to the pixeltruppen while paused and then unpause to watch and monitor their progress.

Target Round. If one has a complaint, the best avenue is to contact the company's customer support. Forums are the absolute worst place for a variety of reasons. Companies pay a varying amount of time to their forums. Sure, some companies monitor their forums daily and have a tangible presence. But a greater number have little to no presence on their forum outside of a moderator and are the worst possible place to get any sort of customer support. On top of that, you have all the well meaning people trying to be helpful by stating the obvious and giving questionably useful information in regards to your issue. Then you have the people who think you are a whiner or bitcher and take it upon themselves to 'set you straight'. Forums are for discussion, not complaining to the company. That is why companies have customer service departments. BF do maintain an active presence on their forums, thankfully. But it doesn't mean they want to deal with customer complaints on their forums. That is the role of their tech support. All the recent angst resulting in this thread could have been avoid if the person with the cracked jewel case or the person who expected a DVD case took the issue up with BF directly via their customer service instead of trying to fix their problem on the forums. Bottom line - don't fix customer service issues on discussion forums. It is the least productive way to fix a customer service complaint.

Bingo. And that game will not be done by BF. BF's business plan probably a five year plan and they are no doubt mum about those plans outside the immediate pending releases. But Steve has said enough that certain things (like no Arab-Israeli module) is not in any current business plan. That said, when it was revealed that CM:Afghanistan is being done by a Russian company, Steven indicated that will allowing third parties to use the CMSF engine to develop games was part of the BF strategy. Not to put too fine a point on this but if people really want to see a Arab-Israeli module, or a 80s Cold War module, or Chinese - Russian conflict or whatever and BF has said it is not in their book, then it is apparent that someone else has to step up to do it. Personally, if I had some programming skills and had some like talented friends, I would approach BF to do a game using their engine. Alas, I am from a small town in Manitoba and I neither the programming skills or programming buddies to make a team to do a game. But damn, I want to.

It is not a simple as 'their people don't want freedom'. Try explaining what 'freedom' or 'democracy' to a people who never had it - it is neither easy to explain or easy to grasp. In Afghanistan, democracy is just another level of 'warlord' above their local tribal strongman (warlord), according to the average back country Afghani. Any tangible trappings of democracy is centralized in the big urban centres and at that, bastardized due to outmoded thinking to encompassing all past practices and customs, and rampant corruption. In rural Afghanistan, the average afghani frankly doesn't see it. And it he doesn't see it, he sure as hell isn't going to 'get it'. Freedom of speech (a tenet of democracy) is absolutely meaningless if opening your mouth is going to get you killed by the local warlord, the local crime gang or by the Taliban or Al-Queda. Electing a political representative for an elected assembly is meaningless if that means the only local person is running is the warlord because everyone else is afraid to. Or given the rampant corruption, your representative is enriching himself and doing little for the people who elected him. A free market economy means nothing if you raise only enough food to feed your family and the rest goes to warlord and his cronies or to poppy production (in which the same warlord, crime boss or Taliban takes the lion's share and leaves you just enough money for you not to starve. The biggest failing of the west was there was no Marshall Plan for Afghanistan and Iraq. It was generally assumed that people would 'naturally' desire a democratic government but it was completely overlooked that the existing tribal (warlord) system has been in place for thousands of years and for the most part, in places of the world in which people barely eke out a living, the tribal system works. More to the point - if a person can barely provide a living for himself under the tribal system, and his lot in life is not improved with a quasi-democracy government, then it is natural to assume that that person is not going embrace the concept of democracy with open arms because, frankly, it has no or little value to him. People stay with the status quo unless the new order is clearly of benefit to them and supports or validated their values and aspirations. No, it is not that average person in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn't want democracy - it is they don't understand it nor appreciate it potential. Also, look at the birth and growth of democracy in history and it should come as no surprise that democracy was birth in nations that faced massive changes in the status quo due to social evolution or upheaval like the revolutions, political/religious reform movements and factors like the industrial evolution and the empowerment of the working class. All of which either Iraq or Afghanistan has had. Democracy may take hold in the Middle East but it is going to take a very, very long time....

Did the Javelin buy go through for Canada? The Canadian military was looking at the Javelin system to most likely replace the Eryx ATGM and the US green lighted the sale of 200 CLUs and some 840 missiles. Then nothing. My search of the interweb can not find anything to indicate if the sale was finalized or if Canada went with another system (a Israeli system was in the running) or if the acquistion was cancelled.

Hmm. You got the game and modules yesterday and already you have made the decision the game is crap. That is remarkable. It usually takes me a week of steady playing and kicking the tires before I write a game off as crap. Let me guess. You didn't play any of the scenarios, start any of the campaigns, download and try any of the hundreds of scenarios and mods. You went straight to the quick battles, found it wasn't like CMx1 and the game is crap. Or is my guess wrong?

Sir, we will let you know where and when to report for your court-marital. Armoured vehicle casualties in the Gulf War 1 were approximately six, about half of that the result of blue on blue. Armoured vehicle casualties for the invasion of Iraq was about four. It is hard to come up with an exact count because most casualty reports report personnel and the various sources mention in passing if the vehicle was a casualty as well.

My 2 cents thinks the campaign will have one of the nations as the 'core' troops and the other nations in the Nato module will appear in the campaign as supporting troops.

Of course, I am looking forward to the NATO module for the Canadians, seeing as I am one. I, in particular, want to see how the Coyote Recce vehicle gets implemented in the game. Basically, the Coyote is a LAV 25 with an impressive sensor package which includes a MSTAR battlefield survelliance radar which can identify and track vehicles and troops out past 25+ kilometers, thermal imaging camera, day/night camera and a laser rangefinder/designator. The sensor package is usually mounted on a mast capable of telescoping to 10 metres (allowing the Coyote to be turret down behind hills and building and still use the sensors) but can also be remoted out to 200m on a tripod. It will be interesting to see how the capabilities of the Coyote get implemented into the NATO module. I talked with a soldier who was a sensor operator on a Coyote and he said that, barring blocking terrain and dead ground, he can identify vehicles and personnel movements easily out beyond 10 miles while he was in Afghanistan.

I agree with Flanker15. In the first firing, it appears the operator in a near prone position is obscured behind the man crouching between the weapon and the camera. If you check the second firing, after the missile is launched, the operator starts to move and the camera catches just a glimpse of him just before the scene cut and he is clearly at the weapon in a near prone position.

I've always play with 'force conservation' foremost in my mind. That said, it has to be balanced with getting the job done and meeting the objectives of the mission. The devil in the matter is finding that balance point between 'aggression' and 'caution'. For the most part, I have found that balance in my style of play and in only two scenarios (having played all the campaigns and all the standalone missions for Army and Marines and dozens of user scenarios), have I found the pressures of the clock overcoming my better judgement.

I beat the rush. I was checking early this morning and noted it was available so I put in my order and got it very quickly (less that 5 mins) since there was little traffic. After I downloaded it, I checked the forums and noone had mentioned it yet.... which tells me I was nearly the first to put in my order. I would hate to be in the madding crowd right now watching the download bar slowly inch it's way to completion. Downside - I downloaded just before I headed off to work, so others are actually going to get to play it before me. Damn thing, this working for a living

Got mine. Me happy!

And it if FINALLY HERE! And the monkeys rejoiced... OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH Downloading now.

Also, many scenarios (not all, but many) can be completed within the time constraints because the AI forces will surrender before to have to seize all objectives or utterly destroy all the enemy forces. I have played all the scenarios and campaigns that came with the game and a great number of user provided scenarios and campaigns and I can only think of two games in which I though the time was insufficent. And I consider myself a cautious and methodical player. Most games will end before you run out the clock, either due to inflicting enough casualties or meeting a threshold level of victory resulting in the game ending.

Yes, but having soldiers 'pass through' each other brings up some interesting issues. Let say that due to whatever circumstances, Soldiers A, B, and C are co-existent in the same spot during the squad move when a small arms round (5.56 for our illustration) hits Soldier A. What most likely happens is that Soldier A, B and C suffer the same combat result, which results in A,B, and C suffer the same injury or being killed. Not a desirable outcome. I think most players would prefer soldiers jostling into each other and slowing each other down rather than having a chance of one round = multiple kills when they start clumping together, a regular ocurrance when doing building and vehicle entries and exits.

I got a triple kill once. I had worked a Army sniper team up on a ridge to get higher ground to work over a Syrian defensive position. The sniper with the 50 spotted a Syrian squad in a trench, side on from the sniper's viewpoint. The sniper fired and I witnessed 3 red crosses. Since it was RL, I couldn't go back to confirm the achievement. But gratifying, it was.

Actually, I am hoping that there will be no new forum unless those who want the new forum promise to ask the Peng'ers over to play in the new sandbox. Then we can bid them a proper farewell as we frog march them to the curb....er.... give them a farewell party.